Across the globe a new threat to eagles is quickly replacing shooting, poisoning, trapping and electrocution by power lines. The traditional Big Four has a new 'kid on the block'; Industrial Wind Farms.
Thousands of eagles are being killed by turbine blades every year all over the world and that number continues and will continue to grow as wind farms do.
The Alatmont Pass wind farm, in California, is probably the most infamous one. There, it is estimated that, over 2,300 Golden Eagles have lost their lives in the past twenty years to wind turbines. But, contrary to what the wind industry would like us to believe this is not an exception to the rule.
The Smola Wind Farm, off the coast of Norway, is responsible for killing off their entire breeding population of the endangered White-tailed (Sea) Eagle and all of their babies in less than ten months. This wind farm is brand new, considered state of the art and fitted with those modern slow moving turbine blades the industry likes to boast about, but these 'slow moving blades' are simply an optical illusion since they travel at over 200 mph at their tips.
Golden Eagles, White-tailed Eagles, Wedge-tailed Eagles, Short-toed Eagles, Booted Eagles and Bonelli's Eagles along with Griffon Vultures and scores of other raptor species are being decimated by wind farms with gruesome reports and pictures streaming in from the United States, Scotland, Germany, Norway, Sweden, Japan, Australia, Spain and the United Kingdom.
But it's not just the Eagles that are dying at wind farms. Bat and songbird mortality goes into the millions each year with the numbers rapidly growing as researchers begin to count them.
A study in New York has just filed its draft report on bird and bat deaths at a new 120 turbine wind farm. Although pre-construction studies predicted little to no impact to birds and bats this study now shows predictions of up to 6,000 bird and bat deaths a year based on body counts.
And no one knows how to stop it.
There is no more universal symbol of strength, beauty, freedom and independence than an Eagle. And there is probably no one on this planet that doesn't recognize an eagle and isn't moved by seeing one.
They speak to us. They speak to a part of ourselves that is collective in the human heart and the human soul and the human spirit.
Eagle emblems are carried into battle, adorn our halls of justice and the national flags of dozens of countries. Yet, in the name of the 'poster child' for alternative energy, fear of Global Warming and dependence on foreign oil we are wiping them out.
What will happen to our human hearts, souls and spirits when the Eagles are gone and we are left with, only, their symbols, signifying nothing.
There are alternatives to industrial wind farms that will help our planet and not kill our eagles in the process. Look into, support and push our elected officials to develop and bring on line the Hydrogen Economy based on alternative energies like Solar and Biomass.
For more information of world-wide eagle death at wind farms click HERE
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 25
Steve B., this one is for you with thanks!
Robert Kennedy Jr. is a devotee of Peregrine falcons - and is well known for his work in environmental law. Might you send this article to him?
Dona's right, the wind industry and their friends, AWEA, and GE, etc., want you to think that this problem of bird killing has been addressed effectively. The conclusions being drawn by the experts are that this is a siting issue. I don't consider wind power to be a viable solution, but for those who do, we need to avoid siting these wind towers in migratory paths and areas of high bird concentration.
Editor Globe,
Cape wind is about the blood of eagles not politics as
usual with Senator Edward M. Kennedy and Attorney
General Thomas F. Reilly as the Globe's recent
coverage. Siting wind turbines in a major bird fly way
chops large hawks and eagles up like large birdy
blenders. I know about this because my organization is
suing the County of Alameda California over its
approval of Conditional Use Permits for thousands wind
turbines located in the Altamont Pass Wind Resources
Area that are killing thousands of these birds every
year. My organization CAlifornians for Renewable
Energy, Inc. (CARE) is taking on the wind industry
because the blood of eagles gives wind energy a black
eye. Wind energy is all about location. Don't forget
Enron got started in the wind industry in the Altamont
Pass California.
Mike Boyd-President-CARE
Thank you for all that you're doing to protect our precious avain life, Dona!
I think it is rather like the gold rush.... people rushing into it without really looking.
Now, the fact that nine birds represents practically the entire breeding population means that the Smola site was amazingly badly chosen. As British RSPB conservation director Mark Avery said, "(we must) take care in choosing sites. Most wind farms would not cause any harm to birds, but Smola is sited in a bad place." So the lesson is not that wind farms are bird-magnets and should either be banned outright or be located underground for the sake of our avian friends, but simply that we must exercise a little common sense. Ms. Tracy seems to want to throw out the baby with the bathwater.
More recently, by the way, the Danes have published a comprehensive report on several years' experience of offshore wind farm operation, and have found practically zero environmental impact of ANY kind. In particular, they found that birds either flew around the farms or straight down the turbine rows. The suggestion here is that the term 'bird-brain' is not necessarily an insult. The Danes are the world leaders in wind energy, certainly a generation ahead of our fumbling attempts.
And, of course, Ms. Tracy's article implies that nothing we as a species were doing in the past (assuming we don't get our chuckles from pointing guns at birds) did the avian creatures any harm. Wrong again. Man's lifestyle has demanded such profligate use of fossil fuels that we have saturated the atmosphere with carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide, sulphur oxide and mercury, causing immeasurably more harm to wildlife than a few hundred turbines.
So what are Ms. Tracy's alternatives? Well, having said in her last paragraph that there are some, she manages to make a very passing reference to just one - the so-called hydrogen economy, again conveniently omitting to mention that there will be no such thing as a hydrogen economy unless it can be powered by renewable, zero-cost fuel sources. And no, solar won't do it at a large enough scale to be noticeable. Our energy-greedy species will still need the kind of megawattage that can only be provided by fossil fuel plants OR these kinds of plants supplemented by utility-scale wind farms. That is, at least, until all the new nuclear power stations come on line. Are you scared yet?
So after all that, what IS Ms. Tracy's case? It's really very simple. It has nothing to do with eagles in Norway or bats in New York. It has everything to do with stopping a proposed wind farm being built in Nantucket Sound, Massachusetts (near where she happens to live). This is a proposal that has just been given a certificate of adequacy by the State, because the State knows that it will provide immense benefits to the people of the Bay State with practically zero negative impacts. But Ms. Tracy thinks they might spoil the view, so the heck with you folks with asthma (Massachusetts, by the way, is the asthma capital of the country. Ever wonder why?)
As far as the birds 'round these parts are concerned, I also seem to recall that Mass. Audubon, nearly a year ago, said in effect that they hadn't found any reason to come out against Cape Wind on the grounds of worries about bird mortaility. Heck, if Audubon doesn't think there's a problem for birds, maybe I won't either.
Can we have a little perspective please?
This had nothing to do with the view. I don't have one. I am nestled in a small suburban neighborhood. Have an income below middle class and and care about people and animals.
The company you are defending does not. Look at what they are proposing for the community of Chelsea MA... a fossil fuel burning power plant to people that have the highest hospitalized asthma rate and cardio vascular disease in the State of MA.
MA Audubon did not endorse the Cape Wind Farm, it set up challenges to the to get it right!
You ask for a '…little perspective.' I found this quote from the director of Audubon of Kansas interesting. Maybe you will too.
"Some environmentalists think just because a wind turbine is renewable it is good, and they are willing to ignore siting issues and tax expenditures," said Ron Klataske, executive director of Audubon of Kansas. "This is a dual tragedy because great places are being destroyed and taxpayers are being hoodwinked into paying for these things with enormous subsidies."
http://www.audubonofkansas.org/wind.php
Dona Tracy knows that wind towers kill birds, many endangered, when they are sited in areas of high bird concentration, flyways, and migratory routes. Common sense should lead you to conclude that wind towers should not be sited in these areas of high bird activity.
The DOI/USFWS; Sierra Club; Greenpeace; MA Audubon; and the American Bird Conservancy, and many others state that areas with endangered species are present should be avoided when siting wind facilities. Common sense should again suggest that Nantucket Sound is not suitable for an industrial scale wind facility AS it is a flyway, migratory route, and an area with endangered species present.
You apparently fail to grasp that there are federal and state species protections that when violated cause many problems for wind developers. This is the case in Altamont, CA., where thousands of birds are being killed, annually, at the APWRA.
CA court has established the death of one endangered Eagle, the Golden Eagle, by wind towers as $500,000.00. The economic set back of poorly sited wind towers that kill birds, called shut downs, threatens this industry.
The Danish 8 year study that you cite is a wind energy promotional brochure. Regarding this "Danish Study," "Danish Offshore Wind – Key Environmental Issues" dated November, 2006, it was prepared by the Danish Energy Authority, Danish Forest and Nature Agency, Dong Energy and Vattenfall (the companies that own the two offshore wind farms) and the report also contains commentary from the International Advisory Panel of Experts on Marine Ecology which produced the report.
According to the Danish Trade Council: "The total value of Denmark's energy-sector exports is around US $3- bn. a rise of 35 per cent since 1998 and 450 percent since 1992. Of the total energy exports, wind turbine exports amounted to just over US$1.5 bn., corresponding to slightly less than 60 per cent."
If you walk into a camera store and ask the clerk, "Do your cameras work?" he or she is likely to say, "Yes, of course they work." Similarly, if you ask Danish Energy Authority, and the companies that own two offshore wind "farms" if Danish wind towers harm wildlife, they have $3 billion reasons to respond with a resounding, "No."
Economic hardship due to shut downs, and in some cases-project failure, is the result of the violation of the laws that protect many species and the associated legal ramifications. The international community recognizes that project failure and economic hardship will result when wind towers are placed in areas of high bird concentration and kill birds.
California A.G. Bill Locklear has responded regarding the legal implications of the deaths of thousands of birds in Altamont, CA. in an area of high bird concentration:
Bill Lockyer, A.G. of CA to the Almeda County Board of Supervisors in his letter of July 6, 2005:
"The ongoing harm to protected bird species at the APRWA is serious and unacceptable." "Because the APWA is the largest of its kind in the world, what happens here could set an important precedent for how these issues are addressed elsewhere in California and the United States."
Henning Grastrup, the offshore pioneer and key figure in the Danish government's first programme for wind energy research, retired after 31 years with Danish utility Elsam recently was interviewed regarding his experience:
"What lessons have we learned in planning the Horns Rev project, Henning?"
"I think the most important lesson is that if there are concerns about bird restrictions from the European Commission, for instance, they should be taken seriously because they will not go away. I have seen some international projects failing to make progress because the warnings were not taken seriously."
Dona's commitment to protect our public trust, avian life, preceded Cape Wind by twenty years.
Cape Wind has selected the wrong site, Nantucket Sound. This selection flies in the face of wind industry experience and the federal regulators' wind tower siting guidelines. Cape Wind, if permitted and constructed, will become the future black eye of the wind industry.
Evidentally, you missed the testamony of Mass Audubon's staff scientists' on the Cape Wind project. I'll provide this for your edification:
The President of MA Audubon, Laura A. Johnson, submitted MA Audubon's comments on the Cape Wind DEIS on February 23, 2005; to Ms. Karen Kirk Adams, the Cape Wind Energy Project Manager U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, New England District
Reference File No. NAE-2004-338-1
EOEA No. 12643
http://www.massaudubon.org/PDF/CapeWindDEIS.pdf
"By utilizing other bird mortality data provided in the DEIS, Mass Audubon staff scientists arrived at avian mortalities that ranged from 2,300 to 6,600 collision deaths per year."
You might consider this "practically zero negative impacts" while many of us do not. From the tone of your comments, it wouldn't surprise me if you were on the payroll of wind energy proponents.
Before you jump to any conclusions about the tone of my response to your off-based remarks, I have no financial interest in the outcome of this proposal. I live in Central MA, and I care about wildlife.
Cape Wind is a rotten deal for the residents of the Cape and Islands, and a rotten deal for wildlife.
If we don't protect our precious Eagles and wildlife, who will? Certainly not Siegfried.
The US Energy Information Agency predicts wind will produce a insignificant 0.89% of all electricity in 2030. He may also find the following enlightening-
http://www.barnstablepatriot.com/letters__doc_49_11572.html
Letters to the Editor –
Barnstable Patriot, 03/16/07
Wind Power's not Wind Energy
"Chris Stimpson and the Clean Power Now organization are so obsessed by their support for the wind farm in Nantucket Sound that they have lost all objectivity. His guest commentary on March 9, a condescending discourse on ocean-based windmills versus land-based windmills, uses a mathematical formula interwoven with the typical mocking NIMBY invectives we have come to expect to make his point."
"However, the fact that he and his formula totally miss is that it is not power in terms of Watts that is important; it is Energy in terms of Kilowatt Hours that is essential for any power source to be viable. The promoters of the Nantucket Sound wind farm use the word Power (kilowatts) to hide the fact that the Energy (kilowatt hours) produced by windmills is unreliable and cannot generate the constant power required by power grids because its source, the wind, is unreliable and constantly varies."
"Mr. Stimpson states definitively that the average wind speed over the Shoal is 19 mph. Sounds impressive. But, it is not possible to run the Northeast Power Gird on averages. When you apply his formula (P = 1⁄2 rV3A) to the varying winds over the Sound you find that as the wind speed decreases from his 19 mph average to half that, his output of 6859 Watts will be reduced by the cube of the wind speed: i.e. 1⁄2 x 1⁄2 x 1⁄2 to only 12.5 percent or 857 Watts, and that fact, that Law of Nature which you will never hear from the wind farm proponents, is why wind energy can never replace traditional power generation plants to any significant extent."
"E.ON Netz GmbH, the largest grid operator in Germany, and the largest manager of wind facilities with over 7,000 wind mills, had this to say in their Wind Report 2005: "Wind energy cannot replace conventional power stations to any significant degree." "The more wind power capacity is in the grid, the lower the percentage of traditional generation it can replace." Consequently, traditional power stations with capacities equal to 90 percent of the installed wind power capacity must be permanently on line. Also, due to wind gusts, wind energy causes other facilities on the grid to operate less efficiently, thus less clean."
"This probably isn't enough to silence the cleaninexhaustiblejobproducingrenewablepowersourcereducerelianceonimportedoilandgas mantra we hear so often. Sorry, funny how those tend to run together. Frankly, for the billion-dollar price tag there are more effective ways to increase production, clean up the atmosphere and conserve energy than building 130 windmills in Nantucket Sound. If being concerned about preserving a fragile environment from the encroachment of industrialization is NIMBYism, then Cape Wind Associates, who certainly knows how ineffective large-scale wind installations are, is at best a New Robber Baron."
Barry J Thompson
Centerville
I so appreciate your dedication to wildlife.
Barry:
Thanks for your great contribution to this discussion. I received a note from Jon Boone who is a well known environmentalist, who has sifted through the same wind energy hype that you and others, here, obviously have.
"Thanks for all the info, Barbara. I've pasted below a draft of the release form you asked me to fashion. Please review it and, if it's OK, I'll fax it along. Meanwhile, you might continue to press--in the press--on the issue of whether or not the massive tax subsidies proposed for industrial wind energy are indexed to reductions in carbon emissions. And if not, why not, since the raison d'tre of windpower is to reduce carbon emissions. Let me also say that you should respond to the Danish wind mess by (1) acknowledging that about 20 percent of the installed electricity capacity in Denmark comes from wind; however, only 4 percent is actually consumed in the country because it cannot be properly integrated with demand. The remainder is sold, at a considerable energy and financial loss, to other countries. You should also (2) remind people that despite all the wind factories in Denmark, that nation remains last, or nearly so, in the queue of EU countries in meeting their Kyoto accord emission goals: Denmark remains the dirtiest EU nation."
Jon