Migrating birds are unlikely to be seriously affected by offshore wind farms, according to a study.
Scientists found that birds simply fly around the farm, or between the turbines; less than 1% are in danger of colliding with the giant structures.
Writing in the Royal Society's journal Biology Letters, the researchers say previous estimates of collision risk have been "over-inflated".
However, conservationists warn that turbines pose other risks to birdlife.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4072756.stm
http://www.awea.org/faq/sagrillo/swbirds.html
http://www.safewind.info/articles/answers.htm
Power lines kill much higher numbers of birds some experts say 130 to 174 million birds each year so realistically windfarms would be less of a risk that what we currently use now.
So I'd say based on what I've read on this before the risk to birds is very small....I don't understand why California doesn't fight the lawsuit especially given the release of the study that the BBC talks about.
posted by psyche777 at 12:09 A.M. EST on Sat Jul 09, 2005 #
http://www.laweekly.com/ink/05/32/news-lewis.php
More indepth article about the California situation including why the earlier windfarms had a higher bird kill rate than the present designs.
posted by psyche777 at 12:14 A.M. EST on Sat Jul 09, 2005 #
http://www.greenenergyohio.org/page.cfm?pageId=3
Bowling Green seems to have had no problems...
http://www.greenmountain.com/about/facilities/index.jsp
http://abclocal.go.com/wtvg/news/1121_windpower.html
abc's piece from last year:
BOWLING GREEN, Ohio (AP) - Some folks are calling it "Blowing" Green. A project to generate electricity from wind near Bowling Green in northwest Ohio has been so successful it's doubling in size.
The first two giant wind turbines operated by AMP Ohio and Green Mountain Energy Company surpassed their projected first-year energy output four months early. Last week two more turbines were dedicated. There's not enough room to add more. Once it's producing at peak capacity the wind farm can generate up to seven megawatts, that's enough to power about 2,200 hundred homes.
posted by psyche777 at 12:29 A.M. EST on Sat Jul 09, 2005 #
reason #94621 that hippies are stupid
posted by fequalsma73 at 06:32 A.M. EST on Sat Jul 09, 2005 #
Power lines are needed to transport electricity no matter how it's created. Hard to get around that fact. But there's no need to compound the problem with rediculous energy sources like wind farms.
Bowling Green's turbines are far enough inland to not be a major issue. The lakeshore concentrates migrating birds. Songbirds migrate at night. Some cross the lake, but many follow the lakeshore and go around Erie. It's a fact that western Lake Erie is one of the top bird migration areas in the country for songbirds, shorebirds, and ducks.
The giant towers out by Maumee Bay State Park kill migrating songbirds. Perry's monument on South Bass Island kills migrating birds. These structures won't come down, but they were probably built when knowledge about migrating birds was not well known. Toledo's new I-280 bridge may also be a problem for migrating birds.
Research is ongoing into how to come up with lightning schemes that prevent night time migrating birds from being attracted to the strutures. Birds use the stars as a guide in their night flights. Heavy overcast nights prevent the stars from being seen, and lights inside buildings, on towers, etc. confuse the birds, causing them to collide with the structures.
What kind of lightning scheme is used on the wind turbines? The issue with a wind farm in Maumee Bay may not be restricted to just songbirds migrating at night. Waterfowl and raptors move along the lakeshore during the day.
When it comes to producing electricity, wind turbines are woefully inferior to a coal-fired powerplant. So what's the attraction? Don't the wind farms become an eyesore, a blight on the land or in the water?
Boths sides have stats that favor their cause. Here are some:
According to MisplacedWindpower.org, "One New California Generating Plant Can Produce More Electricity than the State’s 13,000 Windmills. The California situation illustrates dramatically the small amount of electricity produced by large windmills and the small role that wind energy can play in supplying U.S. electricity requirements."
According to the book Global Warming and Other Eco Myths, "Global fossil fuel supplies are in no near-term danger of being depleted, and a single 555-megawatt natural gas power plant produces more electricity than 13,000 windmills."
Of course, we're not allowed to drill for natrual gas in Lake Erie thanks to Bob Taft, even though Canada has been doing it since the late 1960's. It's amazing. The simplest solutions are right around us, but instead, our spineless officials cave to the junk science spewed by environmental extremists.
The environmental report created a few years ago that was meant to influence Taft into banning natural gas drilling in Erie was a fraud. But it was enought to dupe the public and Taft.
Real environmental groups that rely on legitimate science will fight to prevent a wind farm from going up in Maumee Bay.
International Migratory Bird Day is celebrated every year in May. This year's theme focused on raising awareness to the manmade obstacles birds encounter during migration.
2005 IMBD poster:
posted by jr at 10:38 A.M. EST on Sat Jul 09, 2005 #
The main reason to support windfarms or solar power over resources like coal is an easy one. Wind is free, so is the Sun. While of course you have to buy the mechanical elements of collecting the source but once that's done the cost to the consumer is pretty much a non issue.
If you don't like the way wind farms look, that's one thing. But to claim that it's to save birds when in reality many millions of birds are killed in far greater numbers by transmission lines, big buildings, cars and cats than wind farms I question that.
I have a hard time supporting the Audobon Society suing CA over a wind farm especially since the majority of the recent real life studies show that bird kills from windfarms is not what was originally stated and the problems that did add to bird deaths from the original designs? Have been changed.
I realize the popular thought is we have coal, we have water, we can buy oil however I would point out that the Sun and the Wind are not going to ever run out. And if those two sources do run out? It really won't matter after that point.
posted by psyche777 at 10:52 A.M. EST on Sat Jul 09, 2005 #
trying right thread this time....
If you look at just one site to site comparison maybe you'll understand my point. The site in California being sued is responsible for up to 4,720 bird deaths a year.
http://www.planetark.com/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/30802/story.htm
Every year, some 10,000 birds are killed or injured in Toronto's downtown core alone. but this is one problem that we can solve.
By taking a few simple steps, like turning out lights at night, we can prevent this unnecessary toll, and save energy and money, too. Office building managers, owners, tenants and employees share a responsibility to solve this problem. The Fatal Light Awareness Program (FLAP) and World Wildlife Fund Canada (WWF) have published a report called Collision Course: The Hazards of Lighted Structures and Windows to Migratory Birds and are working to inform Canadians, especially those who work in office towers, about the dangers of buildings to migratory birds.
http://www.flap.org/new/black.htm
In California it's reported slight changes could prevent 50% of the bird deaths, in Toronto? Same thing alot of these bird deaths and injuries could be prevented.
posted by psyche777 at 11:22 A.M. EST on Sat Jul 09, 2005 #
Yes, cats. That's why I support open season on cats like what Wisconsin proposed. The cats that enter my yard do so at their own risk, and I'm a cat owner, but they're indoor cats.
If wind turbines were incredible producers of energy then their existence could be justified. Wind turbines cannot keep up with our energy demands. That's why the western states are planning to add 31 new coal-fired powerplants.
Wind turbines are token attempts by energy companies to appear to be environmentally friendly. Put up a few wind turbines and maybe the environmental whackos will shut up. Just like car companies producing a handful of expensive piece of shit hybrid cars to get environmentalists off their back. It makes the companies look like they care. Maybe environmentalists are easily duped too.
Technology exists to burn coal cleaner, but supposedly, it increases the cost of production. The government and the energy companies aren't doing more to make use of these methods that burn coal cleaner. That's where the environmentalists should direct their energy. Make these 31 new coal-fired powerplants use the new technology. But noooo, they want some propellers put up because they look cool or some such nonsense.
July 5, 2005 USA Today story about suppliers satisfying California's energy needs:
"Conventional coal-fired plants belch tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. Technologies that pulverize coal, turn it into a slurry and convert it to gas before burning it have the potential to capture and dispose of carbon dioxide. Those technologies raise the price of coal-generated power by about 10% a kilowatt-hour."
"However, none of the 31 new coal-fired plants planned in the West, including at least 10 that intend to sell power to California, would employ those new technologies."
"Technologies that convert coal to gas — gasification — are untried on a large commercial scale. Two small gasification plants operate in Florida and Indiana with federal subsidies. The means to separate carbon dioxide in the coal-burning process, capture it and inject it into the Earth to keep it out of the atmosphere is still experimental."
"Power-plant developers are reluctant to abandon conventional coal generation and its long and dependable history. Gasification "is certainly a viable technology for the future," says Art Larson, spokesman for Sempra Energy, developer of a 1,450-megawatt conventional coal plant in northern Nevada. "But there are issues with reliability and cost." "
Coal and reduced pollution if the companies used the new technology. How long has the technology existed? Could energy companies have used this technology years ago? Why hasn't the government done more to push the new technology? It will always be experimental if it's not used. This is where the fight should be not over windmills. We are the Saudi Arabia of coal. Use the new technology.
And where is solar power? I remember solar power being "the thing" back in the 1970's. What happened to it? I see it used on some signs along the highway.
"A "One Million Solar Roofs" bill moving through the Legislature with Schwarzenegger's support would require builders to offer solar heating and cooling systems to new homebuyers. The goal is to jump-start the solar industry and bring costs down."
I wondered about this years ago, during the housing boom around Toledo in the 1990's. Why weren't all the new homes in shadeless Soybeanville equipped with some kind of solar power capability? Even if it the solar cells only provided 1-10% of the home's energy, that's better than nothing. Is solar power still too expensive?
posted by jr at 11:43 A.M. EST on Sat Jul 09, 2005 #
Okay we disagree on the windfarms but I do agree the new coal plants should use the new technology and solar is not that expensive it's just not accepted here. People think the solar roof panels are "ugly" rather than realize how much energy they could save. Granted in cold areas like ours a back up heating system is required but until consumers start demanding it? Builders won't do it.
posted by psyche777 at 07:14 P.M. EST on Sat Jul 09, 2005 #
People think solar panels are ugly? Really? Must be the nerd in me. I think they're cool. I like the ones UT setup on campus. I like the ones at the 577 Foundation in Perrysburg. Here in west Toledo, we've got too many towering oak trees to make solar panels practical. Despite the tons of leaves that fall in October and November and the dents in my car from falling limbs, I love the big trees and the shade. We don't have air conditioning. Don't need it.
But if I was in the open, which is what you get in most housing divisions outside of Toledo, I'd take a look at solar panels.
If there's no tax incentive, or if they're too expensive, or if they require too much maintenance, then solar panels won't be accepted. I'm not talking about solar panels providing 100% of the home's energy. I'm thinking less than 10%, which adds up when you talk about thousands of new homes in northwest Ohio over several years.
Solar panels are ugly? Strange. Ever see the back side of the homes in most housing divisions? Now that's ugly. Solar panels would improve the look of most homes.
When you consider how much money homeowners waste on fertilizer and water every year for something as insignificant as lawngrass, solar panels might be a bargain. Plus the solar panels would actually provide something in return unlike lawngrass.
posted by jr at 09:02 P.M. EST on Sat Jul 09, 2005 #
We actually had problems when I lived in Maumee because a neighbor wanted to add solar panels and the neighborhood association did not support him for that very reason. I agree it's silly, but that seems to be the general belief by some. I've heard the same thing from other people when the discussion has turned to Solar. It is a very viable option, but like I said, until people demand it? Builders won't do it.
I also agree on the whole do all the fancy design work in the front and make the back all blah type design...That was the description of our Maumee home as well.
:-)
posted by psyche777 at 09:20 P.M. EST on Sat Jul 09, 2005 #
Why hasn't the government done more to push the new technology?
Think about that for a minute. Do you really want the government to pick the winners and the losers in the energy industry?
The government has done that kind of thing before. In the 1960’s it coerced electric utilities to build nuclear fission plants. This was supposed to result in cheap electricity for consumers. Did that happen? In the 1970’s the public was told that if the Alaskan oil pipeline were built, at a cost of several billion dollars, the American public wouldn’t have to worry about oil shocks caused by Middle East instability. Where is the dollar a gallon gas in 2005?
The best reason to be opposed to wind farms is not because a mega farm is going to kill a few thousand birds. In the overall scheme of things the loss of a few thousand birds is at most negligible. But because they simply are not economically viable.
posted by mike2004 at 07:03 A.M. EST on Sun Jul 10, 2005 #
Personally, I like nukes. Nor do I have a problem with coal, either, which apparently we've got tons of. But, apparently, wind turbines, right now, appear to be almost competitive price wise as sources of energy. Solar panels are still, IIRC, 5x more expensive. In other words, they're not cost competitive. I suppose that's why California likes 'em. ;-)
swd
posted by swd at 04:09 P.M. EST on Tue Jul 12, 2005 #
I like nukes too. Wind energy is competitive right now because of hefty federal subsidies. Just wait until those federal subsidies are dropped. The consumer will be left holding the bag, in the form of high electric rates. When something better than wind turbines comes out, the government will allow all the utilities that built them to recover stranded costs. Essentially forcing the consumers to pay for the utility’s and the government’s screw ups.
posted by mike2004 at 08:24 A.M. EST on Thu Jul 14, 2005 #
> Wind energy is competitive right now because of hefty federal subsidies
Ah, I should've known that!
swd
posted by swd at 03:44 P.M. EST on Thu Jul 14, 2005 #
Now, come on. If you are going to criticize subsidies to wind or solar power, at least be fair and talk about the hundreds of billions of dollars spent in corporate welfare to the global oil industry:
http://www.distributiondrive.com/Article4.html
Also, given the predictions that global oil production is peaking, while global demand continues to grow, wouldn't you rather have a head start on new technology?
http://www.energyinst.org.uk/index.cfm?PageID=948
Or should we trust the short term-obsessed free market to take care of everything?
posted by historymike at 04:46 P.M. EST on Thu Jul 14, 2005 #
Additional info to my comment above which was:
"Just like car companies producing a handful of expensive piece of shit hybrid cars to get environmentalists off their back."
From an article in today's Blade about these hybrid pos also known as token attempts to appease environmentalists:
"... he bought a 2000 Honda Insight, since he didn't know whether batteries powering the $21,000 hybrid's electric motor would last."
The batteries held up. That's not my point. The price of the car is: $21,000? And the hygrid's gas mileage. "... averaging 52.4 miles on a gallon of gasoline."
So is 52.4 mpg good? Is that acceptable in 2005?
$21,000 for a two-seat car that gets 52.4 mpg. Is that progress? I'm guessing most people think this vehicle is a wonderous invention.
Compare to my posting here back in March about a car I bought many years ago.
"In March of 1992, I bought a Honda Civic hatchback model VX. I think the sticker rated the car at 56 mpg highway. At that time, the speed limit on our highways was still 55 mph. I monitored my mileage. Driving 60 mph on Ohio's highways, I was getting 60 mpg. That was 1992 in an all-gas-powered vehicle."
1992 was the first year for the Civic VX hatchback. Honda still had their other hatchbacks like the CX, DX, and whatever. The VX was called a commuter car, taking the place of the two-seater Honda CRX. But the VX looked identical to the other Honda hatchbacks, except the VX had smaller, lightweight aluminiun alloy wheels. The VX definitely did not have the goofy look associated with most "green" cars.
The price of the 1992 Civic VX was around $11,000. Converting those 1992 dollars to today, I don't think it's $21,000. And that Civic VX hatchback was a four-seater not two.
So praise for the hybrid Honda Insight? Sure, compared to what else is currently available and if you're a sucker. But for me, the Insight gets zero praise. Condemnation is more like it. I never found out why that Civic VX hatchback disappeared from Honda's lineup before 1997.
posted by jr at 12:06 P.M. EST on Fri Jul 15, 2005 #
Syndicate ToledoTalk
