Whopper of a wind farm opens off Britain: Wind turbines nearly as tall as a 40-story building

[Better Believe It]

Whopper of a wind farm opens off Britain
World's largest offshore project has 100 turbines — so far
msnbc.com staff and news service reports
September 23, 2010

LONDON — The world's largest offshore wind farm had its grand opening Thursday — and its location on the estuary of the Thames River makes it a showcase for Britain's push to move beyond fossil fuels.

So far, 100 wind turbines have been planted in waters up to 80 feet deep across the estuary in southern England. The idea is to produce enough electricity, 300 megawatts, to power the equivalent of 200,000 homes.

Each turbine is nearly as tall as a 40-story building and the blades are at least 65 feet above the water for clearance with vessels. No turbine is closer than 1,600 feet to another and the entire "farm" covers an area of 22 square miles.

Up to 341 turbines will be installed over the next four years.

"We are in a unique position to become a world leader in this industry," British Energy and Climate Change Secretary Chris Huhne said in a statement before he attended the grand opening. "We are an island nation and I firmly believe we should be harnessing our wind, wave and tidal resources to the maximum."

Britain now gets three percent of its electricity from renewables but aims to get 15 percent by 2020. As part of that, the government this year awarded licenses to wind farm developers in a program that could deliver up to 32 gigawatts of generation capacity and require investment of more than $117 billion.



A boat powering through the Thames estuary on Thursday provides perspective of just how big the wind turbines there are.

Read the full article at:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39324391/ns/us_news-environment

[Cronus Protagonist]

1. Yay!

I like these renewable, perpetual electricity generating machines!

[Better Believe It]

2. But nukes are in really pretty buildings.

[66 dmhlt]

41. To me, this is quite pretty

[Pavulon]

79. and generate triple the power of the sea bound bird choppers

triple per reactor, so the new reactors in NC can generate 6 times as much on just a few acres.

[Kermitt Gribble]

155. How much toxic waste do wind farms produce? n/t

[Pavulon]

157. All the shit that the factories in china that will make them dump..

you think they will make this gear in the US? Fuck no, a 2 dollar a day meat puppet will be your labor if the demand picks up..

Where 80K your first day is the norm for the nuclear power industry. A job that cant be outsourced to the third world. Training provided by the USN (who had 5000 reactor years with no accidents) and any other source that would train on a modular labor.

BTW most of the labor in nuke plants in the NE is Union.

[Dappleganger]

3. Oh no, if one of those should break it would be an ecological disaster!

:sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm:

[Twinguard]

7. Just imagine the splash!!

Nearby residents would be devastated.

:hide:

[progressoid]

4. 100 turbines? BFD

We have over 1100 in Iowa. But good for them for getting them going.

[Lagomorph]

5. We've finally pushed urban expansion...

...into the oceans.

Clean? Yes

But it's like watching heroin junkies finding a huge prairie full of poppies.

Earth is going to look like a Borg planet before we're done.

[bbinacan]

8. .

:eyes:

[Lagomorph]

20. What can I say....

Post Industrial urbanization makes no sense what-so-ever.

:eyes:

[LanternWaste]

45. Makes about as much sense...

"Post Industrial urbanization makes no sense what-so-ever..."

Makes about as much sense as dystopic prognostications.

[Odin2005]

23. Oh good grief.

:eyes:

[Regret My New Name]

25. I'm going to agree with you...

not because I agree with you, but because it's funny.

[apocalypsehow]

33. LOL! Good grief, I've seen it all now.

:eyes:

[Dreamer Tatum]

108. There should be a wind farm right next to you. nt

[Lagomorph]

159. Sorry, not enough wind.

but it would be interesting to see what a mag 7.0 or 8.0 earthquake did to a wind farm.

Better the wind farms be on industrial center and city rooftops where the power demand is.

I note that many urbanites prefer to live far from the consequences of their lust for resources.

[uncommon]

156. They aren't even ugly...

:shrug:

[ClarkUSA]

6. I have mixed feelings about wind turbines. They kill untold numbers of bats and birds at night.

Farmers who have them on their property are always finding maimed bits of bats & birds, many of them decapitated or worse, at the base of these massive structures. The birds are large and small, include migratory flocks or resident raptors, some of them endangered or protected species, depending on the location. Bat populations are being decimated by them in certain areas.

It's a tough call. I wish solar energy and hydrogen fuel cell technology were further along. I have hope, however, that the historically high investment in green tech R&D and manufacturing by the Obama administration will yield fruit in this direction in the years to come.

[Arctic Dave]

9. But the fox and coyote population is fat and happy.

[ClarkUSA]

11. lol! True, but as an enviro activist, I am concerned w/endangered & protected species populations.

Bats, particularly, have been badly affected wherever these turbines go up. There are many endangered species of bats in the UK, for example. Like I said, I have mixed feelings.

[valerief]

10. Yeah, fracking kills no one. nt

[progressoid]

12. Um, no.

Power lines, pesticides, automobiles, big buildings, etc. Those things do much more damage to bird populations than the turbines.

I read somewhere that turbines average only a couple bird deaths per turbine each year. Hell, that many die flying into my kitchen window every year.



edit: found this http://www.awea.org/faq/sagrillo/swbirds.html regarding birds/bats and wind generators.
It's not the article I was looking for but basically the same info.

[ClarkUSA]

15. How so? BTW, the article you linked to is very outdated.

Bat populations have been decimated wherever wind turbines have appeared in their territorial hunting range.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

13. "untold numbers"

It's not exactly untold. It's less then are killed by windows or cars, for example.

[ClarkUSA]

16. I doubt that is true for raptors or bats. nt

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

18. Those vast flocks of North Sea bats?

They're a rare sight these days.

[ClarkUSA]

19. I wasn't referring to this project in particular as the UK breeds their rare bat species in reserves

I was speaking generally and only of my own feelings. Is that okay with you? :eyes:

[Gold Metal Flake]

14. Not nearly as many as feral cats.

[ClarkUSA]

17. For birds in general, perhaps, but cats rarely capture raptors or bats. nt

[Tesha]

21. Odd; here in New England, White Nose Fungus seems to be having a much bigger impact...

...on bats than are wind turbines.

And at sea, there aren't many bats.

Tesha

[ClarkUSA]

26. Why is it "odd"? I wasn't doing a fatality comparison w/White Nose Fungus, was I?

Furthermore, I don't have mixed feelings about White Nose Fungus, because the incurable affliction is not a man-made causality. In a way, I wish it were, if only because we could stop it somehow. :(

<< And at sea, there aren't many bats. >>

See Reply #15: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=9189312&mesg_id=9190085

[Tesha]

30. No, you were vastly misrepresenting the death rate to bats caused by wide turbines...

...as compared to the death rate to bats from many other sources.

I was being gentle with you.

And, in fact, as others have pointed out, similar arguments apply
for birds as well. Domestic cats doubtless kill *ORDERS OF MAG-
NITUDE* more birds than do all the existing wind turbines.

Tesha

[ClarkUSA]

35. How so? Prove it, then. Show me recent verifying data to prove your claim.

Your attitude is not only oddly hostile but also rather strange, given your lack of evidence. Specifically, show me recent ornithological data quantifying man-made nocturnal raptor mortality rates. Then show me the same recent ornithological data on man-made bat mortality rates.

I doubt you can. Therefore, my reference to "untold" numbers is quite literally accurate.

[Tesha]

37. Someone else has already posted data for you. (NT)

[ClarkUSA]

39. Really? I haven't seen any recent ornithological data specific to what I detailed to you.

:shrug:

[Dappleganger]

27. Bats fly above the ocean?

That's news to me.

[ClarkUSA]

28. See Reply #15.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=9189312&mesg_id=9190085

[Canuckistanian]

29. Here are the "told" numbers

Source:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/11/4/94748/0848

Research:

A Summary and Comparison of Bird Mortality from
Anthropogenic Causes with an Emphasis on Collisions
http://www.fs.fed.us/psw/publications/documents/psw_gtr191/Asilomar/pdfs/1029-1042

[ClarkUSA]

32. That data is a bit outdated, given the increase in wind projects since 2002.

Thanks, anyway.

As a New Yorker who lobbied for years with other Audubon members and concerned animal lovers to have skyscrapers to dim their lights at night, I have little doubt buildings are the #1 killer of migrating birds. However, my point was not to compare and contrast, but to point out the reasoning behind my mixed feelings about wind turbines in general. I doubt that any data can accurately capture the number of bats and birds being killed due to post-mortality predation coupled with an inconsistent count methodology by human monitors.

Nocturnal hunters like bats & some raptors are most affected, with bat populations in particular being decimated in their hunting territories when they share it with wind turbines because their echolocation apparently is unable to adequately detect whirring blades before it is too late.

[Canuckistanian]

34. I STILL don't understand why you single out wind turbines

Even if the bird deaths from turbines increased ten-fold from the 2002 survey, it STILL wouldn't be a major cause of bird fatalities.

And I haven't heard of any raptor or bat researchers warning of the dangers of wind turbines specifically. If there are, can you direct me to them?

Do you also rail against skyscrapers or other tall structures with such ferocity?

[ClarkUSA]

38. Um, because the OP is about wind turbines?

I am not the one who is railing on this subthread. Nor am I the one making counterpoints "with such ferocity". Just check out Tesha's latest.

As for the dangers of wind turbines to nocturnal raptors and local bat populations:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/windfarm-turbines-deadly-for-birds-bats/article1598597/

http://www1.eere.energy.gov/windandhydro/pdfs/birds_and_bats_fact_sheet.pdf

http://www.savewesternny.org/wildlife.html

http://www.duke.edu/web/nicholas/bio217/ptb4/birdsolutions.html

[apocalypsehow]

42. Hilarious - your first two links (I've not checked the other two out yet) undercut your *OWN*

assertions:

From link #1 - "data gathered from wind farms generally shows bird mortality is relatively low, especially compared to the numbers killed when birds fly into high-rise buildings or because of climate change.

Bill Evans, an ornithologist in Ithaca, N.Y., who has reviewed the Wolfe Island report, said it is difficult to come to a firm conclusion about bird mortality at the site because only a half-year of data has been collected.

However, he said “Nature Canada’s stance is probably right” because the initial data does show high levels of deaths. Mr. Evans said the seven birds per turbine that were killed in the six-month study period"

Seven birds in a six month period? That's barely more than one a month.

From link #2 - "Studies have indicated that relatively low raptor (e.g., hawks, eagles) fatality rates exist at most wind energy developments with the exception of some facilities in parts of California (Figure 1, page 3). All developments studied have reported fewer than 14 bird (all species combined) fatalities per nameplate MW per year, and most have reported less than 4 fatalities per MW per year (Figure 2, page 3). Although several developments have reported relatively numerous bat fatalities, most studies have reported low rates of such bat fatalities" (Figure 3, page 3) - all emphases added.

Do you make a habit of posting "proof" of your assertions that prove the exact opposite of what you claim?

:shrug:

That's a curious way to "debate"....

[ClarkUSA]

48. No, they don't. The information was offered to a poster who asked for a causality link.

What were my "assertions"? Quote me.

You're making a strawman argument, which reveals something about your reading comprehension skills more than anything else.

[apocalypsehow]

51. Yes, they do. They directly contradict your baseless assertions and fact-free claims.

"You're making a strawman argument,"

You obviously are not aware of what a "strawman argument" consists of: Google is your friend - try it.

"which reveals something about your reading comprehension skills more than anything else"

And right on cue, a juvenile reference to "reading comprehension." I find that the more frustrated a poster gets with their shellacking in a debate, the quicker they are to resort to personal attacks. And here you are, right on time....

[ClarkUSA]

93. That's dishonest spin. I stand by what I said re: "untold" numbers.

Because there is no exact global data on the mortality rates of birds and bats caused by wind turbines.

[apocalypsehow]

95. It's the absolute truth, and you know it - which is why you've spent the last nth posts trying to

argue about the definition of an adjective rather than discuss the issues under debate.

[ClarkUSA]

100. You live in a world of "absolute truth" eh? Yet you can't say what "untold" means to you.

Fascinating.

[apocalypsehow]

102. Do you have any other content regarding this article you wish to discuss, yes or no?

Any day now, I reckon, you'll want to stop talking about the definitions of adjectives, and discuss the actual issues at hand. Or not.

[ClarkUSA]

103. Do you always talk to yourself? Hmm....

[apocalypsehow]

105. Do you have any other content regarding this article you wish to discuss, yes or no?

:shrug:

Since you are unable to keep track of how this reply thingy works - when you post to me and I post back that is scarcely talking to "myself" - and do not wish to discuss the article, why do you continue posting? A case study in bizarre posting behavior, to say the least....

[ClarkUSA]

110. I was doing so, but then you started attacking me with strawman arguments and false accusations.

[apocalypsehow]

112. You were not doing so - you were making claims that were untrue, and posting links that actually

disproved your position, all the while pretending they backed you up. Reasonable people would call that dishonest.

Now, Do you have any other content regarding this article you wish to discuss, yes or no?

[ClarkUSA]

134. No, I merely said I had mixed feelings about wind turbines because they kill untold numbers of fauna

Which is true.

[apocalypsehow]

144. Non-responsive. And your painfully obvious attempt to get these sub-threads deleted by spamming

[ClarkUSA]

150. My words are here for all to read; also here are links to research studies that explain my feelings:

This was my first reply on this entire thread. It was an heartfelt reply to the OP:

ClarkUSA (1000+ posts) Thu Sep-23-10 05:43 PM
Response to Original message

6. I have mixed feelings about wind turbines. They kill untold numbers of bats and birds at night.

Farmers who have them on their property are always finding maimed bits of bats & birds, many of them decapitated or worse, at the base of these massive structures. The birds are large and small, include migratory flocks or resident raptors, some of them endangered or protected species, depending on the location. Bat populations are being decimated by them in certain areas.

It's a tough call. I wish solar energy and hydrogen fuel cell technology were further along. I have hope, however, that the historically high investment in green tech R&D and manufacturing by the Obama administration will yield fruit in this direction in the years to come.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=9189312&mesg_id=9189689

And here is why I have mixed feelings about wind turbines:

Wind turbines and Avian and Bat Impacts - Avian Solutions

It was previously thought that old turbines with smaller rotors and higher operational speeds contributed to avian mortality. However, new studies have shown inconclusive evidence about the effects of size and speed of the turbines. Many studies now take into account bird kills per MW to account for varying sizes of turbines and therefore wind swept area (circular area that the turbine blades cover in one full rotation). The old lattice structure of many turbines was also thought to be a threat to birds due to their propensity to use the structures for perching. Current literature on the subject shows this idea to be uncertain as well. (NWCC, 2004)(Smallwood and Thelander, 2005). The critical solution to avoiding avian collisions is the SITE ASSESSMENT. This is the only tool to allow wind developers and other stakeholders to determine if they are building farms in sensitive avian habitat.

The California Energy Commission recently came out with a suggested list of Impact Avoidance and Mitigation terms for new wind farms. They state that on a macro scale wind farms should not be placed in areas highly used by declining or threatened avian species; Nothing takes the place of well run pre-permitting avian studies, as mitigation techniques employed after the wind farm is built can be costly and require periodic and/or seasonal shut downs of the turbines. On the micro-scale there are many avoidance strategies that can be employed to reduce impacts to the surrounding ecosystems:

Minimize fragmentation and habitat disturbance by placing roads, turbines and other infrastructure in a pattern that does not fragment habitat corridors.
Establish buffer zones around known avian habitats to minimize collision hazards
Reduce impacts with appropriate turbine layout by studying daily flight patterns of birds
Reduce artificial prey habitat at the base of turbines, which may in turn attract foraging raptors. Designs that minimize disturbed or unvegetated banks should be incorporated into the construction of turbine pads. Rodenticides are not recommended as a way to remove potential prey from wind sites.
Avoid lighting that attracts birds and bats. Although lighting effects are poorly understood at this time, migrating song birds and bats appear to be attracted to steady burning lights. New FAA standards require synchronized flashing red lights to be mounted to the nacelle for turbines on the perimeter of the wind farm with unlighted gaps of no more than ½ mile.
All electrical wires and power lines should be placed underground
Avoid guyed structures as they are known to pose a serious threat to avian species
Decommission non-operational turbines so they no longer present a collision hazard.
Compensation can be obtained via purchase of land through fee title or purchase of conservation easements and the permanent protection of the biological resources on these lands. The land or easements should have a high biological value for the target species that have been affected by the wind energy project.

Source: Anderson, et. al, 2006

http://www.duke.edu/web/nicholas/bio217/ptb4/birdsolutions.html

Wind Turbine Interactions with
Birds, Bats, and their Habitats:
A Summary of Research Results and Priority Questions

Spring 2010
www.nationalwind.org

<snip>

Two general types of local impacts to birds have been demonstrated at existing wind facilities: (1) direct mortality from collisions and (2) indirect impacts from avoidance of an area, habitat disruption, reduced nesting/breeding density, habitat abandonment, loss of refugia, habitat unsuitability,
and behavioral effects (Stewart et al. 2004, 2007). For bats, only direct mortality resulting from collisions and barotrauma (i.e., experiencing rapid pressure changes that cause severe internal organ damage; Baerwald et al. 2008) has been demonstrated.

http://www1.eere.energy.gov/windandhydro/pdfs/birds_and_bats_fact_sheet.pdf

[apocalypsehow]

109. Still working overtime to get this embarrassing series of post you've made deleted by spamming.

Obvious as the day is long. :eyes:

[ClarkUSA]

111. That's a red herring to distract from the fact you cannot prove anything you've accused me of.

[apocalypsehow]

114. I've already proven everything I "accused" you of - and you did too, with your own words. Now you're

trying to get the sub-thread deleted because your own posts embarrass you. Pitiful stuff.

[ClarkUSA]

115. Where? Link?

[apocalypsehow]

117. Take that mouse thingy you got in your hand, and use the scroll function. Up & down the thread.

You'll spot it, if you just squint hard enough.

Now, Do you have any other content regarding this article you wish to discuss, yes or no?

[ClarkUSA]

125. No, I'm afraid not. You haven't a clue. But you're good at circular rhetoric.

[apocalypsehow]

128. Yes, I'm afraid so. You haven't a clue. But you're good at logical fallacies - engaging in them.

[ClarkUSA]

133. No, I merely said I had mixed feelings about wind turbines because they kill untold numbers of fauna

Which is true.

[apocalypsehow]

136. Non-responsive. n/t.

[ClarkUSA]

152. My words are here for all to read; also here are links to research studies that explain my feelings:

This was my first reply on this entire thread. It was an heartfelt reply to the OP:

ClarkUSA (1000+ posts) Thu Sep-23-10 05:43 PM
Response to Original message

6. I have mixed feelings about wind turbines. They kill untold numbers of bats and birds at night.

Farmers who have them on their property are always finding maimed bits of bats & birds, many of them decapitated or worse, at the base of these massive structures. The birds are large and small, include migratory flocks or resident raptors, some of them endangered or protected species, depending on the location. Bat populations are being decimated by them in certain areas.

It's a tough call. I wish solar energy and hydrogen fuel cell technology were further along. I have hope, however, that the historically high investment in green tech R&D and manufacturing by the Obama administration will yield fruit in this direction in the years to come.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=9189312&mesg_id=9189689

And here is why I have mixed feelings about wind turbines:

Wind turbines and Avian and Bat Impacts - Avian Solutions

It was previously thought that old turbines with smaller rotors and higher operational speeds contributed to avian mortality. However, new studies have shown inconclusive evidence about the effects of size and speed of the turbines. Many studies now take into account bird kills per MW to account for varying sizes of turbines and therefore wind swept area (circular area that the turbine blades cover in one full rotation). The old lattice structure of many turbines was also thought to be a threat to birds due to their propensity to use the structures for perching. Current literature on the subject shows this idea to be uncertain as well. (NWCC, 2004)(Smallwood and Thelander, 2005). The critical solution to avoiding avian collisions is the SITE ASSESSMENT. This is the only tool to allow wind developers and other stakeholders to determine if they are building farms in sensitive avian habitat.

The California Energy Commission recently came out with a suggested list of Impact Avoidance and Mitigation terms for new wind farms. They state that on a macro scale wind farms should not be placed in areas highly used by declining or threatened avian species; Nothing takes the place of well run pre-permitting avian studies, as mitigation techniques employed after the wind farm is built can be costly and require periodic and/or seasonal shut downs of the turbines. On the micro-scale there are many avoidance strategies that can be employed to reduce impacts to the surrounding ecosystems:

Minimize fragmentation and habitat disturbance by placing roads, turbines and other infrastructure in a pattern that does not fragment habitat corridors.
Establish buffer zones around known avian habitats to minimize collision hazards
Reduce impacts with appropriate turbine layout by studying daily flight patterns of birds
Reduce artificial prey habitat at the base of turbines, which may in turn attract foraging raptors. Designs that minimize disturbed or unvegetated banks should be incorporated into the construction of turbine pads. Rodenticides are not recommended as a way to remove potential prey from wind sites.
Avoid lighting that attracts birds and bats. Although lighting effects are poorly understood at this time, migrating song birds and bats appear to be attracted to steady burning lights. New FAA standards require synchronized flashing red lights to be mounted to the nacelle for turbines on the perimeter of the wind farm with unlighted gaps of no more than ½ mile.
All electrical wires and power lines should be placed underground
Avoid guyed structures as they are known to pose a serious threat to avian species
Decommission non-operational turbines so they no longer present a collision hazard.
Compensation can be obtained via purchase of land through fee title or purchase of conservation easements and the permanent protection of the biological resources on these lands. The land or easements should have a high biological value for the target species that have been affected by the wind energy project.

Source: Anderson, et. al, 2006

http://www.duke.edu/web/nicholas/bio217/ptb4/birdsolutions.html

Wind Turbine Interactions with
Birds, Bats, and their Habitats:
A Summary of Research Results and Priority Questions

Spring 2010
www.nationalwind.org

<snip>

Two general types of local impacts to birds have been demonstrated at existing wind facilities: (1) direct mortality from collisions and (2) indirect impacts from avoidance of an area, habitat disruption, reduced nesting/breeding density, habitat abandonment, loss of refugia, habitat unsuitability,
and behavioral effects (Stewart et al. 2004, 2007). For bats, only direct mortality resulting from collisions and barotrauma (i.e., experiencing rapid pressure changes that cause severe internal organ damage; Baerwald et al. 2008) has been demonstrated.

http://www1.eere.energy.gov/windandhydro/pdfs/birds_and_bats_fact_sheet.pdf

[Canuckistanian]

53. First off, I'm Canadian

And I wouldn't give the Globe and Mail as a link on DU. They're as conservative and pro-corporate as the WSJ Editorial board. I wouldn't trust them with the hockey scores. I had a quick look at the article. I wasn't surprised.

Second, this "Save Western NY" site is typical of corporate Astroturf sites - no lists of members, no research papers, a few dead-end links and LOTS of opinion. We have one just like it in Ontario, Canada.
Untraceable, no local meetings, no accountability.

However, I am impressed with the NWCC document and the Duke University site.

Thanks, I'll have a further look at them.

[ClarkUSA]

98. Thanks for the insight, Canuckistanian.

<< However, I am impressed with the NWCC document and the Duke University site.

Thanks, I'll have a further look at them. >>

Then I'm satisfied. Take care. :hi:

[apocalypsehow]

36. That data is recent enough to be relevant, particularly considering the staggering differential

between your dubious claims above that grossly exaggerates the actual death rate of birds, bats, raptors, etc. when it comes to wind turbines.

But, let's face it:

1. You wouldn't care if the data was released yesterday, you just want to carp about wind turbines,

and

2. You have reached the point in this discussion where your assertions have been shredded, and what you're engaged in now is simply arguing for the sake of arguing, hoping to get that precious "last word."

[ClarkUSA]

40. Prove it, then. Show me recent verifying data to prove your "dubious" claims.

Start with this one:

<< your... claims... grossly exaggerates the actual death rate of birds, bats, raptors, etc. when it comes to wind turbines.>>

Your attitude is not only oddly hostile but also rather strange, given your lack of evidence. Specifically, show me recent ornithological data quantifying man-made nocturnal raptor mortality rates. Then show me the same recent ornithological data on man-made bat mortality rates.

I doubt you can. Therefore, my reference to "untold" numbers is quite literally accurate.

<<But, let's face it:

You wouldn't care if the data was released yesterday, you just want to carp about wind turbines>>

Wrong. I am a huge supporter of green tech. I simply have mixed feelings about wind turbines.

<< You have reached the point in this discussion where your assertions have been shredded, and what you're engaged in now is simply arguing for

[apocalypsehow]

43. It's already been "proven" - you just don't like the facts that don't fit your assertions.

Your numbers are inaccurate, and your own links disprove your claim. Please try again.

"oddly hostile" - that rich, coming from a poster who has spent the bulk of the evening railing against a clean form of energy. :eyes:

[ClarkUSA]

47. I didn't mention any "numbers". Do you have any of the data I requested?

<< that rich, coming from a poster who has spent the bulk of the evening railing against a clean form of energy>>

When and how did I do that? Quote where I was "railing". You're indulging in baseless hyperbole. Again.

[apocalypsehow]

49. "They kill untold numbers of bats and birds at night." - ClarkUSA, Post #6, @4:43 pm.

Another assertion of yours proven false: you really should keep better track of the things you say publicly before you deny having said them. :thumbsup:

As to the "data": You made the claim, so the burden of coming up with numbers and data is on you. But, in point of fact, your own links contain the "data" you are seeking: it would behoove you to go read them. Thanks.

[ClarkUSA]

56. Huh? What I said is true, unless you have recent ornithological data showing the exact numbers.

Do you know what "untold" means?

<< You made the claim, so the burden of coming up with numbers and data is on you. >>

You're a bit confused. How does one prove "untold" numbers, pray tell?

Since you accused me of making false assertions, it is up to YOU to prove it by providing exact global number of nocturnal flying predator deaths from recent ornithological data.

So where is it?

[apocalypsehow]

58. No, what you said is that you had never made any claims about "numbers," yet there you were above

making just such a claim. That one hour edit rule really sucks, huh? :rofl:

As for the rest, all of it has been asked & answered. You are now just rehashing topics already dealt with in a frantic attempt to salvage a scrap of credibility from this encounter, an encounter you have not fared well in.

Get back to me when yah got some new material, okay? Thanks. :thumbsup:

[ClarkUSA]

61. lol! That's right, I didn't name a specific number. What does "untold" mean to you?

Your blather doesn't obscure the fact that you have yet to show me recent ornithological data quantifying man-made nocturnal raptor mortality rates. Then show me the same recent ornithological data on man-made bat mortality rates. I doubt you can. Therefore, my reference to "untold" numbers is quite literally accurate.

:)

[apocalypsehow]

64. LOL! indeed: you got caught saying you didn't say something you plainly did, and which is available

for one and all to review above. No you want to parse and squirm and move goalposts - when what you should be doing is reading your own links that prove your assertions false. Nice try.

"Then show me the same recent ornithological data on man-made bat mortality rates"

We'll try this again, and this time I'll go slow:

READ. YOUR. OWN. LINKS.

Did you catch that, or do you want a do-over? :shrug:

[ClarkUSA]

68. Don't think so. I repeat: What does "untold" mean to you, literally speaking?

[apocalypsehow]

69. Asked & answered; read your own links; and Google "strawman" while you're at it. Thanks.

:thumbsup:

[ClarkUSA]

71. You keep tripping over your own fact-free rhetoric. So what does "untold" mean to you, literally?

[apocalypsehow]

72. Asked & answered; read your own links; and Google "strawman" while you're at it. Thanks.

:thumbsup:

[ClarkUSA]

74. You keep spouting fact-free rhetoric. I repeat, what does "untold" mean to you, literally?

[apocalypsehow]

75. Asked & answered; read your own links; and Google "strawman" while you're at it. Thanks.

:thumbsup:

[ClarkUSA]

81. Playtime is over. It's clear you got nuthin'.

[apocalypsehow]

82. "Playtime" was over after about the first fifteen times your assertions were proven factually wrong,

and by your own links!

It's clear that you are very angry about this shellacking you've taken this evening, which is why you have burned up so many pixels arguing about the definition of an adjective. :thumbsup:

[ClarkUSA]

86. How so? Again, what is the literal meaning of "untold"? Why don't you answer?

[apocalypsehow]

87. You got caught falsely claiming you did not state something you plainly did, and now want to argue

about the definition of an adjective in an attempt to squirm out of it. Do you have any other content regarding this article you wish to discuss, or do you just want to keep spamming this sub-thread with an irrelevant sally into something not remotely related to the discussion under way? :shrug:

[ClarkUSA]

90. That's dishonest spin. I stand by what I said re: "untold" numbers.

Because there is no exact global data on the mortality rates of birds and bats caused by wind turbines.

[apocalypsehow]

92. It's the absolute truth, and you know it - which is why you've spent the last nth posts trying to

argue about the definition of an adjective rather than discuss the issues under debate.

[ClarkUSA]

96. You're making another false claim. Why are you making this so personal?

There is no exact global data on the mortality rates of birds and bats caused by wind turbines, thus my remark about "untold numbers" is true.

[apocalypsehow]

97. The claim is quite factual, which is why it upsets you so. You are quite angry, and are now

projecting your anger onto others. Now, I'll ask you again: Do you have any other content regarding this article you wish to discuss, yes or no?

[ClarkUSA]

135. No, I merely said I had mixed feelings about wind turbines because they kill untold numbers of fauna

Which is true.

[apocalypsehow]

84. Nice try to spam the sub-thread to get your embarrassing content removed, BTW.

Had I embarrassed myself as badly as you have this evening, I'd probably try to get it deleted, too.

[ClarkUSA]

88. Red herring. So what does "untold" literally mean to you? Why are you avoiding answering?

[apocalypsehow]

89. Do you have any other content regarding this article you wish to discuss,

or do you just want to keep spamming this sub-thread with an irrelevant sally into something not remotely related to the discussion under way? :shrug:

You might want to Google "red herring" while you're at it: you don't seem to understand what one of them is anymore than you know what a strawman is. :thumbsup:

[apocalypsehow]

91. One can always tell the debate has ended when the one on the losing end wants to argue about

definitions of adjectives, instead of dealing with the issue at hand. Pitiful stuff.

[apocalypsehow]

94. Do you have any other content regarding this article you wish to discuss, yes or no?

:shrug:

[ClarkUSA]

101. Keep going. I'm always fascinated when someone speaks to themselves.

What a case study this subthread would be....

[apocalypsehow]

104. So, the answer is "no" - you just wish to engage in personal attacks, among other numerous logical

fallacies.

I made a bet here on how long the poster "ClarkUSA" would be able to restrain himself...even though the embarrassment of his inability to muster up a single fact that supported his assertions. Sure enough, it wasn't long....:rofl:

A "case study," indeed...

[ClarkUSA]

113. Another strawman argument. I've lost count by now. Thanks for kicking an important OP, though.

[apocalypsehow]

118. Do you have any other content regarding this article you wish to discuss, yes or no?

And if no, why do you keep posting in this sub-thread?

[apocalypsehow]

120. You have not "lost track" because you have no earthly idea what a "strawman argument" is.

Now, do you have any other content regarding this article you wish to discuss, yes or no?

[ClarkUSA]

123. Do you work for Vestas or something? Is that why you're so bent out of shape?

[apocalypsehow]

129. Do you work for Big Oil? Or the nuclear power industry? Is that why you're so bent out of shape?

[ClarkUSA]

137. No, I merely said I had mixed feelings about wind turbines because they kill untold numbers of fauna

Which is true.

[apocalypsehow]

141. Non-responsive. And your painfully obvious attempt to get these sub-threads deleted by spamming

isn't fooling anyone.

[ClarkUSA]

149. My words are here for all to read; also here are links to research studies that explain my feelings:

This was my first reply on this entire thread. It was an heartfelt reply to the OP:

ClarkUSA (1000+ posts) Thu Sep-23-10 05:43 PM
Response to Original message

6. I have mixed feelings about wind turbines. They kill untold numbers of bats and birds at night.

Farmers who have them on their property are always finding maimed bits of bats & birds, many of them decapitated or worse, at the base of these massive structures. The birds are large and small, include migratory flocks or resident raptors, some of them endangered or protected species, depending on the location. Bat populations are being decimated by them in certain areas.

It's a tough call. I wish solar energy and hydrogen fuel cell technology were further along. I have hope, however, that the historically high investment in green tech R&D and manufacturing by the Obama administration will yield fruit in this direction in the years to come.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=9189312&mesg_id=9189689

And here is why I have mixed feelings about wind turbines:

Wind turbines and Avian and Bat Impacts - Avian Solutions

It was previously thought that old turbines with smaller rotors and higher operational speeds contributed to avian mortality. However, new studies have shown inconclusive evidence about the effects of size and speed of the turbines. Many studies now take into account bird kills per MW to account for varying sizes of turbines and therefore wind swept area (circular area that the turbine blades cover in one full rotation). The old lattice structure of many turbines was also thought to be a threat to birds due to their propensity to use the structures for perching. Current literature on the subject shows this idea to be uncertain as well. (NWCC, 2004)(Smallwood and Thelander, 2005). The critical solution to avoiding avian collisions is the SITE ASSESSMENT. This is the only tool to allow wind developers and other stakeholders to determine if they are building farms in sensitive avian habitat.

The California Energy Commission recently came out with a suggested list of Impact Avoidance and Mitigation terms for new wind farms. They state that on a macro scale wind farms should not be placed in areas highly used by declining or threatened avian species; Nothing takes the place of well run pre-permitting avian studies, as mitigation techniques employed after the wind farm is built can be costly and require periodic and/or seasonal shut downs of the turbines. On the micro-scale there are many avoidance strategies that can be employed to reduce impacts to the surrounding ecosystems:

Minimize fragmentation and habitat disturbance by placing roads, turbines and other infrastructure in a pattern that does not fragment habitat corridors.
Establish buffer zones around known avian habitats to minimize collision hazards
Reduce impacts with appropriate turbine layout by studying daily flight patterns of birds
Reduce artificial prey habitat at the base of turbines, which may in turn attract foraging raptors. Designs that minimize disturbed or unvegetated banks should be incorporated into the construction of turbine pads. Rodenticides are not recommended as a way to remove potential prey from wind sites.
Avoid lighting that attracts birds and bats. Although lighting effects are poorly understood at this time, migrating song birds and bats appear to be attracted to steady burning lights. New FAA standards require synchronized flashing red lights to be mounted to the nacelle for turbines on the perimeter of the wind farm with unlighted gaps of no more than ½ mile.
All electrical wires and power lines should be placed underground
Avoid guyed structures as they are known to pose a serious threat to avian species
Decommission non-operational turbines so they no longer present a collision hazard.
Compensation can be obtained via purchase of land through fee title or purchase of conservation easements and the permanent protection of the biological resources on these lands. The land or easements should have a high biological value for the target species that have been affected by the wind energy project.

Source: Anderson, et. al, 2006

http://www.duke.edu/web/nicholas/bio217/ptb4/birdsolutions.html

Wind Turbine Interactions with
Birds, Bats, and their Habitats:
A Summary of Research Results and Priority Questions

Spring 2010
www.nationalwind.org

<snip>

Two general types of local impacts to birds have been demonstrated at existing wind facilities: (1) direct mortality from collisions and (2) indirect impacts from avoidance of an area, habitat disruption, reduced nesting/breeding density, habitat abandonment, loss of refugia, habitat unsuitability,
and behavioral effects (Stewart et al. 2004, 2007). For bats, only direct mortality resulting from collisions and barotrauma (i.e., experiencing rapid pressure changes that cause severe internal organ damage; Baerwald et al. 2008) has been demonstrated.

http://www1.eere.energy.gov/windandhydro/pdfs/birds_and_bats_fact_sheet.pdf

[apocalypsehow]

44. *Delete* - dupe. n/t.

[apocalypsehow]

46. As I said above, you have reached the point in this discussion where your assertions have been

shredded, and what you're engaged in now is simply arguing for the sake of arguing, hoping to get that precious "last word."

What's hilarious is that your own links prove you wrong. That's classic. :rofl:

[ClarkUSA]

50. What were my "assertions" exactly. Quote me. Then prove how they have been "shredded".

<< What's hilarious is that your own links prove you wrong. >>

As I said before, my links were for a poster who requested informational verification of the causality between wind turbines and raptor/bird mortality.

So far, I haven't seen any of the data I requested of you.

[apocalypsehow]

52. Read your own posts, then read the many replies that have proven you wrong. If you read long enough

and hard enough, you'll eventually figure it out. :thumbsup:

[ClarkUSA]

57. You can't do back up your strawman arguments, can you? I didn't think so.

Gotcha. :)

[apocalypsehow]

62. You have yet to refute a single fact that has been presented to you, just keep squawking "strawman,

strawman," and hoping no one will notice your total dearth of facts.

Gotcha, indeed.

[ClarkUSA]

66. What "facts" are you specifically referring to? BTW, here are your strawman arguments:

From your first reply to me on this subthread:

<< between your dubious claims above that grossly exaggerates the actual death rate of birds, bats, raptors, etc. when it comes to wind turbines>>

Strawman argument #1; I said no such thing.

<< But, let's face it:

1. You wouldn't care if the data was released yesterday, you just want to carp about wind turbines>>

Baseless personal attack #1; I have not said anything against wind turbines. I simply stated I had mixed feelings about them.

<<2. You have reached the point in this discussion where your assertions have been shredded>>

You have yet to prove that anything I said was "shredded".

<< and what you're engaged in now is simply arguing for the sake of arguing, hoping to get that precious "last word.">>

Baseless attack #2. Perhaps you are projecting?

[apocalypsehow]

67. Asked & answered; read your own links; and Google "strawman" while you're at it. Thanks.

:thumbsup:

[ClarkUSA]

70. You keep tripping over your own fact-free rhetoric. So what does "untold" mean to you, literally?

[apocalypsehow]

73. Asked & answered; read your own links; and Google "strawman" while you're at it. Thanks.

:thumbsup:

[ClarkUSA]

78. lol! You have nuthin' except silly word games now that I called you on your BS, eh?

Thanks for showing your true colors.

[apocalypsehow]

80. Asked & answered; read your own links; and Google "strawman" while you're at it. Thanks.

:thumbsup:

And, by the bye, someone who has spent the last ten posts arguing about the definition of an adjective is scarcely in a position to claim others playing "word games."

[ClarkUSA]

106. No, you haven't. But you have answered any question as to the level of your intellectual honesty.

[apocalypsehow]

107. Yes, I have. Do you have any other content regarding this article you wish to discuss, yes or no?

[ClarkUSA]

116. Where? Link?

[apocalypsehow]

122. Take that mouse thingy you got in your hand, and use the scroll function. Up & down the thread.

You'll spot it, if you just squint hard enough. :thumbsup:

Now, Do you have any other content regarding this article you wish to discuss, yes or no?

[ClarkUSA]

127. No, I'm afraid not. You're playing for show and it's obvious you are spinning.

[apocalypsehow]

130. Yes, I'm afraid so. You're trying to salvage a scrap of credibility, and hunger for that precious

"last word." You also very much want to get all of these sub-threads deleted, so your embarrassment will not be on the record.

[ClarkUSA]

139. No, I merely said I had mixed feelings about wind turbines because they kill untold numbers of fauna

Which is true.

[apocalypsehow]

142. Non-responsive. And your painfully obvious attempt to get these sub-threads deleted by spamming

[ClarkUSA]

151. My words are here for all to read; also here are links to research studies that explain my feelings:

This was my first reply on this entire thread. It was an heartfelt reply to the OP:

ClarkUSA (1000+ posts) Thu Sep-23-10 05:43 PM
Response to Original message

6. I have mixed feelings about wind turbines. They kill untold numbers of bats and birds at night.

Farmers who have them on their property are always finding maimed bits of bats & birds, many of them decapitated or worse, at the base of these massive structures. The birds are large and small, include migratory flocks or resident raptors, some of them endangered or protected species, depending on the location. Bat populations are being decimated by them in certain areas.

It's a tough call. I wish solar energy and hydrogen fuel cell technology were further along. I have hope, however, that the historically high investment in green tech R&D and manufacturing by the Obama administration will yield fruit in this direction in the years to come.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=9189312&mesg_id=9189689

And here is why I have mixed feelings about wind turbines:

Wind turbines and Avian and Bat Impacts - Avian Solutions

It was previously thought that old turbines with smaller rotors and higher operational speeds contributed to avian mortality. However, new studies have shown inconclusive evidence about the effects of size and speed of the turbines. Many studies now take into account bird kills per MW to account for varying sizes of turbines and therefore wind swept area (circular area that the turbine blades cover in one full rotation). The old lattice structure of many turbines was also thought to be a threat to birds due to their propensity to use the structures for perching. Current literature on the subject shows this idea to be uncertain as well. (NWCC, 2004)(Smallwood and Thelander, 2005). The critical solution to avoiding avian collisions is the SITE ASSESSMENT. This is the only tool to allow wind developers and other stakeholders to determine if they are building farms in sensitive avian habitat.

The California Energy Commission recently came out with a suggested list of Impact Avoidance and Mitigation terms for new wind farms. They state that on a macro scale wind farms should not be placed in areas highly used by declining or threatened avian species; Nothing takes the place of well run pre-permitting avian studies, as mitigation techniques employed after the wind farm is built can be costly and require periodic and/or seasonal shut downs of the turbines. On the micro-scale there are many avoidance strategies that can be employed to reduce impacts to the surrounding ecosystems:

Minimize fragmentation and habitat disturbance by placing roads, turbines and other infrastructure in a pattern that does not fragment habitat corridors.
Establish buffer zones around known avian habitats to minimize collision hazards
Reduce impacts with appropriate turbine layout by studying daily flight patterns of birds
Reduce artificial prey habitat at the base of turbines, which may in turn attract foraging raptors. Designs that minimize disturbed or unvegetated banks should be incorporated into the construction of turbine pads. Rodenticides are not recommended as a way to remove potential prey from wind sites.
Avoid lighting that attracts birds and bats. Although lighting effects are poorly understood at this time, migrating song birds and bats appear to be attracted to steady burning lights. New FAA standards require synchronized flashing red lights to be mounted to the nacelle for turbines on the perimeter of the wind farm with unlighted gaps of no more than ½ mile.
All electrical wires and power lines should be placed underground
Avoid guyed structures as they are known to pose a serious threat to avian species
Decommission non-operational turbines so they no longer present a collision hazard.
Compensation can be obtained via purchase of land through fee title or purchase of conservation easements and the permanent protection of the biological resources on these lands. The land or easements should have a high biological value for the target species that have been affected by the wind energy project.

Source: Anderson, et. al, 2006

http://www.duke.edu/web/nicholas/bio217/ptb4/birdsolutions.html

Wind Turbine Interactions with
Birds, Bats, and their Habitats:
A Summary of Research Results and Priority Questions

Spring 2010
www.nationalwind.org

<snip>

Two general types of local impacts to birds have been demonstrated at existing wind facilities: (1) direct mortality from collisions and (2) indirect impacts from avoidance of an area, habitat disruption, reduced nesting/breeding density, habitat abandonment, loss of refugia, habitat unsuitability,
and behavioral effects (Stewart et al. 2004, 2007). For bats, only direct mortality resulting from collisions and barotrauma (i.e., experiencing rapid pressure changes that cause severe internal organ damage; Baerwald et al. 2008) has been demonstrated.

http://www1.eere.energy.gov/windandhydro/pdfs/birds_and_bats_fact_sheet.pdf

[apocalypsehow]

55. You can't even be bothered to come up with original content in your posts, let alone any verifiable

facts. You posted an identical reply to a poster above that you have posted to me here, to wit:

"Your attitude is not only oddly hostile but also rather strange, given your lack of evidence. Specifically, show me recent ornithological data quantifying man-made nocturnal raptor mortality rates. Then show me the same recent ornithological data on man-made bat mortality rates.

I doubt you can. Therefore, my reference to "untold" numbers is quite literally accurate."

Very odd way to do business...

[ClarkUSA]

59. I don't have to. I know what I said and I know you're making up strawman arguments.

Just like Tesha, who couldn't back up her false rhetoric, either. Why waste effort on perfidious parsers?

So I repeat to you again:

Show me recent ornithological data quantifying man-made nocturnal raptor mortality rates. Then show me the same recent ornithological data on man-made bat mortality rates. I doubt you can. Therefore, my reference to "untold" numbers is quite literally accurate.

[apocalypsehow]

60. Yes, you do. There are no "strawman arguments" being made; all that other jazz has been asked &

answered. You're just into pure "last wordism" at this point.

So I repeat to you again:

Read your own posts, then read the many replies that have proven you wrong. If you read long enough

and hard enough, you'll eventually figure it out.

[ClarkUSA]

63. Your original reply to me contained a number of them which you have yet to prove.

Specifically, show me recent ornithological data quantifying man-made nocturnal raptor mortality rates. Then show me the same recent ornithological data on man-made bat mortality rates.

I doubt you can. Therefore, my reference to "untold" numbers is quite literally accurate.

:)

[apocalypsehow]

65. Asked & answered; read your own links; and Google "strawman" while you're at it. Thanks.

:thumbsup:

[ClarkUSA]

76. No, you keep spouting fact-free rhetoric. I repeat, what does "untold" mean to you, literally?

Perhaps you'll answer this time. It's the fourth time I've asked you.

[apocalypsehow]

77. Asked & answered; read your own links; and Google "strawman" while you're at it. Thanks.

:thumbsup:

[ClarkUSA]

83. ROFL! Polly wanna cracker?

:rofl:

[apocalypsehow]

85. Your fact-free posts and assertions have been hilarious alright: talk about having "nuthin."

:rofl: , indeed.

[ClarkUSA]

119. Do you work for Vestas or something? Is that why you're so bent out of shape?

Just sayin' :shrug:

[apocalypsehow]

124. Do you work for Big Oil? Or the nuclear power industry? Is that why you're so bent out of shape?

Just sayin' :shrug:

[ClarkUSA]

131. No, I merely said I had mixed feelings about wind turbines because they kill untold numbers of fauna

Which is true.

[apocalypsehow]

138. Non-responsive. n/t.

[ClarkUSA]

153. My words are here for all to read; also here are links to research studies that explain my feelings:

This was my first reply on this entire thread. It was an heartfelt reply to the OP:

ClarkUSA (1000+ posts) Thu Sep-23-10 05:43 PM
Response to Original message

6. I have mixed feelings about wind turbines. They kill untold numbers of bats and birds at night.

Farmers who have them on their property are always finding maimed bits of bats & birds, many of them decapitated or worse, at the base of these massive structures. The birds are large and small, include migratory flocks or resident raptors, some of them endangered or protected species, depending on the location. Bat populations are being decimated by them in certain areas.

It's a tough call. I wish solar energy and hydrogen fuel cell technology were further along. I have hope, however, that the historically high investment in green tech R&D and manufacturing by the Obama administration will yield fruit in this direction in the years to come.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=9189312&mesg_id=9189689

And here is why I have mixed feelings about wind turbines:

Wind turbines and Avian and Bat Impacts - Avian Solutions

It was previously thought that old turbines with smaller rotors and higher operational speeds contributed to avian mortality. However, new studies have shown inconclusive evidence about the effects of size and speed of the turbines. Many studies now take into account bird kills per MW to account for varying sizes of turbines and therefore wind swept area (circular area that the turbine blades cover in one full rotation). The old lattice structure of many turbines was also thought to be a threat to birds due to their propensity to use the structures for perching. Current literature on the subject shows this idea to be uncertain as well. (NWCC, 2004)(Smallwood and Thelander, 2005). The critical solution to avoiding avian collisions is the SITE ASSESSMENT. This is the only tool to allow wind developers and other stakeholders to determine if they are building farms in sensitive avian habitat.

The California Energy Commission recently came out with a suggested list of Impact Avoidance and Mitigation terms for new wind farms. They state that on a macro scale wind farms should not be placed in areas highly used by declining or threatened avian species; Nothing takes the place of well run pre-permitting avian studies, as mitigation techniques employed after the wind farm is built can be costly and require periodic and/or seasonal shut downs of the turbines. On the micro-scale there are many avoidance strategies that can be employed to reduce impacts to the surrounding ecosystems:

Minimize fragmentation and habitat disturbance by placing roads, turbines and other infrastructure in a pattern that does not fragment habitat corridors.
Establish buffer zones around known avian habitats to minimize collision hazards
Reduce impacts with appropriate turbine layout by studying daily flight patterns of birds
Reduce artificial prey habitat at the base of turbines, which may in turn attract foraging raptors. Designs that minimize disturbed or unvegetated banks should be incorporated into the construction of turbine pads. Rodenticides are not recommended as a way to remove potential prey from wind sites.
Avoid lighting that attracts birds and bats. Although lighting effects are poorly understood at this time, migrating song birds and bats appear to be attracted to steady burning lights. New FAA standards require synchronized flashing red lights to be mounted to the nacelle for turbines on the perimeter of the wind farm with unlighted gaps of no more than ½ mile.
All electrical wires and power lines should be placed underground
Avoid guyed structures as they are known to pose a serious threat to avian species
Decommission non-operational turbines so they no longer present a collision hazard.
Compensation can be obtained via purchase of land through fee title or purchase of conservation easements and the permanent protection of the biological resources on these lands. The land or easements should have a high biological value for the target species that have been affected by the wind energy project.

Source: Anderson, et. al, 2006

http://www.duke.edu/web/nicholas/bio217/ptb4/birdsolutions.html

Wind Turbine Interactions with
Birds, Bats, and their Habitats:
A Summary of Research Results and Priority Questions

Spring 2010
www.nationalwind.org

<snip>

Two general types of local impacts to birds have been demonstrated at existing wind facilities: (1) direct mortality from collisions and (2) indirect impacts from avoidance of an area, habitat disruption, reduced nesting/breeding density, habitat abandonment, loss of refugia, habitat unsuitability,
and behavioral effects (Stewart et al. 2004, 2007). For bats, only direct mortality resulting from collisions and barotrauma (i.e., experiencing rapid pressure changes that cause severe internal organ damage; Baerwald et al. 2008) has been demonstrated.

http://www1.eere.energy.gov/windandhydro/pdfs/birds_and_bats_fact_sheet.pdf

[ClarkUSA]

121. I said untold numbers of birds and bats were killed by wind turbines each year. Which is true.

Do you work for Vestas or something? Is that why you're so bent out of shape?

[apocalypsehow]

126. You falsely claimed to have said nothing about the matter, when you plainly did. Please try again.

Do you work for Big Oil? Or the nuclear power industry? Is that why you're so bent out of shape?

[ClarkUSA]

140. No, I merely said I had mixed feelings about wind turbines because they kill untold numbers of fauna

Which is true.

[apocalypsehow]

143. Flatly untrue. And your painfully obvious attempt to get these sub-threads deleted by spamming

[ClarkUSA]

146. You're the one who's wrong. My first reply to the OP states just that. Here's the link and text:

ClarkUSA (1000+ posts) Thu Sep-23-10 05:43 PM
Response to Original message

6. I have mixed feelings about wind turbines. They kill untold numbers of bats and birds at night.

Farmers who have them on their property are always finding maimed bits of bats & birds, many of them decapitated or worse, at the base of these massive structures. The birds are large and small, include migratory flocks or resident raptors, some of them endangered or protected species, depending on the location. Bat populations are being decimated by them in certain areas.

It's a tough call. I wish solar energy and hydrogen fuel cell technology were further along. I have hope, however, that the historically high investment in green tech R&D and manufacturing by the Obama administration will yield fruit in this direction in the years to come.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=9189312&mesg_id=9189689

[apocalypsehow]

147. Not a bit of it - you stated "I merely said" - as if that was what this "debate" - it's been so one-

sided I can scarcely call it a debate - was what the long back and forth was all about. That is highly deceptive - our entire argument was over your refusal to accept the facts from your own links that proved your assertions false.

Your attempt to pretend we were debating "I have mixed feelings about wind turbines" up and down this thread is more dishonesty. You're rather good at it.

[ClarkUSA]

148. My words are here for all to read; also here are links to research studies that explain my feelings:

This was my first reply on this entire thread. It was an heartfelt reply to the OP:

ClarkUSA (1000+ posts) Thu Sep-23-10 05:43 PM
Response to Original message

6. I have mixed feelings about wind turbines. They kill untold numbers of bats and birds at night.

Farmers who have them on their property are always finding maimed bits of bats & birds, many of them decapitated or worse, at the base of these massive structures. The birds are large and small, include migratory flocks or resident raptors, some of them endangered or protected species, depending on the location. Bat populations are being decimated by them in certain areas.

It's a tough call. I wish solar energy and hydrogen fuel cell technology were further along. I have hope, however, that the historically high investment in green tech R&D and manufacturing by the Obama administration will yield fruit in this direction in the years to come.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=9189312&mesg_id=9189689

And here is why I have mixed feelings about wind turbines:

Wind turbines and Avian and Bat Impacts - Avian Solutions

It was previously thought that old turbines with smaller rotors and higher operational speeds contributed to avian mortality. However, new studies have shown inconclusive evidence about the effects of size and speed of the turbines. Many studies now take into account bird kills per MW to account for varying sizes of turbines and therefore wind swept area (circular area that the turbine blades cover in one full rotation). The old lattice structure of many turbines was also thought to be a threat to birds due to their propensity to use the structures for perching. Current literature on the subject shows this idea to be uncertain as well. (NWCC, 2004)(Smallwood and Thelander, 2005). The critical solution to avoiding avian collisions is the SITE ASSESSMENT. This is the only tool to allow wind developers and other stakeholders to determine if they are building farms in sensitive avian habitat.

The California Energy Commission recently came out with a suggested list of Impact Avoidance and Mitigation terms for new wind farms. They state that on a macro scale wind farms should not be placed in areas highly used by declining or threatened avian species; Nothing takes the place of well run pre-permitting avian studies, as mitigation techniques employed after the wind farm is built can be costly and require periodic and/or seasonal shut downs of the turbines. On the micro-scale there are many avoidance strategies that can be employed to reduce impacts to the surrounding ecosystems:

Minimize fragmentation and habitat disturbance by placing roads, turbines and other infrastructure in a pattern that does not fragment habitat corridors.
Establish buffer zones around known avian habitats to minimize collision hazards
Reduce impacts with appropriate turbine layout by studying daily flight patterns of birds
Reduce artificial prey habitat at the base of turbines, which may in turn attract foraging raptors. Designs that minimize disturbed or unvegetated banks should be incorporated into the construction of turbine pads. Rodenticides are not recommended as a way to remove potential prey from wind sites.
Avoid lighting that attracts birds and bats. Although lighting effects are poorly understood at this time, migrating song birds and bats appear to be attracted to steady burning lights. New FAA standards require synchronized flashing red lights to be mounted to the nacelle for turbines on the perimeter of the wind farm with unlighted gaps of no more than ½ mile.
All electrical wires and power lines should be placed underground
Avoid guyed structures as they are known to pose a serious threat to avian species
Decommission non-operational turbines so they no longer present a collision hazard.
Compensation can be obtained via purchase of land through fee title or purchase of conservation easements and the permanent protection of the biological resources on these lands. The land or easements should have a high biological value for the target species that have been affected by the wind energy project.

Source: Anderson, et. al, 2006

http://www.duke.edu/web/nicholas/bio217/ptb4/birdsolutions.html

Wind Turbine Interactions with
Birds, Bats, and their Habitats:
A Summary of Research Results and Priority Questions

Spring 2010
www.nationalwind.org

<snip>

Two general types of local impacts to birds have been demonstrated at existing wind facilities: (1) direct mortality from collisions and (2) indirect impacts from avoidance of an area, habitat disruption, reduced nesting/breeding density, habitat abandonment, loss of refugia, habitat unsuitability,
and behavioral effects (Stewart et al. 2004, 2007). For bats, only direct mortality resulting from collisions and barotrauma (i.e., experiencing rapid pressure changes that cause severe internal organ damage; Baerwald et al. 2008) has been demonstrated.

http://www1.eere.energy.gov/windandhydro/pdfs/birds_and_bats_fact_sheet.pdf

[bullwinkle428]

54. The oil and coal industries like to push this angle, as they see

wind power as a real threat to their own dominance...

[ClarkUSA]

154. Really? I haven't seen them do it but I do have research studies that explain my feelings:

Wind turbines and Avian and Bat Impacts - Avian Solutions

It was previously thought that old turbines with smaller rotors and higher operational speeds contributed to avian mortality. However, new studies have shown inconclusive evidence about the effects of size and speed of the turbines. Many studies now take into account bird kills per MW to account for varying sizes of turbines and therefore wind swept area (circular area that the turbine blades cover in one full rotation). The old lattice structure of many turbines was also thought to be a threat to birds due to their propensity to use the structures for perching. Current literature on the subject shows this idea to be uncertain as well. (NWCC, 2004)(Smallwood and Thelander, 2005). The critical solution to avoiding avian collisions is the SITE ASSESSMENT. This is the only tool to allow wind developers and other stakeholders to determine if they are building farms in sensitive avian habitat.

The California Energy Commission recently came out with a suggested list of Impact Avoidance and Mitigation terms for new wind farms. They state that on a macro scale wind farms should not be placed in areas highly used by declining or threatened avian species; Nothing takes the place of well run pre-permitting avian studies, as mitigation techniques employed after the wind farm is built can be costly and require periodic and/or seasonal shut downs of the turbines. On the micro-scale there are many avoidance strategies that can be employed to reduce impacts to the surrounding ecosystems:

Minimize fragmentation and habitat disturbance by placing roads, turbines and other infrastructure in a pattern that does not fragment habitat corridors.
Establish buffer zones around known avian habitats to minimize collision hazards
Reduce impacts with appropriate turbine layout by studying daily flight patterns of birds
Reduce artificial prey habitat at the base of turbines, which may in turn attract foraging raptors. Designs that minimize disturbed or unvegetated banks should be incorporated into the construction of turbine pads. Rodenticides are not recommended as a way to remove potential prey from wind sites.
Avoid lighting that attracts birds and bats. Although lighting effects are poorly understood at this time, migrating song birds and bats appear to be attracted to steady burning lights. New FAA standards require synchronized flashing red lights to be mounted to the nacelle for turbines on the perimeter of the wind farm with unlighted gaps of no more than ½ mile.
All electrical wires and power lines should be placed underground
Avoid guyed structures as they are known to pose a serious threat to avian species
Decommission non-operational turbines so they no longer present a collision hazard.
Compensation can be obtained via purchase of land through fee title or purchase of conservation easements and the permanent protection of the biological resources on these lands. The land or easements should have a high biological value for the target species that have been affected by the wind energy project.

Source: Anderson, et. al, 2006

http://www.duke.edu/web/nicholas/bio217/ptb4/birdsolutions.html

Wind Turbine Interactions with
Birds, Bats, and their Habitats:
A Summary of Research Results and Priority Questions

Spring 2010
www.nationalwind.org

<snip>

Two general types of local impacts to birds have been demonstrated at existing wind facilities: (1) direct mortality from collisions and (2) indirect impacts from avoidance of an area, habitat disruption, reduced nesting/breeding density, habitat abandonment, loss of refugia, habitat unsuitability,
and behavioral effects (Stewart et al. 2004, 2007). For bats, only direct mortality resulting from collisions and barotrauma (i.e., experiencing rapid pressure changes that cause severe internal organ damage; Baerwald et al. 2008) has been demonstrated.

http://www1.eere.energy.gov/windandhydro/pdfs/birds_and_bats_fact_sheet.pdf

Of course, none of this changes my general support for wind power but it does prevent me from having unqualified support for it.

[Odin2005]

22. That is awesome! Those things are HUGE!!!

[Regret My New Name]

24. PEAK WIND!!!

What happens when we run out?

[Tesha]

31. Don't worry -- as long as a single Republican breathes there'll be hot air for everyone! (NT)

[proteus_lives]

99. Good!

I got a similar good feeling when I was driving to Chicago the other day and saw all the farmlands ones.

[gscraig]

132. is there any safe energy source?

One thing about all this discussion of the effects of turbines is that all energy sources are going to have costs as well as benefits, environmental or otherwise. I guess that the thing to always do is to pick the best of options, based on what data are available.

[ClarkUSA]

145. Well said.

<< One thing about all this discussion of the effects of turbines is that all energy sources are going to have costs as well as benefits, environmental or otherwise. I guess that the thing to always do is to pick the best of options, based on what data are available. >>

You're right, though I have little doubt the Obama administration's unprecedented investment into green tech will open a door onto forms of energy that will be safer and/or more productive than what we have now. Hopefully, his closing tax loopholes and creating business incentives will lead to a boom in green manufacturing here at home.

[WinkyDink]

158. Bad for bird migrations. Not to be dismissed lightly, IMO.