Windfarms and radio towers affecting birds (1 Viewer)

In Vermont there is alot of talk about harvesting wind via giant windmill farms for electricity , and erecting larger taller cell, radio towers. My concern is birds any info that you all have would be appreciated thanks.

steveo said:

In Vermont there is alot of talk about harvesting wind via giant windmill farms for electricity , and erecting larger taller cell, radio towers. My concern is birds any info that you all have would be appreciated thanks.

Click to expand...

Steveo,

I am trying to locate a recent article on the destruction these structures cause, and as soon as I find the piece I will get back on to this thread.

Meanwhile..... www.mwtlewis.org.uk

John.

Hi Steveo,

If you have time and a bit of a masochistic streak you should check out the Windfarm thread in the Conservation Issues Forum. There are plenty of insightful and intelligent posts and links in that thread. Be prepared for high emotions. You will have to know the potential site well to make a "pro" or "con" decision. For instance, I'm sure the windmills outside Palm Springs, CA are an asset to the environment, but the Altamont, CA project sounds ill placed to me.

Looks to be some sort of article in today's 'Independent'. Haven't had time to read it yet though. First glance looks like it's a positive article in their favor out in the North Sea.

CBB said:

Looks to be some sort of article in today's 'Independent'. Haven't had time to read it yet though. First glance looks like it's a positive article in their favor out in the North Sea.

Click to expand...

Try telling that to the the Norwegians, plus the Gannets and Gulls, et al.

I'll cut this short..

British Birds VOL 99 165. The RSPB has highlighted the deaths of four White-tailed Eagles at a Norwegian windfarm as it campaigns against plans for a massive 200 turbine windfarm on Lewis in the Outer Hebrides........The four dead were found on the island of Smola, a set of islands about 10kms off the northwest Norwegian coast and site of a 68-turbine windfarm. Two eagles had been sliced in half.....besides the four deaths, a further 30 eagles failed to return to nesting sites within the windfarm area......The Norwegian government ignored advice based on an environmental assessment warning against the development because of the danger it posed to the eagles.

.....White tailed Eagles are beginning to thrive in the Western Isles as a direct result of the 30 year reintroduction project, but wind power could wipe them out. Stuart Housden (RSPB) said

.....Beinn Mhor Power had grossly underestimated the risk the turbines posed to eagles. In fact the risk was underestimated by 5,000%!.......over the 25 year lifetime of the project, up to 450 Golden Eagles and 125 White-tailed Eagles could be expected to fall victim to turbine blades.....

Frightening.

John.

Hi all,
Just a thought. Is there not some way that something can be tied onto the arms of these turbines to make it easier for birds to see? I've seen it done on telegraph wires sometimes. I'm probably going to be told it's impracticle but surely there's some way to make the things safe. It's just that in principle I'm for harnessing the wind's power and it's obviously going to be something that becomes more of an issue as time goes on. However, as a lover of birds then I feel a bit 'caught between the devil and the deep blue sea' if it's doing damage to our birdlife.

Chris

CBB said:

Hi all,
Just a thought. Is there not some way that something can be tied onto the arms of these turbines to make it easier for birds to see? I've seen it done on telegraph wires sometimes. I'm probably going to be told it's impracticle but surely there's some way to make the things safe. It's just that in principle I'm for harnessing the wind's power and it's obviously going to be something that becomes more of an issue as time goes on. However, as a lover of birds then I feel a bit 'caught between the devil and the deep blue sea' if it's doing damage to our birdlife.

Chris

Click to expand...

Yes, in Wales we could glue the brainless politicians to the arms so they can see first hand any bird collissions

Thank you all for the info , in my opinion there has to be a better way wind farms killing so many birds each year is UNACCEPTABLE.

Wind farms are dreadful--in Greece they are going up on many hill and mountain tops and will no doubt result in many bird deaths. Of even more concern is the electromagnetic radiation from cell towers. I have posted a thread on the conservation forum--please see it and read the attached document, which has links to a few of the many, many scientific studies documenting damage to birds.

Whoa, whoa - steady on here. Anecdotal, assertion based 'science' is rife the world over at the moment. Sure wind farms kill birds, but so do cars, tall buildings lit after dark - not to mention cats and idiot hunters. And there is no talk to removing those, well not the cats anyway!
What is needed (and I believe organisations like the RSPB and the BTO in the UK are trying to provide) is quantitative, statistically significant measurements of the impact of wind turbines, and where they can be effective but do least harm. A similar approach is necessary in my view for EMR, and I have tried to state why in 'Purple Heron's thread on that topic.

Furthermore it is not sufficient in my view to say 'no wind farms' without making some comment as to what you propose in their place, and demonstrate how the alternative will be capable of filling the gap, without having an even bigger impact on the natural world in both the short and long term. Climate change could make the population impacts of wind farms irrelevant if not addressed, for example.

I am no advocate of wind farms, or EMR, or continued hydrocarbon exploitation - just of informed debate based on fact-based science. I do not have the answers, but I do try to support those trying to get them in this way.

Mick

MTem said:

Whoa, whoa - steady on here. Anecdotal, assertion based 'science' is rife the world over at the moment. Sure wind farms kill birds, but so do cars, tall buildings lit after dark - not to mention cats and idiot hunters. And there is no talk to removing those, well not the cats anyway!
What is needed (and I believe organisations like the RSPB and the BTO in the UK are trying to provide) is quantitative, statistically significant measurements of the impact of wind turbines, and where they can be effective but do least harm. A similar approach is necessary in my view for EMR, and I have tried to state why in 'Purple Heron's thread on that topic.

Furthermore it is not sufficient in my view to say 'no wind farms' without making some comment as to what you propose in their place, and demonstrate how the alternative will be capable of filling the gap, without having an even bigger impact on the natural world in both the short and long term. Climate change could make the population impacts of wind farms irrelevant if not addressed, for example.

I am no advocate of wind farms, or EMR, or continued hydrocarbon exploitation - just of informed debate based on fact-based science. I do not have the answers, but I do try to support those trying to get them in this way.

Click to expand...

Indeed. Nothing to add.

The cocksureness of the inexpert in such matters is wearisome. . ..

[nicked off twitter :-O]

It would be nice if politicians would adopt evidence-based policy too. However, I don't expect to see this within the lifetime of the universe.

stuartvine said:

It would be nice if politicians would adopt evidence-based policy too. However, I don't expect to see this within the lifetime of the universe.

Click to expand...

Agreed, but it clearly doesn't help if those who vote for them don't see it as necessary. If we do it then we can demand it of them. Most politicians I have met (quite a few) in present times seem to reflect public opinion rather than seek to develop it strategically.

Mick

Nutcracker said:

[nicked off twitter :-O]

Click to expand...

Exactly, and nice to see it in the hands of the younger generation.

Surely birds being killed by wind farms is a temporary issue, as the birds who manage to avoid them go on to successfully breed, and the dumb ones that can't see a giant sodding windmill in front of their faces are eliminated form the gene pool.

Remember, everybody, what your grandmother told you: don't feed the trolls!

I agree with MTem. What we need is informed debate based on scientific principals not hearsay, tittle tattle and the emotional outpourings of the ill informed or opinionated (on both sides)

The head in the sand approach and vested interests of the oil and coal industries for years has led the global powers that be to ignore, or even in some cases outright deny (take a bow Donald Trump) the existence of global warming and the catastrophic effects this may bring about to habitats, ecosystems and many species on a worldwide scale.

That said, who is to say that current climate change is not part of the natural cycle of things. There have after all been many ice ages and periods of tropical conditions over the millions of years of our planets history.

It is irrefutable however, that going forward, the generations we leave behind are going to need some sustainable means of energy production as fossil fuel resources dwindle.

Wind farms may or may not be the long term answer. However, at present they are rapidly becoming a fact of life. What we should be doing is looking at all the factors, both economic and ecological when, when identify potential locations. Surely it is not beyond the wit of man to understand that putting them slap bang in the middle of important migration routes or seabird feeding grounds is not a good idea if we wish to protect some of our most threatened avifauna.

What about solar farms, a few of which I have seen springing up recently. What research has been done into the effect that these may also have. I have heard stories that migrating waterfowl, have mistakenly tried to land on them thinking that the reflections are water bodies (purely anecdotal of course). I even heard one commentator postulating that solar panels could act like a laser beam emitting rays of reflected heat into the air and frying passing birds. (rubbish of course as they are designed to perform exactly the opposite task). has any research been undertaken in this area? Could large areas of shiny surfaces disorient birds?

My concern here is that as usual, the vested interests and lobbyists with the deepest pockets will win the day and the environment will be reduced to a side issue yet again.

We should all be urging those involved in such planning decisions to weigh up all the evidence in an unbiased and informed way before making decisions which could affect generations of wildlife.

Then again pigs might fly............ This of course will not matter because they will be shredded by giant rotor blades or zapped by killer solar rays.

Paul Longland said:

That said, who is to say that current climate change is not part of the natural cycle of things. There have after all been many ice ages and periods of tropical conditions over the millions of years of our planets history.

Click to expand...

It's all about rate of change. The current rise in global temperatures due to human activity is a good ten times faster than any in the fossil record. Most plants and animals just can't hope to reach new areas with their preferred climate anything like fast enough.

Paul Longland said:

What about solar farms, a few of which I have seen springing up recently. What research has been done into the effect that these may also have. I have heard stories that migrating waterfowl, have mistakenly tried to land on them thinking that the reflections are water bodies (purely anecdotal of course). I even heard one commentator postulating that solar panels could act like a laser beam emitting rays of reflected heat into the air and frying passing birds. (rubbish of course as they are designed to perform exactly the opposite task). has any research been undertaken in this area? Could large areas of shiny surfaces disorient birds?

Click to expand...

The 'frying passing birds' can happen with solar furnaces (like this one), which work by using large arrays of mirrors to reflect the sunlight over a large area onto one focal spot. This doesn't happen with solar panels.

Not sure about disorienting migrating birds, but there is certainly evidence that mirages on roads in deserts can do so, so solar panels probably could too. Personally, I'd be more worried about the area of land they take up, which then can't be used for most other purposes like wildlife habitat, or food crops either.

Nutcracker said:

Not sure about disorienting migrating birds, but there is certainly evidence that mirages on roads in deserts can do so, so solar panels probably could too. Personally, I'd be more worried about the area of land they take up, which then can't be used for most other purposes like wildlife habitat, or food crops either.

Click to expand...

But is that really true? The solar farms I've seen appear to be a useful grassland resource that will progressively become more so as wild flowers get the opportunity to colonise them over time. Surely they are likely to be a wildlife habitat capable of defragmenting large areas of agricultural monoculture desert?

John