"For centuries man had employed the power of wind to further his activities and it was not until the advent of the combustion engine that he was released from the constraints of the wind’s fickle nature. Utilising fossil fuels has brought on rapid expansion which some say is having a negative effect on the environment and pressure has been bought to bear on providing alternative methods of energy production,"
wrote Rog earlier today. Following is the rest of the post about a wind farm in Norway and a population of eagles:
"In 1992 Norway formed the State owned Statkraft Group who are now the third largest producer of power in the Nordic region, as well as the second largest producer of power based on renewable energy sources in Europe.
The bulk of Statkraft’s production is based on hydropower, however, they claim that their wind generators are “one of the most environmentally friendly sources of energy for large-scale electricity production.”
Statkraft’s first wind farm went into operation at Smøla in 2002. In 2004 the wind farm at Hitra was opened. Smøla 2 was completed in 2005.
However, bird watchers have found that the turbine blades at Smola had killed nine white-tailed eagles in 10 months, including all of last year's chicks.
Chick numbers at the species' former stronghold have plummeted since the wind farm was built, with breeding pairs at the site down from 19 to one. The number of chicks born each year at the site has fallen from at least 10 to three last year, with births outside the borders of the site falling too.
According to BBC News:
"...Only one chick is expected to fledge from the site this year.
Smola, a set of islands 10km (six miles) off the north-west coast of Norway, was designated an Important Bird Area by Birdlife International in 1989 because it had one of the highest densities of white-tailed eagles in the world.
Scientists now fear wind farms planned for the rest of Norway could have a similar impact on the birds.
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."
The question has to be asked, if the site was designated as an Important Bird Area by Birdlife International in 1989 and Statkraft’s claim to be generating “environmentally friendly” power what was the reason for Statkraft to construct their windfarm there? What happened to the precautionary principle?"
by Rog [a regular commentator at this blog]
I was interested to read at the Statkraft website that:
"The sea eagle is the country’s largest bird of prey. It lives along the coast, nesting from Sogn og Fjordane to northern Norway. The sea eagle population has risen steadily since 1970, and was estimated at around 1,800 pairs in 2000. This represents around 45 per cent of Europe’s entire sea eagle population. ...No dead eagles were found in the Smøla Wind Farm from Phase 1."
I think that windfarm supporters are a bunch of nimbys that really have no idea about the impacts of wind-turbines sitting around on there fat asses talking and talking get out there and do some thing for the environment that's more constructive ,, I have been working relentless for the past 14 years on regeneration of native bushland only to have been devastated to have had a wind-turbine industrial development built next to my little conservation sanctuary ,, the effects are a disaster noise permeates through out the whole property have the pro winders calculated the whole effects of the noise and low frequency vibrations on all the creatures that are now exposed to them IE any one done research on how the vibrations may effect the echidnas that use there beak as a frequency conductor in there search for food .. wind turbines do not operate in isolation from nature and only pose another destructive element for wildlife..where one did not exist before ..Turbines will not be our savior only generating more energy to then accommodate more humans in there bigger and bigger energy thirsty dwellings only a complete revision of the way we humans live will save us from annihilation not a handful or a million turbines.
This dialogue is most interesting. It all shows that whatever we do, there is impact on nature and the environment. We should endeavour to have minimal impact in all fields - energy, food, transport etc.
Still, I currently hold the belief that wind farms and tidal power (what about fish hitting water turbines) are preferable to polluting the air with fossil and nuclear fuels and heat pollution. (Wind, solar and tidal power change immediate energy to electricity, whereas other power sources release stored energy, adding to the world's heat.) If you wish to care for birds and nature, you will give far greater help by becoming vegan. See http://www.ravediet.com
rog - "The adverse effect of wind on thermal plant increases as the wind energy penetration rises. Plant operates less efficiently and with increasing volatility."
Yes because thermal plants are baseload and cannot change output quickly. Thermal coal plants should be replaced with IGCC plants anyway. Thermal plants include nuclear energy as well.
There exists many strategies to allow a higher penetration of wind.
http://www.pcorp.com.au/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=60&Itemid=93
"PowerStore has managed to achieved high penetration (>90%) of wind power in substitution of diesel generation by smoothly absorbing energy in times of excess wind and delivering it when it’s needed. This feature allows optimum efficiency of the diesel generators and maximised the wind energy input. The power station can now operate with a minimum number of diesel generators as PowerStore supplies real spinning reserve. It is possible that the power station can have no diesel generators operating at all since PowerStore can provide frequency control and voltage control."
Your increase in thermal power stations such as nuclear will require a corresponding increase in spare capacity of peaking plants to supply transient power demand. No mention is usually made in discussions of carbon neutral alternatives to wind/solar. The more baseload you put on the more spinning reserve you need.
Also while this discussion is constrained to wind no-one is suggesting that wind is the only renewable. In combination with solar PV, solar thermal, wave, tidal, biomass and fossil fuels the total it is a totally differeny equation. Usually to make renewables less attractive a study will focus only on wind, find it more expensive and then attibute this to renewables in general.
"Everybody knows that wind farms kill birds!!!!!!"
Except GP
Given the known inefficiencies of wind farms you would wonder why they continue just to kill all those birds.
"Wind farms can be situated to minimise these risks."
Of course and I am glad you mentioned the report from Ireland, here is another;
"Diversity of siting of wind farms has been confirmed to be effective in reducing the intermittency of wind powered generation (WPG). In this regard locating relatively small on-shore wind farms in the south and south-east of the country would be beneficial in reducing the intermittency of wind power as seen by system generation. The opposite effect would result from the construction of a very large wind farm on a single site, whether on-shore or off-shore.
The capacity credit of WPG capacity has been confirmed to be considerably less than that of conventional thermal plant, and declines incrementally to saturation. Therefore as WPG increases additional or ‘surplus’ generation capacity is required if security of supply is to be maintained. There are significant costs associated with having ‘excess’ capacity on the system. Therefore the capacity surplus that results from WPG adds to the total generation costs.
The effect of WPG on the thermal plant on the system has been quantified. Mid-merit and high-merit plant are the categories most affected. Low-merit plant (OCGTs) is minimally affected. If high levels of WPG are to be accommodated in the future, existing plant may need to be modified and new plant selected so that they can cope with this type of operation.
The adverse effect of wind on thermal plant increases as the wind energy penetration rises. Plant operates less efficiently and with increasing volatility.
There is a financial premium to be paid for WPG. We estimate that for a system with a peak of 6,500MW, and a generation portfolio comprising of combined and open cycle gas turbines, and no WPG, that the total annual generation costs would be €1.28bn. When WPG is increased to 1,500MW the total generation costs increases by €196m per annum to €1.48bn.
For a system with a peak demand of 6,500 MW, 1500 MW of WPG represents a wind energy penetration level of 11.7%. The EU target for Ireland, from all renewable sources, is 13.2%. Therefore it can be estimated that, in the long term, using WPG to comply with the EU target will increase electricity generation costs by 15% (€196m as a percentage of €1.28bn). This translates to a CO2 abatement cost in excess of €120/tonne.
The cost of CO2 abatement arising from using large levels of wind energy penetration appears high relative to other alternatives."
http://www.eirgrid.com/EirGridPortal/uploads/Publications/Wind%20Impact%20Study%20-%20main%20report.pdf
Rog - Alamont Pass:
"The pass is known for its wind farm, one of the earliest in the United States. The wind farm is composed of over 6000 relatively small wind turbines of various types, making it at one time the largest farm in the world in terms of capacity. Altamont Pass is still the largest concentration of wind turbines in the world. They were installed after the 1970s energy crisis in response to favorable tax policies for investors.
Considered largely obsolete, these numerous small turbines are being gradually replaced with much larger and more cost-effective units. The small turbines are dangerous to various raptors that hunt California Ground Squirrels in the area. The larger units turn slower and, being elevated higher, are less hazardous to the local wildlife."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altamont_Pass
If you follow the link you will see that the turbines in Alamont Pass is the older faster turning units with lattice towers. All these are the worst possible risk factor to birds. We have since learned better. ALL modern wind turbines are larger, higher, slower turning and have pole type towers in which birds cannot roost.
And where was the final quote from rog - the coal miners association?
http://www.bioone.org/perlserv/?request=get-abstract&issn=0003-0031&volume=139&issue=01&page=0029
"During 1994–1995, we saw 70 species of birds on the Buffalo Ridge Wind Resource Area. In both years bird abundance peaked in spring. Red-winged blackbirds (Agelaius phoeniceus), mallards (Anas platyrhynchos), common grackles (Quiscalus quiscula), and barn swallows (Hirundo rustica) were the species most commonly seen. Most birds (82–84%) flew above or below the height range of wind turbine blades (22–55 m). The Buffalo Ridge Wind Resource Area poses little threat to resident or migrating birds at its current operating level."
http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy02osti/30876.pdf
http://www.birdscreen.com/Klem_AFO_Collisions1990.pdf
http://www.irish-energy.ie/uploadedfiles/RenewableEnergy/AssessmentMethodologyBirdsIreland.pdf
"Overall it is clear that birds are generally able to avoid collisions and do not simply
blindly fly into wind turbines. Collision rates typically in range of only 1 in 1,000-10,000
bird flights through wind farm, even in studies such as Zeebrugge where relatively high
numbers of collisions have been reported. In some cases they are considerably lower,
such as at the offshore wind farm at Utgrunden, where over 500,000 eider flights through
the wind farm study area have been observed without a single collision being seen
(Petterson and Stalin 2003). Studies using radar tracking have helped to provide further
information on birds’ general ability to avoid collisions. Dirksen et al. (1998), for
example, showed that Pochard Aythya ferina and Tufted Duck Aythya fuligula flew
regularly through a wind farm in the Netherlands at night under moonlight but flew
around the turbines at greater distance from them when dark and foggy.
It is also clear, however, that bird collisions with wind turbines can be a problem under
some circumstances. It would seem from the evidence available from existing wind farms
that there are two main types of sites that have had collision problems:
1. Sites with large raptors occurring regularly within the wind farm at the same height as
the rotor blades. In Ireland the main species that would fall into this category would
be golden eagle and hen harrier.
2. Sites with very high densities of other birds flying at rotor height. In Ireland these
could include seabird breeding colonies and feeding concentrations, wetlands
(including coastal sites) with large waterfowl concentrations and on any major
migration routes."
These ones neutral enough for you? BTW wind turbines kill birds - DO YOU GET IT NOW!!!!!!!!
Everybody knows that wind farms kill birds!!!!!!
Wind farms can be situated to minimise these risks.
I think all this wind power industry still suffers from child diseases...
And stats do show that wind turbines kill birds and bats, but they still are low compared to other causes to bird deaths.
I don't have the numbers in my head right now but in Sweden about 2 million birds are killed by cats every year, about 60 000 birds die in oil spill, some thousand collide with bridges etc.
Must also point out that BirdLife International has my deepest respect.
Enders "scientific studies" referees;
1. AUSWEA - self proclaimed peak body of wind power generators (and consultants, suppliers etc living off taxpayer subsidies)
2. Environment Victoria - self proclaimed peak non-government environment organisation in Victoria.
3. American Bird Conservacy - self proclaimed.....the who?
"...Altamont Pass wind farms have killed nearly 50,000 birds over a 20 year period including golden eagles, hawks, kites and owls in totaldefiance of wildlife protection laws, regulatory authorities and California's Attorney General. As a result Center for Biological Diversity, Golden Gate Audubon Society, and Californians for Renewable Energy have responded by taking the wind farmers to court. In Spain, a report commissioned by the regional government of Navarra concluded that 368 turbines at 10 sites had killed nearly 7,000 wild birds in a single year, including 409 vultures, 24 eagles and 650 bats. In West Virginia USA, at the 44 turbine Mountaineer wind farm, once-a-week searches from April through November uncovered a total of 475 bat carcasses and it was estimated that 3,000 bats had been killed during 2003. The Buffalo Mountain USA, wind farm has been killing nearly 30 bats per turbine per year since 2001. These bird and bat kills are only examples as it is happening at wind farms in Sweden, Germany, the Netherlands and other countries. With a small number of small wind farms in Australia recording alarming Wedge-tailed Eagle kills the State Government rejected the proposed Yaloak wind farm at Ballan because of the risk to eagles..."
When are building your windmill Ender?
rog - "Ender, you are unable to come to terms with the fact that invariably wind farms are placed in areas of high bird concentrations and that constant fatalities of endangered species will invariably lead to their extinction."
Just as you are unable to come to terms with the fact that properly sited wind farms do not have a high bird mortality as is evidenced by scientific studies that I have quoted.
Ender, you are unable to come to terms with the fact that invariably wind farms are placed in areas of high bird concentrations and that constant fatalities of endangered species will invariably lead to their extinction.
But anybody who is keen on windfarms must be quixotic
http://www.birdlife.org/action/change/europe/habitat_directive/windfarm_position_12_05.doc
rog - like anything we do the benefits of wind power outweigh the effects on birdlife. Just as you do not stop driving your car for fear of killing birds you do a C/B analysis and decide that the proven very low rate of bird mortality associated with properly sited wind farms is small in comparison with the great benefits of greenhouse free power that wind farms deliver.
Again no-one expects wind farms not to kill any birds. The reference does not say that wind farms do not kill birds it says:
"Myth 2. Wind turbines kill lots of birds"
Which is completely different to saying that they kill no birds. Also the reference to Exxon is this:
"The Exxon Valdez oil spill alone is estimated to have killed up to 500,000 birds."
Note that is the Exxon Valdez oil spill NOT Exxon.
If you have to be goaded into producing references at least quote them accurately - not spin them to your point of view.