Well, yes, but I think the key thing is what QuantumG said: it's not really a problem at present except in small or isolated utility systems. A large interconnected utility system can absorb and make good use of a lot of wind power.--Tom Gray, American Wind Energy Association
Huge: Compatible with common activities such as ranching and farming.
Ugly: Many polls have found that most people do not consider wind farms to be ugly.
Tend to be located: Many wind farms can be, and will be, located where people are glad to have them because of the taxes and income they provide. Also, many people consider them "serene and scenic". Sample quote from a reporter:
"High in the sky above, giant rotor blades spin around and around and around at the top of huge gray towers . . . whoosh, whoosh, whoosh . . .
"This is the sight and the sound of wind energy at its source.
"I find it mesmerizing, standing on a service road at the Stateline Energy Center along the Oregon-Washington border. Rows upon rows of turbines--399 machines in all, each rising about as high as a 25-story building--snake across rolling brown hills near the Columbia River's westward bend toward the sea.
"I could stay for hours and hours, watching and listening, but our bus is leaving. . . . "
Wind vs. nothing always makes wind look bad, but that is an illusory choice. Wind vs. fuel mining/transportation/combustion/waste disposal, the real choice, tends to make it look much better.
The current info (1,100 birds/year) comes from an ongoing study that has been funded by the California Energy Commission. I don't know of any reason to doubt its conclusions.
The earlier study examined only a portion of the turbines (offhand, I think perhaps one-fifth) and it is likely that some small birds were overlooked due to scavenging or searcher error. Put those two facts together and it is not too hard to get to 1,100.
You're right, though, the number of collisions is likely lower--some of the deaths in the newer study are surely due to unknown causes.
coal emits so much nasty shit in the form of sulfur and mercury that it is not usable without a complete overhaul of the technology
Yes. Little chilling to realize that we are currently getting just over 50% of our electricity by burning ~1 billion tons of this "non-usable" source annually.
More info on the social and environmental effects of many energy sources is available at http://www.externe.info/externpr.pdf (results of multi-year, multi-nation study by the EU).
Hmmmm, five to 10 sounds too low to me, but you are right, repowering (with larger turbines) should reduce the number of kills.
The number of birds killed by housecats in the U.S. is more like 1 billion per year. No, they aren't raptors, which leads to the conclusion that wind turbines are not a threat to birds-in-general, but can be to specific species at specific sites.
No, this is a frequently-repeated misunderstanding. In general, migrating birds fly at heights well above turbines--e.g., tens of millions of birds migrate through San Gorgonio Pass (near Palm Springs) where there are also lots of wind turbines, but very few are killed.
The problem in Altamont is that it is an area of very high year-round raptor use. Also likely contributors:
- Lots of older, smaller turbines that spin faster than modern ones.
- Because they are smaller, they are spaced closer together.
There is no truly "clean" energy source, but wind is about as clean as you can get.
See http://www.externe.info/externpr.pdf for results of an exhaustive European study of social and environmental costs of various energy options.
Yes, correct, and as other folks have pointed out, the screening adds a lot of cost and reduces efficiency. You've mentioned rotor size--yeah, could be a problem 8^), as state-of-the-art machines have a rotor diameter of about 70 meters.
This solution isn't going to happen. There are many others--anti-perching devices on the relatively small machines in the pass, measures to reduce prey (pocket gophers, ground squirrels) around the turbine bases, and more--to be tried first.
Probably quite a bit, I agree. Just for clarity, though, it should be stated that to date, no bald eagles or condors are known to have ever been killed by any wind farms in the U.S.
Would cost a lot-- ~ double (or more) the mass of the turbine, which means double (or more) the cost. Also, not clear that it would reduce mortality much, since the raptors are apparently not looking where they are going. There are a number of other approaches that are more promising, and some will likely be formally tested over the next few months.
I haven't heard of anyone investigating a magnetic-field solution--direct-deterrence approaches have tended to focus on noises or visual stimuli.
Tom Gray
American Wind Energy Association
Slashdot Mirror
Well, yes, but I think the key thing is what QuantumG said: it's not really a problem at present except in small or isolated utility systems. A large interconnected utility system can absorb and make good use of a lot of wind power.--Tom Gray, American Wind Energy Association
Ugly: Many polls have found that most people do not consider wind farms to be ugly.
Tend to be located: Many wind farms can be, and will be, located where people are glad to have them because of the taxes and income they provide. Also, many people consider them "serene and scenic". Sample quote from a reporter:
"High in the sky above, giant rotor blades spin around and around and around at the top of huge gray towers . . . whoosh, whoosh, whoosh . . .
"This is the sight and the sound of wind energy at its source.
"I find it mesmerizing, standing on a service road at the Stateline Energy Center along the Oregon-Washington border. Rows upon rows of turbines--399 machines in all, each rising about as high as a 25-story building--snake across rolling brown hills near the Columbia River's westward bend toward the sea.
"I could stay for hours and hours, watching and listening, but our bus is leaving. . . . "
Wind vs. nothing always makes wind look bad, but that is an illusory choice. Wind vs. fuel mining/transportation/combustion/waste disposal, the real choice, tends to make it look much better.
The current info (1,100 birds/year) comes from an ongoing study that has been funded by the California Energy Commission. I don't know of any reason to doubt its conclusions. The earlier study examined only a portion of the turbines (offhand, I think perhaps one-fifth) and it is likely that some small birds were overlooked due to scavenging or searcher error. Put those two facts together and it is not too hard to get to 1,100. You're right, though, the number of collisions is likely lower--some of the deaths in the newer study are surely due to unknown causes.
Yes. Little chilling to realize that we are currently getting just over 50% of our electricity by burning ~1 billion tons of this "non-usable" source annually.
More info on the social and environmental effects of many energy sources is available at http://www.externe.info/externpr.pdf (results of multi-year, multi-nation study by the EU).
Hmmmm, five to 10 sounds too low to me, but you are right, repowering (with larger turbines) should reduce the number of kills. The number of birds killed by housecats in the U.S. is more like 1 billion per year. No, they aren't raptors, which leads to the conclusion that wind turbines are not a threat to birds-in-general, but can be to specific species at specific sites.
No, this is a frequently-repeated misunderstanding. In general, migrating birds fly at heights well above turbines--e.g., tens of millions of birds migrate through San Gorgonio Pass (near Palm Springs) where there are also lots of wind turbines, but very few are killed. The problem in Altamont is that it is an area of very high year-round raptor use. Also likely contributors: - Lots of older, smaller turbines that spin faster than modern ones. - Because they are smaller, they are spaced closer together.
There is no truly "clean" energy source, but wind is about as clean as you can get. See http://www.externe.info/externpr.pdf for results of an exhaustive European study of social and environmental costs of various energy options.
Yes, correct, and as other folks have pointed out, the screening adds a lot of cost and reduces efficiency. You've mentioned rotor size--yeah, could be a problem 8^), as state-of-the-art machines have a rotor diameter of about 70 meters. This solution isn't going to happen. There are many others--anti-perching devices on the relatively small machines in the pass, measures to reduce prey (pocket gophers, ground squirrels) around the turbine bases, and more--to be tried first.
Probably quite a bit, I agree. Just for clarity, though, it should be stated that to date, no bald eagles or condors are known to have ever been killed by any wind farms in the U.S.
Would cost a lot-- ~ double (or more) the mass of the turbine, which means double (or more) the cost. Also, not clear that it would reduce mortality much, since the raptors are apparently not looking where they are going. There are a number of other approaches that are more promising, and some will likely be formally tested over the next few months. I haven't heard of anyone investigating a magnetic-field solution--direct-deterrence approaches have tended to focus on noises or visual stimuli. Tom Gray American Wind Energy Association