Renewable Energy Solar Energy Wind Energy Geothermal Energy Bioenergy Hydropower
 

For the Birds: Audubon Society Stands Up in Support of Wind Energy

By Carl Levesque, American Wind Energy Association
December 14, 2006   |   15 Comments

Do you like this news?

Email   Bookmark Bookmark   Print   Feed   Share
 
"When you look at a wind turbine, you can find the bird carcasses and count them. With a coal-fired power plant, you can't count the carcasses, but it's going to kill a lot more birds."

-- John Flicker, National Audubon Society, president
15 Reader Comments
Comment
1 of 15
December 14, 2006
Mass Audubon is not the "regulatory agency" in the Cape Wind permitting process, this responsibility falls to the United States Fish and Wildlife Service. The Endangered Species Act requires the Minerals Management Service, the permit granting authority for alternative use of the Outer Continental Shelf, to go through a formal process (called Section 7 consultation) with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service that will analyze in detail the impact of the Cape Wind project on federally listed species like the Roseate Tern, the Piping Plover and the Bald Eagle.

The President of MA Audubon, Laura A. Johnson, submitted MA Audubon's comments on the Cape Wind DEIS on February 23, 2005; to Ms. Karen Kirk Adams, the Cape Wind Energy Project Manager USACE:

"By utilizing other bird mortality data provided in the DEIS, Mass Audubon staff scientists arrived at avian mortalities that ranged from 2,300 to 6,600 collision deaths per year."
Comment
2 of 15
December 15, 2006
...Oh, and on the blade lighting aspect, consider making the lights flash at various timing frequencies. Based on my experience at riding bikes to/from work for 25 years, flashing LED lights capture attention of drivers and other bikers more quickly than 'steadily-lit' lights, because the human eye (and I would assume birds' and bats' eyes, too) is more sensitive to something 'moving', while steadily-lit lights are more often visually absorbed by background light clutter (in metro areas) and by foliage in open country.
Comment
3 of 15
December 15, 2006
Larger turbine blades turn at a lower rpm, but that's to maintain a similar high speed at the tips: 150-200 mph. Larger turbines are placed farther apart because the blades are bigger: per acre, again, the obstacle presented is similar.
Comment
4 of 15
December 15, 2006
Please...please. Let's have some concrete experimentation here rather than all this 'speculation' based on a study bird carcasses found near existing wind turbines over a unit of time. So many different variables can impact bird mortalities. Please...please...can we have one or more turbine manufacturers produce some experimental turbine blades that are equipped with ultrasound transmitters that cover the audible (and inaudible to humans) frequency spectrum of birds ?? Also, can we equip the blades with small LED lights that output light in frequencies sensitive to birds' sight ? Lighting both surfaces of each blade, and transmitting sound audible within 200 yards should permit birds to avoid collisions, whether in daylight, or after dark (if, like Canada Geese, they are often migrating at night). Enough talk and 'pondering'; let's experiment and do the science.
Comment
5 of 15
December 15, 2006
Modern wind turbines are also safer for birds because (1) the blades rotate more slowly, making it easier for birds to see them and less likely that a collision will be fatal and (2) the towers are placed further apart now, leaving more room for birds to fly by, which is especially important for birds of prey like the raptors killed at Altamont Pass.

The "well documented" tolls on birds refer to high fatalities at one or two sites located in West Virginia. The wind industry is working with Bat Conservation International to explore the actual impacts on bats and means of mitigating these impacts. http://www.batcon.org/home/index.asp?idPage=55
Comment
6 of 15
December 15, 2006
The more I look into the position of the "Audobon Society" on wind power, the more questions I have. I use quotes on "Audobon Society" because I've come to understand that there is the National Audobon Society and then there are the state and local Audobon organizations (e.g., Mass Audobon). I understand that Mass Audobon is not opposing Cape Wind. On Long Island, the local chapter is not nearly as willing to accept the wind farm and apparently might decide to oppose it, depending on where their research leads.

So, can you have one chapter of Audobon embracing a wind farm in their neighborhood, while a chapter in another state opposing a similar offshore wind farm (to the extent that one could consider them equal)? Is there really no national (small "n") Audobon policy? Won't this arrangement sow confusion the public hears that the "Audobon Society" supports a particular wind project?
Comment
7 of 15
December 15, 2006
"Modern wind turbines are much safer for birds than their predecessors" only because they are not built in Altamont Pass. In fact, their growing heights and huge sweep areas put more birds at risk. This emphasis on birds also serves to ignore the well documented toll on bats.
Comment
8 of 15
December 18, 2006
I am a bird and bat lover that feeds birds year round and provides bat boxes for bats to live in. The argument that we should stop wind farms to protect them is foolish and lacking in long term perspective, because if we don't stop using fossil fuels soon, we will ruin the planet, and birds, animals, and humans will all suffer, and in the worst case will die.
Comment
9 of 15
December 21, 2006
Our Beautiful Birds

Birds need to live without pollution,
Wind energy is one solution,
Noise and lights should warn the birds,
It's burning coal that needs stong words,
For spewing out pollutants blind,
Long term effects to undermine,
Environments where birds may thrive,
Our spoiled planet must revive,
To give the birds a place to bring,
Their young to safely raise and sing,
Songs beautiful with true delight,
From early dawn until twilight,
With colors red and orange and blue,
Kaleidoscopes of every hue,
The joy of living now express,
For human beings to attest,
We need this bit of life God gave,
While on this Earth this path we pave.

adrianakau@aol.com
Comment
10 of 15
December 23, 2006
MA Audubon states:

"This area of Nantucket Sound is within the eastern U.S. migratory bird flyway and hosts high concentrations of wintering waterfowl, and is in close proximity to nesting, foraging and staging areas for federally endangered roseate terns and threatened piping plovers. Substantial numbers of federally endangered sea turtles and protected marine mammal species frequent the proposed project site. In addition, the proposed site provides habitat for federally regulated finfish and shellfish populations."

FPL Energy, Altamont's biggest operator with 2,000 turbines: "Certainly the turbine owners hope fewer, taller turbines reduce collisions," says FPL spokesman Steve Stengel. "But there has not been research done to verify that."
Comment
11 of 15
December 23, 2006
Stephen R. Pritchard, the state's secretary of environmental affairs, expressed his concerns about Buzzards Bay due to endangered species present. It is inconsistent that Mass Audubon would consider Nantucket Sound as a location suitable for an industrial scale wind facility as proposed by Cape Wind.

Pritchard raised concerns that Cashman's proposed location ``is both within and proximate to the breeding, nesting and foraging habitats of the roseate tern, a state and federally protected endangered species." Echoing concerns raised by the Massachusetts Audubon Society and state wildlife officials, Pritchard wrote, ``it is uncertain whether avian mortality and habitat impact could be adequately mitigated."

``The project proponent," Pritchard's report stated, ``faces a high threshold in addressing these issues."
Comment
12 of 15
December 29, 2006
Bill Lockyer, A.G. of CA July 6, 2005:

"The ongoing harm to protected bird species at the APRWA is serious and unacceptable." "Because the APWA is the largest of its kind in the world, what happens here could set an important precedent for how these issues are addressed elsewhere in California and the United States."

Henning Grastrup, the offshore pioneer and key figure in the Danish government's first programme for wind energy research, retired after 31 years with Danish utility Elsam recently was interviewed regarding his experience:

"What lessons have we learned in planning the Horns Rev project, Henning?"

"I think the most important lesson is that if there are concerns about bird restrictions from the European Commission, for instance, they should be taken seriously because they will not go away. I have seen some international projects failing to make progress because the warnings were not taken seriously."
Comment
13 of 15
April 23, 2007
The science needs to be done. Fine. But let's keep things in perspective. Maybe we need to also see how many birds are killed becuase they fly into tall buildings and tall power transmission lines. Maybe we should count how many birds are killed by airplanes and helicopters, and the Goodyear blimp. But let's not forget why we need alternative energy sources in the first place. It would be a shame if we lost the planet while we kept our sights on the birds.
Comment
14 of 15
March 4, 2008
<p>Wind energy is a feel good scam. It does nothing to eliminate our dependence on fossil fuel. Do not be hoodwinked into thinking we are helping the environment here. When wind electricity is being delivered, fossil fuel is being burned and carbon dioxide is emitted. Spinning reserve mode burns energy! In California, the Wind Industries actual production records were so dismal, they lobbied the CEC to not reveal their production records anymore. Their average annual production of about 93.5 MW minus the 60% off peak generation leaves a miniscule amount of about 2.8 tenths of 1% that is meaningful. &quot;They have scraped miles and miles of desert, obliterated our views, rendered adjacent property valueless and impacted us with noise and dust for this miniscule amount of useless energy.&quot; And wind companies bought lobbyists to hide the truth on bird mortality.</p>
Comment
15 of 15
December 6, 2010
The developing science scholarship suggests extreme caution in placement of large wind turbines. Blindly supporting wind "farms" without an exhaustive review of this science is irresponsible and short-sighted.
We should expect that the environmental organizations we support, including Audubon, to lead in an exhaustive and rigorous review of the pros and cons of any alternative energy solution that poses a threat to wildlife and the environment. They have not done this yet. At this point, they should be ashamed for falling victim to politics, vested interests, and fallacious arguments like large wind must be good because feral cats kill birds too. I have been very disappointed in them.

To get my support, large wind turbines must demonstrate environmental benefits that far outweigh costs. So far science is showing that the negative socio-economic, environmental, and human health affects are overwhelming. Look also at the environmental costs in the manufacture of these large machines as well as the resultant industrial exploitation of the special open spaces we still have and value so highly. Large turbines certainly do not belong anywhere near bird migratory pathways, bat habitats or people's homes.

We do not done enough research on aquatic environmental affects to support off-shore development. Developing science is suggesting harm to many forms of aquatic life that are susceptible to low frequency sound and electromagnetic energy.

Of course we must rapidly wean ourselves of coal and gas dependency but large wind turbine farms are not the creative solution we seek. I know of no research that shows that large wind has ever eliminated even a small amount of coal or natural gas dependency anywhere in the world.
Add Your Comment

Registered users, please make sure to Sign-In. We and others want to know your ideas and opinions. If you are not yet Registered -- it's quick and easy. Just click below.
Thanks!

Register Now   Sign-In

Advertise With Us

Ocean Renewable Energy Coalition Michael Best & Friedrich LLP BBI International Dow Solar Cantsink Manufacturing Canadian Clean Energy Conferences Sharp Solar Energy Solutions Group
World's #1 Renewable Energy Network
PennWell
Renewable Energy World Magazine North America Renewable Energy World Magazine International Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo North America Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Europe Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Asia Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo India Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Africa
RenewableEnergyWorld.com Photovoltaics World Magazine Solar Power Gen Conference & Expo Hydro Review Magazine Hydro Review World Magazine
HydroVision International HydroVision Brazil HydroVision India HydroVision Russia
Twitter Facebook Linked In RSS Feeds e-Newsletters