“For centuries man had employed the power of wind to further his activities and it was not until the advent of the combustion engine that he was released from the constraints of the wind’s fickle nature. Utilising fossil fuels has brought on rapid expansion which some say is having a negative effect on the environment and pressure has been bought to bear on providing alternative methods of energy production,”
wrote Rog earlier today. Following is the rest of the post about a wind farm in Norway and a population of eagles:
“In 1992 Norway formed the State owned Statkraft Group who are now the third largest producer of power in the Nordic region, as well as the second largest producer of power based on renewable energy sources in Europe.
The bulk of Statkraft’s production is based on hydropower, however, they claim that their wind generators are “one of the most environmentally friendly sources of energy for large-scale electricity production.”
Statkraft’s first wind farm went into operation at Smøla in 2002. In 2004 the wind farm at Hitra was opened. Smøla 2 was completed in 2005.
However, bird watchers have found that the turbine blades at Smola had killed nine white-tailed eagles in 10 months, including all of last year’s chicks.
Chick numbers at the species’ former stronghold have plummeted since the wind farm was built, with breeding pairs at the site down from 19 to one. The number of chicks born each year at the site has fallen from at least 10 to three last year, with births outside the borders of the site falling too.
According to BBC News:
“…Only one chick is expected to fledge from the site this year.
Smola, a set of islands 10km (six miles) off the north-west coast of Norway, was designated an Important Bird Area by Birdlife International in 1989 because it had one of the highest densities of white-tailed eagles in the world.
Scientists now fear wind farms planned for the rest of Norway could have a similar impact on the birds.
RSPB conservation director Mark Avery told BBC News more care needed to be taken when choosing a site for wind farms. He said: “The problem is if wind farms are put in stupid places where there are lots of vulnerable birds and lots of vulnerable rare birds.”
He said most wind farms would not cause any harm to birds but that the Smola wind farm had been badly sited in a place where it put white-tailed eagles at risk.
He added: “It seems these birds are flying around a lot of the time and they’re colliding with the wind turbines and being killed in big numbers.
“So this colony that is very important – was very important – has been practically wiped out because this wind farm was built in exactly the wrong place.”
The question has to be asked, if the site was designated as an Important Bird Area by Birdlife International in 1989 and Statkraft’s claim to be generating “environmentally friendly” power what was the reason for Statkraft to construct their windfarm there? What happened to the precautionary principle?“
by Rog [a regular commentator at this blog]
I was interested to read at the Statkraft website that:
“The sea eagle is the country’s largest bird of prey. It lives along the coast, nesting from Sogn og Fjordane to northern Norway. The sea eagle population has risen steadily since 1970, and was estimated at around 1,800 pairs in 2000. This represents around 45 per cent of Europe’s entire sea eagle population. …No dead eagles were found in the Smøla Wind Farm from Phase 1.”
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
Hi Rog,
Thanks for posting this. I do know this ongoing debate on wind farms and birds, especially birds of prey.
The white-tailed eagle is Northern Europe’s largest bird, and was near exctinction some decades ago due to toxic contamination (primarily DDT). I have also once had a juvenile white-tailed eagle in my care, who had a leg injury, a really impressive bird.
I have also contact with the Swedish Society of Ornothologists, who has a programme to help the eagles during the winter with extra feed( road kills and carcasses from the slaughter house). This programme has helped the population to recover.
Anyway, back to the issue of wind farms and birds of prey.
The Society once told me that Greenpeace and some other NGOs neglected the issue of wind farms and bird accidents. Even if organisations as BirdLife International supports a phasing out of fossil fuels they warn of the effects of wind farms and bio fuels. See interesting article:
http://www.birdlife.org/news/news/2006/06/biofuels.html
There are big plans to build off-shore wind parks in northwest Norway, Sweden , Denmark and Germany
Jennifer – “conservation director Mark Avery told BBC News more care needed to be taken when choosing a site for wind farms. He said: “The problem is if wind farms are put in stupid places where there are lots of vulnerable birds and lots of vulnerable rare birds.”
He said most wind farms would not cause any harm to birds but that the Smola wind farm had been badly sited in a place ”
The article contains the solution. You should not use these sort of examples to characterise all wind farms. There is also no information about the type of wind turbine where built there.
Jennifer – the other thing is that if the headline was “Tall buildings kill eagles” or “Glass windows kill eagles” do you think that you would be calling for a restriction on either of these.
Hi Ender, I’m not calling for restrictions. Rog has provided some information including that a large eagle population is perhaps incompatible with a large wind farm? It would be good if you did a guest blog post for us… or I could cross link to your site?
So what consequences will off shore wind parks have on wildlife?
I know that some wind parks will be built in fish spawning areas, so will the wind parks be a sanctuary for the fish or will they destroy the sensitive areas?
I am still puzzled (bemused may be a better term) at the definition of “environmentally friendly” particularly in light of the site assessment advising that the Smola wind farm posed a danger to birds. This makes a mockery of any high moral ground gained by those employing the “precautionary principle.”
http://heritage.scotsman.com/topics.cfm?tid=270&id=139872006
rog – which really means that it is OK to kill birds when you are building some high rise or canal development in sensitive wetlands like the south of Perth however when there is something built that you don’t approve of you come over all “precautionary principle” and oppose it.
If you want the precautionary principle applied in the case of wind farms then it should be applied to fossil fuel use, housing/building development, and factory development as well. Logging kills more than a few birds so are you against that as well? Or does your new found environmental concern only apply to birds in connection with wind farms?
HI Jennifer , thanks for posting this. i have been concerned for sometime about bird losses and general sighting of wind farms in an inappropriate landscape.
My suggestion is prevent bird deaths is to incorporate some type of high or low frequency whistle in the blades that will send them screeching away when they came in close to the blades!They would soon learn to avoid them and their vicinity. This would be mechanical and electrical for low wind days.
Given that most of us want to have greener energy -environmentally and socially accepted, better sighted wind power farms are a must .
A sound engineers/environmentalists out there ?
I cannot think of a human endeavour that is completely benign to the meta-systems of this planet. Our very presence – our use of resources, our methods to control environment, our actions to meet needs and wants – create consequences for ourselves and across the meta-systems. Nowhere is this clearer than in our pursuit of energy. Of course we should be more careful when siting wind turbines, just as we should be more honest about the illness and death wrought by the pollution to air, water, and earth, by mining, processing, burning and disposing of waste products, of the coal or uranium that fuel the vast majority of energy production. Even in renewable energy strategies (geothermal, wind, solar, tidal) there are destructive consequences, both immediate and long-term, across the environment, the food chain, and genetic diversity. All we can do is use less energy, use it more efficiently, and strive for a balance of energy production that is sustainable – and this means finding solutions that are best fits for each context. There is no single solution, and until the global economy is honest about the consequences of what we are doing and throws serious resources at finding a better balance, and until the media learns how to inform within context rather than playing for sensation (“Wind Farm Kills Eagles” is specious – “Air Conditioning Kills Eagles” is more honest) then frankly I think we are pissing into the wind and deserve to have it come back in our faces.
Skye Windfarm Action Group have some interesting information;
http://www.sw-ag.org/index2.html
In particular they have looked at the loss of life around the world;
“..Large wind turbines being built today have a “swept area” nearly the size of a football field. Their arms reach high in the sky, affecting birds that used to fly beyond reach of the older models. The rotors appear to turn slowly, but the blades travel at 150 to 300 Km/h at the tip, surprising the birds.
They are deadly to anything that flies, including birds, bats, and insects.
In Cordelia, California, a single turbine erected in a low avian activity area was estimated to have killed 54 birds in one year (11). This invalidates the idea that turbines having ample space between them will cause insignificant mortality (an argument presented by the promoters of the Chautauqua project in New York State, for instance).
The Cordelia results also fly in the face of the contention that American windfarms have lower birdkill rates than European ones.
Because of scavengers, searches for dead birds and bats are often unsuccessful. This is because they occur at intervals ranging from twice a week to once every 3 months, which leaves plenty of time for coyotes, foxes, and other animals to take away the remains.
In the Cordelia study, “dead bird searches were conducted five days a week during nocturnal migration monitoring and once a week thereafter.” Daily searches, and a single turbine to look after: these could be the reasons for the relative efficiency of that particular mortality survey.
Except for certain species, like diurnal raptors, most casualties occur at night. So it is important to conduct the search at dawn, before scavengers find the bodies with their acute sense of smell. But it is clear that if one or two field workers must search an entire windfarm, or even half of it, the portion they will be able to cover at dawn will be tiny…”
http://www.sw-ag.org/birds-information.doc
Maybe so Tony, but considering the evidence do you think that they could drop the descriptors “Clean” “Pure” “Environmentally Friendly?”
Hey Rog,
Certainly – if we are going to be more honest, then we have to be more conditional – “cleaner” (than what?), and “less destructive” may be a good start (I don’t know what “Pure” really means). If you stand back far enough, it is apparent that we humans are intrinsically destructive, and we need to work to mitigate that.
And a modification that was missed in my last post – …..(“Wind Farm Kills Eagles” is specious – “Air Conditioning Kills Eagles” is more honest, and “Humans Kill Eagles” is even more so)…….
In May of this year Birds Tasmania chairman Eric Woehler said two wedge-tailed eagles had been killed at the Woolnorth wind farm in the state’s north-west in a fortnight.
At the same time a wild life carer claimed a wedge-tailed eagle had been hit by a car while feeding on roadkil.
The local paper also reported about 12 wedge-tailed eagles were electrocuted last year by flying into powerlines.
Yet the focus of the extreme environmental movement is on Tasmanian forestry with a green politician taking the State’s forest manager to court in order to “bid to save them from logging”.
However Forestry prescriptions since the early 1990s have required a 10 ha reserve around a nest and a bar on logging during the breeding season within 500 m or in line of sight within 1 km.
These prescriptions have seen the population of the bird increase from less than 100 breeding pairs to 1500 birds, of which 750 are assessed to be breeding pairs. These statistics were the findings of a 2004 population analysis by the Melbourne University.
Yet the extreme greens refuse to address unnatural mortality and instead continue to attack professional foresters and timber workers who are contributing both time and money to ensure that this species survives.
Hi rog,
You seem to be familiar with corporate business… Have you ever noticed that almost all companies are describing themselves as ” environmentally- friendly” despite not being so. It’s the new trend.
For example, I have just had a correspondance with a garden furniture company , that sold furniture of endangered Keruing wood, and despite this described the company as ” environmentally friendly” etc.
Hi Ann,
I think that you could say that any group using the term “environmentally friendly” should be called upon to substantiate their claim, whether they be a for profit or not for profit group.
In Australia corporate activity has to meet standards eg Occupational Health & Safety, Quality Assurance and a Local Environmental Plan.
A Local Environmental Plan invariably calls for the submission of an Environmental Impact Statement from a suitably qualified independant source. Similarly the decision to grant or reject approval for developmernt is made by a group not linked with the applicant or the business.
From the evidence made available it would appear that in Scandinavia state owned business is exempt from such compliance.
The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds campaign against wind farms in the UK. Here is something I submitted, on wind farms, for the UK Energy Review:
The Government must understand the limitations and environmental problems caused by Wind Power – the term ‘wind farm’ is a euphemism for a landscape destroying ‘power station.’ The base of a single, near-shore wind turbine requires around 500 tonnes of cement, 550 tonnes of sand and aggregate, and 100 tonnes of steel. For the cement alone, the fuel used and the calcining of the calcium carbonate emit some 625 tonnes of CO2, and this does not include transport. If you add the emissions and environmental damage associated with chalk and limestone quarrying, the dredging of sand and aggregate, and the production of the steel, the emissions per unit of intermittent power are high. Moreover, a turbine requires regular maintenance and rebuilding. Any corrective carbonation in the concrete takes 100s of years.
The serious limitations of wind power have been recently highlighted by two reports, one stressing the problems of managing wind power in the electricity supply industry, the other its high costs relative to alternative power sources. Both these reports must cause government to think twice about the foolish drive to force wind farms on to a reluctant public increasingly incensed by the loss of ‘wilderness’ and historic amenity for little or no gain. It is a strange ‘Green’ policy that wilfully destroys both habitat and heritage. The first report appeared in the November Issue of the journal, Civil Engineering, and it is by Hugh Sharman, principal of the international energy consulting and broking company, Incoteco (Denmark) ApS. Mr. Sharman has a deep knowledge of the wind power industries in both Denmark and Germany, and his experience causes him to highlight a major problem in the implementation of wind power in the UK. He argues cogently that it will prove extremely difficult to manage reliably much over 10 GW of unpredictable wind power without a major, and very expensive, programme of new storage schemes and inter-connectors. The difficulty lies in enmeshing the unpredictable output of wind, from remote areas, with the national grid system.
As Mr. Sharman points out, wind power poses an entirely new challenge to the grid operator, above all because big wind farms tend to be remotely located, with the majority sited in the north and west of Britain. By contrast, the demand load lies in an epicentre lying between London and Birmingham. First, wind generators are paid at the station boundary and they do not carry a financial penalty for the fact that up to 15% of the power they generate is lost during transmission. Secondly, of the additional 10.7 GW being built or planned, 6.8 GW will be generated in Scotland. Scotland’s electrical inter-connection is currently limited to 0.5 GW with Northern Ireland and 2.2 GW with England. Even with upgrading, it appears that only a small part of the total 7.3 GW ultimately proposed for Scotland can ever be connected. In Mr. Sharman’’s words, precisely “how much can actually be accommodated will depend on the willingness of the politicians and the public to make very large investments in grid upgrades and, possibly, power storage, but these issues are not currently at the forefront of debate, and there are no mechanisms in place to pay off these investments.”
To date, government has been claiming that the UK’s system can accept anything up to 26 GW of wind power. By contrast, Mr. Sharman’s detailed analysis illustrates, worryingly, that this is not the case, and that, as witnessed in the much larger wind systems of Denmark and Germany, 10 GW (+/- 25%) will prove to be the safe upper limit of all wind capacity. This means that the push for wind power inevitably fails to fulfil the government’s aim of using wind to offset some of the generating capacity now being lost through the closure of coal-powered and nuclear-powered generators. By 2020, we will require up to 50 GW of new generating capacity.
Paul – not quite sure where to start here. This is probably the most biased and technically inaccurate descriptions of wind power I have ever read.
Rather that going through all of this I will pick one or two statements that I find the worst.
“the term ‘wind farm’ is a euphemism for a landscape destroying ‘power station.’ The base of a single, near-shore wind turbine requires around 500 tonnes of cement, 550 tonnes of sand and aggregate, and 100 tonnes of steel. For the cement alone, the fuel used and the calcining of the calcium carbonate emit some 625 tonnes of CO2, and this does not include transport. If you add the emissions and environmental damage associated with chalk and limestone quarrying, the dredging of sand and aggregate, and the production of the steel, the emissions per unit of intermittent power are high. Moreover, a turbine requires regular maintenance and rebuilding. Any corrective carbonation in the concrete takes 100s of years.”
Apart from the emotive opening there are many things wrong with this:
http://www.awea.org/pubs/documents/FAQ2002%20-%20web.PDF
“”The “energy payback time” is a term used to measure the net energy value of a wind turbine or other power plant–i.e., how long does the plant have to operate to generate the amount of electricity that was required for its manufacture and construction? Several studies have looked at this question over the years and have concluded that wind energy has one of the shortest energy payback times of any energy technology. A wind turbine typically takes only a few months (3-8, depending on the average wind speed at its site) to “pay back” the energy needed for its fabrication, installation, operation, and retirement.”
So you can see that this first point is a completely false representation of wind power’s EROI.
Modern turbines need very little maintenance:
http://pepei.pennnet.com/Articles/Article_Display.cfm?Section=Articles&ARTICLE_ID=257024&VERSION_NUM=2&p=17
http://www.nationalwind.org/publications/wes/wes10.htm
“Modern windfarms now routinely achieve availability values of 98 percent or greater, up from 60 percent or (much) less in the early eighties.”
This is probably the worst:
“He argues cogently that it will prove extremely difficult to manage reliably much over 10 GW of unpredictable wind power without a major, and very expensive, programme of new storage schemes and inter-connectors. The difficulty lies in enmeshing the unpredictable output of wind, from remote areas, with the national grid system.”
First of all you are assuming that all the energy generated in remote site is used in the central sites. Does that mean that Scotland and Ireland’s demand is zero and all the power goes to London? Obviously the bulk of the power generated will be used locally freeing up other baseload power. Fossil fuel and nuclear is also intermittant. The capacity factor of older coal plants can be a low as 70%. At any time during the day generators can drop out unexpectently which means that large amounts of ‘spinning reserve’ must be kept in place to instantly cope with the sudden drop in production. There is ALREADY in place storage for peak demand in the form of pumped water storage. So far from wind only needing storage so do large base load power stations like thermal coal and nuclear.
For a vastly more balanced article on the difficulties of interfacing renewable power with the grid read this excellent piece from the Uranium Information Centre that properly and without much bias addresses the problems of wind and 19th century power system.
http://www.uic.com.au/nip38.htm
Also I did do a posting on this at:
http://stevegloor.typepad.com/sgloor/2006/06/a_really_good_a.html
Well Ender, I suggest you publish something in the Civil Engineering journal. Wind power is intermittent/inefficient and therefore cannot provide for our energy needs, period. It can contribute if carefully sited, but wind turbines kill birds and destroy the landscape.
Paul Biggs – “Well Ender, I suggest you publish something in the Civil Engineering journal. Wind power is intermittent/inefficient and therefore cannot provide for our energy needs, period. It can contribute if carefully sited, but wind turbines kill birds and destroy the landscape.”
Well I suggest that you back up your statements with actual facts or data. You also have to be careful with the statement ‘our energy needs’. With a minimum of inconvenience we can drastically reduce our power demand.
Also no-one is suggesting that wind power alone is the answer. A combination of home solar PV, large Solar thermal, biomass wind, tidal/wave, fossil fuels and transport storage can provide easily for our energy needs. It also provides a distributed power solution that is more resilient in cases of disaster. It also solves the problem of Peak Oil with electric transport.
What is your solution? Just blindly opposing wind farms will not do. Whats the plan for transport beyond cheap oil?
I will leave you with something that puts our ‘energy needs’ in perspective.
http://in.today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=businessNews&storyID=2006-06-26T235555Z_01_NOOTR_RTRJONC_0_India-256929-1.xml&archived=False
” But in large parts of emerging markets, solar power does not compete with mains electricity, because there is no grid.
In Bangladesh, where more than two out of three households cannot get electricity out of a socket, some 80,000 homes now own a basic solar panel that generates about 50 watts of power.”
” In Laos, for-profit company Sunlabob rents out basic solar modules for households and more advanced systems for village halls, schools and health posts where staff can now cool the vaccines and work through the dark. They also power water pumps.
“The majority of rural households can afford solar lighting. They have no idea how much they spend on candles and kerosene,” said Andy Schroeter, managing director of Sunlabob.
Researchers from the German Fraunhofer’s Institute for Solar Energy’s (ISE) rural electrification South East Asia programme agree that even in the world’s poorest regions citizens can afford to pay for basic energy needs.
“There is an energy demand in rural areas and there is a willingness to pay for it,” said researcher Sebastian Goelz.”
Don’t hear many complaints here. We whinge that we do not have power for the second airconditioner in the bedroom because it gets slightly hot in the afternoon without it. Most people in the world do not have electricity and spend massive amounts on fuel for heating and lighting. Small scale solar and/or wind can transform these people’s lives – and we whinge on about our “energy needs” as if they are written in stone.
Pull your head in Ender, you still have not answered why bird killing machines are necessary for energy production.
Rog – “Pull your head in Ender, you still have not answered why bird killing machines are necessary for energy production.”
So they are bird killing machines now are they? So when I went to work in wildlife killing machine (car) to my birdkilling place of work (high rise building) I realised that this is probably the worst bit of emotive crap that I have heard from you rog.
Obviously you did not read my post or do not understand it. Renewable energy, which wind energy is a part of, is necessary for us to sustain our “needs”, which are actually wants, in a way that does not change the climate.
No one who works in a high rise building, & drives a car to work, has any right to lecture any one else, on how to save the planet.
In fact its probably true to believe that the lecturing is a result of a misguided guilt trip.
So, I second the motion. Pull your head in Ender.
Hasbeen – “No one who works in a high rise building, & drives a car to work, has any right to lecture any one else, on how to save the planet.”
Well I really ride a bike to my local train station and take public transport everyday. The driving car to work was for illustration purposes only. The idea I was trying to get across was that all our activities kill birds – mine too. Using it as an argument against wind turbines is totally hypocritical.
At least I recognise what I am doing wrong and am taking steps to reduce my footprint. I am also trying hard to convince others of the necessity. This is more that I can say of you or rog who are content to let the Earth burn while you happily play the fiddle.
Try to stay with the issue Ender, you have a habit of launching off on a wild directionless trajectory.
Before the wind farms and despite the existence of high rise buildings, cars etc there were established flocks of birds nesting breeding etc. After the wind farms were erected there are now no birds only feathers – ruthlessly butchered by the mincing blades of these satanic mills – how is that “environmentally friendly?”
rog it’s now well known that wind turbines should not be placed on important bird migration routes and most (all?) that chopped up lots of birds have been moved. Let’s not extrapolate erroneously that all-wind-energy-is-bad. If you want to make such an argument then replace your emotive pleas with more solid and updated scientific data.
You might say that it is well known Pinxii but the promoters of wind farms appear to ignore this well known knowledge – Statkraft continued with their “environmentally friendly” endeavour despite being advised that they were building in a known bird area.
It is also well known Pinxii that Statkraft will continue with their program despite loss of endangered species – government policy will be done.
rog – “After the wind farms were erected there are now no birds only feathers – ruthlessly butchered by the mincing blades of these satanic mills – how is that “environmentally friendly?””
Wind farms kill birds OK. Any large structure erected in the way of migrating birds will have an effect. This is not the point. The point is someone like you would have no problem clearing 100 acres of bushland for a new housing development ruthlessly butchering thousands of birds and other wildlife for the satanic houses to be built.
Either you are interested in conserving wildlife or you are not. If you are only interested in conserving wildlife when it suits you you are a hypocrite. If you are genuinely interested in conserving birds and wildlife in general you will oppose ANY activity that harms wildlife including development, old growth logging etc. From previous posts I have seen that you are for these sort of things therefore it appears you are only interested in birds when it supports a idea of yours that wind farms are bad.
I am a practical greenie. I recognise that human activities cause harm to wildlife. The goal is to minimise it and still have technology that makes our lives the way they are. For this we need energy. Wind power does not release greenhouse gases nor mecury or particulates that can cause cancer. They are quiet and have very low impact on the environment. That is why they are environmentally friendly.
“If you are only interested in conserving wildlife when it suits you you are a hypocrite”
Exactly, wind farmers are only concerned with being environmentally friendly when it suits them, when the evidence goes against them they ignore it.
“Wind farms kill birds OK. Any large structure erected in the way of migrating birds will have an effect. This is not the point.”
I thought the point was to be friendly to the environment.
“They are quiet and have very low impact on the environment.”
Once all the birds are dead.
rog – “Exactly, wind farmers are only concerned with being environmentally friendly when it suits them, when the evidence goes against them they ignore it.”
The straw man argument that you are presenting that wind farms have to not kill birds to be environmentally friendly is starting to wear a bit thin now. It is only exposing your own hypocracy and lack of knowledge on the subject. If this is the best that you can do I suggest that you look at the research and try to educate yourself on the matter before embarrassing yourself futher with these childish and ridiculous arguments.
Wind power can be environmentally friendly and still have bird fatalities. Being environmentally friendly is more that just not killing birds as you are simplistically saying. I realise that you are reducing it to this because this is the way you work. You reduce a complex argument to one simple emotive statement that you can use a wedge. Perhaps it is because you think that the intended audience is incapable of understanding complex arguments and if you are an example of the people that think like you then this is probably true.
For those of us than can understand more complex issues bird deaths are part of a web that makes wind power either viable or not viable. The wind farm in this post is wrongly situated. However there are many sites where the birds have already been killed due to logging, farming, and/or development that wind farms can be situated without causing undue harm compared to the great benefits that they give – greenhouse neutral electrical power.
Ender, you would be the last to say that logging, farming, and/or development is “environmentally friendly”, given that they all kill birds why do you allow that wind farms are exempt?
You are displaying an immoderate degree of prejudice.
It has been proven that logging is of benefit to flaura and fauna.
rog – “you would be the last to say that logging, farming, and/or development is “environmentally friendly”
No – however it can be done in an environmentally friendly way in plantations and well managed forests. I do not think that most logging in Australia is done in this way and certainly was not done this way in the 1800s when a lot of the clearing was done.
Logging is not of benefit to the original flora and fauna that was there before the logging happened.
Anyway logging and its issues are not the subject of this debate.
“Anyway logging and its issues are not the subject of this debate.”
So why introduce it?
rog – “So why introduce it?”
To demonstrate the hypocracy of someone who supports logging and development that kills birds and then tries to use the contrary argument to argue against wind farms.
All you have done is highlighted the hypocrisy of the wind farmers, in claiming to be “environmentally sensitive” they are on par with loggers and other evil doers.
BTW the word is “hypocrisy”
People, get a grip! The issue is bigger than birds and wind farms. I’m repeating my earlier post below, not because I think it is the final word, but because I really believe that we need to be able to move in and out between the specific and the “bigger picture” of the context of our place on this planet – and we need to be prepared to focus just as closely and ruthlessly on everything we do , not only wind farms. If we do that, then we have a chance of assessing the real costs of various activities and can make informed decisions about cost/benefit, sustainability, and needs/wants.
“…..I cannot think of a human endeavour that is completely benign to the meta-systems of this planet. Our very presence – our use of resources, our methods to control environment, our actions to meet needs and wants – create consequences for ourselves and across the meta-systems. Nowhere is this clearer than in our pursuit of energy. Of course we should be more careful when siting wind turbines, just as we should be more honest about the illness and death wrought by the pollution to air, water, and earth, by mining, processing, burning and disposing of waste products, of the coal or uranium that fuel the vast majority of energy production. Even in renewable energy strategies (geothermal, wind, solar, tidal) there are destructive consequences, both immediate and long-term, across the environment, the food chain, and genetic diversity. All we can do is use less energy, use it more efficiently, and strive for a balance of energy production that is sustainable – and this means finding solutions that are best fits for each context. There is no single solution, and until the global economy is honest about the consequences of what we are doing and throws serious resources at finding a better balance, and until the media learns how to inform within context rather than playing for sensation (“Wind Farm Kills Eagles” is specious – “Air Conditioning Kills Eagles” is more honest, and “Humans Kill Eagles” even more so) then frankly I think we are pissing into the wind and deserve to have it come back in our faces…..”
rog – “All you have done is highlighted the hypocrisy of the wind farmers, in claiming to be “environmentally sensitive””
No sorry rog no matter how you spin it you can be environmentally sensitive and site wind turbines for minimum or no risk to birds. Loggers and developers can also be environmentally sensitive however in a lot of cases they are not.
BTW I should have checked the spelling of hypocrisy much much earlier.
Tony – good post – agree completely
Science? bah – moral equivocation rules.
Why should wind farms be environmentally more sensitive than loggers?
Where is the evidence?
hey Ender, tell me where you can site wind mills where there are least birds (bearing in mind that the most constant wind is at the interface of sea and land and/or confluence presented by mountains which is where sea birds nest and soaring birds get lift)
Too hard?
Give you a hint: birds like wind. and water.
Tony, save the scrambling for the eggs.
Yes Tony, that’s spot on.
rog – “Where is the evidence?”
As you have presented none in all your posts I do not feel compelled to present any at all.
“soaring birds get lift”
Soaring birds and slope soaring model gliders that I fly get lift from 10 to 100 metres out from the cliff. Wind turbines can be situated hundreds of meters back and still get undisturbed air. Other soaring birds and thermal gliders which I also fly get lift from thermals on flat land well inland that is generally unsuited for wind turbines. Offshore soaring birds like albatrosses use dynamic soaring on large waves and generally are thousands of kilometers away from offshore wind farms.
Here is some research:
http://www.thewind.info/downloads/birds.pdf
“New Australian Research
Some of the first bird studies in Australia rformed for Pacific Hydro by Dr. Charles Meredith at three south-eastern Australian wind farms for between one and four years, were presented in July, 2003. Dr. Meredith found bird deaths at
the three wind farms to be below levels predicted (and accepted) during the wind farm’s approval process. Not a single rare or significant bird species was recorded. The study also found very low mortality for waterbirds and large raptors.
Monitoring of three wind turbines and one wind tower at King Island wind farm since 1998 found only one bird mortality, which the researchers translated into an expected yearly mortality rate of 0.23 birds per year per turbine. Even the
highest mortality rate of the three wind farms was calculated by Dr. Meredith to be 1.3-2.7 birds/yr/turbine, lower than the estimates from the US (2.9 birds/yr/turbine).
In June 2003, AusWEA was awarded a grant from the Australian Greenhouse Office for the Wind Industry
Development Project. The project comprises three modules, one of which is to develop bird impact assessment protocols and dataset standards to assist in data recording and analysis for valuating the level of bird impact and mortality at Australian windfarms. The work will supplement recommendations for bird assessment in AusWEA’s Best Practice Guidelines (at http://www.auswea.com.au) and will run for about 18 months. A key component during the development of the protocols will be to consult with a broad range of stakeholders including Commonwealth and State Government agencies, bird experts and non- governmental organisations. For more information contact Rick Maddox at ariaps@austarnet.com.au
Danish research
A radar study carried out in Denmark, shows that birds — by day or night — tend to change their flight route some several hundred metres before they arrive at the turbine, and pass above the turbine at a safe distance or go around.1
Canadian research
A study from the Yukon Territory in Canada over five years found no mortalities at all. A single wind tower was placed on the side of the Yukon River valley where tens of thousands of waterfowl migrate, following the river valley. The
tower was situated on the inside of a turn which the birds had to navigate. There was great concern for this site because about 10 percent of the world’s trumpeter swans fly down this corridor. In five years of searches (daily during peak migration and weekly over the year) and observations of flying birds (on 24 hour watches), not only were no waterfowl killed, but also none were observed flying close to the turbine2.
US Research
A US study3 published in 2001 carried out by Western Ecosystems Technology for the National Wind Coordinating Committee puts wind turbine collisions into perspective with bird collisions with other structures. This review of existing
studies and data dealing with avian (bird) collision mortality produced the following figures for avian collisions:
• Vehicles: 60 million – 80 million
• Buildings and Windows: 98 million – 980 million
• Powerlines: tens of thousands – 174 million
• Communication Towers: 4 million – 50 million
• Wind Generation Facilities: 10,000 – 40,000
1 Tulp, et al (1999) Nocturnal flight activity of sea ducks near the wind farm Turno Knob in the Kattegat. Bureau Waardenburg Project No 98.,
Utrecht.
2 Wind Turbine Environmental Assessment- Draft Screening Document. Prepared by Dillon Consulting Limited for: TREC and Toronto Hydro
Energy Services Inc, Appendix B, p. 3.
3 National Wind Coordinating Committee (NWCC) Resource Document: Avian collisions with wind turbines:
A summary of existing studies and comparisons to other sources of avian collision mortality in the United States.”
http://www.envict.org.au/inform.php?menu=5&submenu=345&item=469
Key Victorian issues
Victoria has three operational wind farms: Codrington, near Portland in south-west Victoria, the first to open in July 2001 and run by Pacific Hydro; Toora, near Foster in Gippsland, which is operated by Stanwell and opened in 2002; and Challicum Hills, which, because it opened in November 2003, has no data as yet.
The monitoring research has found that no rare, threatened or endangered birds or bats have been found to have been killed by wind turbines in Victoria to date.
Monitoring has seen developers avoid placing wind farms in certain areas. One proposed development, for example, at Marcus Hill near Pt Lonsdale, has been shelved after concerns about the welfare of nearby ibis colonies were raised.
So far local and international research shows raptors, or birds of prey, are the most effected group, particularly hawks, which are not a listed species. While there is greater risk, the risk for raptors is still low.
http://www.wisconsinbirds.org/WindPowerandBirds.htm
“The following general facts and guidelines about wind turbines and birds are supported by current research:
a) The wind turbines now being installed have much lower rates of avian mortality associated with them than those built 25 or more years ago. The “lattice” design of towers that wind turbines used then provided perches for raptors, which allowed (and even attracted, in some instances) many more birds to be in close proximity, which resulted in high mortality rates.
b) The wind turbine blade configuration and size, and reduced speed of new designs have also had the effect of lowering mortality rates.
c) No wind turbine design completely eliminates mortality of birds or other wildlife, including bats.
d) Determining the location of wind power installations may be the most important consideration in regard to limiting bird and bat mortality. Each proposed wind power installation should be scrutinized for its potential impact on nesting and migrating birds and other wildlife and native plant communities. Ideally, wind installations will be situated on already disturbed land (e.g. agricultural land) to minimize or eliminate the loss of habitat for wildlife.
e) Relative to other sources of mortality, wind power has a low impact in terms of avian mortality. See this web site for a comparison of varied sources and effects of mortality: sibleyguides.com/mortality. Among these other sources, collisions with window glass and communications towers, pesticide-caused deaths, and predation by free-ranging and feral cats are all considerably more important sources of mortality for birds.”
Any research you would like to add rog.
And just to top it off – look at this link for a list of what really kills birds.
http://www.currykerlinger.com/birds.htm
and here for a list of actual studies on wind turbine bird fatalities
http://www.currykerlinger.com/studies.htm
I did provide evidence, you just dont bother to look Ender.
Ever heard of peer review Ender?
Blind studies Ender?
Your sources are hardly “independent” are they Ender. Theis linked opinion appears to be independent, the Department of the Environment and Heritage
http://www.deh.gov.au/epbc/publications/wind-farm-bird-risk.html
The quoted RSPB evidence (see above) has yet to be refuted;
http://www.rspb.org.uk/policy/windfarms/eaglestrike.asp
“Researchers are now running weekly checks for dead birds at the 68-turbine Smøla site and pressure is mounting on the Norwegian government to improve environmental assessments, both from conservationists and the wind farm operator, Statkraft.
At the same time, the RSPB is backing a new four-year study at the site by the Norwegian Institute for Nature Research (NINA) at the site to assess the effects of turbines on swans and wading birds such as golden plover, dunlin and whimbrel, and on the ability of white-tailed eagles to adapt to the wind farm.
Arne Follestad, a Research Scientist at NINA said, “We know little of the cumulative effects of the many wind farms planned for Norway, so it is important to study their long term effects on the eagle population both on Smøla and elsewhere.”
The RSPB believes climate change poses the greatest long-term threat to wildlife and strongly supports the development of renewable energy including wind farms, so long as they are well sited.
The Norwegian government ignored warnings of the consequences for wildlife of the Smøla wind farm proposal before it was built. Dr Mark Avery, Conservation Director at the RSPB said, “The eagles’ deaths confirm the fears we expressed at that time and show how devastating a poorly sited wind farm can be.”
Editorial;
“What price virtue?
False premises and promises underlie environmental politics
WHEN federal Agriculture Minister Peter McGauran declared this week that wind farms are a “complete fraud” that “only exist on taxpayer subsidies”, he injected the first dose of sanity seen in the renewable energy debate for a long time. Wind power fulfils just 2 per cent of the country’s electricity needs, is unreliable even on the gustiest of days and is emblematic of everything wrong with the quest for so-called sustainability. Greens love wind farms for symbolic reasons, as does federal Environment Minister Ian Campbell – so long as no turbines are sited in a marginal Liberal seat within cooee of a protected parrot. But, so far, the only ones who do well off wind farms are the companies that own them – and not even they dispute their poor economics. Wind farmers get huge subsidies and a guaranteed market share and return.
It is not just on wind farms where politics and feelings are allowed to trump economic reality. Senator Campbell and his ilk like to be seen on the “right” side of the environment. Meanwhile, so-called progressives try to shut down debate over global warming even though the science is far from settled. When The Philippines’ Mount Pinatubo erupted in 1991, it threw out vast amounts of ozone-depleting greenhouse gases. But the particles it cast skyward also lowered temperatures. Scaremongering polemics such as The Weather Makers by Tim Flannery (who is a paleontologist, not a climatologist, by training) have been shown to be riddled with errors. The Kyoto Protocol is far too flawed an instrument to reduce pollution. Australia needs to apply cost-benefit analyses to environmental issues, not sentiment or politics.
Seen in this light, Australia’s environmental policy is all over the shop. It is not just wind power that fails the cost-benefit test. Plastic shopping bags are set to be phased out by 2008 at a cost of $840 million simply because inner-city voters don’t like them, despite Productivity Commission data showing the bags to be only a minor threat. Water policy is driven by Greens, farmers and politicians, each with an interest in making city-dwellers feel guilty over every flush. Yet capital city residents consume less than 10 per cent of Australia’s water; the real waste occurs in agriculture, particularly in the cultivation of cotton and rice. In Queensland, the Greens are doing their best to hold up a dam that will supply water for the fastest-growing region of the country. Recycling plants dump toxic chemicals and salt into rivers – including the Murray. Nor do “sustainable” policies create sustainable jobs. Victoria spends between $599,565 and $999,782 in subsidies per job, per year, in the renewable energy sector. And creating jobs sorting glass is hardly the stuff of a knowledge nation. Even in a world where carbon use is constrained, technologies such as clean coal and geosequestration make more sense for coal-rich Australia than wind power (or nuclear, for that matter). Feelgood environmentalism may win votes. But not only does it fail to pay the bills – it also doesn’t save the planet.”
http://theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,19631574-7583,00.html
rog – thank you for that balanced an accurate article from an unimpeachable source as the Australian newspaper which is well known for its balance and neutrality. You are right if we just work and consume and only read the Australian we will be OK.
The only glaring omission from this article is that they did not mention the little fairies that fix the environment as destroy it. I am sure that they will include this in their next one.
Thats OK Ender, I gave you something easier to deal with.
GP’s position is that it is a myth that wind turbines kill lots of birds and the few that are killed are relatively minor (1/2 per year per turbine) when compared with cats, cars and Exxon
http://www.yes2wind.co.nz/birds.php
Skye Windfarm Action Group say that various studies have shown higher mortality rates per year eg Belgium 39, California 54, Spain 20, Germany 309 and Sweden 895.
“…Raptors were the main concern. But a study by McCrary (1986) evidenced that passerines were also being killed in numbers: “an overall estimate of as many as 6,800 birds killed per year, most of them nocturnal passerine migrants.” (8)
Many waterbirds are on the list as well.
But 6,800 birds out of millions were said to be “biologically insignificant”.
No one bothered to ask what the cumulative effect would be, over thousands of future windfarms, over time, and over bird mortality from other causes. Instead, the wind industry and their followers take the minimizing approach: what’s 10,000-40,000 birds killed by windfarms in the US compared to millions killed by cats, cars, windows etc.! ”
http://www.sw-ag.org/birds-information.doc
In light of the available evidence when will GP correct their statement that mortality rates from wind farms are a myth?
All NGOs in Sweden for example support a phasing out of fossil fuels. However, sometimes there are different views if a wind park should be built or not.It is of crucial importance to work together with local ornithologist.
You can also not talk about ” birds” as a group. From my own experience some birds are much more prone to collide with power-lines and wind turbines than others. Birds that often are victims of such accidents are birds of prey and swans.
rog – like anything we do the benefits of wind power outweigh the effects on birdlife. Just as you do not stop driving your car for fear of killing birds you do a C/B analysis and decide that the proven very low rate of bird mortality associated with properly sited wind farms is small in comparison with the great benefits of greenhouse free power that wind farms deliver.
Again no-one expects wind farms not to kill any birds. The reference does not say that wind farms do not kill birds it says:
“Myth 2. Wind turbines kill lots of birds”
Which is completely different to saying that they kill no birds. Also the reference to Exxon is this:
“The Exxon Valdez oil spill alone is estimated to have killed up to 500,000 birds.”
Note that is the Exxon Valdez oil spill NOT Exxon.
If you have to be goaded into producing references at least quote them accurately – not spin them to your point of view.
Ender, you are unable to come to terms with the fact that invariably wind farms are placed in areas of high bird concentrations and that constant fatalities of endangered species will invariably lead to their extinction.
But anybody who is keen on windfarms must be quixotic
http://www.birdlife.org/action/change/europe/habitat_directive/windfarm_position_12_05.doc
rog – “Ender, you are unable to come to terms with the fact that invariably wind farms are placed in areas of high bird concentrations and that constant fatalities of endangered species will invariably lead to their extinction.”
Just as you are unable to come to terms with the fact that properly sited wind farms do not have a high bird mortality as is evidenced by scientific studies that I have quoted.
Enders “scientific studies” referees;
1. AUSWEA – self proclaimed peak body of wind power generators (and consultants, suppliers etc living off taxpayer subsidies)
2. Environment Victoria – self proclaimed peak non-government environment organisation in Victoria.
3. American Bird Conservacy – self proclaimed…..the who?
“…Altamont Pass wind farms have killed nearly 50,000 birds over a 20 year period including golden eagles, hawks, kites and owls in totaldefiance of wildlife protection laws, regulatory authorities and California’s Attorney General. As a result Center for Biological Diversity, Golden Gate Audubon Society, and Californians for Renewable Energy have responded by taking the wind farmers to court. In Spain, a report commissioned by the regional government of Navarra concluded that 368 turbines at 10 sites had killed nearly 7,000 wild birds in a single year, including 409 vultures, 24 eagles and 650 bats. In West Virginia USA, at the 44 turbine Mountaineer wind farm, once-a-week searches from April through November uncovered a total of 475 bat carcasses and it was estimated that 3,000 bats had been killed during 2003. The Buffalo Mountain USA, wind farm has been killing nearly 30 bats per turbine per year since 2001. These bird and bat kills are only examples as it is happening at wind farms in Sweden, Germany, the Netherlands and other countries. With a small number of small wind farms in Australia recording alarming Wedge-tailed Eagle kills the State Government rejected the proposed Yaloak wind farm at Ballan because of the risk to eagles…”
When are building your windmill Ender?
I think all this wind power industry still suffers from child diseases…
And stats do show that wind turbines kill birds and bats, but they still are low compared to other causes to bird deaths.
I don’t have the numbers in my head right now but in Sweden about 2 million birds are killed by cats every year, about 60 000 birds die in oil spill, some thousand collide with bridges etc.
Must also point out that BirdLife International has my deepest respect.
Rog – Alamont Pass:
“The pass is known for its wind farm, one of the earliest in the United States. The wind farm is composed of over 6000 relatively small wind turbines of various types, making it at one time the largest farm in the world in terms of capacity. Altamont Pass is still the largest concentration of wind turbines in the world. They were installed after the 1970s energy crisis in response to favorable tax policies for investors.
Considered largely obsolete, these numerous small turbines are being gradually replaced with much larger and more cost-effective units. The small turbines are dangerous to various raptors that hunt California Ground Squirrels in the area. The larger units turn slower and, being elevated higher, are less hazardous to the local wildlife.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altamont_Pass
If you follow the link you will see that the turbines in Alamont Pass is the older faster turning units with lattice towers. All these are the worst possible risk factor to birds. We have since learned better. ALL modern wind turbines are larger, higher, slower turning and have pole type towers in which birds cannot roost.
And where was the final quote from rog – the coal miners association?
http://www.bioone.org/perlserv/?request=get-abstract&issn=0003-0031&volume=139&issue=01&page=0029
“During 1994–1995, we saw 70 species of birds on the Buffalo Ridge Wind Resource Area. In both years bird abundance peaked in spring. Red-winged blackbirds (Agelaius phoeniceus), mallards (Anas platyrhynchos), common grackles (Quiscalus quiscula), and barn swallows (Hirundo rustica) were the species most commonly seen. Most birds (82–84%) flew above or below the height range of wind turbine blades (22–55 m). The Buffalo Ridge Wind Resource Area poses little threat to resident or migrating birds at its current operating level.”
http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy02osti/30876.pdf
http://www.birdscreen.com/Klem_AFO_Collisions1990.pdf
http://www.irish-energy.ie/uploadedfiles/RenewableEnergy/AssessmentMethodologyBirdsIreland.pdf
“Overall it is clear that birds are generally able to avoid collisions and do not simply
blindly fly into wind turbines. Collision rates typically in range of only 1 in 1,000-10,000
bird flights through wind farm, even in studies such as Zeebrugge where relatively high
numbers of collisions have been reported. In some cases they are considerably lower,
such as at the offshore wind farm at Utgrunden, where over 500,000 eider flights through
the wind farm study area have been observed without a single collision being seen
(Petterson and Stalin 2003). Studies using radar tracking have helped to provide further
information on birds’ general ability to avoid collisions. Dirksen et al. (1998), for
example, showed that Pochard Aythya ferina and Tufted Duck Aythya fuligula flew
regularly through a wind farm in the Netherlands at night under moonlight but flew
around the turbines at greater distance from them when dark and foggy.
It is also clear, however, that bird collisions with wind turbines can be a problem under
some circumstances. It would seem from the evidence available from existing wind farms
that there are two main types of sites that have had collision problems:
1. Sites with large raptors occurring regularly within the wind farm at the same height as
the rotor blades. In Ireland the main species that would fall into this category would
be golden eagle and hen harrier.
2. Sites with very high densities of other birds flying at rotor height. In Ireland these
could include seabird breeding colonies and feeding concentrations, wetlands
(including coastal sites) with large waterfowl concentrations and on any major
migration routes.”
These ones neutral enough for you? BTW wind turbines kill birds – DO YOU GET IT NOW!!!!!!!!
Everybody knows that wind farms kill birds!!!!!!
Wind farms can be situated to minimise these risks.
“Everybody knows that wind farms kill birds!!!!!!”
Except GP
Given the known inefficiencies of wind farms you would wonder why they continue just to kill all those birds.
“Wind farms can be situated to minimise these risks.”
Of course and I am glad you mentioned the report from Ireland, here is another;
“Diversity of siting of wind farms has been confirmed to be effective in reducing the intermittency of wind powered generation (WPG). In this regard locating relatively small on-shore wind farms in the south and south-east of the country would be beneficial in reducing the intermittency of wind power as seen by system generation. The opposite effect would result from the construction of a very large wind farm on a single site, whether on-shore or off-shore.
The capacity credit of WPG capacity has been confirmed to be considerably less than that of conventional thermal plant, and declines incrementally to saturation. Therefore as WPG increases additional or ‘surplus’ generation capacity is required if security of supply is to be maintained. There are significant costs associated with having ‘excess’ capacity on the system. Therefore the capacity surplus that results from WPG adds to the total generation costs.
The effect of WPG on the thermal plant on the system has been quantified. Mid-merit and high-merit plant are the categories most affected. Low-merit plant (OCGTs) is minimally affected. If high levels of WPG are to be accommodated in the future, existing plant may need to be modified and new plant selected so that they can cope with this type of operation.
The adverse effect of wind on thermal plant increases as the wind energy penetration rises. Plant operates less efficiently and with increasing volatility.
There is a financial premium to be paid for WPG. We estimate that for a system with a peak of 6,500MW, and a generation portfolio comprising of combined and open cycle gas turbines, and no WPG, that the total annual generation costs would be €1.28bn. When WPG is increased to 1,500MW the total generation costs increases by €196m per annum to €1.48bn.
For a system with a peak demand of 6,500 MW, 1500 MW of WPG represents a wind energy penetration level of 11.7%. The EU target for Ireland, from all renewable sources, is 13.2%. Therefore it can be estimated that, in the long term, using WPG to comply with the EU target will increase electricity generation costs by 15% (€196m as a percentage of €1.28bn). This translates to a CO2 abatement cost in excess of €120/tonne.
The cost of CO2 abatement arising from using large levels of wind energy penetration appears high relative to other alternatives.”
http://www.eirgrid.com/EirGridPortal/uploads/Publications/Wind%20Impact%20Study%20-%20main%20report.pdf
rog – “The adverse effect of wind on thermal plant increases as the wind energy penetration rises. Plant operates less efficiently and with increasing volatility.”
Yes because thermal plants are baseload and cannot change output quickly. Thermal coal plants should be replaced with IGCC plants anyway. Thermal plants include nuclear energy as well.
There exists many strategies to allow a higher penetration of wind.
http://www.pcorp.com.au/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=60&Itemid=93
“PowerStore has managed to achieved high penetration (>90%) of wind power in substitution of diesel generation by smoothly absorbing energy in times of excess wind and delivering it when it’s needed. This feature allows optimum efficiency of the diesel generators and maximised the wind energy input. The power station can now operate with a minimum number of diesel generators as PowerStore supplies real spinning reserve. It is possible that the power station can have no diesel generators operating at all since PowerStore can provide frequency control and voltage control.”
Your increase in thermal power stations such as nuclear will require a corresponding increase in spare capacity of peaking plants to supply transient power demand. No mention is usually made in discussions of carbon neutral alternatives to wind/solar. The more baseload you put on the more spinning reserve you need.
Also while this discussion is constrained to wind no-one is suggesting that wind is the only renewable. In combination with solar PV, solar thermal, wave, tidal, biomass and fossil fuels the total it is a totally differeny equation. Usually to make renewables less attractive a study will focus only on wind, find it more expensive and then attibute this to renewables in general.
This dialogue is most interesting. It all shows that whatever we do, there is impact on nature and the environment. We should endeavour to have minimal impact in all fields – energy, food, transport etc.
Still, I currently hold the belief that wind farms and tidal power (what about fish hitting water turbines) are preferable to polluting the air with fossil and nuclear fuels and heat pollution. (Wind, solar and tidal power change immediate energy to electricity, whereas other power sources release stored energy, adding to the world’s heat.) If you wish to care for birds and nature, you will give far greater help by becoming vegan. See http://www.ravediet.com
I think that windfarm supporters are a bunch of nimbys that really have no idea about the impacts of wind-turbines sitting around on there fat asses talking and talking get out there and do some thing for the environment that’s more constructive ,, I have been working relentless for the past 14 years on regeneration of native bushland only to have been devastated to have had a wind-turbine industrial development built next to my little conservation sanctuary ,, the effects are a disaster noise permeates through out the whole property have the pro winders calculated the whole effects of the noise and low frequency vibrations on all the creatures that are now exposed to them IE any one done research on how the vibrations may effect the echidnas that use there beak as a frequency conductor in there search for food .. wind turbines do not operate in isolation from nature and only pose another destructive element for wildlife..where one did not exist before ..Turbines will not be our savior only generating more energy to then accommodate more humans in there bigger and bigger energy thirsty dwellings only a complete revision of the way we humans live will save us from annihilation not a handful or a million turbines.