The downside of wind farms

[dipsydoodle]

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.

full report here : http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/5108666.stm

If anyone has got any bright ideas then do please say.

[rosesaylavee]

1. One of the first sites for wind turbines in California

experienced the same problem. They addressed it by placing the turbines out of the path of the migratory birds and that seemed to solve the problem. I remember reading this last year or the year before so maybe someone has a link to this?

[DrGonzoLives]

2. Migratory paths can change

So moving them out of the way of a current path is not a guarentee to solve the problem.

[tocqueville]

11. the European white tailed eagle (cousin of the bald eagle)

isn't really a migratory bird. Some populations in the Northern Baltic migrate to the south of Sweden in winter to find open water. In the case of the Norwegians eagles, there is no such problem, the sea freezes there very rarely.

the windmills were located in the wrong area and should never have been located there.

[unpossibles]

3. what about a safety basket around the turbine

like on a table fan, but larger? Or something similar (a net or fence around the fans)

[Redstone]

4. That would make sense, but might cut down the efficiency of the turbine

to the point where it wouldn't makes sense to build them.

Though I'd think something with openings the size of say, a chain-link fence wouldn't cut the wind too much, and would keep every bird larger than a sparrow away from the blades.

Redstone

[Bonhomme Richard]

5. The diameter of the "Blades" are.......................

about the size of a football field. That would be one large basket.

[unpossibles]

9. yeah, I was wondering about that

I knew they're big, but not how big. Which is why I was thinking maybe a fence or enclosure instead of a basket.

[Eugene]

6. A key point is that "the wind farm was built in exactly the wrong place."

From the the article:

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."

[valerief]

7. I'd like to answer, but I can't think straight. I'm choking on car

and factory exhaust fumes.

[Wickerman]

8. Its horrible, but a very minute sample of bird death by human obstacle

When placed in perspective it all amounts to more rhetoric to slow the growth of green energy.

http://www.awea.org/faq/sagrillo/swbirds.html

--snip--

Death by….

Utility transmission and distribution lines, the backbone of our electrical power system, are responsible for 130 to 174 million bird deaths a year in the U.S.1 Many of the affected birds are those with large wingspans, including raptors and waterfowl. While attempting to land on power lines and poles, birds are sometimes electrocuted when their wings span between two hot wires. Many other birds are killed as their flight paths intersect the power lines strung between poles and towers. One report states that: "for some types of birds, power line collisions appear to be a significant source of mortality."2

--snip--

This report states that its intent is to "put avian mortality associated with windpower development into perspective with other significant sources of avian collision mortality across the United States."14 The NWCC reports that: "Based on current estimates, windplant related avian collision fatalities probably represent from 0.01% to 0.02% (i.e., 1 out of every 5,000 to 10,000) of the annual avian collision fatalities in the United States."15 That is, commercial wind turbines cause the direct deaths of only 0.01% to 0.02% of all of the birds killed by collisions with man-made structures and activities in the U.S.

--snip--

The report goes on to say, "previous studies suggest that the frequency of avian collisions with wind turbines is low, and the impact of wind power on bird populations today is negligible. Our study provides little evidence to refute this claim."

[Dead_Parrot]

10. Guess it depends on local situations and populations.

For example, down here in sunny Wellington¹, we've had a a turbine situated on the edge of a wildlife preserve for the best part of 15 years: to date, it's claimed one bluebird. Hell, my cat's eaten more than that.

On the other hand, it seems these birds have a penchant for whirling blades, so it would seem that this is not the right place for a windfarm.

You pays your money and takes your choice, I guess...

AbE: BTW, Does any one have nom. pop/BGLs for this species?


¹: In my bloody dreams. It's pissing down.

[Wickerman]

14. A ray of hope

no, not for your weather... sorry.

I read somewhere, and have searched for the article so perhaps its only wishful thinking, but I believe I recall that birds will adapt. They will figure out that whirling blades got cousin Benny and aunt Betty killed and will learn to avoid them. The learning curve is a season or two. Makes sense, at the very least.

Ah, found evidence, at least, of the article:

http://www.beyondlogic.org/southaustraliapower/
--snip--
Yes, it’s a given that the turbines can and will kill birds. However it’s important to get it in proportion. Motor Vehicles, Buildings & Windows, Power Lines, Communication Towers, Global Warming and even Domestic Cats will kill many times more. An Australian Study suggested mortality rates of 0.23 birds per year per turbine, quite insignificant when compared to mortality rates caused by domestic cats or motor vehicles. The study showed after a farm was installed, birds would change their flight a couple hundred meters before approaching the blades and actually fly over it, as they would other obstacles.

[lindisfarne]

12. From the article, the location chosen is the problem - a better location

and many fewer problems. If sited better, a few birds might die, but I weigh that against the number of birds that die in oil slicks and other fossil-fuel-pollution-caused deaths of birds. Not to mention, warming caused by CO2 and its effects on habitats and feeding areas birds currently use.
===================
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."

[Dead_Parrot]

13. Carry on as we do...

...and all the birds are fucked: But what the hell, if it means loosing one speices to save 1,000 others, I'll go for it...

[lindisfarne]

18. It is possible to site the turbines so they have minimal effect on birds.

The original article makes that clear.

[phantom power]

15. I'm reminded of some CPR courses I took...

the instructor explained that a person giving CPR will quite possibly crack a few of the victim's ribs. He said that this should in no way slow you down. If the victim lives, they'll probably forgive you for the ribs.

[dipsydoodle]

16. I take your point but

that still leaves some undamaged ribs and the damaged ones recover. However - in the case of those eagles, if they don't learn fast enough, it could progressively wipe out the whole lot of them. That would be very sad were it to happen.

[phantom power]

17. That would be very sad.

I worry that there is a lot of sadness in our future. Even more than there is now.

[NNadir]

19. At the end of the day, all of these conversations are about choosing

between humanity and the rest of the biota.

Of course, it's pretensions otherwise, humanity cannot survive without the rest of the biosphere. It can't really survive without most of the biosphere.

The longer I live, the more intractable the whole question seems. I am really feeling hopeless.

We could live fine on windmills if there were 500 million of us, and the rest of the biosphere could thrive as well under those conditions, no matter what we chose for energy.

But there aren't 500 million humans, and therein lies the problem. About six billion of us have to die without being replaced. More and more I'm convinced this will happen, but I wonder what other species will have to go as well.