Speed the Turbine, Spare the Bat

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.

For some time now I’ve been reporting on studies showing that wind turbines are deadly to bats—maybe even more deadly even than they are to birds. Well, I’m really happy to be able to report this new paper in today’s Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment showing how the industry might minimize or even eliminate bat mortality at wind turbine sites. Experimenting with small changes in turbine speeds, researchers were able to reduce bat deaths by as much as 93 percent while reducing power generation by only 1 percent or less.

Credit: Harvey McDaniel, Wikiemdia CommonsCredit: Harvey McDaniel, Wikimedia CommonsMigratory bats, like the hoary bats that fly up and down the forested ridges of the eastern US, are especially at risk of collision with turbines and the pressure waves they create. Since we know that turbine towers and non-spinning blades don’t kill bats, some scientists have proposed shutting off or limiting turbines during migrations.

Hoary bat. Credit: William Leonard, NPS.Hoary bat. Credit: William Leonard, NPS.Currently most wind turbines in the US are programmed to begin rotating and producing power once wind speeds reach ~8 to 9 mph—what’s known as the cut-in speed. Wind turbines with a low cut-in speed run more frequently than those set at higher cut-in speeds since they begin rotating at lower wind speeds.

But by raising the cut-in speed to ~11 mph, bat fatalities were reduced by between 44 percent and 93 percent, with an annual power loss of less than 1 percent. The exeriments were conducted during months with seasonably low wind speeds, so the overall energy loss was marginal when calculated against annual power output.

The researchers monitored 12 of the 23 turbines at the Casselman Wind Project in Somerset County in the Pennsylvania Appalachians and recorded bat fatalities for 25 summer and fall nights in both 2008 and 2009. They analyzed fatalities following nights when the turbines were fully operational and when they were set to 11 mph and 14.5 mph, reporting mortality rates on average 3.6 to 5.4 times higher at the fully functioning turbines compared with higher cut-in speeds.

The investigation was conducted by reserachers from Bat Conservation International, Oregon State University, and the University of Florida, Gainesville. Here’s the abstract:

Wind-turbine operations are associated with bat mortality worldwide; minimizing these fatalities is critically important to both bat conservation and public acceptance of wind-energy development. We tested the effectiveness of raising wind turbine cut-in speeddefined as the lowest wind speed at which turbines generate power to the utility system, thereby reducing turbine operation during periods of low wind speedsto decrease bat mortality at the Casselman Wind Project in Somerset County, Pennsylvania, over a 2-year period. Observed bat mortality at fully operational turbines was, on average, 5.4 and 3.6 times greater than mortality associated with curtailed (ie non-operating) turbines in 2008 and 2009, respectively. Relatively small changes to wind-turbine operation resulted in nightly reductions in bat mortality, ranging from 44% to 93%, with marginal annual power loss (≤ 1% of total annual output). Our findings suggest that increasing turbine cut-in speeds at wind facilities in areas of conservation concern during times when active bats may be at particular risk from turbines could mitigate this detrimental aspect of wind-energy generation. 



 The paper:

  • Edward B Arnett, Manuela MP Huso, Michael R Schirmacher, and John P Hayes. 2010. Altering turbine speed reduces bat mortality at wind-energy facilities. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment (e-View) DOI:10.1890/100103

 

WHO DOESN’T LOVE A POSITIVE STORY—OR TWO?

“Great journalism really does make a difference in this world: it can even save kids.”

That’s what a civil rights lawyer wrote to Julia Lurie, the day after her major investigation into a psychiatric hospital chain that uses foster children as “cash cows” published, letting her know he was using her findings that same day in a hearing to keep a child out of one of the facilities we investigated.

That’s awesome. As is the fact that Julia, who spent a full year reporting this challenging story, promptly heard from a Senate committee that will use her work in their own investigation of Universal Health Services. There’s no doubt her revelations will continue to have a big impact in the months and years to come.

Like another story about Mother Jones’ real-world impact.

This one, a multiyear investigation, published in 2021, exposed conditions in sugar work camps in the Dominican Republic owned by Central Romana—the conglomerate behind brands like C&H and Domino, whose product ends up in our Hershey bars and other sweets. A year ago, the Biden administration banned sugar imports from Central Romana. And just recently, we learned of a previously undisclosed investigation from the Department of Homeland Security, looking into working conditions at Central Romana. How big of a deal is this?

“This could be the first time a corporation would be held criminally liable for forced labor in their own supply chains,” according to a retired special agent we talked to.

Wow.

And it is only because Mother Jones is funded primarily by donations from readers that we can mount ambitious, yearlong—or more—investigations like these two stories that are making waves.

About that: It’s unfathomably hard in the news business right now, and we came up about $28,000 short during our recent fall fundraising campaign. We simply have to make that up soon to avoid falling further behind than can be made up for, or needing to somehow trim $1 million from our budget, like happened last year.

If you can, please support the reporting you get from Mother Jones—that exists to make a difference, not a profit—with a donation of any amount today. We need more donations than normal to come in from this specific blurb to help close our funding gap before it gets any bigger.

payment methods

WHO DOESN’T LOVE A POSITIVE STORY—OR TWO?

“Great journalism really does make a difference in this world: it can even save kids.”

That’s what a civil rights lawyer wrote to Julia Lurie, the day after her major investigation into a psychiatric hospital chain that uses foster children as “cash cows” published, letting her know he was using her findings that same day in a hearing to keep a child out of one of the facilities we investigated.

That’s awesome. As is the fact that Julia, who spent a full year reporting this challenging story, promptly heard from a Senate committee that will use her work in their own investigation of Universal Health Services. There’s no doubt her revelations will continue to have a big impact in the months and years to come.

Like another story about Mother Jones’ real-world impact.

This one, a multiyear investigation, published in 2021, exposed conditions in sugar work camps in the Dominican Republic owned by Central Romana—the conglomerate behind brands like C&H and Domino, whose product ends up in our Hershey bars and other sweets. A year ago, the Biden administration banned sugar imports from Central Romana. And just recently, we learned of a previously undisclosed investigation from the Department of Homeland Security, looking into working conditions at Central Romana. How big of a deal is this?

“This could be the first time a corporation would be held criminally liable for forced labor in their own supply chains,” according to a retired special agent we talked to.

Wow.

And it is only because Mother Jones is funded primarily by donations from readers that we can mount ambitious, yearlong—or more—investigations like these two stories that are making waves.

About that: It’s unfathomably hard in the news business right now, and we came up about $28,000 short during our recent fall fundraising campaign. We simply have to make that up soon to avoid falling further behind than can be made up for, or needing to somehow trim $1 million from our budget, like happened last year.

If you can, please support the reporting you get from Mother Jones—that exists to make a difference, not a profit—with a donation of any amount today. We need more donations than normal to come in from this specific blurb to help close our funding gap before it gets any bigger.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate