The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds plans Wind turbine

[westwall]

The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds announces wind turbine plan to reduce its carbon footprint



Good Job!!

Only if your goal is to destroy birds......

Silly nonsense promoted by the fossil fuel industry as part of their campaign to dismiss renewable energy sources that are in competition with fossil fuels.

wind power is a failure.

Actually wind power is a big success and getting bigger all the time. It is only in your crazy little cult of AGW denial, that stooges for the fossil fuel industry, that you can find anyone who considers wind power a "failure". But of course, you always have been a massively ignorant and very crazy little liar, walleyedretard.

As far as the bird kills go, you and FauxNews are very good at spinning up a story and ignoring the context. And, of course, you both usually get your facts wrong.

A 2007 report by the National Research Council concluded that wind turbine losses account for “a minute fraction” of bird deaths caused by human activities:

Collisions with buildings kill 97 to 976 million birds annually; collisions with high-tension lines kill at least 130 million birds, perhaps more than one billion; collisions with communications towers kill between 4 and 5 million based on “conservative estimates,” but could be as high as 50 million; cars may kill 80 million birds per year; and collisions with wind turbines killed an estimated at 20,000 to 37,000 birds per year in 2003, with all but 9,200 of those deaths occurring in California. Toxic chemicals, including pesticides, kill more than 72 million birds each year, while domestic cats are estimated to kill hundreds of millions of songbirds and other species each year. Erickson et al. (2005) estimate that total cumulative bird mortality in the United States “may easily approach 1 billion birds per year.”

Clearly, bird deaths caused by wind turbines are a minute fraction of the total anthropogenic bird deaths–less than 0.003% in 2003 based on the estimates of Erickson et al. (2005). [National Research Council, May 2007​

And then, of course, there is the fact that these man-made climate changes we're experiencing will wipe out whole species of birds and kill far, far more birds than wind turbines ever will.

A 2008 Department of Energy report noted that wind-related bird deaths cannot compare to the threat of climate change:

Publicity related to wind power developments often focuses on wind power’s impact on birds, especially their collisions with turbines. Although this is a valid environmental concern that needs to be addressed, the larger effects of global climate change also pose significant and growing threats to birds and other wildlife species.

The future for birds in a world of global climate change is particularly bleak. A recent article found that 950 to 1,800 terrestrial bird species are imperiled by climate changes and habitat loss. [Department of Energy, July 2008]​

And then there is the fact that fossil fuel production kills far more birds than wind turbines. According to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service:

Every year an estimated 500,000 to 1 million birds are killed in oilfield production skim pits, reserve pits, and in oilfield wastewater disposal facilities according to a study published by Pepper Trail, forensic ornithologist with the Service’s Forensics Laboratory in Ashland, Oregon. [U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 8/19/11]​

Although some members of the American Bird Conservancy seem to have their feathers in a twist over this, here's the organizational position statement on wind energy.

American Bird Conservancy’s Policy Statement on Wind Energy and Bird-Smart Wind Guidelines

Wind power is the fastest developing source of energy in the United States and can be an important part of the solution to climate change. However, wind farms can kill birds through collisions with turbines and associated structures, and also harm them through the loss of habitat that birds need for survival. American Bird Conservancy supports wind power when it is bird-smart, and believes that birds and wind power can co-exist if the wind industry is held to mandatory standards that protect birds.

Other bird conservation groups, like the Audubon Society, don't entirely agree with the ABC on this problem.The Audubon Society just recently endorsed the Obama Administration's new guidelines on wind farms that are aimed at reducing bird fatalities from wind turbines.

New wind tower guidelines aim to lower bird deaths
By Associated Press business staff
March 23, 2012
(excerpts)

WASHINGTON -- The Obama administration offered new guidance Friday on where wind farms should be located to reduce the number of bird deaths while promoting increased use of wind power. Interior Secretary Ken Salazar said the guidelines, which take effect immediately, provide a scientific basis for developers and government regulators to identify sites with low risk to wildlife while allowing for more wind energy projects on private and public lands. Salazar called wind power a key part of the administration's "all-of-the-above" energy strategy and noted that the guidelines for onshore projects have been endorsed by the American Wind Energy Association and the National Audubon Society, a conservation group. The dual endorsements "speak volumes about our goals: to do everything we can to stand up renewable energy" such as wind power while protecting wildlife and habitat, Salazar said at a news conference Friday. The guidelines call on the wind industry to eliminate from consideration areas that would pose high risks to birds and other wildlife, and to take steps to alleviate problems by restoring nearby habitat and other actions.

John Anderson, director of siting policy for the wind energy group, said wind turbines cause a minute fraction of overall bird deaths -- less than 3 out of every 100,000 human-related deaths. Even so, he said the industry has taken significant steps to reduce the number of birds killed, mostly by restoring habitat and locating wind farms in low-risk areas. The new guidelines established by the Fish and Wildlife Service should improve siting practices while protecting wildlife, said Denise Bode, chief executive of the wind energy association. David Yarnold, president & CEO of Audubon, called the guidelines a good compromise that reflects years of consultation with interested groups, including environmental groups. "Conservationists can't have it both ways: We can't say we need renewable energy and then say there's nowhere safe to put the wind farms," Yarnold said. "By collaborating with conservationists instead of slugging it out, the wind power industry gains vital support to expand and create jobs, and wildlife gets the protection crucial for survival. These federal guidelines are a game-changer and big win for both wildlife and clean energy."

When you pull your head out of your rectum and read something other than your propaganda pages you might learn something...... Though I doubt it in your case.

The comments below are BEFORE he really looked into their efficacy, now he absolutely condemns them.


"February 3rd, 2004

The inventor of the 'Gaia theory' and inspiration for the green movement, Dr James Lovelock, tells Andrea Kuhn why windfarms do not address the problems of global warming

The leading environmentalist and scientist who invented the "Gaia theory" has told the Western Morning News that he now regrets his endorsement of windfarms in the Westcountry.

Dr James Lovelock proposed the widely respected view that the earth is a self-regulating, living system rather than the Darwinian theory of competing physical, chemical and biological interests.

He also says the Government should "come clean" over its plans on wind power for the region.

"I was asked to open the windfarm at Delabole," he said. "At that time nobody was talking about a gigantic programme, getting 15 or 20 per cent of the country's energy from wind turbines. It was a kind of nice green gesture. I think, now that I know as much as I do, I wouldn't have touched it with a bargepole."

He believes the actions by the Government have been reminiscent of something out of the comic science fiction novel The Hitchhikers' Guide to the Galaxy.

"It has stolen up on us without any of us being aware of it," he said. "The Government really has not come clean on this. There has not been a general public announcement. You cannot count the White Paper. How many people read that?"

Dr Lovelock, 84, who in 2002 was made a Companion of Honour by the Queen for his research, believes nuclear power is the only form of energy that will not contribute to global warming and could supply enough power for the planet.

He waves away the argument that wind is a natural form of energy. "Lots of things are good in nature - like motherhood - but it can be an absolute menace in certain circumstances," he says.

Dr Lovelock believes we face devastating consequences from climate change and that putting up a few wind turbines will not address the problem.

He cites the example of the Danes, who have found turbines will only work with conventional power stations to support them when there is no wind.

As such power stations cannot be fired up at will, they have to run constantly, which defeats the "green" objective."





James Lovelock and wind turbines

 

[Oddball]

Here is a concept worth playing with.

In October 2009, James Dyson's consumer electronics company, famous for its line of vacuum cleaners, introduced a new device to the market called the Dyson Air Multiplier. The Air Multiplier is a fan with an unusual characteristic: It doesn't have any visible blades. It appears to be a circular tube mounted on a pedestal. The shallow tube is only a few inches deep.

Looking at the device, you wouldn't expect to feel a breeze coming from the mounted circle. There are no moving parts in sight. But if the fan is switched on, you'll feel air blowing through the tube. How does it work? How can an open circle push air into a breeze without fan blades?

As you might imagine, there are a few scientific principles at play here. There's also an electronic element. While the tube doesn't have any blades inside it, the pedestal of the fan contains a brushless electric motor that takes in air and feeds it into the circular tube. Air flows along the inside of the device until it reaches a slit inside the tube. This provides the basic airflow that creates the breeze you'd feel if you stood in front of the fan. Dyson claims that the Air Multiplier generates a breeze with 15 times more air than what the device actually takes in.

According to Dyson, the breeze generated by the Air Multiplier is more consistent and steady than one from a standard fan with blades. Since there are no rotating blades, the breeze from the fan doesn't buffet you with short gusts of air.

HowStuffWorks "Stuff You Should Know's First-ever Crowd-sourced Quiz"

Really?

My guess was that Dyson had figured out a way to make a squirrel cage fan operate within the hoop.

Verrrrry interesting.

 

[Star]

Turbines will kill raptors because raptors soar and glide, which will let them get sucked into a turbine.

Birds are smart, so if killer emissions are reduced, they will do fine, with the turbines.

Still, if a raptor follows a smart, little bird, toward a turbine, that raptor needs to watch out, now. Prey species have already learned, to use those turbines, against raptors.

Wind turbines are to raptors what a flame is to a moth. The flicker rate of the blades mesmerise the birds and draws them in to the kill. No bird is smart enough to avoid the blade, some are lucky, most aren't. If your goal is to drive raptors, buzzards and vulturs to extinction your precious little wind farms will do just that.

They won't produce enough usable power however, ever.

Wind turbines aren't like your propeller hat they don't whirl around at high speeds. After the construction phase, properly sited wind farms kill few birds, but then so do buildings, radio towers, satellite dishes, your picture window, etc. but-----but according to the major new study, (below) "There is no impact from the turning of the blades".

Windfarms do not cause long-term damage to bird populations, study finds | Environment | guardian.co.uk


Severin Carrell, Scotland correspondent
guardian.co.uk 12 April 2012


A major new study has quashed fears that onshore windfarms are causing long-term damage to bird populations, but found new evidence that some species are harmed when windfarms are built.

The study by conservationists into the impacts on 10 of the key species of British upland bird, including several suffering serious population declines, concluded that a large majority of species can co-exist or thrive with windfarms once they are operating.

But the study, the largest carried out in the UK into the impact of onshore windfarms on bird life, also found strong evidence that some species suffered serious harm while windfarms are being built.

"It shows that there can be serious species-level impacts in the construction phase, so construction in the right place is absolutely key. But what it hasn't shown is that windfarms are 'bird blenders'. There is no impact from the turning of the blades," said Martin Harper, the RSPB's UK conservation director.

The study, which is published in the Journal of Applied Ecology, was carried out jointly by four naturalists and ornithologists from the RSPB, Scottish Natural Heritage and the British Trust for Ornithology (BTO). It goes against widespread allegations by critics of windfarms that clusters of turbines routinely cause serious damage to wild birds, through collision with the revolving blades, noise and visual disturbance.

James Pearce-Higgins, the lead author and principal ecologist with the BTO, said: "It was a bit of a surprise that the impact on windfarms seemed to be happening during construction rather than operation."

"It means we should look at ways in which these negative impacts can be minimised. The next step will be to find out whether those steps are effective," he said.
The most alarming findings were for the curlew, Britain's largest wader, whose numbers fell 40% in a radius of up to 800m from the site during construction at the 18 windfarms in northern England and Scotland involved in the study. Curlew numbers remained "significantly lower" after the windfarms began operating, after they abandoned nesting sites. Snipe numbers also failed to recover, falling by 53% within 400m of the study sites. Red grouse numbers also fell but rose again after construction finished.

Ornithologists are becoming increasingly anxious about the UK's overall curlew numbers; they have fallen sharply by about half, since 1995, and the UK is host to one-third of Europe's entire curlew population. The species is now on the amber list of threatened bird species.

The study's authors said these findings were balanced out by the discovery that two species, the skylark and stonechat - which prefer open, broken and short vegetation - flourished during the building phase. The other species, such as meadow pipit, golden plover, wheatear, whinchat, dunlin and lapwings, showed either no change or less certain reactions. There was evidence that meadow pipits prospered on windfarm sites while golden plover numbers fell, but the authors said further work was needed to show a link to the windfarm development.

The study's authors warned that their findings presented strong evidence that new developments should be carefully sited to minimise impacts on birds.

Pearce-Higgins said one caveat was that more long-term data was needed to ensure their findings were robust: some of the windfarms being studied had only been operating for three years.


There have been notorious, historic, cases of windfarms in other countries affecting local bird populations. Studies in the UK had found evidence that birds of prey in particular avoided windfarms, reducing the available food supplies and habitat. Bats can also be affected.

The RSPB was very critical of a decision by the Scottish government last week to approve the Viking windfarm on Shetland, despite clear evidence that its 103 turbines would harm nesting grounds and habitat for whimbrel and red-throated divers.

 

[RollingThunder]

Only if your goal is to destroy birds......

Silly nonsense promoted by the fossil fuel industry as part of their campaign to dismiss renewable energy sources that are in competition with fossil fuels.

wind power is a failure.

Actually wind power is a big success and getting bigger all the time. It is only in your crazy little cult of AGW denial, that stooges for the fossil fuel industry, that you can find anyone who considers wind power a "failure". But of course, you always have been a massively ignorant and very crazy little liar, walleyedretard.

As far as the bird kills go, you and FauxNews are very good at spinning up a story and ignoring the context. And, of course, you both usually get your facts wrong.

A 2007 report by the National Research Council concluded that wind turbine losses account for “a minute fraction” of bird deaths caused by human activities:

Collisions with buildings kill 97 to 976 million birds annually; collisions with high-tension lines kill at least 130 million birds, perhaps more than one billion; collisions with communications towers kill between 4 and 5 million based on “conservative estimates,” but could be as high as 50 million; cars may kill 80 million birds per year; and collisions with wind turbines killed an estimated at 20,000 to 37,000 birds per year in 2003, with all but 9,200 of those deaths occurring in California. Toxic chemicals, including pesticides, kill more than 72 million birds each year, while domestic cats are estimated to kill hundreds of millions of songbirds and other species each year. Erickson et al. (2005) estimate that total cumulative bird mortality in the United States “may easily approach 1 billion birds per year.”

Clearly, bird deaths caused by wind turbines are a minute fraction of the total anthropogenic bird deaths–less than 0.003% in 2003 based on the estimates of Erickson et al. (2005). [National Research Council, May 2007​

And then, of course, there is the fact that these man-made climate changes we're experiencing will wipe out whole species of birds and kill far, far more birds than wind turbines ever will.

A 2008 Department of Energy report noted that wind-related bird deaths cannot compare to the threat of climate change:

Publicity related to wind power developments often focuses on wind power’s impact on birds, especially their collisions with turbines. Although this is a valid environmental concern that needs to be addressed, the larger effects of global climate change also pose significant and growing threats to birds and other wildlife species.

The future for birds in a world of global climate change is particularly bleak. A recent article found that 950 to 1,800 terrestrial bird species are imperiled by climate changes and habitat loss. [Department of Energy, July 2008]​

And then there is the fact that fossil fuel production kills far more birds than wind turbines. According to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service:

Every year an estimated 500,000 to 1 million birds are killed in oilfield production skim pits, reserve pits, and in oilfield wastewater disposal facilities according to a study published by Pepper Trail, forensic ornithologist with the Service’s Forensics Laboratory in Ashland, Oregon. [U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 8/19/11]​

Although some members of the American Bird Conservancy seem to have their feathers in a twist over this, here's the organizational position statement on wind energy.

American Bird Conservancy’s Policy Statement on Wind Energy and Bird-Smart Wind Guidelines

Wind power is the fastest developing source of energy in the United States and can be an important part of the solution to climate change. However, wind farms can kill birds through collisions with turbines and associated structures, and also harm them through the loss of habitat that birds need for survival. American Bird Conservancy supports wind power when it is bird-smart, and believes that birds and wind power can co-exist if the wind industry is held to mandatory standards that protect birds.

Other bird conservation groups, like the Audubon Society, don't entirely agree with the ABC on this problem.The Audubon Society just recently endorsed the Obama Administration's new guidelines on wind farms that are aimed at reducing bird fatalities from wind turbines.

New wind tower guidelines aim to lower bird deaths
By Associated Press business staff
March 23, 2012
(excerpts)

WASHINGTON -- The Obama administration offered new guidance Friday on where wind farms should be located to reduce the number of bird deaths while promoting increased use of wind power. Interior Secretary Ken Salazar said the guidelines, which take effect immediately, provide a scientific basis for developers and government regulators to identify sites with low risk to wildlife while allowing for more wind energy projects on private and public lands. Salazar called wind power a key part of the administration's "all-of-the-above" energy strategy and noted that the guidelines for onshore projects have been endorsed by the American Wind Energy Association and the National Audubon Society, a conservation group. The dual endorsements "speak volumes about our goals: to do everything we can to stand up renewable energy" such as wind power while protecting wildlife and habitat, Salazar said at a news conference Friday. The guidelines call on the wind industry to eliminate from consideration areas that would pose high risks to birds and other wildlife, and to take steps to alleviate problems by restoring nearby habitat and other actions.

John Anderson, director of siting policy for the wind energy group, said wind turbines cause a minute fraction of overall bird deaths -- less than 3 out of every 100,000 human-related deaths. Even so, he said the industry has taken significant steps to reduce the number of birds killed, mostly by restoring habitat and locating wind farms in low-risk areas. The new guidelines established by the Fish and Wildlife Service should improve siting practices while protecting wildlife, said Denise Bode, chief executive of the wind energy association. David Yarnold, president & CEO of Audubon, called the guidelines a good compromise that reflects years of consultation with interested groups, including environmental groups. "Conservationists can't have it both ways: We can't say we need renewable energy and then say there's nowhere safe to put the wind farms," Yarnold said. "By collaborating with conservationists instead of slugging it out, the wind power industry gains vital support to expand and create jobs, and wildlife gets the protection crucial for survival. These federal guidelines are a game-changer and big win for both wildlife and clean energy."

When you pull your head out of your rectum and read something other than your propaganda pages you might learn something...... Though I doubt it in your case.

Oh wallleyed, that's just exactly what everyone is always telling you. You're 'projecting' again, little retard.

I present the facts from a whole host of sources and you come back with some drivel from a 93 year old, semi-senile old fart who had something interesting to say 50 years ago but who is mostly irrelevant to the current situation and obviously a little out of touch with the world today.

Since you seem to regard him so highly, doesn't your little pea-brain hurt when you read his position on anthropogenic climate change? Do you even read the articles you post?

Dr Lovelock believes we face devastating consequences from climate change...
- James Lovelock and wind turbines

For more on Lovelock's current foolishness, see here.

 

[westwall]

Turbines will kill raptors because raptors soar and glide, which will let them get sucked into a turbine.

Birds are smart, so if killer emissions are reduced, they will do fine, with the turbines.

Still, if a raptor follows a smart, little bird, toward a turbine, that raptor needs to watch out, now. Prey species have already learned, to use those turbines, against raptors.

Wind turbines are to raptors what a flame is to a moth. The flicker rate of the blades mesmerise the birds and draws them in to the kill. No bird is smart enough to avoid the blade, some are lucky, most aren't. If your goal is to drive raptors, buzzards and vulturs to extinction your precious little wind farms will do just that.

They won't produce enough usable power however, ever.

Wind turbines aren't like your propeller hat they don't whirl around at high speeds. After the construction phase, properly sited wind farms kill few birds, but then so do buildings, radio towers, satellite dishes, your picture window, etc. but-----but according to the major new study, (below) "There is no impact from the turning of the blades".

Windfarms do not cause long-term damage to bird populations, study finds | Environment | guardian.co.uk


Severin Carrell, Scotland correspondent
guardian.co.uk 12 April 2012


A major new study has quashed fears that onshore windfarms are causing long-term damage to bird populations, but found new evidence that some species are harmed when windfarms are built.

The study by conservationists into the impacts on 10 of the key species of British upland bird, including several suffering serious population declines, concluded that a large majority of species can co-exist or thrive with windfarms once they are operating.

But the study, the largest carried out in the UK into the impact of onshore windfarms on bird life, also found strong evidence that some species suffered serious harm while windfarms are being built.

"It shows that there can be serious species-level impacts in the construction phase, so construction in the right place is absolutely key. But what it hasn't shown is that windfarms are 'bird blenders'. There is no impact from the turning of the blades," said Martin Harper, the RSPB's UK conservation director.

The study, which is published in the Journal of Applied Ecology, was carried out jointly by four naturalists and ornithologists from the RSPB, Scottish Natural Heritage and the British Trust for Ornithology (BTO). It goes against widespread allegations by critics of windfarms that clusters of turbines routinely cause serious damage to wild birds, through collision with the revolving blades, noise and visual disturbance.

James Pearce-Higgins, the lead author and principal ecologist with the BTO, said: "It was a bit of a surprise that the impact on windfarms seemed to be happening during construction rather than operation."

"It means we should look at ways in which these negative impacts can be minimised. The next step will be to find out whether those steps are effective," he said.
The most alarming findings were for the curlew, Britain's largest wader, whose numbers fell 40% in a radius of up to 800m from the site during construction at the 18 windfarms in northern England and Scotland involved in the study. Curlew numbers remained "significantly lower" after the windfarms began operating, after they abandoned nesting sites. Snipe numbers also failed to recover, falling by 53% within 400m of the study sites. Red grouse numbers also fell but rose again after construction finished.

Ornithologists are becoming increasingly anxious about the UK's overall curlew numbers; they have fallen sharply by about half, since 1995, and the UK is host to one-third of Europe's entire curlew population. The species is now on the amber list of threatened bird species.

The study's authors said these findings were balanced out by the discovery that two species, the skylark and stonechat - which prefer open, broken and short vegetation - flourished during the building phase. The other species, such as meadow pipit, golden plover, wheatear, whinchat, dunlin and lapwings, showed either no change or less certain reactions. There was evidence that meadow pipits prospered on windfarm sites while golden plover numbers fell, but the authors said further work was needed to show a link to the windfarm development.

The study's authors warned that their findings presented strong evidence that new developments should be carefully sited to minimise impacts on birds.

Pearce-Higgins said one caveat was that more long-term data was needed to ensure their findings were robust: some of the windfarms being studied had only been operating for three years.


There have been notorious, historic, cases of windfarms in other countries affecting local bird populations. Studies in the UK had found evidence that birds of prey in particular avoided windfarms, reducing the available food supplies and habitat. Bats can also be affected.

The RSPB was very critical of a decision by the Scottish government last week to approve the Viking windfarm on Shetland, despite clear evidence that its 103 turbines would harm nesting grounds and habitat for whimbrel and red-throated divers.

Sure thing. And yet we have these videos that show your assertions to be wrong.


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jwVz5hdAMGU]Bird killed by green energy - YouTube[/ame]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RtgBWNKwBkE]Fatal Attraction: Birds and Wind Turbines - KQED QUEST - YouTube[/ame]

 

[bripat9643]

The Royal Society is the oldest scientific society in the world.

"Old" does not equate to "correct."

You're just one vast geyser of logical fallacies.

 

[bripat9643]

Wonder how many birds that whirling chunk of shit will end up killing.

Far less than the billion or so killed every year by cars.

I've never hit a bird with my car in my entire life.

 

[bripat9643]

The cars are already there and will continue to be for quite some time.
...

As will the wind turbines.

Indeed! many currently operating windmills will likely outlive most existent automobiles!

That's not much of an accomplishment. Coal fired power plants typically last for more than 40 years. How many cars last that long? Most are on the scrap heap after 10 years.

 

[bripat9643]

Until my miserable Congress-geek's website quits doing the swirly, I don't get to write a plug, for CO2-neutral biomass. Wind and solar are the existing, practical, alternative energy options.

There's nothing practical about wind and solar.

Sequestered CO2 options are going to be less popular, going into 2020. One popular estimate has us identifiably going into Mass Extinction Event 6, by 2022. Something must be done.

ROFL! Yeah, that estimate is "popular" with loons like you. However, rational people only smirk when the encounter such predictions. Eco-wacos have been predicting the end of the human race since Paul Ehrlich wrote "The Population Bomb."

 

[Star]

Wind turbines are to raptors what a flame is to a moth. The flicker rate of the blades mesmerise the birds and draws them in to the kill. No bird is smart enough to avoid the blade, some are lucky, most aren't. If your goal is to drive raptors, buzzards and vulturs to extinction your precious little wind farms will do just that.

They won't produce enough usable power however, ever.

Wind turbines aren't like your propeller hat they don't whirl around at high speeds. After the construction phase, properly sited wind farms kill few birds, but then so do buildings, radio towers, satellite dishes, your picture window, etc. but-----but according to the major new study, (below) "There is no impact from the turning of the blades".

Windfarms do not cause long-term damage to bird populations, study finds | Environment | guardian.co.uk


Severin Carrell, Scotland correspondent
guardian.co.uk 12 April 2012


A major new study has quashed fears that onshore windfarms are causing long-term damage to bird populations, but found new evidence that some species are harmed when windfarms are built.

The study by conservationists into the impacts on 10 of the key species of British upland bird, including several suffering serious population declines, concluded that a large majority of species can co-exist or thrive with windfarms once they are operating.

But the study, the largest carried out in the UK into the impact of onshore windfarms on bird life, also found strong evidence that some species suffered serious harm while windfarms are being built.

"It shows that there can be serious species-level impacts in the construction phase, so construction in the right place is absolutely key. But what it hasn't shown is that windfarms are 'bird blenders'. There is no impact from the turning of the blades," said Martin Harper, the RSPB's UK conservation director.

The study, which is published in the Journal of Applied Ecology, was carried out jointly by four naturalists and ornithologists from the RSPB, Scottish Natural Heritage and the British Trust for Ornithology (BTO). It goes against widespread allegations by critics of windfarms that clusters of turbines routinely cause serious damage to wild birds, through collision with the revolving blades, noise and visual disturbance.

James Pearce-Higgins, the lead author and principal ecologist with the BTO, said: "It was a bit of a surprise that the impact on windfarms seemed to be happening during construction rather than operation."

"It means we should look at ways in which these negative impacts can be minimised. The next step will be to find out whether those steps are effective," he said.
The most alarming findings were for the curlew, Britain's largest wader, whose numbers fell 40% in a radius of up to 800m from the site during construction at the 18 windfarms in northern England and Scotland involved in the study. Curlew numbers remained "significantly lower" after the windfarms began operating, after they abandoned nesting sites. Snipe numbers also failed to recover, falling by 53% within 400m of the study sites. Red grouse numbers also fell but rose again after construction finished.

Ornithologists are becoming increasingly anxious about the UK's overall curlew numbers; they have fallen sharply by about half, since 1995, and the UK is host to one-third of Europe's entire curlew population. The species is now on the amber list of threatened bird species.

The study's authors said these findings were balanced out by the discovery that two species, the skylark and stonechat - which prefer open, broken and short vegetation - flourished during the building phase. The other species, such as meadow pipit, golden plover, wheatear, whinchat, dunlin and lapwings, showed either no change or less certain reactions. There was evidence that meadow pipits prospered on windfarm sites while golden plover numbers fell, but the authors said further work was needed to show a link to the windfarm development.

The study's authors warned that their findings presented strong evidence that new developments should be carefully sited to minimise impacts on birds.

Pearce-Higgins said one caveat was that more long-term data was needed to ensure their findings were robust: some of the windfarms being studied had only been operating for three years.


There have been notorious, historic, cases of windfarms in other countries affecting local bird populations. Studies in the UK had found evidence that birds of prey in particular avoided windfarms, reducing the available food supplies and habitat. Bats can also be affected.

The RSPB was very critical of a decision by the Scottish government last week to approve the Viking windfarm on Shetland, despite clear evidence that its 103 turbines would harm nesting grounds and habitat for whimbrel and red-throated divers.

Sure thing. And yet we have these videos that show your assertions to be wrong.


[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jwVz5hdAMGU"]Bird killed by green energy - YouTube[/ame]

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RtgBWNKwBkE"]Fatal Attraction: Birds and Wind Turbines - KQED QUEST - YouTube[/ame]

The propeller hat humor went over your head but one of the findings that was identified in the article about the study done by conservationists was; "The study by conservationists into the impacts on 10 of the key species of British upland bird, including several suffering serious population declines, concluded that a large majority of species can co-exist or thrive with windfarms once they are operating.

But the study, the largest carried out in the UK into the impact of onshore windfarms on bird life, also found strong evidence that some species suffered serious harm while windfarms are being built."


The article went to say ""It was a bit of a surprise that the impact on windfarms seemed to be happening during construction rather than operation.""


The carbon industry propaganda machine is overstating the impact of windfarms on bird populations (that's an understatement). As stated earlier on this thread, climate change and pollution kills more birds than windfarms and-------and the more data we gather makes us even better at siting windfarms that will lessen the impact even further.

 

[westwall]

Wind turbines aren't like your propeller hat they don't whirl around at high speeds. After the construction phase, properly sited wind farms kill few birds, but then so do buildings, radio towers, satellite dishes, your picture window, etc. but-----but according to the major new study, (below) "There is no impact from the turning of the blades".

Windfarms do not cause long-term damage to bird populations, study finds | Environment | guardian.co.uk


Severin Carrell, Scotland correspondent
guardian.co.uk 12 April 2012


A major new study has quashed fears that onshore windfarms are causing long-term damage to bird populations, but found new evidence that some species are harmed when windfarms are built.

The study by conservationists into the impacts on 10 of the key species of British upland bird, including several suffering serious population declines, concluded that a large majority of species can co-exist or thrive with windfarms once they are operating.

But the study, the largest carried out in the UK into the impact of onshore windfarms on bird life, also found strong evidence that some species suffered serious harm while windfarms are being built.

"It shows that there can be serious species-level impacts in the construction phase, so construction in the right place is absolutely key. But what it hasn't shown is that windfarms are 'bird blenders'. There is no impact from the turning of the blades," said Martin Harper, the RSPB's UK conservation director.

The study, which is published in the Journal of Applied Ecology, was carried out jointly by four naturalists and ornithologists from the RSPB, Scottish Natural Heritage and the British Trust for Ornithology (BTO). It goes against widespread allegations by critics of windfarms that clusters of turbines routinely cause serious damage to wild birds, through collision with the revolving blades, noise and visual disturbance.

James Pearce-Higgins, the lead author and principal ecologist with the BTO, said: "It was a bit of a surprise that the impact on windfarms seemed to be happening during construction rather than operation."

"It means we should look at ways in which these negative impacts can be minimised. The next step will be to find out whether those steps are effective," he said.
The most alarming findings were for the curlew, Britain's largest wader, whose numbers fell 40% in a radius of up to 800m from the site during construction at the 18 windfarms in northern England and Scotland involved in the study. Curlew numbers remained "significantly lower" after the windfarms began operating, after they abandoned nesting sites. Snipe numbers also failed to recover, falling by 53% within 400m of the study sites. Red grouse numbers also fell but rose again after construction finished.

Ornithologists are becoming increasingly anxious about the UK's overall curlew numbers; they have fallen sharply by about half, since 1995, and the UK is host to one-third of Europe's entire curlew population. The species is now on the amber list of threatened bird species.

The study's authors said these findings were balanced out by the discovery that two species, the skylark and stonechat - which prefer open, broken and short vegetation - flourished during the building phase. The other species, such as meadow pipit, golden plover, wheatear, whinchat, dunlin and lapwings, showed either no change or less certain reactions. There was evidence that meadow pipits prospered on windfarm sites while golden plover numbers fell, but the authors said further work was needed to show a link to the windfarm development.

The study's authors warned that their findings presented strong evidence that new developments should be carefully sited to minimise impacts on birds.

Pearce-Higgins said one caveat was that more long-term data was needed to ensure their findings were robust: some of the windfarms being studied had only been operating for three years.


There have been notorious, historic, cases of windfarms in other countries affecting local bird populations. Studies in the UK had found evidence that birds of prey in particular avoided windfarms, reducing the available food supplies and habitat. Bats can also be affected.

The RSPB was very critical of a decision by the Scottish government last week to approve the Viking windfarm on Shetland, despite clear evidence that its 103 turbines would harm nesting grounds and habitat for whimbrel and red-throated divers.

Sure thing. And yet we have these videos that show your assertions to be wrong.


[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jwVz5hdAMGU"]Bird killed by green energy - YouTube[/ame]

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RtgBWNKwBkE"]Fatal Attraction: Birds and Wind Turbines - KQED QUEST - YouTube[/ame]

The propeller hat humor went over your head but one of the findings that was identified in the article about the study done by conservationists was; "The study by conservationists into the impacts on 10 of the key species of British upland bird, including several suffering serious population declines, concluded that a large majority of species can co-exist or thrive with windfarms once they are operating.

But the study, the largest carried out in the UK into the impact of onshore windfarms on bird life, also found strong evidence that some species suffered serious harm while windfarms are being built."


The article went to say ""It was a bit of a surprise that the impact on windfarms seemed to be happening during construction rather than operation.""


The carbon industry propaganda machine is overstating the impact of windfarms on bird populations (that's an understatement). As stated earlier on this thread, climate change and pollution kills more birds than windfarms and-------and the more data we gather makes us even better at siting windfarms that will lessen the impact even further.

Pollution, maybe...climate change no way in hell kills more, unless you are talking about cold. That kills everything. Warming doesn't. Warming has been shown over and over again to be beneficial to almost all life on this plnet. Read your history books and look at the paleo record. The PETM that the warmists claim was an "extinction event" wasn't.

A few species of localised forams were wiped out. The forams that were widespread did well, ALL terrestrial life did well. Mammalian life proliferated, thousands of new species evolved. Earth during the PETM (when it was MUCH warmer than today) was a veritable paradise.

 

[Old Rocks]

Until my miserable Congress-geek's website quits doing the swirly, I don't get to write a plug, for CO2-neutral biomass. Wind and solar are the existing, practical, alternative energy options.

There's nothing practical about wind and solar.

Sequestered CO2 options are going to be less popular, going into 2020. One popular estimate has us identifiably going into Mass Extinction Event 6, by 2022. Something must be done.

ROFL! Yeah, that estimate is "popular" with loons like you. However, rational people only smirk when the encounter such predictions. Eco-wacos have been predicting the end of the human race since Paul Ehrlich wrote "The Population Bomb."

Poor dumb fuck is once again demonstrating his allegiance to lying in order to make an invalid point. Wind is so impractical that in 2011, we went from 40 gw installed to 47 gw. That's a growth rate of nearly 20%. Wish I had a bank account that would do that yearly.

Wind Powering America: U.S. Installed Wind Capacity


And then there is evey 'Conservatives' whipping boy, solar. Only installed over 500 mw in the first quarter of 2012. Just a disappointing increase of only 77% over the first quarter of 2011. And look at the increase from 2010 to 2011.

Solar Industry Data | SEIA

Cost of an installed system down 17% from last year, the panels are down 47% in cost. Hard on the manufacturers, but great for the consumer.

 

[flacaltenn]

The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds announces wind turbine plan to reduce its carbon footprint

The RSPB is today unveiling plans to build a wind turbine at its UK headquarters in Sandy, Bedfordshire.

The RSPB believes that renewable energy is an essential tool in the fight against climate change, which poses the single biggest threat to the long term survival of birds and wildlife.

In addition to campaigning to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, the RSPB is committed to reducing its own carbon footprint by generating its energy needs from renewable sources wherever possible.

The proposal will be a significant step for the wildlife charity, which is joining forces with green energy company, Ecotricity...

“We know that with the right design and location wind turbines have little or no impact on wildlife. The RSPB has commented on over 1,500 wind farm applications. In the small number of cases – around six per cent – where we feel there is likely to be a significant impact on wildlife we have lodged an objection. In many of these cases the developers have listened and redesigned their plans to make sure they do not threaten wildlife...

“Ecotricity is a British company which started 16 years ago as the world’s first green energy company and we don’t pay dividends to shareholders, instead we use our profits to build new sources of green energy.”...

Good Job!!

Yeah right.. Doesn't make up for the fact, that if this wasn't a green-blessed concept -- every animal protection agency in the world would be demanding the industry be shut down.. If I lift a feather off a bird of prey -- I can go to jail.. But I suppose if it gave it's life so a wind farm can be built -- I could just stand around and have all the feathers I want..

Actually BIRDS are not the largest concern.. It's MAMMALs , in particular bats..
Bats are ESSENTIAL to agriculture and the numbers killed are significant..

Bat Fatalities at Wind Turbines: Investigating the Causes and Consequences

Dead bats are turning up beneath wind turbines all over the world. Bat fatalities have now been documented at nearly every wind facility in North America where adequate surveys for bats have been conducted, and several of these sites are estimated to cause the deaths of thousands of bats per year. This unanticipated and unprecedented problem for bats has moved to the forefront of conservation and management efforts directed toward this poorly understood group of mammals. The mystery of why bats die at turbine sites remains unsolved. Is it a simple case of flying in the wrong place at the wrong time? Are bats attracted to the spinning turbine blades? Why are so many bats colliding with turbines compared to their infrequent crashes with other tall, human-made structures?

Wind energy&#8217;s risk to bats came to light in 2003, when biologists searching for dead birds at a wind farm in West Virginia noticed hundreds of dead bats.[PDF] They concluded that 1400 to 4000 bats were being killed there each year. Since then, dozens of studies throughout North America and Europe have confirmed and refined the findings. For example, mortality rates tend to be higher at ridge-top installations than at flatland sites, and they peak during the spring and autumn when migratory bats are on the move. Most bats are killed when the turbine blade strikes them, but some may also succumb to the rapid pressure change they experience close to the turbine, which causes their hearts and lungs to burst. <<<< LOVELY PICTURE ECO-FREAKS EH? >>>

This summer, engineers and bat biologists are coming together at a wind farm in Wisconsin to field-test a potential fix. They&#8217;ll attach ultrasonic microphones to four or five turbine nacelles to record the high-pitched squeaks and clicks bats emit for navigating and locating prey.

Based on the data collected there and at 40 other wind installations, software developers will create a predictive model that also factors in meteorological information like wind speed, temperature, and precipitation. The model will yield a probability score that indicates the risk to bats at the site at any given time. When the risk is high&#8212;meaning there are likely many bats present&#8212;the utility operator will be able to shut down the turbines and then bring them back up when the risk is low.

&#8220;This project is really focused on trying to reduce bat mortality at wind farms while at the same times maximizing electricity production,&#8221; says John Goodrich-Mahoney, a senior project manager at the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI), the sponsor of the field test, which runs through next year. &#8220;How do you balance those two needs?&#8221;

Bats don't run into buildings, rarely get hit by cars and all the other excuses I've heard made in this thread..

And --- all of the counter-measures I've seen for this involve DETECTING the bats and shutting down the wind field.. Good luck with all that..

Ahhhh --- let's just ignore it... Oh -- BTW --- not worth it's own thread. But thought I'd toss this other little problem out..

Wind Turbines Cause Radar Cone of Silence - IEEE Spectrum

Spinning wind turbine blades create a &#8220;cone of silence&#8221; above the turbines, making it difficult for 2-D radar systems to see aircraft as they fly overhead. It can also create false positives on radar that can look like weather systems (photo). According to Gary Seifert of the Idaho National Laboratory speaking at the RETECH conference in Washington, close to 10,000 MW of wind power has been held up or abandoned completely because of conflicts with FAA, DoD or Department of Homeland Security radar system concerns.

Also mucks with weather radar -- particularly NextRad Doppler particularly badly...

 

[RollingThunder]

The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds announces wind turbine plan to reduce its carbon footprint

The RSPB is today unveiling plans to build a wind turbine at its UK headquarters in Sandy, Bedfordshire.

The RSPB believes that renewable energy is an essential tool in the fight against climate change, which poses the single biggest threat to the long term survival of birds and wildlife.

In addition to campaigning to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, the RSPB is committed to reducing its own carbon footprint by generating its energy needs from renewable sources wherever possible.

The proposal will be a significant step for the wildlife charity, which is joining forces with green energy company, Ecotricity...

“We know that with the right design and location wind turbines have little or no impact on wildlife. The RSPB has commented on over 1,500 wind farm applications. In the small number of cases – around six per cent – where we feel there is likely to be a significant impact on wildlife we have lodged an objection. In many of these cases the developers have listened and redesigned their plans to make sure they do not threaten wildlife...

“Ecotricity is a British company which started 16 years ago as the world’s first green energy company and we don’t pay dividends to shareholders, instead we use our profits to build new sources of green energy.”...

Good Job!!

Bats don't run into buildings, rarely get hit by cars and all the other excuses I've heard made in this thread..

And --- all of the counter-measures I've seen for this involve DETECTING the bats and shutting down the wind field.. Good luck with all that..

This is not as big a problem as the fossil fuel industry backed propaganda would have you believe. Compared to this 'white-nose syndrome', a deadly fungal disease that has decimated bat populations in the northeastern and eastern U.S., wind turbine caused bat deaths are not very significant. Nevertheless the wind power industry has been working hard to find ways to mitigate the problem.

As far as the only "counter measure" being to shut down the wind farm, that is inaccurate. They only need to slow the blades to a near stop during periods of low wind speeds to cut bat mortality rates by about 60% because bats don't fly much when the wind is blowing at higher speeds. Since the turbines generate most of their electricity when wind speeds are high and generate almost none at low wind speeds, this "counter measure" reduces the wind farm output only very slightly.

Scientists Find Successful Way To Reduce Bat Deaths At Wind Turbines
ScienceDaily
Sep. 28, 2009
(excerpt)

Scientists at the University of Calgary have found a way to reduce bat deaths from wind turbines by up to 60 percent without significantly reducing the energy generated from the wind farm. The research, recently published in the Journal of Wildlife Management, demonstrates that slowing turbine blades to near motionless in low-wind periods significantly reduces bat mortality. "Biologically, this makes sense as bats are more likely to fly when wind speeds are relatively low. When it's really windy, which is when the turbines are reaping the most energy, bats don't like to fly. There is a potential for biology and economics to mesh nicely," says U of C biology professor Robert Barclay, who co-authored the paper with PhD student Erin Baerwald of the U of C as well as with Jason Edworthy and Matt Holder of TransAlta Corporation.

 

[Two Thumbs]

The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds announces wind turbine plan to reduce its carbon footprint

The RSPB is today unveiling plans to build a wind turbine at its UK headquarters in Sandy, Bedfordshire.

The RSPB believes that renewable energy is an essential tool in the fight against climate change, which poses the single biggest threat to the long term survival of birds and wildlife.

In addition to campaigning to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, the RSPB is committed to reducing its own carbon footprint by generating its energy needs from renewable sources wherever possible.

The proposal will be a significant step for the wildlife charity, which is joining forces with green energy company, Ecotricity...

“We know that with the right design and location wind turbines have little or no impact on wildlife. The RSPB has commented on over 1,500 wind farm applications. In the small number of cases – around six per cent – where we feel there is likely to be a significant impact on wildlife we have lodged an objection. In many of these cases the developers have listened and redesigned their plans to make sure they do not threaten wildlife...

“Ecotricity is a British company which started 16 years ago as the world’s first green energy company and we don’t pay dividends to shareholders, instead we use our profits to build new sources of green energy.”...

Good Job!!

After they threatened to sue them in court...

aside from that, good, now they get to learn just how crappy turbines really are.

 

[flacaltenn]

As far as the only "counter measure" being to shut down the wind farm, that is inaccurate. They only need to slow the blades to a near stop during periods of low wind speeds to cut bat mortality rates by about 60% because bats don't fly much when the wind is blowing at higher speeds. Since the turbines generate most of their electricity when wind speeds are high and generate almost none at low wind speeds, this "counter measure" reduces the wind farm output only very slightly.

Like I said --- SHUT DOWN the wind farm when turbine speeds are low.. OR during the month that some of the decimated species are migrating. And you just put it in 5th gear and cruise RIGHT THRU the implications of that. Taking a technology that only approaches it's installed capacity 100 days of the year (and takes Tues and Sundays off). Dam the bats if they chose to come thru on one of those 100 days eh?

And where is the OUTRAGE about the other 40% of the kill??? Biggest hypocrits in the WORLD, pushing some of the WORST ideas in tech history.. If I wanted to build a new superdam like Racheal Maddow wants --- And I told you I was only gonna kill 40% of the fish going up the ladder --- I guess you would just slap me on the back and tell me to go for it..

BTW: It's no excuse to note those devasting diseases that are destroying bats. In FACT A REAL environmentalist would be telling people that NOW IS NOT THE TIME to be blowing up bat hearts and lungs with a fallacious concept of actually getting reliable power from the wind.

 

[RollingThunder]

now they get to learn just how crappy turbines really are.

...a fallacious concept of actually getting reliable power from the wind.

A sure sign of just how far up the fossil fuel industry's butthole you've got your heads wedged is these idiotic anti-renewable energy myths you've fallen for and parrot.

In fact, wind turbines are a great source of renewable, non-carbon emitting energy. Wind energy is supplying an ever growing amount of clean, pollution free energy all around the world. Obsessing about the animal mortality rates around wind turbines and ignoring the far, far greater animal mortality rates from other human structures and, most especially, the mortality rates from fossil fuel mining, drilling, fracking, extraction, processing and transportation just shows your hypocrisy and demonstrates clearly how you're stooging for the fossil fuel industry. As I pointed out before, anthropogenic global warming/climate changes, driven primarily by mankind's carbon emissions, are driving many bird species to total extinction, along with many other species of animals and insects and plants. You denier cult retards are too brainwashed and ignorant to comprehend the acute danger our world is facing due to our adding gigatons of fossil carbon to the atmosphere every year. You've demonstrated repeatedly that you're too stupid to understand the science but that hardly matters since you've been propagandized into foolishly distrusting science and scientists by special interest groups and industries that are afraid of the economic consequences to them of public acceptance of the scientific facts about the world wide consequences to everyone of 'business-as-usual'.

 

[flacaltenn]

now they get to learn just how crappy turbines really are.

...a fallacious concept of actually getting reliable power from the wind.

A sure sign of just how far up the fossil fuel industry's butthole you've got your heads wedged is these idiotic anti-renewable energy myths you've fallen for and parrot.

In fact, wind turbines are a great source of renewable, non-carbon emitting energy. Wind energy is supplying an ever growing amount of clean, pollution free energy all around the world. Obsessing about the animal mortality rates around wind turbines and ignoring the far, far greater animal mortality rates from other human structures and, most especially, the mortality rates from fossil fuel mining, drilling, fracking, extraction, processing and transportation just shows your hypocrisy and demonstrates clearly how you're stooging for the fossil fuel industry. As I pointed out before, anthropogenic global warming/climate changes, driven primarily by mankind's carbon emissions, are driving many bird species to total extinction, along with many other species of animals and insects and plants. You denier cult retards are too brainwashed and ignorant to comprehend the acute danger our world is facing due to our adding gigatons of fossil carbon to the atmosphere every year. You've demonstrated repeatedly that you're too stupid to understand the science but that hardly matters since you've been propagandized into foolishly distrusting science and scientists by special interest groups and industries that are afraid of the economic consequences to them of public acceptance of the scientific facts about the world wide consequences to everyone of 'business-as-usual'.

What a load of crap.. The end is near -- damn the bats -- we're gonna stomp our little feet til you do as we say..

Guess what -- not gonna happen. I'm NOT up the A-hole of the fossil fuel industry. I'm clearly thinking MASSIVE nuclear and hydrogen production instead of Rube Goldberg..

HERE'S your valuable Wind Production from one of the World's BEST wind farms (during a FAVORABLE part of the year I might add).

[/IMG]

Aren't you a little embarrassed to be suggesting that you take that spikey unreliable source of power and cut the turbines down for any day where the wind is less than say 20% of rated capacity?

Take a minute, study the graph and see what's left after you save the bats.
You got nothing left but 5 days a week for a few hours a day.. Go ahead -- throw another tantrum -- that'll help..

 

[flacaltenn]

Hey RollingThunder -- got the modified graph yet? Or have you ridden off to tackle something less difficult like Mitt's Eurotour? Remember -- I'm the one who never has an original or scientific thought..

LOL

 

[RollingThunder]

now they get to learn just how crappy turbines really are.

...a fallacious concept of actually getting reliable power from the wind.

A sure sign of just how far up the fossil fuel industry's butthole you've got your heads wedged is these idiotic anti-renewable energy myths you've fallen for and parrot.

In fact, wind turbines are a great source of renewable, non-carbon emitting energy. Wind energy is supplying an ever growing amount of clean, pollution free energy all around the world. Obsessing about the animal mortality rates around wind turbines and ignoring the far, far greater animal mortality rates from other human structures and, most especially, the mortality rates from fossil fuel mining, drilling, fracking, extraction, processing and transportation just shows your hypocrisy and demonstrates clearly how you're stooging for the fossil fuel industry. As I pointed out before, anthropogenic global warming/climate changes, driven primarily by mankind's carbon emissions, are driving many bird species to total extinction, along with many other species of animals and insects and plants. You denier cult retards are too brainwashed and ignorant to comprehend the acute danger our world is facing due to our adding gigatons of fossil carbon to the atmosphere every year. You've demonstrated repeatedly that you're too stupid to understand the science but that hardly matters since you've been propagandized into foolishly distrusting science and scientists by special interest groups and industries that are afraid of the economic consequences to them of public acceptance of the scientific facts about the world wide consequences to everyone of 'business-as-usual'.

What a load of crap.. The end is near -- damn the bats -- we're gonna stomp our little feet til you do as we say..

Guess what -- not gonna happen. I'm NOT up the A-hole of the fossil fuel industry.

Actually you obviously are but I guess it is so dark up there that you are unable to tell just which "A-hole" your head is wedged into now.

I'm clearly thinking MASSIVE nuclear ... production instead of Rube Goldberg..

Yeah, the owners of the fossil fuel industry would just love to see the world switch over to nuclear, another centralized energy production system that they can buy and control. One that is dependent on a supply of expensive and difficult to obtain fuel. Of course your masters are afraid of any decentralized, widely distributed, locally owned and operated energy sources like wind and solar energy. And you're a good little stooge for them.

HERE'S your valuable Wind Production from one of the World's BEST wind farms (during a FAVORABLE part of the year I might add).

[/IMG]

Aren't you a little embarrassed to be suggesting that you take that spikey unreliable source of power and cut the turbines down for any day where the wind is less than say 20% of rated capacity?

Take a minute, study the graph and see what's left after you save the bats.
You got nothing left but 5 days a week for a few hours a day.. Go ahead -- throw another tantrum -- that'll help..

LOLOLOLOLOL....I see you are far beyond being embarrassed by your own stupidity and ignorance. A graph you are incapable of comprehending? LOLOLOL.

Here's the facts on low cost, reliable energy from the wind.

Wind power
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[BTW, just for the biased mods who might want to claim that posting this material is against the forum rules regarding copyright restrictions] - (Wikipedia - Copyrights. The licenses Wikipedia uses grant free access to our content in the same sense that free software is licensed freely. Wikipedia content can be copied, modified, and redistributed if and only if the copied version is made available on the same terms to others and acknowledgment of the authors of the Wikipedia article used is included (a link back to the article is generally thought to satisfy the attribution requirement; see below for more details). Copied Wikipedia content will therefore remain free under appropriate license and can continue to be used by anyone subject to certain restrictions, most of which aim to ensure that freedom. This principle is known as copyleft in contrast to typical copyright licenses.

To this end,

Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify Wikipedia's text under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License and, unless otherwise noted, the GNU Free Documentation License. unversioned, with no invariant sections, front-cover texts, or back-cover texts.)

Wind power capacity and production

Worldwide there are now many thousands of wind turbines operating, with a total nameplate capacity of 238,351 MW as of end 2011.[38] World wind generation capacity more than quadrupled between 2000 and 2006, doubling about every three years. The United States pioneered wind farms and led the world in installed capacity in the 1980s and into the 1990s. In 1997 German installed capacity surpassed the U.S. and led until once again overtaken by the U.S. in 2008. China has been rapidly expanding its wind installations in the late 2000s and passed the U.S. in 2010 to become the world leader.

At the end of 2011, worldwide nameplate capacity of wind-powered generators was 238 gigawatts (GW), growing by 41 GW over the preceding year.[39] 2010 data from the World Wind Energy Association, an industry organization states that wind power now has the capacity to generate 430 TWh annually, which is about 2.5% of worldwide electricity usage.[40][41] Between 2005 and 2010 the average annual growth in new installations was 27.6 percent.[42] Wind power market penetration is expected to reach 3.35 percent by 2013 and 8 percent by 2018.[42][43] Several countries have already achieved relatively high levels of penetration, such as 28% of stationary (grid) electricity production in Denmark (2011),[44] 19% in Portugal (2011),[45] 16% in Spain (2011),[46] 14% in Ireland (2010)[47] and 8% in Germany (2011).[48] As of 2011, 83 countries around the world were using wind power on a commercial basis.[3]

Europe accounted for 48% of the world total wind power generation capacity in 2009. In 2010, Spain became Europe's leading producer of wind energy, achieving 42,976 GWh. Germany held the top spot in Europe in terms of installed capacity, with a total of 27,215 MW as of 31 December 2010.[49]

Capacity factor

Since wind speed is not constant, a wind farm's annual energy production is never as much as the sum of the generator nameplate ratings multiplied by the total hours in a year. The ratio of actual productivity in a year to this theoretical maximum is called the capacity factor. Typical capacity factors are 20&#8211;40%, with values at the upper end of the range in particularly favourable sites.[56][nb 1] Online data is available for some locations and the capacity factor can be calculated from the yearly output.[57][58]

Unlike fueled generating plants the capacity factor is affected by several parameters, including the variability of the wind at the site but also the generator size. A small generator would be cheaper and achieve a higher capacity factor but would produce less electricity (and thus less profit) in high winds.[59] Conversely, a large generator would cost more but generate little extra power and, depending on the type, may stall out at low wind speed. Thus an optimum capacity factor would be aimed for, which is usually around 20&#8211;35%.

In a 2008 study released by the U.S. Department of Energy's Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, the capacity factor achieved by the U.S. wind turbine fleet is shown to be increasing as the technology improves. The capacity factor achieved by new wind turbines in 2004 and 2005 reached 36%.[60]

Variability and intermittency

Electricity generated from wind power can be highly variable at several different timescales: hourly, daily, or seasonally. However, wind is always in constant supply somewhere, making it a dependable source of energy because it will never expire or become extinct. Annual variation also exists, but is not as significant. Like other electricity sources, wind energy must be scheduled. Wind power forecasting methods are used, but predictability of wind plant output remains low for short-term operation. There is an 80% chance that wind output will change less than 10% in an hour and a 40% chance that it will change 10% or more in 5 hours.[67] Because instantaneous electrical generation and consumption must remain in balance to maintain grid stability, this variability can present substantial challenges to incorporating large amounts of wind power into a grid system. Intermittency and the non-dispatchable nature of wind energy production can raise costs for regulation, incremental operating reserve, and (at high penetration levels) could require an increase in the already existing energy demand management, load shedding, storage solutions or system interconnection with HVDC cables. At low levels of wind penetration, fluctuations in load and allowance for failure of large generating units require reserve capacity that can also compensate for variability of wind generation. Wind power can be replaced by other power sources during low wind periods. Transmission networks must already cope with outages of generation plant and daily changes in electrical demand. Systems with large wind capacity components may need more spinning reserve (plants operating at less than full load).[68][69]

Pumped-storage hydroelectricity or other forms of grid energy storage can store energy developed by high-wind periods and release it when needed.[70] Stored energy increases the economic value of wind energy since it can be shifted to displace higher cost generation during peak demand periods. The potential revenue from this arbitrage can offset the cost and losses of storage; the cost of storage may add 25% to the cost of any wind energy stored but it is not envisaged that this would apply to a large proportion of wind energy generated. For example, in the UK, the 2 GW Dinorwig pumped storage plant evens out electrical demand peaks, and allows base-load suppliers to run their plants more efficiently. Although pumped storage power systems are only about 75% efficient, and have high installation costs, their low running costs and ability to reduce the required electrical base-load can save both fuel and total electrical generation costs.[71][72]

While the output from a single turbine can vary greatly and rapidly as local wind speeds vary, as more turbines are connected over larger and larger areas the average power output becomes less variable.[73] Studies by Graham Sinden (2009) suggest that, in practice, the variations in thousands of wind turbines, spread out over several different sites and wind regimes, are smoothed, rather than intermittent. As the distance between sites increases, the correlation between wind speeds measured at those sites, decreases.[74]

In particular geographic regions, peak wind speeds may not coincide with peak demand for electrical power. In the US states of California and Texas, for example, hot days in summer may have low wind speed and high electrical demand due to the use of air conditioning. Some utilities subsidize the purchase of geothermal heat pumps by their customers, to reduce electricity demand during the summer months by making air conditioning up to 70% more efficient;[75] widespread adoption of this technology would better match electricity demand to wind availability in areas with hot summers and low summer winds. Another option is to interconnect widely dispersed geographic areas with an HVDC "Super grid". In the U.S. it is estimated that to upgrade the transmission system to take in planned or potential renewables would cost at least $60 billion.[76]

Solar power tends to be complementary to wind.[77][78] On daily to weekly timescales, high pressure areas tend to bring clear skies and low surface winds, whereas low pressure areas tend to be windier and cloudier. On seasonal timescales, solar energy typically peaks in summer, whereas in many areas wind energy is lower in summer and higher in winter.[79] Thus the intermittencies of wind and solar power tend to cancel each other somewhat. In 2007 the Institute for Solar Energy Supply Technology of the University of Kassel pilot-tested a combined power plant linking solar, wind, biogas and hydrostorage to provide load-following power around the clock, entirely from renewable sources.[80]

The combination of diversifying variable renewables by type and location, forecasting their variation, and integrating them with despatchable renewables, flexible fueled generators, and demand response can create a power system that has the potential to meet our needs reliably. Integrating ever-higher levels of renewables is being successfully demonstrated in the real world:[81]

In 2009, eight American and three European authorities, writing in the leading electrical engineers' professional journal, didn't find "a credible and firm technical limit to the amount of wind energy that can be accommodated by electricity grids". In Fact, not one of more than 200 international studies, nor official studies for the eastern and western U.S. regions, nor the International Energy Agency, has found major costs or technical barriers to reliably integrating up to 30% variable renewable supplies into the grid, and in some studies much more.[81]

A 2006 International Energy Agency forum presented costs for managing intermittency as a function of wind-energy's share of total capacity for several countries, as shown in the table on the right. Three reports on the wind variability in the UK issued in 2009, generally agree that variability of wind needs to be taken into account, but it does not make the grid unmanageable. The additional costs, which are modest, can be quantified.[82]

A report on Denmark's wind power noted that their wind power network provided less than 1% of average demand on 54 days during the year 2002.[83] Wind power advocates argue that these periods of low wind can be dealt with by simply restarting existing power stations that have been held in readiness, or interlinking with HVDC.[84] Electrical grids with slow-responding thermal power plants and without ties to networks with hydroelectric generation may have to limit the use of wind power.[83]

Conversely, on particularly windy days, even with penetration levels of 16%, wind power generation can surpass all other electricity sources in a country. In Spain, on 16 April 2012 wind power production reached the highest percentage of electricity production till then, with wind farms covering 60.46 % of the total demand.[85]