We have received the following message from Israel :
“Following a press release last week it seems that several of the leading industrial companies in Israel are going to enter the wind business. These are deeply connected to leading politicians.
Our ministry of environment is quite hopeless. The future seems bleak.”
From Gibraltar, from Sicily, from the US, Japan, Australia, New Zealand, Mexico, and now from Israel, day by day more bad news come in from the main bird migration flyways of the world. For windfarm developers think nothing of erecting their wind turbines in migration bottlenecks. Wind speed and maximisation of profit is their main concern.
Birds are killed by the large blades, whose tips revolve at speeds exceeding 100 mph while deceiving the victims by an appearance of slowness. In Sweden, one wind turbine is reported to have killed 895 birds in one year – ref : California Energy Commission, A Roadmap for PIER Research on Avian Collisions with Wind Turbines in California, Dec. 2002, quoting Benner et al. (1993).
They also get killed by their powerlines, which are built next to each windfarm to carry puny amounts of this very expensive, intermittent electricity to the grid en route to your homes. According to the report “Protecting Birds from Powerlines”, high tension lines may kill over 500 birds per km per year in migration zones – ref : Convention on the Conservation of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats – Birdlife International (2003). Smaller windfarms may not require high tension lines, but overhead cables are still needed to connect to the distribution network, and they too maim and kill birds that collide in the fog, or at night, or while fleeing some danger.
In short : if someone wanted to set about exterminating the world’s migrating birds, placing windfarms in migration hotspots would be looked upon as best practice.
We are not doing any better in the UK. For instance, the “Bird Sensitivity Map to Provide Locational Guidance for Onshore Wind Farms in Scotland” designates practically the whole of the Western Isles as highly sensitive ; except for two areas, one of them being the site where a windfarm project is seeking approval (Pairc).
Yet the Pairc environmental statement predicts the possible death of 66 -165 golden eagles as a result of collisions with the giant blades. No other project in Scotland declares that it may kill so many eagles ; and the subject of migrating birds is poorly addressed.
The applicant for the Pairc windfarm is Scottish and Southern Energy.
The same map marks the whole of the Shetlands as highly sensitive, except for a few tiny yellow spots – presumably where Scottish & Southern Energy plans to erect more wind turbines. How on earth will migrating birds be able to avoid the giant rotors when adverse winds push them towards one of these “yellow spots” ? or when they fly or make landfall at night ?
Yet a bird society is actually supporting a large windfarm project on Shetland. Don’t they know the island is a crucially important staging post for migrating birds ?
Until these and many other pertinent questions are answered by the ornithological fraternity we ask that all those who cherish Britain’s heritage of migratory and other birds ask their favourite bird society why windfarms are allowed in migration corridors, e.g. in the Hebrides or in the Shetlands ? Also ask your electricity suppliers how much of the electricity supplied to your homes comes from wind. Details from BWEA’s web site indicate that windfarms only supply 1.5% of Britain’s electricity. Then ask yourselves if the slaughter of our birds is really necessary, and join the thousands who are already campaigning against the erection of these levitra wind monsters across Britain.
Co-signed on March 26th 2008 by :
Professor David Bellamy,
and Mark Duchamp.
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
Anyone get the feeling the warmeners are against life itself, except in moderation, of course?
Well, the solution for that is obvious.
Lets get the ball rolling, you first. No, I insist.
Damn all forms of life to hell all hail GAIA! Since wind farms are a pathetic way of producing power maybe the true reason for building them is to kill birds perhaps they are efficient at that. Birds poop on GAIA they pollute they must be eradicated!
Gary Gulrud – “Anyone get the feeling the warmeners are against life itself, except in moderation, of course?”
I completely agree with you. Warmers are against life and I want to join with you in your campaign to stop bird deaths.
Lets stop the biggest bird killers first. I propose that we tear down every tall glass building in the world that kill millions of birds every day.
Second we need to stop all the cars in the world from driving as these also kill millions of birds.
Next is all the high tension lines and mobil phone towers that are presently in place – they all have to go as well.
Finally we need to stop all development of any new building that destroys habitats. Pesticides have to go and we need to stop all hunting.
I am sure that you will join with me in this crusade to save birdlife.
http://www.awea.org/faq/sagrillo/swbirds.html
Ender’s usual baloney.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/5108666.stm
Wind farm ‘hits eagle numbers’
Wind farm turbine blades are killing a key population of Europe’s largest bird of prey, UK wildlife campaigners warn.
The RSPB says nine white-tailed eagles have been killed on the Smola islands off the Norwegian coast 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.
Scientists fear wind farms planned elsewhere could also harm birds.
And there are fears Britain’s small population of the birds could be adversely affected.
Fewer chicks
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.
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.”
Careful planning urged
The RSPB says it supports renewable energy, including wind farms, as a way of tackling climate change, which it sees as the biggest threat to wildlife.
But it is urging developers and governments to take the potential impact on wildlife such as eagles properly into consideration when planning new wind farms in future.
Researchers are now running weekly checks for dead birds at the 68-turbine Smola site, with both conservationists and the wind farm operator calling on the Norwegian government to improve its environmental impact assessments of such sites.
And the Norwegian Institute for Nature Research has launched a four-year study at the site to assess the impact of the turbines on various species of birds and the ability of white tailed eagles to adapt to them.
Meanwhile, Statkraft, which operates the Smola site, says it is doing everything it can to find a solution to the problem.
Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/hi/world/europe/5108666.stm
Published: 2006/06/23 07:01:11 GMT
I used my flying car to kill the remaing pair of eagles.
Yeah, classic Ender. How many tall buildings are placed in remote, hilltop locations that are part of migratory bird paths? How often do cars occupy the space 50 metres above these remote hilltops and emit zero noise when travelling at more than 100kmh?
More importantly, what is the cost of breeding additional Eagles to replace the losses and will this cost be added to the price of wind energy?
Paul – “Ender’s usual baloney.”
And that would be different from your usual baloney how????
When wind turbines are mentioned you suddenly care for birds as it suits your agenda. However when examples such as tall buildings, existing power lines, cars and development are mentioned you turn the baloney factory on full and continue to ignore it as if a bird is not killed by a wind turbine it does not matter.
So how about you stop the hypocracy. Oh I forgot if hypocracy was forbidden you may as well close down this blog.
Interesting info on the wikipedia entry for wind power, including on its environmental effects:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power#Environme
ntal_effects
I’m not advocating wikipedia as the be all and end all, but it is often *one* useful research starting point, and this particular article includes a 100 references, including support for wind power from the Royal Society for Protection of Birds.
Anyone care about this:
http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/threatened/ktp/longlinefishing.html
“Therefore any estimates of seabirds killed on longlines calculated from the AFMA observer data must be considered to be minimum estimates. When these minimum estimates (6 753) of birds killed on longlines caught in Australian waters south of 30 degrees in 1994 by Japanese tuna boats (4 645) and domestic tuna boats (2 108) are factored to take account of this ‘undetected’ kill then the estimated number of seabirds caught on longlines in 1994 rises to about 8 700 (assuming an undetected kill of approximately 30%). From the available data, it has been estimated that 75% of the seabirds killed are albatross species with the balance comprised predominantly of species of large petrels and a small proportion of some shearwater species. On this basis the kill of albatross species in Australian waters south of 30 degrees in 1994, ie approx 6 500 birds, may have been around 15% of the total number of albatross estimated to be killed on longlines worldwide.”
No I guess not – no mention of wind farms
OR this
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=34335
“Multiple factors may interact to threaten species. About one-third of the world’s threatened bird species are at risk from direct mortality because of human persecution, including harvesting, poisoning, egg collecting, and capture for trade, and by predation from introduced predators, which has been especially devastating to fauna and flora on island ecosystems. These factors directly reduce survival and/or reproduction, to result in population declines. Birds are primarily threatened by habitat loss because of habitat destruction and habitat degradation from agricultural practices and water management, which affects over two-thirds of the threatened species. For birds, habitat loss may not result in direct mortality unless the impacts destroy active nests. However, mortality may occur after habitat has been lost through starvation, accidents, and predation caused when birds must disperse in search of unspoiled areas to live in and from crowding into remaining habitats (17). The impacts of habitat loss, however, are likely to be different for less vagile or smaller animals and plants, which may suffer more immediate mortality. Although habitat loss and human persecution/introduced predators can occur simultaneously to drive a species toward extinction, Owens and Bennett (13) found that they often acted independently on lineages, as there was no correlation between the percentage of species within a family threatened by one force or the other.”
Still not mention of wind farms so I guess no-one here cares either.
As a member of the Swedish branch of Birdlife International I got a little message from them on wind farms and birds.
Ornithologists have in the near past been generally a bit sceptic about wind power. For example , when I was active in Greenpeace the Swedish Head for the ornithologists wrote to me ” that Greenpeace was too naive re wind power and overlooked the dangers of windpower”….
This point of view seems to have changed a bit lately and methinks Birdlife International is not opposed to wind power anymore if the wind farms are built out of migratory routes for birds.
It seems as wel that it is mostly predatory birds that are injured by wind turbines.
This is well pointed out by the Norwegian study.
My experience with injured birds is that powrlines btw are extremely dangerous to birds, I have taken care of many wounded birds , injured by power line accidents.
PS. The Norwegian fishermen are opposed to off shore wind farms as they believe this will affect fishing, spawning grounds etc.
Not much point migrating if the wetlands are dry. Climate change.
Wind turbines have rotating blades – buildings don’t. The RSPB are fighting wind farms in the Isle of Lewis. Wind farms (euphemism for power stations) are sited on bird migration routes. Wind farms kill birds of prey. Wind farms provide inefficient intermittent power that has to be backed up by coal/nuclear. Wind farms are not needed.
SJT – tell us again how you intend to predictably control or influence climate and over what time-scale?????????????????????????????????????????????
Paul – “Wind farms provide inefficient intermittent power that has to be backed up by coal/nuclear. Wind farms are not needed.”
Thats it Paul repeat the mantra over and over again. Who knows, if you repeat it enough it will become the truth. Hang on someone else said this – wonder who?
Ender
What a prescient obsveration you make – repeat the mantra over and over again, …it will become the truth.
Why, isn’t that what happened with AGW? Repeat a lie often enough and it ultimately gets regarded as a truth?
You really must think of the unintended consequences of your posts here – clearly you are not applying the Precautionary Principle in your deliberations here, for if you did, we would never know your opinions on anything here.
SJT seems to have put a rather Cretaceous,saurian-sized foot into his cookie muncher.
“SJT – tell us again how you intend to predictably control or influence climate and over what time-scale?????????????????????????????????????????????”
I’m telling you, the wetlands where I live are dry. No need to predict anything.
I am quite confident that the birds will survive from the wind turbines. They have survived from much worse circumstances following the meteorite impact 65 million years ago. What worries me is how they are going to survive from being roasted by the 3 billion hungry people in the not too distant future. The monkeys of the african forests are already on the menu.
But birds don’t need saving. They are not humans. Let the buildings, cars, mobile phone towers, power lines, pesticides, loggers kill them all. What??? let wind turbines stay??? OMG, that would mean something green. Hmmm, quick rethink…I know, let’s save the birds, there really are bird deaths…but only from wind turbines. Phew, no one will notice that convenient hypocritical double take. It’s this blog after all.
Travis – “But birds don’t need saving. They are not humans.”
No – wind farms should not be put up in the migratory paths of birds. There are plenty of places where the wind is good and no birds migrate through. What is needed is proper oversight and planning to avoid putting wind farms where they are going to kill at lot of important bird species.
I would just like the same standards applied to all buildings and development that also kill a lot of birds. The same rules should apply to both.
Ender, tongue was firmly in cheek. Of course proper planning is needed. Just as well we have power lines. They not only kill birds but also those bloody noisy, smelly, useless fruit bats (more tongue in cheek). And don’t get me started on the possums.
Travis – sorry my irony programs are not running too well lately. Too much computer work I guess – getting Vista MCE to actually work.
If only cane toads could fly.
I don’t see the problem. Evolution in action. Eventually you will only have eagles who fly away from windmills. In the meantime the dingos get a good feed.
Everyones a winner.
I do find Bellamy’s anti-wind stance hard to take, for just a few years ago he was wildly enthusiastic about them. Excerpt of a film he made in 1989 here: