Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

A Long Night's Journey Into Death

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Environment/Energy Donate to DU
 
XemaSab Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-16-10 04:04 PM
Original message
A Long Night's Journey Into Death


The first time you see a Blackburnian Warbler, you might think that you have dreamed it. This is a tiny bird, less than five inches long and weighing less than half an ounce, and it flits about the treetops with an incredible show of energy for its diminutive size. It wears incredible colors, too, its throat and chest and face a brilliant flame orange, set off by velvety black with trim of cream and white. It looks like a tropical bird, and for half the year, it is: from October to March, at least, it lives in cloud forest and rain forest along the slopes of the Andes in South America. But every spring, driven by ancient rhythms, the Blackburnian Warbler will leave its tropical paradise to fly many thousands of miles northward, heading for the spruce forests of Canada and the northeastern United States.

The journey undertaken by this small migrant may seem staggering to us. To the bird, it’s both a matter-of-fact necessity and a matter of life and death. The warbler migrates mostly at night, navigating by the stars. It takes off just after dusk, flies through the hours of darkness, and comes down in the dim light of pre-dawn, traveling perhaps a couple of hundred miles in a night. Between long flights it may rest and feed for several days, building up its strength and its fat reserves to fuel another long red-eye flight. Moving north through Central America, it may fly straight across the Gulf of Mexico from the Yucatan Peninsula to the southern United States, in an overwater flight that begins at dusk but may last well into the following afternoon; but most of its flights are shorter. Over a period of a few weeks, if it survives all the hazards of migration, the Blackburnian Warbler makes its way from the equator up to the northern United States.

Migrating songbirds such as the Blackburnian Warbler may stop over practically anyplace where they can find a few trees or other appropriate habitat. But there are a few favored spots where these migrants stop over in tremendous concentrations. One such place is the south shore of Lake Erie in northwest Ohio.

Geography is the cause for this concentration point. In the flat reach of land between the Gulf Coast and the Great Lakes, there are innumerable places for a migrating Blackburnian Warbler to touch down. But then as the bird moves north across Ohio, it approaches the broad expanse of Lake Erie. Not the largest of the Great Lakes, Erie is still wide enough to loom as an obstacle for a half-ounce bird that already has been flying for hours. Even on a moonless night, the reflections from the water will look different from the blackness of land. If the warbler approaches the lake shore in the hours just before dawn, it is likely to come down rather than continuing across the water.

Much of the lake shore in northwest Ohio has been cleared for development, but some key tracts of woodland have been protected, and migrating songbirds crowd into these stopover habitats in unbelievable numbers. Besides the Blackburnian Warblers coming from the Andes, there are Black-throated Green and Wilson’s Warblers coming from Mexico, Golden-winged and Chestnut-sided Warblers coming from Central America, Black-throated Blue and Cape May Warblers coming from the Caribbean, and more than thirty other kinds of warblers, in every color of the rainbow. There are brilliant Scarlet Tanagers and shy Gray-cheeked Thrushes coming from the jungles of the Amazon Basin, flashy Rose-breasted Grosbeaks and Baltimore Orioles coming from the forests of Central America, Blue-headed Vireos and Indigo Buntings coming from Mexico, and dozens more species, represented by hundreds of thousands of individuals. Arriving from literally all over the American tropics, they will pause here for a time before moving on to points all over the northern states, Canada, and Alaska. For a few weeks in April and May, these woods are alive with a revolving cavalcade of colorful, tuneful world travelers.

No doubt the birds have been relying on this crossroads refuge for millennia, but humans have noticed only in recent years. Now every spring, thousands of bird watchers come to northwest Ohio from all over the United States, and even from other countries, to witness this spectacle. Birders are notoriously independent, difficult to classify or count, but state agencies have estimated the numbers of visiting birders at about fifty thousand just during the first two weeks of May. Not surprisingly, these human visitors have a major positive impact on the local economy, filling up the hotels and restaurants and stores during the weeks before the summer crowds come to the lake.

This might seem an ideal situation, with the stopover habitat providing a boon to birds, birders, and businesses. Unfortunately, this silver lining has a cloud attached. The Lake Erie shoreline is often a very windy place, and major forces are now working to capitalize on the potential for wind power there. As I write this in November 2010, efforts are under way to put up wind turbines – tall towers with long, rapidly spinning blades – all along the lake shore, even in sites immediately adjacent to stopover habitat for vast numbers of birds.

The most frightening thing about this invasion of the bird slicers is that it is being carried out quietly, almost in secret. Amazingly, there are almost no regulations at all on the placement of wind turbines. Even the large, commercial-grade turbines are affected mainly by voluntary guidelines. Mid-sized turbines (which can still be over 300 feet tall) apparently can be put up anywhere, except in the rare cases where zoning ordinances prevent them. Private energy companies have been moving into northwest Ohio, talking to schools, small businesses, and landowners, trying to cut deals to put up wind turbines on their properties, and trying to get the projects going as quickly as possible.

Why the rush? Ironically, it isn’t even about the expectation of big profits from the electricity that will be generated. The rush now is to cash in on government incentives for “green” energy. Maybe the turbines will generate significant amounts of electricity, maybe they won’t, but that’s down the road. Right now the focus is on getting the deals signed, taking advantage of the grants and tax breaks before they expire.

In these efforts to bring wind power to the shoreline in northwest Ohio, impacts on birdlife are being essentially ignored and legitimate concerns are being pushed aside. The state’s Division of Wildlife had produced maps of “avian concern zones” for wind power many months ago, with a three-mile band along the lake shore being included among the areas of highest concern for potential bird kills, but these maps have received little attention. High-ranking officials of the Ohio Department of Natural Resources, in recent statements, have managed to imply that no such maps exist. One local business owner was being courted by an energy company that wanted to put up a large turbine on his property. When he asked about potential harm to migrating birds, the company representative looked him in the eye: “Don’t worry,” he said. “Our turbines have been proven not to kill birds."

That statement is nonsense, of course, but it’s shorthand for a common argument being made by the wind industry. The usual claim is that the typical wind turbine kills only a few birds per year. Consultants have pointed out that night-migrating birds usually fly more than 500 feet above the ground, high enough that they naturally avoid the blades of even the large turbines. And that is true. For the most part, nocturnal migrants will pass safely above wind farms. But it becomes a spurious argument when we start talking about stopover habitats, where birds are actively taking off and landing. Commercial jetliners may cruise at thirty thousand feet, but no one would use that as an excuse to put up a wind turbine at the end of an airport runway.

The stopover habitat in northwest Ohio is like a major airport for migrating birds, like the world’s busiest airports rolled into one – except that these vast numbers of birds are mostly landing or taking off in the dim light of dusk or pre-dawn, when visibility is at its poorest. A badly placed turbine adjacent to such a zone could be smashing birds out of the air by the thousands.

Who am I to be writing about this? Opinion pieces on this topic (especially those with pro-industry angles) often are written anonymously, but I believe the players should identify themselves: My name is Kenn Kaufman. I’m a lifelong birder and naturalist, author of the Kaufman Field Guide to Birds of North America, Lives of North American Birds, and ten other books. I’m listed as a field editor or contributing editor for four magazines that deal with birds or conservation. Currently I serve on the boards of directors of five organizations concerned with the same subjects. But in this essay I am speaking only for myself as an individual.

Why am I not speaking for one of the organizations or publications with which I’m associated? Because there are sure to be negative responses to this essay. Big money is involved, and companies that stand to profit are not going to sit idle under criticism. We’re past the days when big companies would hire thugs to beat up the opposition, but even in this more civilized age, a certain amount of verbal thuggery is almost inevitable. Canadian novelist (and birder) Margaret Atwood spoke out against the placement of a wind farm adjacent to Point Pelee, the famous stopover habitat on the opposite shore of Lake Erie, and she was savaged in the press. And there have been serious attempts to discredit other people who have spoken out against other wind power projects.

With the expectation that I’ll be targeted as well, I should make my position clear. I’m aware of the problems associated with the accumulation of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, and with the urgent need to do something about it. I fully support efforts to move, in a responsible way, away from the burning of coal and petroleum and toward energy sources that are renewable, sustainable, and non-polluting. In principle I’m in favor of wind, solar, geothermal, and other forms of “green” energy, with the stipulation that each project should be reviewed to see if it is, in fact, environmentally sound. It would be fair to say that I have a moderately favorable view of the potential for wind power. There are legitimate questions about its efficiency and consistency, and about the actual amount of power generated, but if these can be answered, I am pro-wind. The sticking point is the site selection for wind projects.

Opponents of specific wind power projects are often portrayed as hypocritical NIMBYs (Not In My Back Yard) who won’t sacrifice their local scenery for the sake of the environment. I can’t be tarred with that brush, because I can honestly say that I wouldn’t object so much to having turbines literally in my back yard. I live more than seven miles south of the lake shore. I know from direct observation that the numbers of migrant birds stopping over in the trees of my town are a mere fraction of the numbers using the woods along the lake. Wind turbines in my town undoubtedly would kill a few birds, but they probably wouldn’t kill thousands.

Or would they? We really don’t know. We don’t have enough research results yet. When migrating birds are arriving at a stopover habitat, what is their angle of descent? Do they drop straight down from a great height, or do they start descending several miles away? We don’t know. When they take off to resume their journey, do they aim straight for the stars, or do they climb gradually? We don’t know. If we establish a protective buffer zone around a major stopover habitat, should it be a mile wide, or three miles, or five? We don’t know. The research has not been completed. Careful radar studies could provide a lot of answers, and such studies are just beginning in northwest Ohio. Within a few years, we may know a lot more about this subject. But the pressure is on to start erecting wind turbines right now, as quickly as possible, without waiting for any such studies.

People who express concern about bird mortality at wind turbines are usually treated with condescension at best (with phrases like “Bird-lovers are all a-flutter at the thought that Tweetie Bird might get hurt”). I’ve seen a dozen wind industry fact sheets pointing out, rather patronizingly, that wild birds are killed by many things, including window strikes, automobiles, and roaming cats. This is true. But the birds most often killed by cars and house cats are the birds that live around roads and houses – abundant, widespread species, with populations large enough to sustain the losses. If ten million House Sparrows are hit by cars every year, it won’t make a dent in their total population. But when you place hazards around stopover habitats for migratory birds, you are turning this equation upside down. Such hazards have their worst impact on the long-distance migrants, the species that are already most at risk.

As the threats of planned wind turbines loom all along the lake shore, northwest Ohio may become a test case: a test to see whether stopover habitat can ever be protected, to see whether we birders will ever stand up for the creatures that we watch. This is one region where the birds and their habitats should have the beginnings of a broad-based constituency. Here, the hotel owners, restaurant owners, store owners and others have realized that visiting birders are important to their business. Here, the local chambers of commerce and visitors’ bureaus have embraced the annual influx of birders. Here, the birders keep coming, more and more, from all over the midwest, all over the U.S. and farther afield. Local place names like Magee Marsh, Crane Creek, Ottawa Refuge, and Maumee Bay are becoming household words among birders continentwide. Here, for once, the ecological and economic benefits of protecting stopover habitat should work hand in hand. But will it turn out that way?

Right now, in November 2010, several entities are pushing forward to try to get wind turbine projects approved before some government incentives run out at the end of the year. As I write this, they face very little opposition. A small local organization, the Black Swamp Bird Observatory, is trying to raise local public awareness of stopover habitat, but they are working almost alone. Can they turn the tide of public opinion and policy? This could be the place where the birders and their business allies finally make a stand and insist on bare-minimum protections: no wind turbines within three miles of a major migratory stopover habitat. This could be where we draw our line in the sand. But the wind industry threatens to blow away the sand and obliterate the line.

The timing of this is bad from the birding viewpoint: spring is the high season here, half a year ago or half a year in the future, and now the birders are elsewhere and thinking about other things. The traveling birders who gathered here last May, celebrating the “Biggest Week in American Birding” and calling this “the Warbler Capital of the World,” are somewhere else now, looking at other birds. Few are aware of the struggle unfolding in northwest Ohio. Maybe they will come back next spring, maybe they won’t. But the birds will come back every spring, as long as they survive. And what they find when they arrive may depend on efforts that we make right now.

The long-distance migrants that stop over in northwest Ohio are arguably the most inspiring birds in the world: impressive for their numbers, for their sheer variety, for their colors and songs, for the remarkable scope of their travels. They make up a major element of the ecosystems of northern forests in summer and of tropical forests in winter, and in between they undertake vast journeys, employing navigational powers and strength and stamina that we can hardly imagine. But these impressive birds are increasingly at risk. Their nesting habitats in the north and their wintering habitats in the tropics are becoming more fragmented, crucial stopover habitats are vanishing, obstacles and threats along the way are proliferating, as it becomes more and more of a challenge for these small wayfarers to retrace their ancestral routes.

A Blackburnian Warbler arriving in northwest Ohio in spring is already a veteran traveler. Hatched in the northern forest during some previous summer, it has already flown to South America and back at least once. Navigating by the stars at night, evading predators by day, it has paused at a score of stopover sites, found a winter home in mountain forests near the equator, then initiated the return flight to the north. By the time it reaches Ohio, it has made it most of the way back. Flying north across Ohio, buoyed up by a south wind in the hour before first light, the bird may see a hint of the open waters of Lake Erie stretching out ahead. Rather than continue on across the water with daylight approaching, the bird drops lower and lower. Ahead in the darkness of predawn, a darker shadow suggests a line of trees, and the warbler aims for this shelter . . .

But it is never going to make it. The same south wind that carries the tiny migrant is also turning a gigantic steel blade, and in a moment the two will collide with such shattering force as to splinter the bird’s skull and crush its lungs, stop its heartbeat in an instant, and hurl its broken and lifeless body to the ground.

Then the blades strike another bird. And another. And another. And another.


This could be reality if we stand mute while turbines rise along the edges of the last, best stopover habitat. Are we really going to let this happen?

http://nimsoh.blogspot.com/2010/11/long-nights-journey-into-death.html

(Mods, I got permission from the author to repost.)

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Kennah Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-16-10 04:21 PM
Response to Original message
1. Do windturbines kill birds?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RaleighNCDUer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-16-10 05:01 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. Good articles. i've always heard about the bird deaths and wondered how
Edited on Tue Nov-16-10 05:05 PM by RaleighNCDUer
the giant slow-spinning blades could ever be a hazard. I didn't realize they were quoting studies from when wind power was in its infancy, predating the new generation of towers.

ON EDIT:

OTOH, the author does have a very valid point - wind farms should be erected at low bird traffic areas. Surely there are places the wind blows that are not natural migration corridors.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kristopher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-16-10 05:07 PM
Response to Reply #1
3. Sounds like Koch Bros funded antiwind propaganda
Edited on Tue Nov-16-10 05:09 PM by kristopher
They wrote, "The same south wind that carries the tiny migrant is also turning a gigantic steel blade"...

The blades are made of composites.

Not exactly a major item, but the author is clearly not interested in accuracy.


Actual radar tracing of a year's worth of birds transiting a wind farm offshore Denmark I believe.


Unrec for antirenewable propaganda
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
XemaSab Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-16-10 05:21 PM
Response to Reply #3
4. Please tell me which one of these businesses is a front for the Koch Brothers
I'd really LOVE to know.



BSBO BIRDS & BUSINESS
ALLIANCE MEMBERS

In partnership to promote birding
in the Lake Erie Shores and Island Region

GOLDEN EAGLE LEVEL - $2,500
◊ Birder's World
Kalmbach Publishing Co.
21027 Crossroads Circle
P.O. Box 1612
Waukesha, WI 53187
www.birdersworld.com

◊ Cornell Lab of Ornithology
Ithaca, New York
800-843-2473
www.birds.cornell.edu

◊ Eagle Optics
2120 W. Greenview Dr.
Middleton, WI 53562
800-289-1132
www.eagleoptics.com





Kaufman Field Guides
Oak Harbor, Ohio
www.KKnature.com




Leica Sport Optics
http://us.leica-camera.com/sport_optics/




Minuteman Press
205 SE Catawba Road
Port Clinton, Ohio
419 732-6673
www.portclinton.minutemanpress.com


◊ OurGuest Inn & Suites
220 East Perry Street
Port Clinton, Ohio 43452
419 734-7111
www.ourguestinn.com


Schaffner Publications
Port Clinton, Ohio
www.thebeacon.net


◊ Tropical Birding
Quito, Ecuador
800 348-5941
www.tropicalbirding.com



BALD EAGLE LEVEL - $500

African Safari Wildlife Park
267 Lightner Road
Port Clinton, OH 43452
800 521-2660
www.africansafariwildlifepark.com


◊ America's Best Value Inn
(Formerly the Lakeland Motel)
121 E. Perry Street
Port Clinton, Ohio 43452
866-734-2101
www.lakelandmotel.com

◊ Bench Farms - State Route 2
9151 Jerusalem Road (SR 2)
Curtice, Ohio 43412
419-836-9443
www.benchfarms.com

◊ Discovery Tours, Natural Heritage Tours
Cleveland, Ohio
216 531-8884
www.tourwithdiscovery.com/natural-heritage

◊ Island House Resort Hotel
102 Madison Street
Port Clinton, Ohio 43452
419 734-0100
www.port-clinton-ohio-hotel.com

◊ Holiday Inn Express
3154 Navarre (SR-2)
Oregon, Ohio 43616
419 691-8800
800 315 2621
wwww.hiexpress.com




Jet Express
3 North Monroe St.
Port Clinton, Ohio 43452
800 245-1538
www.jet-express.com


Lakeside Association
236 Walnut Avenue
Lakeside, OH 43440
419-798-4461
www.lakesideohio.com


◊ Marblehead Peninsula Chamber of Commerce
5681 East Harbor Road Suite C
Marblehead, Ohio 43440
419 734-9777
www.marbleheadpeninsula.com




Maumee Bay Lodge & Conference Center
1750 State Park Road #2
Oregon, Ohio 43616
419 836-1466
Reservations: 1-800-AT-A-PARK
www.maumeebaystateparklodge.com


McCarthy’s Restaurant & Pub
101 Madison
Port Clinton, Ohio 43452
419 732-8800
McCarthy's menu in PDF format




Miller Boat Line
Ferries to Put-in-Bay & Middle Bass, Ohio
Put-in-Bay, Ohio 43456
800 500-2421
www.millerferry.com



National Bank of Oak Harbor
147 West Water Street
Oak Harbor, OH 43449
419 898-5741
www.nboh.com



Nikon Sport Optics
www.nikonsportoptics.com



Our Sunset Place Bed & Breakfast
2803 E. Sand Road
Catawba Island, Ohio 43452
419 732-3875
www.oursunsetplace.com

◊ Podiatry Homecare
Dr. Gloria Christin
734 699-5182

◊ Porky's Pizza Trof
4811 N. State Route 2
Oak Harbor, Ohio 43449
419 898-1500

◊ Residence Inn by Marriott
Toledo/ Maumee
1370 Arrowhead Drive
Maumee, OH 43537
419 891-2233
www.residenceinntoledo.com
◊ Second Street Diner
116 E. 2nd Street
Port Clinton, OH 43452
419 732-3900

◊ Swarovski Optik North America Ltd.
2 Slater Road
Cranston, RI 02920
www.swarovskioptik.us




Time & Optics Ltd.
6954 CR 77
Millersburg, Ohio 44654
866 308-0727

◊ Victor Emanuel Tours
Austin Texas
800 328-8368
www.ventbird.com




Victorian Inn Bed & Breakfast
5622 East Harbor Road
Marblehead, Ohio 43440
800 501-3791
www.victorianinnbb.com


PEREGRINE FALCON LEVEL - $250

◊ Bumble Bee Cottages
Sandusky & Sandusky Riverfront
419-722-3885
Visit www.homeaway.com and select:
Cottage #1 Sleeps 8, Number is 142069
Cottage #2 Sleeps 6, Number is 137381
Cottage #3 Sleeps 8, Number is 274411

◊ Five Bells Inn
2766 Sand Road
Port Clinton, Ohio 43452
888-734-1555 or 419-734-1555
www.5bellsinn.com

◊ First Solar Inc
28101 Cedar Park Boulevard
Toledo, OH 43604
419 662-8500
www.firstsolar.com




Great Lakes Popcorn Co
60 N. Madison St
Port Clinton, OH 43452
419 732-3080
www.greatlakespopcorn.com



Kokomo Bay Restaurant
40 Madison St
Port Clinton, OH 43452
419 732-1830


◊ Tadpole Inn
Bono, Ohio
419 283-8847

◊ Wild Birds Unlimited - Toledo
5236 Monroe St. Suite D
Toledo, OH 43623
419 841-7219
www.wbu.com/toledo


RED-TAILED HAWK LEVEL - $100

◊ Fastrack Urgent Care
135 W. Perry Street
Port Clinton, Ohio 43452
419 732-7800
www.myspace.com/fastrackurgentcare




Maumee Bay General Store
7410 Jerusalem Road
Oregon, Ohio
419 836-4049


http://www.bsbobird.org/birds_and_business_alliance_members.htm
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hatrack Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-16-10 05:26 PM
Response to Reply #4
5. Why, the Cornell Ornithology Dept., of course!
That Tom Cade never was anything more than a provocateur and hell, I knew that back in the 1970s!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
XemaSab Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-16-10 05:27 PM
Response to Reply #5
6. .
:toast:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kristopher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-16-10 05:49 PM
Response to Reply #4
7. I said "it sounds like" Koch Bros propaganda, and it does.
I suppose we need to dig out the Audubon Society's position on wind yet again?


Here is a statement from the Delaware Audubon Society that they put out after reviewing the choices offered for local power generation. It might be a bit garbled as I'm not going to reformat it for DU.


DELAWARE AUDUBON

STATEMENT ON OFFSHORE WIND ENERGY

JANUARY 2007

Delaware Audubon was incorporated in Delaware as a non-profit organization in 1977 and is a statewide chapter of the National Audubon Society. The Audubon Society is dedicated to developing a better appreciation of our natural environment and working for species and habitat protection and conservation. Delaware Audubon consists of almost 1,500 members throughout the state advocating on a wide range of environmental issues and sponsoring programs, field trips and school education. Our focus is on protection of the Delaware Bay and the Coastal Zone. The following represents the organization’s position on offshore wind energy. This statement should be considered in conjunction with the organization’s Wind Energy Policy.

The Delaware Audubon Society recognizes that higher fuel prices and national security concerns have stimulated interest in alternative sources of energy, including renewables such as wind power. Our organization has long supported energy conservation and the use of renewable sources of energy. It is extremely important, however, that great thought and consideration be given to the social, economic and environmental impacts associated with all energy options, including renewable sources of energy.

When wind energy is compared with traditional fossil-fuel energy sources such as coal, the advantages are quite remarkable. Even with the emissions control requirements recently promulgated by the Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control (DNREC), which have been challenged by owners of fossil fuel-fired facilities, coal-fired power plants will still rank as one of the largest sources of pollution in the state. Currently, coal-fired power plants account for over half of the electrical energy production in the U.S. According to a 2005 report issued by the U.S. Public Interest Research Group titled “Pollution on the Rise: Local Trends in Power Plant Pollution,” burning coal is a leading cause of smog, acid rain, global warming, and air toxics. In an average year, a typical coal plant generates:


COAL-FIRED POWER PLANTS

Air Emissions
• 3,700,000 tons of carbon dioxide (CO2), the primary human cause of global warming--as much carbon dioxide as cutting down 161 million trees.
• 10,000 tons of sulfur dioxide (SO2), which causes acid rain that damages forests, lakes, and buildings, and forms small airborne particles that can penetrate deep into lungs.
• 500 tons of small airborne particles, which can cause chronic bronchitis, aggravated asthma, and premature death, as well as haze obstructing visibility. The State of Delaware is in non-attainment with the fine particulate standards.
• 10,200 tons of nitrogen oxide (NOx), as much as would be emitted by half a million late-model cars. NOx leads to formation of ozone (smog), which inflames the lungs, burning through lung tissue making people more susceptible to respiratory illness. The State of Delaware is in non-attainment with the ozone standard.
• 720 tons of carbon monoxide (CO), which causes headaches and places additional stress on people with heart disease.
• 220 tons of hydrocarbons, volatile organic compounds (VOC), which form ozone.
• 170 pounds of mercury, where just 1/70th of a teaspoon deposited on a 25-acre lake can make the fish unsafe to eat.
• 225 pounds of arsenic, which will cause cancer in one out of 100 people who drink water containing 50 parts per billion.
• 114 pounds of lead, 4 pounds of cadmium, other toxic heavy metals, and trace amounts of uranium.
While the IGCC technology proposed by NRG will have a reduced emissions profile and NRG may choose to shut down one or more of its four existing units rather than retrofit them with pollution controls, the facility will still have substantially greater air emissions than a comparable amount of wind energy, which has ZERO emissions.
Solid Waste
Waste created by a typical 500-megawatt coal plant includes more than 125,000 tons of ash and 193,000 tons of sludge from the smokestack scrubber each year. Nationally, more than 75% of this waste is disposed of in unlined, unmonitored onsite landfills and surface impoundments.
Toxic substances in the waste -- including arsenic, mercury, chromium, and cadmium -- can contaminate drinking water supplies and damage vital human organs and the nervous system. One study found that one out of every 100 children who drink groundwater contaminated with arsenic from coal power plant wastes were at risk of developing cancer. Ecosystems too have been damaged -- sometimes severely or permanently -- by the disposal of coal plant waste.
Cooling Water Systems
Once the 2.2 billion gallons of water have cycled through the coal-fired power plant, they are released back into the lake, river, or ocean. This water is hotter (by up to 20-25° F) than the water that receives it. This "thermal pollution" can decrease fertility and increase heart rates in fish. Typically, power plants also add chlorine or other toxic chemicals to their cooling water to decrease algae growth. These chemicals are also discharged back into the environment.
A typical 500-megawatt coal-fired power plant draws about 2.2 billion gallons of water each year from nearby water bodies, such as lakes, rivers, or oceans, to create steam for turning its turbines. This is enough water to support a city of approximately 250,000 people.

When this water is drawn into the power plant, an estimated 21 million fish eggs, fish larvae, and juvenile fish also come along with it -- and that's the average for a single species in just one year. In addition, EPA estimates that up to 1.5 million adult fish a year may become trapped against the intake structures. Many of these fish are injured or die in the process.
Waste Heat
Much of the heat produced from burning coal is wasted. A typical coal power plant uses only 33-35% of the coal's heat to produce electricity. The majority of the heat is released into the atmosphere or absorbed by the cooling water.
Coal Mining
About 60% of U.S. coal is stripped from the earth in surface mines; the rest comes from underground mines. Surface coal mining may dramatically alter the landscape. Coal companies throughout Appalachia often remove entire mountaintops to expose the coal below. The wastes are generally dumped in valleys and streams causing significant environmental damage.
In West Virginia, more than 300,000 acres of hardwood forests (an area half the size of the entire State of Rhode Island) and 1,000 miles of streams have been destroyed by this practice.
Underground mining is one of the most hazardous of occupations, killing and injuring many in accidents, and causing chronic health problems.

Coal Transportation
A typical coal plant requires 40 railroad cars to supply 1.4 million tons in a year; or 14,600 railroad cars a year. Railroad locomotives, which rely on diesel fuel, emit nearly 1 million tons of nitrogen oxide (NOx) and 52,000 tons of coarse and small particles in the United States. Coal dust blowing from coal trains contributes particulate matter to the air.
Coal Storage
Coal burned by power plants is typically stored onsite in uncovered piles. Dust blown from coal piles irritates the lungs and often settles on nearby houses and yards. Rainfall creates runoff from coal piles. This runoff contains pollutants that can contaminate land and water.

WIND ENERGY

Wind power generates electricity with
• No air emissions
• No impacts or energy consumption from mining, transporting, or storing fuel
• No cooling water impacts
• No water pollution
• No wastes
Wind power can reduce pollution generated by fossil fuels, such as coal, oil, and gas. The offshore wind energy project recently proposed in response to a request from Delmarva Power would supply enough energy for 130,000 homes in Delaware.

Some people don't like the way wind turbines look. Others find them visually appealing. A few wind projects have harmed some birds. And some pollution is produced when wind turbines are manufactured and installed, as with any energy option.


Avian Impacts – Lessons Learned
Some wind energy projects have resulted in the death of birds and bats. One of these is the well-known Altamont Pass wind farm located in a major bird flyway in northern California. This wind energy farm was built in the 1970’s in response to the Arab Oil Embargo and the resulting energy shortage. According to the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD), wind turbines at the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area (APWRA) kill more birds of prey than any other wind facility in North America, due to their location on a major bird migratory route in an area with high concentrations of raptors, including the highest density of breeding golden eagles in the world.
Research by raptor experts for the California Energy Commission (CEC) indicates that each year, Altamont Pass wind turbines kill an estimated 881 to 1,300 birds of prey, including more than 75 golden eagles, several hundred red-tailed hawks, several hundred burrowing owls, and hundreds of additional raptors including American kestrels, great horned owls, ferruginous hawks, and barn owls. These kills of over 40 different bird species are in violation of federal and state wildlife protection laws such as the Bald Eagle and Golden Eagle Protection Act, Migratory Bird Treaty Act, and several California Fish and Game Code provisions. A fact sheet prepared by CBD on the Altamont Pass bird kill issue can be found at:
http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/swcbd/Programs/bdes/altamont/factsheet.pdf
No real consideration was given to the impacts of the Altamont Pass wind energy facility when it was sited in the late 1970’s. This experience continues to serve as a constant reminder to the wind energy industry of the importance of proper siting. Although the Center for Biological Diversity is concerned about the impacts of wind turbine on birds, such as those at the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area, they do believe that we can have wind energy without decimating imperiled wildlife populations.
According to the Center, “There is scientific consensus that the industrialized world’s addiction to fossil fuels is causing irreversible climate change, altering ecosystems, and destroying biodiversity. Conservationists support the development of clean energy as an alternative to fossil fuel power plants, but impacts to wildlife should be reduced wherever possible. Potential sites for new wind energy projects should be reviewed for bird abundance, migration and use patterns, and wind farms should be designed and operated to prevent or minimize bird mortality. Where existing wind energy facilities are having adverse impacts on birds, as at Altamont Pass, these impacts should be fully mitigated.”
Similarly, Delaware Audubon believes that impacts from wind energy facilities can be minimized through proper siting and operation. Both the National Audubon Society and Delaware Audubon have adopted a policy on wind energy to address the issue of avian impacts. A copy of that policy is attached and can be found at:
http://www.delawareaudubon.org/action/wind_power_policy.pdf

DANISH OFFSHORE WIND REPORT

A recent report (November 2006) issued by the Danish government (Danish Energy Authority and the Forest and Nature Agency) and two European energy companies, DONG Energy and Vattenfall, assessing impacts from 2 offshore wind farms concluded that:

“ Danish experience from the past 15 years shows that offshore wind farms, if placed right, can be engineered and operated without significant damage to the marine environment and vulnerable species.

The comprehensive environmental monitoring programmes of Horns Rev Offshore Wind Farm and Nysted Offshore Wind Farm confirm that, under the right conditions, even big wind energy farms pose low risks to birds, mammals and fish, even though there will be changes in the living conditions of some species by an increase in habitat heterogeneity.

The monitoring also showed that appropriate siting of offshore wind farms is an essential precondition for ensuring limited impact on nature and the environment, and that careful spatial planning is necessary to avoid damaging cumulative impacts.
Due consideration to limiting the impacts on nature together with positive attitudes towards offshore wind farms in local communities and challenging energy policy objectives at national and international levels mean that prospects look bright for future offshore expansion.”

With regard to avian impacts specifically, the monitoring program showed that:

“Hazards presented to birds by the construction of the Horns Rev and Nysted wind farms include barriers to movement, habitat loss and collision risks. Radar, infra-red video monitoring and visual observations confirmed that most of the more numerous species showed avoidance responses to both wind farms.

Slightly extended migration distances are unlikely to have consequences for any species. Neither site lies close to nesting areas to affect reproduction. Post-construction studies showed almost complete absence of divers and scoters within the Horns Rev Offshore Wind Farm and significant reductions in long-tailed duck densities within the Nysted Offshore Wind Farm. Other species showed no significant change or occurred in too few numbers to permit statistical analysis.

Of 235,000 common eiders passing Nysted each autumn, predicted collision rates were 0.02% (45 birds). This low magnitude was confirmed by the fact that no collisions were observed by infra-red monitoring.

Whilst unlikely to have major effects on the overall populations involved, assessing the cumulative effects of these and other developments remains a future challenge.”

A copy of the Danish report can be found at:

http://www.ens.dk/graphics/Publikationer/Havvindmoeller/havvindmoellebog_nov_2006_skrm.pdf


DELAWAREANS SUPPORT WIND POWER

In a recent survey released by University of Delaware researchers, a representative sample of Delaware residents expressed strong support for offshore wind power. When asked to select from a variety of energy sources that could help the state increase energy supply, more than 90 percent of the respondents chose the offshore wind power option as the preferred energy source, even if that meant paying up to $30 more per month for their electric service.
Fewer than 10 percent supported expanding coal or natural gas sources.

A copy of the complete report can be found at: http://www.ocean.udel.edu/windpower


NRG’s PROPOSED IGCC FACILITY

NRG is proposing to construct a new coal plant at their Indian River site using Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle (IGCC) technology. This technology subjects the coal to high temperatures and pressures thus driving off volatile gases. The gas is then used as fuel to fire the boilers, much like a natural gas fired plant. This technology has the capability to burn the fuel more cleanly since the impurities can be removed from the gas before it is combusted.

The IGCC technology can effectively reduce emissions of SOx, particulates and mercury. Removal of some CO2, a greenhouse gas that contributes to global warming, can also be accomplished. According to NRG, the technology is “capable” of removing 60 to 65 percent of the CO2 produced, although NRG has not publicly committed to CO2 removal and sequestration. NRG also is on record as opposing the efforts of seven New England and Mid-Atlantic States to regulate greenhouse gas emissions through the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI).

Ironically, NRG issued a press release on January 11, 2007 in which President and CEO David Crane stated, "Taking steps to reduce carbon dioxide concentrations in the earth's atmosphere is a moral imperative. The power generation sector, in particular, has a massive responsibility to lead in the reduction of greenhouse gases and collectively work toward the establishment of a pragmatic and realistic carbon regime.” In this case, NRG’s actions belie their public statements.

NRG has also been caught in a contradiction in their public statements on wind energy. On July 14, 2006 NRG completed its acquisition of Padoma Wind Power, a leading wind energy development company. Again, Mr. Crane is quoted as saying, “We believe renewable energy has an important and growing role to play alongside fossil fuel-fired generation in meeting the Nation’s electricity requirements.” Yet, in a full-page ad that ran in the Cape Gazette on December 19, 2006, NRG claimed that they support wind power, but it really doesn’t work when you need it most. Either NRG made a huge business mistake when it acquired Padoma, or they incorrectly expressed their views on the importance of wind energy in the national energy mix. They can’t be walking both sides of the street on this issue. Delaware Audubon also questions why a company that proclaims to be concerned about impacts on the environment would legally challenge new emission standards recently promulgated by DNREC.


TIME FOR BIG DECISIONS

In a column that appeared in the Brandywine Community News on January 19, 2007 and appears on his web site, State Treasurer Jack Markell offers a very well reasoned and articulate argument for selecting wind power as Delaware’s preferred energy choice. He points out that carbon controls and carbon “taxes” are being given serious consideration by key members of the new Congress. These requirements will translate into significant new costs for fossil fuel-fired power plants that will be passed along to Delaware ratepayers.

The Public Service Commission regulates investor-owned utilities. They recently ordered Delmarva Power to review bids from a variety of in-state power suppliers with the goal of selecting a cost effective, environmentally friendly, long-term electric generating power source. The Treasurer believes that the Electric Utility Retail Customer Supply Act (EURCSA), passed by the Delaware General Assembly in April 2006, requires Delmarva to consider cost effectiveness, price stability and environmental impacts in evaluating proposal. Three potential projects are being considered; NRG’s 580 MW IGCC power plant, Conectiv’s 380 MW natural gas-fired plant, and Bluewater Wind’s 600 MW offshore wind energy project. The cost of electricity from the two fossil fuel-fired proposals will be affected by carbon requirements imposed under a national program or by the state, which is participating in RGGI.

The Treasurer agues quite persuasively that “all of us seek the lowest prices; at the same time, EURCSA specifically mentions the importance of price stability. Focusing on price stability would better ensure long-term savings for Delaware ratepayers, . . .”

Under EURCSA, on or before February 28, 2007, the Public Service Commission, the State Energy Office (located in DNREC), the Director of the Office of Management and Budget and the Controller General will evaluate and may approve of one or more of the proposed projects. State Treasurer Markell recommends that these decision makers “strongly consider the importance of price stability, new technology, and reductions in environmental impacts (especially greenhouse gas emissions). They should take a long-term view of cost-effectiveness, considering not only today’s business environment but also the business environment in which these facilities will operate during their entire functioning life.”

Given the pace of global warming, some scientists believe we have around 40 to 50 years to reduce our contributions of greenhouse gases to the atmosphere and avoid large-scale impacts of climate change and sea level rise. Energy decisions we make today will have a direct effect on our ability to address this problem. Glacial melting in the Arctic and in Greenland is accelerating at a rate that few expected. If the ice mass that covers Greenland melts, sea levels will rise by nearly 20 feet, reducing the land mass of Delaware by one-third and inundating low-lying coastal areas.

We have a huge stake in this decision. We can set an example for the rest of the country by selecting the one energy option that provides the greatest long-term financial and environmental benefits. Wind energy is not a futuristic, niche technology. Large-scale onshore and offshore wind energy farms have been in operation for many years. Denmark leads the world in offshore wind and they plan to add even more wind energy capacity.

• Wind energy is a technology for today.
• Wind energy is clean.
• Wind energy does not generate massive amounts of wastes like coal-fired power plants, including those using IGCC technology.
• Wind energy generates NO greenhouse gases.
• The price of wind energy does not fluctuate like coal and natural gas.
• Wind energy does not require the devastation of hundreds of thousand of acres of land and the pollution of hundreds of miles of streams that result from mountain top mining in West Virginia or vast strip mines out west.
• Wind energy doesn’t need to be transported thousands of miles by truck or train.
• Wind energy helps diversify the nation’s energy mix.

CONCLUSION

Delaware Audubon encourages you to support the wind energy option as the only reasonable, cost-effective and environmentally beneficial alternative. It is absolutely essential that you contact the agencies and officials who will be deciding our energy future to let them know you want pollution-free wind power.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
XemaSab Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-16-10 06:08 PM
Response to Reply #7
8. Did you even read the OP?
The whole point of the OP is that wind farms should be PROPERLY SITED (which is what the National Audubon Society's position is).

According to the NAS:



Audubon's Position on Wind Power

Summary: Audubon strongly supports properly-sited wind power as a clean alternative energy source that reduces the threat of global warming. Wind power facilities should be planned, sited and operated to minimize negative impacts on bird and wildlife populations.


Protecting Birds and Wildlife: While Audubon strongly supports wind power and recognizes it will not be without some impact, production and transmission facilities must be planned, sited and operated in concert with other actions needed to minimize and mitigate their impacts on birds and other wildlife populations. Several federal and state laws require this and the long-term sustainability of the wind industry depends on it. Wind power facilities impact birds from direct collisions with turbines and related facilities, such as power lines. Wind power facilities can also degrade or destroy habitat, cause disturbance and displacement, and disrupt important ecological links. These impacts can be avoided or significantly reduced, however, with proper siting, operation and mitigation.

Audubon supports the adoption of federal and state guidelines on the study, siting, operation and mitigation of wind power. Guidelines should provide developers, permitting agencies and conservation groups with the legal, technical and practical steps needed to minimize impacts on birds and other wildlife. Guidelines should provide the following essential elements:


Minimum pre-permitting study requirements and guidance on study methods, frequency and acceptable data sources to ensure that wind power is sited in appropriate locations

Clearly delineated siting criteria that designate areas where wind power should not be allowed, such as Important Bird Areas, major migratory corridors, wilderness areas, national parks, wildlife refuges, and other sensitive habitat such as wetlands and riparian corridors

Clearly defined monitoring and mitigation requirements in permits, with periodic reviews and requirements for adaptive management if impacts significantly exceed levels allowed by permit

Guidance on cumulative population impacts assessment and mitigation.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kristopher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-16-10 06:15 PM
Response to Reply #8
9. A Long Night's Journey Into Death
Edited on Tue Nov-16-10 06:17 PM by kristopher
The same south wind that carries the tiny migrant is also turning a gigantic steel blade, and in a moment the two will collide with such shattering force as to splinter the bird’s skull and crush its lungs, stop its heartbeat in an instant, and hurl its broken and lifeless body to the ground.
Then the blades strike another bird. And another. And another. And another.


I read the beginning and the end. That was enough to identify it as Koch style antiwind propaganda. The piece is designed to accomplish a goal, and that goal is to create opposition to wind - period. They have no interest in proper siting, they just want to create hate and opposition for wind.

How do you know they are NOT funded by Koch? They were the prime force behind Save Our Sound in Cape Cod, they have poured lots of money into astroturf opposition to any action on climate and their verbiage is certainly right in line with the stuff the Koch funded people produce.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
XemaSab Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-16-10 06:20 PM
Response to Reply #9
10. Maybe you should read the whole thing before you open your mouth
:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kristopher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-16-10 06:33 PM
Response to Reply #10
11. It is antiwind propaganda.
The genre is easily identified. I'm sorry you feel the need to defend it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GliderGuider Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-16-10 07:02 PM
Response to Reply #11
12. Now site selection puts a bug up your nose?
Edited on Tue Nov-16-10 07:15 PM by GliderGuider
The language of the OP was a little florid, but all it was saying was "Don't locate wind farms in bird stopover areas." I really don't see much controversy in that position.

It's as though you take every critique of wind power as a personal attack. They're not, you know. Some of them are just critiques of wind power. Just as I don't take it personally when you post anti-nuclear pieces -- it's a free market of ideas, so long as we keep our own personalities out of it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
semillama Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-16-10 07:12 PM
Response to Reply #11
14. Read the whole damn thing.
It's not antiwind propaganda. It's about urging more care and regulation in the placement of wind turbines. If you knew anything about bird migration behavior, then you'd probably agree that placing large numbers of wind turbines in the ascent and descent path of migratory songbirds would probably be a bad idea. I'm a big supporter of wind energy, and the company I work for even does cultural resources compliance for a couple of the companies that operate in Ohio. A couple of wind turbines here and there, and larger farms in the interior of the northwest part of the state don't pose much of a threat (The companies we work for aren't the ones trying to put up the problematic turbines, BTW).

You have strong opinions about wind power, but dismissing a piece because you skimmed the first and last paragraphs is not displaying any thing close to critical thinking on the subject, in my book.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
XemaSab Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-16-10 07:33 PM
Response to Reply #11
15. You're the only person on here who works directly for the power industry
and yet you have the nerve to call one of the most well-known conservation advocates in the United States a shill and his plea for proper siting of wind farms propaganda?

That's rich.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
joshcryer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-16-10 07:35 PM
Response to Reply #15
17. Kenn Kaufman is clearly a shill for the fossil fuel interests.
The greenwashing displayed by others heavily quoted here, not so much.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Confusious Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-16-10 07:59 PM
Response to Reply #10
24. Any concern, even the most minimum that paints wind or solar in a bad light is propaganda.

We should all now that by now.

Even geeky birders. They're in on the conspiracy, don't cha' know?

Don't you want to get your unicorn that farts glitter?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nihil Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-17-10 06:43 AM
Response to Reply #10
31. Deleted message
:evilgrin:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GliderGuider Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-16-10 07:09 PM
Response to Reply #7
13. Right, no guilt by association intended...
It's the same dodge George used to link Saddam to the Twin Towers. It was a disingenuous smear when he did it...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
joshcryer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-16-10 07:39 PM
Response to Reply #3
18. Scientists to Investigate Impacts of Wind Energy on Migratory Wildlife
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
joshcryer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-16-10 07:41 PM
Response to Reply #3
19. Agency aims to protect eagles from wind farms
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
joshcryer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-16-10 07:33 PM
Response to Original message
16. Helmets.
All they need are little tiny helmets.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
joshcryer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-16-10 07:42 PM
Response to Original message
20. Look at this anti-wind propaganda, something needs to be done:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
XemaSab Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-16-10 07:50 PM
Response to Reply #20
22. pwned
:D
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GliderGuider Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-16-10 07:55 PM
Response to Reply #20
23. "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds."
No such problem here, thank goodness.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
joshcryer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-16-10 08:03 PM
Response to Reply #23
25. The migratory wildlife study hasn't been completed.
If you look my comments in that thread I was really dismissive of the wind kills birds statements, but it is reactionary bullshit like this here which has made me more cautious about it. We need studies to see how bad the impact really is.

If thousands of birds somehow wind up blended in a turbine blade everyone and their mother will hear about it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GliderGuider Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-17-10 11:42 AM
Response to Reply #25
32. Just to be clear, I wasn't accusing you of being inconsistent.
I could have just said "pwned" but that's so yesterday :evilgrin:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
joshcryer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-17-10 06:27 PM
Response to Reply #32
37. Yeah, I know, but I wanted to make it aware that yes, my position was different in Jan.
It wasn't terribly different, and certainly it wasn't a flip flop like this guy, because I do consider transmission lines the bigger problem. But I also wanted to clarify that I was wrong to be dismissive like I was back then, like some in this thread are being now.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
joshcryer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-16-10 07:49 PM
Response to Original message
21. I'm actually more concerned about transmission lines.
But there's almost no real data about the impact of wind turbines on migratory birds, so that really needs to be studied hard before they start putting the things up. Though I do imagine that if there is an impact factor they'll just take 'em down.

Here's the problem with transmission lines: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=225177&mesg_id=226029
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pitohui Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-16-10 08:09 PM
Response to Original message
26. this breaks my heart because yes "we" are really going to let this happen
Edited on Tue Nov-16-10 08:13 PM by pitohui
there was a cathy cartoon years ago about how she slithered the cake to death

we are slithering the warblers to death, they have almost nothing, and now we will even take that nothing from them for the benefit of what? but most people wouldn't "see" a blackburnian warbler if it danced on their nose, only the old people care about warblers, young people don't even know what a warbler is...we passed the critical mass where people could see them as young kids and feel related to them and a part of their lives

we need to respect the passageways of these few remaining little jewels, i'm sick of the greedy who want to kill everything rare and beautiful for the sake of the fucking real estate developers and every other hustler of this type and the wind farmers are definitely hustlers

haven't been to the ohio side but i've been to the detroit/point pelee side of this warbler migration...it's AWESOME!

and i think it will be gone in a few more years, i'm crying, we can't stop the march of money

every time i object to these turbines being placed in a migration area, which is where they ALL are, because migration follows the wind..."progressives" hate me because they somehow don't know that the wind turbines are big energy and the usual backward capitalist yahoos hate me because i'm letting a bird get in the way of another fat-ass billionaire...we have no one on our side, we're cranks because we want these humble species to live

even native americans had no word for individual species of warbler, we lived at a special moment in time, from the early 20th century to maybe a few more years into the 21st century, when you could know and see and experience all of these little jewels

your photo is lovely so i hope you won't be hurt if i point out that this photo -- perhaps NO photo -- does justice to the beauty of this particular species, they're a knock out in person!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
XemaSab Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-16-10 09:10 PM
Response to Reply #26
27. Thank you
And yes, I have seen them in person and they GLOW. They're stunning little birds.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
joshcryer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-16-10 09:15 PM
Response to Reply #27
28. I don't know if they come to Colorado but there was this tree here...
...that had these tiny little itsy bitsy singing birds in it for the longest time, they just favored the tree for some reason. Then some asshole cut one of its largest limbs off because it protruded over the sidewalk. Haven't seen the little guys since.

They moved so fast I don't think I could say definitively if they were the same kind of bird.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
XemaSab Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-16-10 10:04 PM
Response to Reply #28
29. What color were they?
:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
joshcryer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-16-10 10:21 PM
Response to Reply #29
30. They were dark gray, but I *have* seen colorful ones, just not with this group.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kennah Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-17-10 11:48 AM
Response to Original message
33. A little shock
"The statistics are shocking if you consider just how many people are crying out against wind power for the birds' sake:"

Feral and domestic cats - Hundreds of millions

Power lines - 130-174 million

Windows (residential and commercial) - 100 million-1 billion

Pesticides - 70 million

Automobiles - 60-80 million

Lighted communication towers - 40-50 million

Wind turbines - 10,000-40,000
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
XemaSab Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-17-10 01:01 PM
Response to Reply #33
34. From the OP:
People who express concern about bird mortality at wind turbines are usually treated with condescension at best (with phrases like “Bird-lovers are all a-flutter at the thought that Tweetie Bird might get hurt”). I’ve seen a dozen wind industry fact sheets pointing out, rather patronizingly, that wild birds are killed by many things, including window strikes, automobiles, and roaming cats. This is true. But the birds most often killed by cars and house cats are the birds that live around roads and houses – abundant, widespread species, with populations large enough to sustain the losses. If ten million House Sparrows are hit by cars every year, it won’t make a dent in their total population. But when you place hazards around stopover habitats for migratory birds, you are turning this equation upside down. Such hazards have their worst impact on the long-distance migrants, the species that are already most at risk.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kennah Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-17-10 01:09 PM
Response to Reply #34
35. I'm not saying ignore the issue of birds killed by windturbines ...
... but I am saying keep it in perspective. Proper siting, it appears, is going to make a huge difference.

From one of the links I posted:

Wind Turbines Don't Make Birds Fly the Coop
http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2008/10/03-02.html

When it comes to disrupting the winter nesting of farmland birds, wind turbines don't appear to ruffle too many feathers. Researchers have found that the energy-generating machines caused only 1 out of 23 species studied to change its behavior. That's welcome news for both environmentalists and wind-energy companies looking to produce environmentally friendly power at low cost to local ecology.
...
So far, most wind-energy companies have focused their efforts on building offshore wind turbines, and consequently most studies into the environmental effects of wind turbines have looked at their effects on coastal bird populations. These studies have shown that offshore wind farms are largely safe for migrating birds. But a few have studied the impact of wind farms in onshore environments, such as farmlands and moorlands. More and more European energy companies are looking to windswept lowlands for potential development, says Mark Whittingham, an ecologist at Newcastle University in the U.K., who decided to find out whether wind turbines on farmlands might displace local bird populations.
...
That suggests to Whittingham that farmlands might make suitable real estate for future wind-farm developers, although more research is needed to examine potential effects. For one, he says, the timing of his study might matter. Birds' winter behavior might differ from their behavior at other times of the year. Also, his team didn't look at how many birds are killed by the turbines themselves, Whittingham says, but he thinks that it's unlikely to be a significant number. Farmland birds, he says, are typically relatively small and can easily maneuver around turbines. (Turbine blades are much more dangerous for bats, though. See ScienceNOW, 25 August).
...
turbines might displace younger birds because they aren't as accustomed to the turbines, which could have implications for their future nesting choices. "You'd also want to be careful drawing conclusions to other habitats" and species, he says.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
joshcryer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-17-10 06:26 PM
Response to Reply #33
36. That'd be true if wind turbines didn't *require* transmission grid expansion.
You cannot separate wind turbines from the infrastructure required to make it work. That's what the wind industry does, though. They say "look powerlines kill way more than wind turbines."

They neglect to say "wind turbines require a shitload more powerlines."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
XemaSab Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-17-10 09:34 PM
Response to Reply #36
38. So much word
n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nihil Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-18-10 05:34 AM
Response to Reply #36
39. And if you really wanted to be nasty ...
... you'd take the appropriate number from the wind industry defence:

> Power lines - 130-174 million
> Wind turbines - 10,000-40,000

... and take the appropriate fraction of the power line kill-rate by
proportion to number of sites and length of run (remembering that one
of the selling points of wind farms is that they can be nowhere near
the places that consume the power) ...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sat May 04th 2024, 06:29 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Environment/Energy Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC