[BCNnet] Wind Energy and Birds

Fri Aug 19 10:08:25 CDT 2005

BCNnet friends;

I'm responding to the letter to the editor of the Daily Herald which was
forwarded to BCNnet last Monday.  For your convenience I've included the
original letter below.  

First let me explain that the American Bird Conservancy (of which I have
been a Board member for almost 9 years and currently serve as Treasurer) has
been a leader on research on the impact of wind turbines on birds for many
years. Well over a year ago ABC published a 'white paper' on the issue which
I strongly commend to your reading:
http://abcbirds.org/policy/windpolicy.htm  

In his letter to the editor, Daniel Sobieski vehemently objects to the use
of clean, renewable energy, specifically to wind energy.  Mr. Sobieski cites
bird kills as his main reason for objection and relies heavily on data from
one California wind project built in the 1970s.  This is no fairer as a
comparison than measuring the safety of a car built in 1970 to a car built
today.  Obviously today's cars are safer than cars built in 1970 just as
today's wind turbines are safer for birds then they were three decades ago.
No one suggests that car should be removed as a transportation option
because the first models weren't perfect.

Mr. Sobieski then talks about 3 decades of taxpayer subsidies for wind power
but neglects saying anything about subsidies to the fossil fuel industry
that dwarfs anything for wind.  Although Exxon-Mobile earned $7.85 billion
in the last quarter the recently passed energy bill will grant still
additional billions to Exxon and the other energy giants.

There is no denying that bird kills have been a problem at one wind project
in California but like all industries, the wind industry is learning from
its mistakes and is modifying its equipment to greatly lessen the problem
today.  A turbine built in the 1970's allowed the blades to turn as fast as
the wind would drive them, often too fast for birds to see them.  Today's
turbines have speed governors which require the blades to turn at a slow,
steady rate which not only allows birds to see and avoid the blades but
generates electricity in a smooth, efficient way.  

More concern is now being shown as to whether turbines are sited in
migratory paths, something that wasn't done in California.  This is why we
all must work to oppose sitings of wind farms like the one within a few
miles of Horicon Marsh in Wisconsin, as well as anywhere in migration
corridors and near important bird areas.  

The fact is that an estimated 2 billion birds are killed each year of which
less than 1/1000th of 1% are estimated to be as a result of wind turbines.
ABC says it is an average (including the worst offenders like the California
site) of 3 birds per turbine per year.  The biggest killers: buildings and
their glass, cats, and vehicles.  In terms of the overall decline in bird
populations there is close to universal agreement that the primary cause is
habitat loss.   

As to Randi Doeker's forwarding comments, the statement that "the warbler
that didn't get to nest is still alive to look elsewhere; the ones that hit
turbines are not" might well be true for an individual bird.  However, in
terms of total numbers of birds consider this example of habitat loss.  Some
500,000 acres of high quality forest in Kentucky, Tennessee, and West
Virginia are being destroyed by mountain top-valley fill strip mining,
eliminating the world's primary nesting habitat for the endangered Cerulean
Warbler as well as countless numbers other birds and other wildlife.  The
Ceruleans and other species that can't nest there may look elsewhere but
most, like the Ivory-billed Woodpeckers that lost their habitats, will just
die.  

We don't live in a perfect world and I deplore the death of a single bird as
much as any of us.  But the reality is that we need and must produce power
and the use of wind energy to do so will kill far, far fewer birds.  

One additional excellent source for information on this subject is available
at http://www.awea.org/pubs/factsheets/wildlife.pdf

Donnie  

Donnie Dann

Highland Park/Lake County

donniebird at yahoo.com 

PS. While Mr. Sobieski is busy arguing for dirty power plants and against
clean energy he neglects to mention that Illinois coal plants emit pollution
that kills Illinois citizens.  Not birds, humans.  A peer reviewed study by
the Harvard School of Public Health in 2002 indicated that pollution from
Illinois power plants kills over 1,300 people per year.  Conventional power
plants lead to over 2,300 heart attacks (disproportionately senior citizens)
and over 33,000 asthma attacks (disproportionately children).  It boggles
the mind that anyone would argue in favor of continuing to use this type of
energy when clean, renewable energy is available today. 

This is from a letter to the suburban Daily Herald newspaper.  The City of
Chicago has announced that they will be installing a wind turbine someplace
in the City as a prototype to encourage private business to follow.

The argument that I've been given by conservationists who support wind
turbines for Chicago is that it is better than the habitat destruction at
mines and power plants that deprive birds of nesting sites.  My response is
that the warbler that didn't get to nest is still alive to look elsewhere;
the ones that hit turbines are not.

COS and CAS is arranging a public meeting (hopefully for Sept) with the
local company that does bird-safer turbines - http://www.aerotecture.com/.  

Randi Doeker

Chicago

Wind is no answer to U.S. energy needs 

Howard A. Learner (Fence Post, July 17) supports "investments in wind power
and other clean, renewable energy" despite the fact after three decades and
over $14 billion in taxpayer subsidies, so-called renewable energy - wind,
solar, and biomass fuels - together supply only 3 percent of America's
electricity, with wind and solar providing less than two-tenths of 1
percent, and that's when the wind is blowing and the sun is shining. 

Any electricity generated cannot be stored and must be transmitted over high
voltage lines to where it is needed. Counting turbines and transmission,
that's a lot of land. A single 555-megawatt gas-fired power plant on 15
acres generates more electricity each year than all 13,000 of California's
wind turbines, which dominate 106,000 acres of once-scenic hill country.
They kill some 10,000 eagles, hawks, other birds and bats every year. 

In Wisconsin, anti-oil groups support building 133 gigantic Cuisinarts on
32,000 acres (16 times the ANWR operations area) near Horicon Marsh. This
magnificent wetland is home to millions of geese, ducks and other migratory
birds, and just miles from an abandoned mine that houses 140,000 bats. At
390 feet high, the turbines would tower over the Statue of Liberty (305
feet), U.S. Capitol Building (287 feet) and Arctic oil production facilities
(50 feet). All these Horicon turbines would produce about as much power as
Fairfax County, Va., gets from one facility that burns garbage to generate
electricity. 

Two of the biggest wind farms in Europe have 159 turbines but together they
take a year to produce less than four days' output from a single
2,000-megawatt conventional power station that takes up a couple of acres.
Our energy answer, my friends, is not blowing in the wind. 

Daniel John Sobieski 

Chicago 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://screamer.ece.iit.edu/pipermail/bcnnet/attachments/20050819/53d3ccc6/attachment-0001.htm