Archives

http://www.cleanmpg.com/photos/data/2/AmericanFlag.jpg Some raise concerns about bird kills - sincere or anti-wind? (http://www.newsweek.com/id/211734)

http://www.youtube.com/v/RtgBWNKwBkE&hl=en&fs=1&Christina Gillham - NEWSWEEK (http://www.newsweek.com) - Aug. 13, 2009

Let's evaluate wind's pros and cons verses other power plants --Ed.

In Wyoming, it's the sage grouse. In Colorado, it's the lesser prairie chicken. In the Northwest, it's the Washington ground squirrel. Across the country, a growing number of species are finding themselves at the epicenter of a new battle being waged by environmentalists and developers. The issue—species being threatened by encroaching human development—is nothing new, of course. What is new? The encroachers aren't the usual suspects—say, a sprawling McMansion community developer—but the environmentally friendly wind-energy industry.


Wind energy has been touted as cost-effective (http://www.newsweek.com/id/151727) to produce clean energy (http://www.newsweek.com/id/195689) as well as jobs (http://www.newsweek.com/id/131038). That promise, along with new government subsidies, has helped wind turbines pop up on hills and fields throughout America. But not every environmentalist is happy about that development. Critics charge that wind-energy development can cause habitat fragmentation—a displacement of a species that can eventually reduce its numbers—as well as the deaths of birds and bats (a species that is especially vulnerable due to its low reproductive rates) that collide with the wind turbines' massive rotor blades. A 2007 study by the National Academy of Sciences puts the number of birds killed each year at about 20,000 to 30,000. That's a low estimate, says Michael Fry of the American Bird Conservancy. According to his group, turbines kill three to 11 birds per megawatt of wind energy they produce. Right now, there are about 20,000 megawatts produced in the United States, which can mean—at worst—up to 220,000 bird fatalities a year. With wind energy expected to produce 20 percent of this country's energy by 2030, output would grow tenfold and, environmentalists worry, deaths could increase at a similar rate. Whatever the number, the wind industry is hoping to avoid damaging its green reputation and is struggling with finding the right solution.
... http://www.newsweek.com/id/211734

The more significant man-made danger to birds: windows

The number of birds killed by window collisions in North America is estimated to be as high as 100,000,000. By comparison, the 60,000 to 220,000 killed by wind turbines is quite small.

http://www.bcnbirds.org/window.html
http://www.birds.cornell.edu/pfw/Members/BirdNote10--Windows.pdf
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5076012

^

I'm not anti-wind but the millions of birds that get killed by windows are not the golden eagles and other large birds of prey that seem to be the ones killed by windmills.

I can't get rid of a nuisance prairie dog on my property in Boulder because it might effect the eating habits of a few large birds, so 1300 golden eagles a year seems like a lot of carnage to me.

Put grimicing cat faces on the end of the blades. :p

If I recall, the issue is with the tiny fast moving wind turbines used at Altamont. Newer wind turbines are very much large, and rotatate at a lower speed, making it easier for the birds to avoid getting hit.

Just one of these: http://www.metaefficient.com/news/new-record-worlds-largest-wind-turbine-7-megawatts.html

could replace almost 200 of the older turbines at Altamont.

And I am almost certain this one turbine would have a far lower mortality for birds than 200 of the smaller turbines.

To get a sense of how this compares to the ones at Altamont, start at the red line on the tower, and move down towards the ground until you're about half way between the ground and red line. That's about where the top of the Altamont wind turbines would sit.

google scholar "wind turbine animal kill" will give a lot of primary research literature on this for free. If anyone wants to read the subscription required stuff, PM me. A little copyright infringement...

My point as usual, the media can help you form opinions. If you want rational conclusions. a bit more thought and effort are required.

DAS

And if we don't build a renewable energy infrastructure and continue on a business as usual path with our profligate use of fossil fuels we usher in global warming. So this will be better for animal life?

This article doesn't support the idea that new turbines eliminate the hazard to large birds. The Big Horn Wind Energy Project is 2 years old.

http://www.king5.com/animals/news/stories/NW_051909WAB-AP-wind-turbine-kills-eagle-TP.1c018a37.html

"A study by Shawn Smallwood, an independent wildlife ecologist who has also studied bird deaths at Altamont, concluded that raptor deaths have been far higher than predicted at Klickitat's first wind project, the 200-megawatt Big Horn Wind Energy Project.

Smallwood estimates 243 raptors died in Big Horn's first year of operation, compared to a company consultant's projected annual toll of 33.

There are three wind projects operating in Klickitat County, five others under construction and three more proposed. "

Seems location must be important.

Lets face it - things we build cause things to die.
Windows kill - Cars kill - Coal Plants kill - why would not SOMETHING be impacted by wind turbines.

Once solar panals start to become more widely used - SOMETHING will be killed by it ( maybe cause the Ruffed Grouse to have varied mating habbits due to the lack of Roof space for them to attract a mate....

Each has a CON - each CON offsets a LARGER con.

Greenhouse gasses ( if what is being reported we take as true) will kill everyone and everything. so that seems like a larger item to address.

I'm just waiting for my house to be invaded by a rare species of termite....happy eating!

Even the video stated that the new, large turbines killed fewer birds, but more raptors. Not surprising since they dive from considerable altitude and probably aren't very focused on anything but the prey. Something a little darwinian about that, but I like raptors. They are pretty to watch, unless you are a small mammal who would probably want us to put up much greater numbers of turbines...preferably with razor sharp blades that trail little hooks.

I was surprised to see the increased raptor kills. That was something that wasn't in previous articles I read. Nice find on that. Hopefully we can find something that encourages birds to stay away, or if not we can place better and stop operations when necessary.

If Darwin had any credibility, the birds will eventually be able to co-exist with wind turbines.

Worthywads,

Funny how experts always find exactly what whomever pays them wants them to find.

I'm not saying the industry experts are shills; they probably believe-heck probably still believe- what they predicted to be correct.

Yes, I can certainly see how these HUGE turbines with 12 RPM speeds still will kill lots of birds.

With 3 blades making a complete rev every 5 seconds, one blade will be passing every 1.6 seconds.The blades are HUGE- probably maybe 10 feet wide and maybe 10 feet deep, so the birds don't have a 1.6 second window.If they are flying at 20 mph they will take a full .33 seconds to get thru. The real window will be more like 1 second.

Of course closer to the hub the blade will be moving more slowly-same window, but they will get more of a push than a life ending 150 mph thump. Still, birds look pretty fragile, if they are hit, that is that!

On the bright side, coal plants kill lots of everything-so they probably will beat coal anyway.
Charlie

^

In this case the wind industry shills said 33 raptors per year, but the ecologist found 243.

More problems with wind farms and birds.

This time the concern is locating too close to breeding grounds.

http://bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20602099&sid=aldysneqgVeA

"The Fish & Wildlife Service recommends a five-mile buffer between turbine towers and prairie chicken mating grounds or leks. The American Wind Energy Association, an industry lobby group in Washington, said the buffer was calculated based on the impact of oil and natural gas projects on the chickens, and that more study on the direct effect of wind turbines is needed,

“Right now there are wind-energy developers who choose not to follow that five-mile lek buffer,” Whitlaw said. “If the species were listed, it’s likely the service would require that five-mile buffer.”

A five-mile setback would be “very restrictive,” said Laurie Jodziewicz, manager of siting policy for the wind industry lobby group. Such a buffer would place 78 square miles of potential development space off limits for every lek.

Five-Mile Setback

“We would like to understand the science that came with that five-mile buffer,” Jodziewicz said in an interview. “While there may be a setback that’s appropriate, that’s awfully big.”