Wind Turbines - lethal to the environment

Themagerleague

Wind turbines are killing thousands of birds of prey all over the world. The need to be banned from Ireland.

And how many migratory birds are being killed on off-shore turbines?

Ireland's Sea and Golden eagles are in big danger from these killers. Not to mention our Red Kites and Hen-Harriers.

I think its not worth having them if it means no birds of prey in our sky.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=na6HxKQQsAM

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/7437040/Eco-friendly-but-not-to-eagles.html

djpbarry

Could we put a figure on these bird fatalities? How many birds are killed by wind turbines in Ireland per annum?

Pete M.

OMG :eek:

It's sustainable energy vs. biodiversity

Figures please

in Kg C/KwH or species /Sq M

I say that the birds aren't being slaughtered to such a degree as to put their existence or niche within the local ecosystems in peril.

There's a phrase people say wot goes eagle eyed, so surely most of them can see the windmills from fairly far off, would be more aesthetically displeasing to them than us near sighted humans.

And besides I haven't found piles of dead birds of prey under any turbines I've seen

dolby

So stay with carbon fuels kill the whole eco-system or kill a few birds?..

SeanW

Actually we don't have to do either ...

Themagerleague

Pete M. wrote: »

OMG :eek:

It's sustainable energy vs. biodiversity

Figures please

in Kg C/KwH or species /Sq M

I say that the birds aren't being slaughtered to such a degree as to put their existence or niche within the local ecosystems in peril.

There's a phrase people say wot goes eagle eyed, so surely most of them can see the windmills from fairly far off, would be more aesthetically displeasing to them than us near sighted humans.

And besides I haven't found piles of dead birds of prey under any turbines I've seen

The simple fact is that they kill eagles. At the moment there are only around 50 White tailed eagles in the west and about 25 Golden eagles. Any wind farm kill would put the species at risk in the country. The spread of any more wind farms will severely limit the habitat for birds of prey.

You haven't found piles of dead birds of prey because they are rare.

Despite having incredible eyesight they haven't evolved a mechanism for detecting gigantic revolving human-made monstrosities ,as shown here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=na6HxKQQsAM .

Norway have a much higher population of White-tailed eagles and if you read this article you will see the devastation the farms can cause there and in other places with similar species. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/7437040/Eco-friendly-but-not-to-eagles.html

In my opinion any eagle death is not worth 1 kilowatt of power. In fact any soaring bird of prey is in danger near these things.

Wind-farms are supposed to be eco-friendly, but they are a danger to our wildlife and absolutely destroy our natural landscape aesthetically. What about wave power? That would keep all the so called "eco" people happy.

@djpbarry - our bird of prey population is just recovering after centuries of persecution, I don't have figures of dead birds of prey from turbines here but any kill is not worth it and it is also illegal.

quentingargan

I wonder will any birds get killed in the Gulf of Mexico over the coming months?:rolleyes:

The greatest threat to biodiversity is climate change. The second greatest is probably habitat incursion by our attempts at civilisation. Wind turbines are way down the list.

Our house has been powered by a domestic wind turbine for seven years and I've never seen any bird injured or killed here - you would see feathers on the ground if it happened.

Andrew33

Lets all go live in caves and lick lichen and moss off rocks just in case we harm any creatures:rolleyes:
I thought birds of prey had good eyesight? can they not see the feckin turbines? If they're too stupid to avoid them, well then, darwinian evolution will take care of that. The smart birds who recognise the turbines as dangerous will survive, the dumb ones won't.

Lurching

SeanW wrote: »

Actually we don't have to do either ...

Whats your suggestion?

I think this is being blown way out of proportion.

Macha

Let's not have this turn into another thread on nuclear power please!

Pete M.

Themagerleague wrote: »

...and absolutely destroy our natural landscape aesthetically

Aha! That is subjective surely.
Many so called eco friendly people I know consider them rather aesthetically pleasing.
Live near one do we?

quentingargan

Lurching wrote: »

I think this is being blown way out of proportion.

Was that pun intended or accidental?

Lurching

quentingargan wrote: »

Was that pun intended or accidental?

Accidental, unfortunately!

bonkey

In general, the controvery about wind-farms is overblown.

The lesson which should be learned is that poor placement of a wind-farm can cause significant problems for wildlife. Depressingly, its a bit bloody obvious as a lesson, but one that we see not being learned - at least from from time to time.

Yes...some windfarms have been badly sited, resulting in them becoming a lesser or greater threat to wild birds. The possibility exists that the same mistake could be made in Ireland...that we site the wrong thing in the wrong place, resulting in the same mistake.

Surely what this suggests is that we demand proper analysis of such potential problems for proposed sites...not that we go down the BANANA road of demanding no wind-farm be built.

justplainme

bonkey wrote: »

In general, the controvery about wind-farms is overblown.

The lesson which should be learned is that poor placement of a wind-farm can cause significant problems for wildlife. Depressingly, its a bit bloody obvious as a lesson, but one that we see not being learned - at least from from time to time.

Yes...some windfarms have been badly sited, resulting in them becoming a lesser or greater threat to wild birds. The possibility exists that the same mistake could be made in Ireland...that we site the wrong thing in the wrong place, resulting in the same mistake.

Surely what this suggests is that we demand proper analysis of such potential problems for proposed sites...not that we go down the BANANA road of demanding no wind-farm be built.

+1 Well said bonkey!

Themagerleague

bonkey wrote: »

In general, the controvery about wind-farms is overblown.

The lesson which should be learned is that poor placement of a wind-farm can cause significant problems for wildlife. Depressingly, its a bit bloody obvious as a lesson, but one that we see not being learned - at least from from time to time.

Yes...some windfarms have been badly sited, resulting in them becoming a lesser or greater threat to wild birds. The possibility exists that the same mistake could be made in Ireland...that we site the wrong thing in the wrong place, resulting in the same mistake.

Surely what this suggests is that we demand proper analysis of such potential problems for proposed sites...not that we go down the BANANA road of demanding no wind-farm be built.

That is all very well bonkey, but is it being properly regulated here in Ireland? I have my doubts. There is alot of money to be made from wind energy and I am just worried that our wildlife(if destroyed, will never return) is going by the wayside.

There seems to be alot of people who are prepared for our wildlife to be destroyed for a few kilowatts of energy and for a few quick bucks.

What good are these turbines? They ruin our landscape, destroy habitat on the ground, kill our most rare birds and give very little power.

They are not eco friendly, they are a con. A money making venture by greedy companies under the guise of being green.

We will not save the earth by putting up these monstrosities in our tiny country. China et al are sending unbelievable amounts of crap into the sky.

Upon millions and millions of years the earth has heated up, cooled down without a human on it. The earth fluctuates, I am yet to be convinced that we are the big culprit in the earth's latest warming.

Macha

Themagerleague wrote: »

That is all very well bonkey, but is it being properly regulated here in Ireland? I have my doubts. There is alot of money to be made from wind energy and I am just worried that our wildlife(if destroyed, will never return) is going by the wayside.

Do you have any evidence that wind turbines are not being properly regulated? I think the process for getting a wind turbine up & grid-connected is absurd but probably not for the same reasons you do.

Themagerleague wrote: »

There seems to be alot of people who are prepared for our wildlife to be destroyed for a few kilowatts of energy and for a few quick bucks.

I don't think there's anything wrong with people making money out of environmentally friendly initiatives. But why do you assume that just because they are making a profit (although that seriously remains to be seen with many wind developers in Ireland), that they are necessarily willing to disregard ecological issues?

Themagerleague wrote: »

What good are these turbines? They ruin our landscape, destroy habitat on the ground, kill our most rare birds and give very little power.

These wind turbines displace fossil-fuel generated electricity, thus reducing Ireland's ghg emissions and contribution to climate change. Wind power also has other benefits including reducing the amount of fossil fuels we import (and the amount of money we give to oppressive regimes), reducing non-ghg-related emissions, helping us to meet our national and EU renewable energy & emissions targets, creating local business and employment and more.

Just to take you up on your points. Whether they ruin our landscape or not is a matter of opinion. I understand if you don't like them but a) most people don't mind them, b) our countryside already has a large, visible electricity network in place (shall we take that down?), c) most of the turbines will actually be offshore and d) have you ever looked at an open cast mine? They're not exactly pretty and just because the coal itself isn't mined in Ireland, doesn't make it any less of an issue in my book.

Themagerleague wrote: »

We will not save the earth by putting up these monstrosities in our tiny country. China et al are sending unbelievable amounts of crap into the sky.

Actually, China is the third largest wind energy producer in the world. Yes, as a country China generates a huge amount of emissions but under the 'Common but differentiated responsibility' principle as adopted by the UNFCCC, the West is historically responsible for the vast majority of ghg emissions to date, per-capita emissions in developing countries are still quite low and we need to make room and encourage developing countries to follow a low-carbon development path.

We will not help matters by trying to fudge our responsibilities based on our population size (instead of per-capita emissions) and basically telling China et al. to do as we say, not as we do.

Themagerleague wrote: »

Upon millions and millions of years the earth has heated up, cooled down without a human on it. The earth fluctuates, I am yet to be convinced that we are the big culprit in the earth's latest warming.

Acceptance of the science of climate change is an entirely separate issue and will not be discussed further in this thread.

quentingargan

Themagerleague wrote: »

What good are these turbines? They .....give very little power.

This is a myth that has gained momentum in many circles. In Ireland we can expect well-sited wind turbines to produce in or around 35% of their rated value on average over the year. This is far higher than the equivalent figure in most of the rest of Europe. There may be an argument against some of the installations that were funded in parts of Europe where their yield is low, but that does not apply in Ireland where a relatively low feed-in tariff has ensured that only the most effective sites are being used.

bonkey

Themagerleague wrote: »

That is all very well bonkey, but is it being properly regulated here in Ireland? I have my doubts. There is alot of money to be made from wind energy and I am just worried that our wildlife(if destroyed, will never return) is going by the wayside.

I think you're missing my point.

If the problem is that we need proper analysis, then we look for proper analysis.
If the problem is that we need proper regulation, then we look for proper regulation.

The notion put forward in the OP seemed to be more along the lines of "there might be environmental fallout, so we shouldn't build them at all.

No matter what you build, there might be environmental fallout. If you decide that regulation and analysis aren't trustworthy and that the solution is to simply oppose....you very quickly end up in the BANANA situation - Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anything.

The problem with the BANANA logic is that it can't work. It has to fail. The best way for it to fail is, funnily enough, to make sure that whatever is built has its due dilligence done in analysis, and is properly regulated.

Themagerleague

taconnol wrote: »

Acceptance of the science of climate change is an entirely separate issue and will not be discussed further in this thread.

Why is that? Are you afraid of reality? Or maybe you work for the wind industry, as I notice alot of people on this board are(but since have deleted their sigs).

I also notice my topic has attracted not only the moderators here, but also the administrator!

Seems I've touched a nerve.

Yitzhak Rabin

Themagerleague wrote: »

Why is that? Are you afraid of reality? Or maybe you work for the wind industry, as I notice alot of people on this board are(but since have deleted their sigs).

I also notice my topic has attracted not only the moderators here, but also the administrator!

Seems I've touched a nerve.

Or perhaps because there is a separate thread for that, and if you have some world changing evidence that contradicts the mountains of it the support the ACC theory, then you should post it there, not in a topic about whether wind turbines will kill birds or not.

Macha

Themagerleague wrote: »

Why is that? Are you afraid of reality? Or maybe you work for the wind industry, as I notice alot of people on this board are(but since have deleted their sigs).

I also notice my topic has attracted not only the moderators here, but also the administrator!

Seems I've touched a nerve.

In-thread discussion of moderation is not allowed. Please read the Forum charter here.

I suggest you concentrate your efforts on responding to the points that have been put to you, rather than speculating about the backgrounds of individual posters. In other words, stick to the topic at hand.

Themagerleague

taconnol wrote: »

In-thread discussion of moderation is not allowed. Please read the Forum charter here.

I suggest you concentrate your efforts on responding to the points that have been put to you, rather than speculating about the backgrounds of individual posters. In other words, stick to the topic at hand.

So, what you are saying, is that if you don't like the Wind Industry , you can feck off these boards, is that it? lol

quentingargan

Can I raise the subject of wind turbines? I have two wind tubines on our place and six cats. Want to know which kills the most birds?

Themagerleague

il bet the cats do , but yea, I can't be arsed right now.

Macha

Themagerleague wrote: »

So, what you are saying, is that if you don't like the Wind Industry , you can feck off these boards, is that it? lol

No, that's not what I said. Discussion of the wind industry is perfectly acceptable. What isn't acceptable is taking a thread off topic and discussing moderation in-thread, especially after you have been told not to.

You've earned yourself an infraction.

Themagerleague

taconnol wrote: »

No, that's not what I said. Discussion of the wind industry is perfectly acceptable. What isn't acceptable is taking a thread off topic and discussing moderation in-thread, especially after you have been told not to.

You've earned yourself an infraction.

lol, so what your saying is that this thread IS a dictatorship and that if you speak out you get a , a infraction!!!!!!!!.

lmao

Macha

Themagerleague wrote: »

lol, so what your saying is that this thread IS a dictatorship and that if you speak out you get a , a infraction!!!!!!!!.

lmao

*sigh* banned for a week

KevR

If birds being killed by wind turbines really is a significant problem could the turbines be fitted with a simple device that emitts a very high pitched noise that would discourage birds coming close enough to the turbines to get killed? A high pitched noise that birds/animals can hear and causes them discomfort so they won't stay near it; but a noise which is too high pitched for humans to hear.

I'm asking the question, I'm no expert and don't know if it would be possible. Although I would be inclined to think that it would be possible..

piby

Themagerleague wrote: »

What about wave power? That would keep all the so called "eco" people happy.

Despite living on an island wave power is actually very diificult to harnass and even when you can you don't get huge amounts of energy from them. Even on a global scale it's thought you couldn't generate more than 2 TW (that's theoretical and practically it's way way less). To put into perspective wind could generate up 85 TW globally (again in theory so reality would be much smaller). So even though we're surrounded by water briniging those ratios to Ireland you might get slightly higher figures for wave power but it's just not as economical as the others (wind and solar). It may be used in conjunction with other technologies but wouldn't be sufficient on its own unfortunatley.

Wind farms probably are somewhat of a threat to local wildlife and there are even some communities who say that they have negative impacts on human health in terms of mental/psychological damage from the noise! That said if we don't change our ebergy consumption habits there won't be a planet for any wildlife to live on! I do agree that they aren't aesthetically nice on the eye but everytime I see one I just reming myself it's clean energy.

Nick Dolan

Of all the arguements against wind turbines, killing birds is the dumbest and to be honest I reckon he was up for devilment. Personally i cant stand the holier than thou attitude of enviromentlists, out to save the world, man. But the oil will run out, and before it does the cost of shipping it here will cripple us financially, so what choice do we have? Aha i have it! Place harnesses on the arms of the wind turbines and breed thousands of eagles to fly them round and round.

djmc

I have heard this arguement before but the fact is more birds get killed by cars than by wind turbines hince you would have more of a chance killing a eagle with your car while out driving.
Also I spoke to a wildlife ranger who told me they have no problem with wind turbines being built in SACs because they are no danger to the hen harrier.
It used to be noise and shadow flicker but now too many people live close to turbines that dont find any problems its our wildlife:rolleyes:

Yitzhak Rabin

There was a study done on it by the National Academy of Science's Board on Environmental Studies and Toxicology in th US.
http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11935&page=72Pumped

They found that wind turbines do kill birds, but that in comparison to other threats. Over a 100 million are killed by cars, with countless other dying from flying into windows. Housecats also kill hundreds of millions of birds

Wind turbines only account for .003% of non natural bird deaths.

AngryHippie

yekahs wrote: »

Wind turbines only account for .003% of non natural bird deaths.

Woohoo, finally a statistic, and the troll gets put to sleep

bonkey

AngryHippie wrote: »

Woohoo, finally a statistic, and the troll gets put to sleep

The decision to site a windfarm on known flight paths and/or near bird sanctuaries / breeding grounds cannot be justified on the grounds that the ensuing carnage would only marginally raise the percentages of all birds killed worldwide by any means connectable to man.

If the flight path, sanctuary or breeding grounds belongs to an endangered species...then so much the worse. Driving an endangered avian species to extinction wouldn't even make a blip on the total number of birds killed. Does that mean its not an issue?

Looking at the total numbers only gives part of the picture....and arguably not a terribly useful one at that.

Yitzhak Rabin

bonkey wrote: »

The decision to site a windfarm on known flight paths and/or near bird sanctuaries / breeding grounds cannot be justified on the grounds that the ensuing carnage would only marginally raise the percentages of all birds killed worldwide by any means connectable to man.

If the flight path, sanctuary or breeding grounds belongs to an endangered species...then so much the worse. Driving an endangered avian species to extinction wouldn't even make a blip on the total number of birds killed. Does that mean its not an issue?

Looking at the total numbers only gives part of the picture....and arguably not a terribly useful one at that.

Agree.

The study is good however though. It highlights exactly that. Of the total birds killed, the vast overwhelming majority come from California, and of those killed in Ca, the majority come from one poorly sited farm, that had poorly designed fast spinning turbines.

The key is to learn from the lessons, and site farms responsibly, not to let irrational fears halt the effort.

Capt'n Midnight

cats are not a native species. Removing all cats from this island would do more for wildlife than banning wind turbines.

Habitat loss is the biggest killer, windfarms mean EIS which means some money going into the habitat that might not otherwise.

Birds of prey aren't that stupid and they do have a high attrition rate in early life too. If it's only weakend birds that get hit then they were probably going to die anyway. My guess is that healthy birds figure it out fairly quickly. I've heard of stories about crows using crow bangers as perchs and flying away when they hear the arming click only to return unbothered a few seconds later.

Has anyone done research on painting eye spots on the blades ? Remember birds see faster than we can so can still see a blade that would be a blur to us.

Jim Martin

A bat mortality study found this:

http://www.ucalgary.ca/news/aug2008/batdeaths

AngryHippie

bonkey wrote: »

The decision to site a windfarm on known flight paths and/or near bird sanctuaries / breeding grounds cannot be justified on the grounds that the ensuing carnage would only marginally raise the percentages of all birds killed worldwide by any means connectable to man.

Agreed, thats why a comprehensive EIS is always a planning pre-requisite

bonkey wrote: »

If the flight path, sanctuary or breeding grounds belongs to an endangered species...then so much the worse. Driving an endangered avian species to extinction wouldn't even make a blip on the total number of birds killed. Does that mean its not an issue?

If an endangered avian species were in the location, special planning conditions would be imposed to reduce the risk to them, or moves made to protect or relocate the birds, As for unendangered birds, if the overall figure is going to be .03% of bird deaths (worldwide, and by microcosm) then potential damage to the windmill is a bigger issue, I've seen a video of one of those badboys explode...its spectaculat)

bonkey wrote: »

Looking at the total numbers only gives part of the picture....and arguably not a terribly useful one at that.

More usefull than the speculation we'd had prior to that figure, and ultimately far more useful than a post designed to fish for bleeding hearts and a debate on Nimbies and Bananas, so lets just make it all about Nazi's and wrap it up

Capt'n Midnight

Jim Martin wrote: »

A bat mortality study found this:

http://www.ucalgary.ca/news/aug2008/batdeaths

perhaps if they put noise makers on the wind turbines to scare away the bats. They could use ultrasonic ones and so would not affect people

This won't work for birds as the hearing range of most species overlaps with ours.

Yitzhak Rabin

Bats usually fly only at times of low winds. The turbines could be turned off with minimal losses during these periods.

molloyjazz

If these turbines really killing Eagles is a problem.. why not do what we do to protect are selfs from high speed rotating fans?

Merch

the plain and simple fact is, the elephant is in the room thing, isnt it obvious, there are too many people on the planet consuming more and more resources, its not that we cant sustain them, its just that we take up so much space and encroach on delicate ecosystems doing it.
Im in favour of green energy but if the population keeps growing we will have killed more species not through green or fossil energy sources but by the devastation we wreak on the environment just sustaining our own existance regardless of the global environment and natural ecosytems (things that have taken millenia to evolve which cannot simply recover easily or grow back)

Pay for the health and education of children when they are only from 1 child families ie pay those that it will benefit most and dont incentivise having more, that will save more money than the cost on resources/environment and everything else we share this planet with.Needs to be global, so few birds killed by windturbines is minimal compared to the absolute devastation we are committing now(extinction rates)
If we are lucky , mothernature might take care of us

Edelle

iv seen golden eagles and wind turbines. sure there are only 25 of so golden eagles, most of these are in bird sanctuarys or belong to people that work eith eagles so they themselves should know not to let their birds fly and exercise near dangers... plus im an environmental engineer and love the sight of the commercial wind turbines... they're aerodynamic and as a result i feel look good, plus dont give out about power generating methods unless you generate your own energy completly, dont use fossil fuels or harm the environment.. dont dish what you depend on!

djpbarry

Merch wrote: »

the plain and simple fact is, the elephant is in the room thing, isnt it obvious, there are too many people on the planet consuming more and more resources...

Let's not drag another thread down that route please.

jacaranda

Merch wrote: »

the plain and simple fact is, the elephant is in the room thing, isnt it obvious, there are too many people on the planet consuming more and more resources, its not that we cant sustain them, its just that we take up so much space and encroach on delicate ecosystems doing it.
Im in favour of green energy but if the population keeps growing we will have killed more species not through green or fossil energy sources but by the devastation we wreak on the environment just sustaining our own existance regardless of the global environment and natural ecosytems (things that have taken millenia to evolve which cannot simply recover easily or grow back)

Pay for the health and education of children when they are only from 1 child families ie pay those that it will benefit most and dont incentivise having more, that will save more money than the cost on resources/environment and everything else we share this planet with.Needs to be global, so few birds killed by windturbines is minimal compared to the absolute devastation we are committing now(extinction rates)
If we are lucky , mothernature might take care of us

You are right, but no one likes to discuss this.

pumpkinsoup

jacaranda wrote: »

You are right, but no one likes to discuss this.

... because it has nothing to do with wind turbines.

FlameoftheWest

djpbarry wrote: »

Could we put a figure on these bird fatalities? How many birds are killed by wind turbines in Ireland per annum?

Talking to a farmer at on top of the Ox Mountains were these "Green Santanic Mills" are a cancer on the landscape he claims to see it all the time. He actually sold land to put these things up and said it was the biggest mistake of his life. The landscape is destroyed and the noise is shocking.

They are not a good solution. They are another mistake. Time to admit we ****ed up accepting these things.

Macha

FlameoftheWest wrote: »

The landscape is destroyed

That is a matter of opinion, and his opinion is not shared by the majority...

FlameoftheWest wrote: »

and the noise is shocking.

..and that is factually incorrect. I have stood underneath a functioning wind turbine and the noise emitted from then is very low.

FlameoftheWest wrote: »

They are not a good solution. They are another mistake. Time to admit we ****ed up accepting these things.

You haven't proved that they are not a good solution at all.

Capt'n Midnight

Before the steam engine, there were a lot of windmills. You can still see many that have survived.

Back in the day there were 40,000 windmills across the plains of Holland and North Germany.

It's only in the last century or two that we've had windmill free landscapes. They are preferrable to acid rain.


Anyway once someone sorts out the problem of storing electricity cheaply the balance will shift far more in favour of renewables.

Jim Martin

taconnol wrote: »

That is a matter of opinion, and his opinion is not shared by the majority...


..and that is factually incorrect. I have stood underneath a functioning wind turbine and the noise emitted from then is very low.


You haven't proved that they are not a good solution at all.

and I have stood 2,000 ft from one and it WASnoisy!