Wind Farm Seeks Permit to KILL GOLDEN EAGLES

[jon_berzerk]

Beg to differ...
Buildings and bridges do not move immense masses of air, windmills do. Anything with blades wider than I am tall, with a rotational disk having a diameter of about 300 ft most certainly affects local air movement.

Beg to differ. Windmills do not move air, they are moved by air. Both buildings and windmills obstruct air flow. The amount of disruption is dependent on the area (facing the wind) and the configuration or shape of the object. Buildings, due to their more angular shape and their width, would generally be more disruptive to flow. Height, is, of course a factor. A two story house will not have as much effect as a 300 foot windmill.

Although both transfer energy out the atmosphere, neither nor both does so to a sufficient degree to affect the weather to a detectable degree.

well they do create turbulence which is movement of air

 

[gallantwarrior]

Beg to differ...
Buildings and bridges do not move immense masses of air, windmills do. Anything with blades wider than I am tall, with a rotational disk having a diameter of about 300 ft most certainly affects local air movement.

Beg to differ. Windmills do not move air, they are moved by air. Both buildings and windmills obstruct air flow. The amount of disruption is dependent on the area (facing the wind) and the configuration or shape of the object. Buildings, due to their more angular shape and their width, would generally be more disruptive to flow. Height, is, of course a factor. A two story house will not have as much effect as a 300 foot windmill.

Although both transfer energy out the atmosphere, neither nor both does so to a sufficient degree to affect the weather to a detectable degree.

Until you plant them by the thousands across wide expanses of real estate. And you're wrong about windmills not moving air, or at the very least, redirecting the air currents. Why do you think multiple machines are located the way they are in respect to other wind generators. I suspect that the rotational velocity of the blades is kept to just under the point where the generation of tip vortices would be minimized, but probably not be completely eliminated.
All of that aside, how do you excuse the murder of any wildlife simply to satisfy your desire for energy?

 

[Papageorgio]

Beg to differ...
Buildings and bridges do not move immense masses of air, windmills do. Anything with blades wider than I am tall, with a rotational disk having a diameter of about 300 ft most certainly affects local air movement.

Beg to differ. Windmills do not move air, they are moved by air. Both buildings and windmills obstruct air flow. The amount of disruption is dependent on the area (facing the wind) and the configuration or shape of the object. Buildings, due to their more angular shape and their width, would generally be more disruptive to flow. Height, is, of course a factor. A two story house will not have as much effect as a 300 foot windmill.

Although both transfer energy out the atmosphere, neither nor both does so to a sufficient degree to affect the weather to a detectable degree.

They do move air, as the air propels the turbines, they change the airflow around them. That is why the are set so far apart. There is a lot of turbulence, you might try going to a wind farm and get educated.

 

[Saigon]

Two i have not ignored any facts because you have not shown any

you post quite a bit opinion but not much more

Then please address this, which I have posted for you four times now, and which you have ignored each time.

As I informed you several times now, windmills kill 0.003% of all birds killed by humans in the US. Also, wind mills kill less birds each year, down by1/3 in the past decade in some countries.

btw. I apologise if the quote was not yours, but it was in your statement. If you were quoting someone else, the comment was not marked as a quote.

 

[Saigon]

They do move air, as the air propels the turbines, they change the airflow around them. That is why the are set so far apart. There is a lot of turbulence, you might try going to a wind farm and get educated.

They are set far apart? Have you ever seen a wind farm?

There are some off the coast of Denmark that have 50 turbines within one or two square miles. That's the point of a wind farm, surely?

 

[orogenicman]

Saigon is right. Wind farms are not and never have been a significant cause of death among avian species. The small number of birds killed by wind farms is not a show stopper. Sorry deniers, but these are the facts.

 

[westwall]

Beg to differ...
Buildings and bridges do not move immense masses of air, windmills do. Anything with blades wider than I am tall, with a rotational disk having a diameter of about 300 ft most certainly affects local air movement.
Buildings do disrupt natural air flow, though. Or do you think air currents flowing through Manhattan are the same as they would be without all those buildings? It's also verified that the density of human habitation does definitely affect local temperatures. According to the high priests of your religion, AGW, whatever people do has a definite, detrimental effect on our environment. Wind turbines are not naturally occurring phenomena, therefore they are harmful and should be torn down immediately. It it saves just one bird, it's worth doing without your microwave and big-screen TV, isn't it?

Buldings kill more hundreds of times more birds than windmills do.

Why?

Because the air is moving. It doesn't matter that the building is not moving.

I don't personally see the idea of tearing down all buildings as being very scientific, nor sensible.

Only because there are ORDERS of magnitude more buildings you ignorant propagandist. On an individual basis each windmill kills orders of magnitude more birds than buildings.
Increase the numbers of windmills and they will kill exponentially more.

There is ZERO evidence that there has been any decrease in the bird kill, in fact the evidence shows a concerted effort to NOT report the kill.

 

[westwall]

Saigon is right. Wind farms are not and never have been a significant cause of death among avian species. The small number of birds killed by wind farms is not a show stopper. Sorry deniers, but these are the facts.

\




Bullshit, of all MANMADE sources they are probably the number one killer. You make the claim that buildings kill more than windmills but there is little eveidence for that. However, if it were true, then the fact that there are at least 10,000,000 buildings for every windmill might have some bearing on the subject.

You propagandists are expert at ignoring significant facts like that after all.

So, in other words windmills kill far more birds and bats ON AN INDIVIDUAL BASIS, than any other man made structure.

 

[Mr. H.]

Maybe the wind industry will create an Eagle Kill exchange.
Swap permits, trade them on the open market.
Eaglet derivatives...

 

[orogenicman]

Saigon is right. Wind farms are not and never have been a significant cause of death among avian species. The small number of birds killed by wind farms is not a show stopper. Sorry deniers, but these are the facts.

\




Bullshit, of all MANMADE sources they are probably the number one killer. You make the claim that buildings kill more than windmills but there is little eveidence for that. However, if it were true, then the fact that there are at least 10,000,000 buildings for every windmill might have some bearing on the subject.

You propagandists are expert at ignoring significant facts like that after all.

So, in other words windmills kill far more birds and bats ON AN INDIVIDUAL BASIS, than any other man made structure.

I never made such a claim, so perhaps you should check who you are responding to before you post such unsubstantiated drivel.

But lets check the facts. shall we?

Wind farms are a threat to bird populations ? and their harmful effect on bird populations is only getting worse as more wind farms are built. | Energy Fact Check

◾In 2007, the National Academy of Sciences estimated that wind energy is responsible for less than 0.003% of (3 of every 100,000) bird deaths caused by human (and feline) activities. (Source: National Academy of Sciences, http://bit.ly/NuJjHx)

◾Non-renewable energy sources “pose higher risks to wildlife” than renewable sources. Coal – which wind directly replaces – “is by far the largest contributor” to wildlife risks, according to researchers (Source: New York State Research and Development Authority, http://bit.ly/MLUtb7)

◾ According to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, wind energy is not even close to being a leading cause of mortality with respect to birds. In fact, 2 million birds are killed annually in oil and wastewater pits, at least 60 million are killed every year by vehicles and up to 900 million birds are killed each year by building window strikes. (Source: U.S, Fish and Wildlife Service, http://1.usa.gov/bZFrr)

◾The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has also said that the 440,000 bird deaths often attributed to the division are not considered official agency statistics, and the actual number is likely much lower. (Source: PolitiFact, PolitiFact | Lamar Alexander's wind claim: Is it for the birds?)

◾Repowering of old turbines in Altamont Canyon, California, site of the most conflicts between wind turbines and birds (golden eagles in particular), has reduced collisions by around 80 percent. (Source: NBC Nightly News, [ame=http://youtu.be/RpGxrcvf_0I]NBC NEWS Wind Turbines Kill American Eagles - YouTube[/ame])

◾The wind industry has a long history of proactively collaborating with the environmental community to address impacts and protect wildlife via groups like the Bats and Wind Energy Cooperative, the American Wind Wildlife Institute and the National Audubon Society. (Source: Bats and Wind Energy Cooperative, Bats and Wind Energy Cooperative (BWEC))

 

[Old Rocks]

Beg to differ...
Buildings and bridges do not move immense masses of air, windmills do. Anything with blades wider than I am tall, with a rotational disk having a diameter of about 300 ft most certainly affects local air movement.
Buildings do disrupt natural air flow, though. Or do you think air currents flowing through Manhattan are the same as they would be without all those buildings? It's also verified that the density of human habitation does definitely affect local temperatures. According to the high priests of your religion, AGW, whatever people do has a definite, detrimental effect on our environment. Wind turbines are not naturally occurring phenomena, therefore they are harmful and should be torn down immediately. It it saves just one bird, it's worth doing without your microwave and big-screen TV, isn't it?

Buldings kill more hundreds of times more birds than windmills do.

Why?

Because the air is moving. It doesn't matter that the building is not moving.

I don't personally see the idea of tearing down all buildings as being very scientific, nor sensible.

Only because there are ORDERS of magnitude more buildings you ignorant propagandist. On an individual basis each windmill kills orders of magnitude more birds than buildings.
Increase the numbers of windmills and they will kill exponentially more.

There is ZERO evidence that there has been any decrease in the bird kill, in fact the evidence shows a concerted effort to NOT report the kill.

Once again, multiple flat statements with zero links or sources to back them up. Which puts their value at zero.

 

[Old Rocks]

Saigon is right. Wind farms are not and never have been a significant cause of death among avian species. The small number of birds killed by wind farms is not a show stopper. Sorry deniers, but these are the facts.

\




Bullshit, of all MANMADE sources they are probably the number one killer. You make the claim that buildings kill more than windmills but there is little eveidence for that. However, if it were true, then the fact that there are at least 10,000,000 buildings for every windmill might have some bearing on the subject.

You propagandists are expert at ignoring significant facts like that after all.

So, in other words windmills kill far more birds and bats ON AN INDIVIDUAL BASIS, than any other man made structure.

I never made such a claim, so perhaps you should check who you are responding to before you post such unsubstantiated drivel.

But lets check the facts. shall we?

Wind farms are a threat to bird populations ? and their harmful effect on bird populations is only getting worse as more wind farms are built. | Energy Fact Check

◾In 2007, the National Academy of Sciences estimated that wind energy is responsible for less than 0.003% of (3 of every 100,000) bird deaths caused by human (and feline) activities. (Source: National Academy of Sciences, http://bit.ly/NuJjHx)

◾Non-renewable energy sources “pose higher risks to wildlife” than renewable sources. Coal – which wind directly replaces – “is by far the largest contributor” to wildlife risks, according to researchers (Source: New York State Research and Development Authority, http://bit.ly/MLUtb7)

◾ According to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, wind energy is not even close to being a leading cause of mortality with respect to birds. In fact, 2 million birds are killed annually in oil and wastewater pits, at least 60 million are killed every year by vehicles and up to 900 million birds are killed each year by building window strikes. (Source: U.S, Fish and Wildlife Service, http://1.usa.gov/bZFrr)

◾The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has also said that the 440,000 bird deaths often attributed to the division are not considered official agency statistics, and the actual number is likely much lower. (Source: PolitiFact, PolitiFact | Lamar Alexander's wind claim: Is it for the birds?)

◾Repowering of old turbines in Altamont Canyon, California, site of the most conflicts between wind turbines and birds (golden eagles in particular), has reduced collisions by around 80 percent. (Source: NBC Nightly News, [ame=http://youtu.be/RpGxrcvf_0I]NBC NEWS Wind Turbines Kill American Eagles - YouTube[/ame])

◾The wind industry has a long history of proactively collaborating with the environmental community to address impacts and protect wildlife via groups like the Bats and Wind Energy Cooperative, the American Wind Wildlife Institute and the National Audubon Society. (Source: Bats and Wind Energy Cooperative, Bats and Wind Energy Cooperative (BWEC))

Imagine that, providing sources and links for one's statements. The wingnuts on this board are ashamed of you, Origenicman.

 

[orogenicman]

Rocks, you don't actually expect a stalking troll like Westwall to understand the concept of supporting a claim with evidence, do you? Having an actual discussion isn't what interests him.

 

[Mr. H.]

Why are the inherent risks associated with producing energy from "green" sources deemed acceptable?

 

[orogenicman]

Why are the inherent risks associated with producing energy from "green" sources deemed acceptable?

In an ideal world, there would be no risk at all to producing energy. Unfortunately, we don't live in that world. But the risks associated with most alternative energy sources are demonstrably less than those associated with traditional energy sources. Let's give a clue here - that is one of the reasons why they are the alternatives, one of the reasons why we are gravitating towards those sources and away from traditional sources.

 

[Mr. H.]

Why are the inherent risks associated with producing energy from "green" sources deemed acceptable?

In an ideal world, there would be no risk at all to producing energy. Unfortunately, we don't live in that world. But the risks associated with most alternative energy sources are demonstrably less than those associated with traditional energy sources. Let's give a clue here - that is one of the reasons why they are the alternatives, one of the reasons why we are gravitating towards those sources and away from traditional sources.

Ahhh... ok. So when a hydrocarbon-producing facility is deemed culpable for the death of a bird, they are fined tens of thousands of dollars.

Yet, wind turbine operations merely need apply for a permit to kill the same-said birds.

Gosh that's peachy.

 

[orogenicman]

Why are the inherent risks associated with producing energy from "green" sources deemed acceptable?

In an ideal world, there would be no risk at all to producing energy. Unfortunately, we don't live in that world. But the risks associated with most alternative energy sources are demonstrably less than those associated with traditional energy sources. Let's give a clue here - that is one of the reasons why they are the alternatives, one of the reasons why we are gravitating towards those sources and away from traditional sources.

Ahhh... ok. So when a hydrocarbon-producing facility is deemed culpable for the death of a bird, they are fined tens of thousands of dollars.

Yet, wind turbine operations merely need apply for a permit to kill the same-said birds.

Gosh that's peachy.

You'll have to show me evidence that petroleum facilities are getting fined far and wide for bird deaths because I conducted environmental assessments and investigations of such facilities throughout the 1990s and 2000s and never saw bird kills as a serious compliance issue at any except at certain facilities such as oil and wastewater pits. Moreover, even if bird deaths was the only issue with energy production, the traditional sources are still the greater risk. But bird deaths are a small fraction of the overall environmental risk associated with energy production. Windfarms do not pollute the surface or the subsurface, and do not emit air pollutants. In contrast, petroleum facilities are among the most polluting facilities on the planet. Coal is the worst offender of them all, because at every stage from mining/production to energy conversion at the power plant, to ash disposal, the environmental costs are enormous and long lasting. The mining scars are a permanent blight on the landscape as well as local and regional ecosystems despite efforts at mitigation.

Which do you see as more destructive?

This?

Or this?

 

[jon_berzerk]

Two i have not ignored any facts because you have not shown any

you post quite a bit opinion but not much more

Then please address this, which I have posted for you four times now, and which you have ignored each time.

As I informed you several times now, windmills kill 0.003% of all birds killed by humans in the US. Also, wind mills kill less birds each year, down by1/3 in the past decade in some countries.

btw. I apologise if the quote was not yours, but it was in your statement. If you were quoting someone else, the comment was not marked as a quote.

As I informed you several times now, windmills kill 0.003% of all birds killed by humans in the US

yes because of "all things human" windmills currently make up a very small proportion

of that number

 

[jon_berzerk]

Beg to differ...
Buildings and bridges do not move immense masses of air, windmills do. Anything with blades wider than I am tall, with a rotational disk having a diameter of about 300 ft most certainly affects local air movement.

Beg to differ. Windmills do not move air, they are moved by air. Both buildings and windmills obstruct air flow. The amount of disruption is dependent on the area (facing the wind) and the configuration or shape of the object. Buildings, due to their more angular shape and their width, would generally be more disruptive to flow. Height, is, of course a factor. A two story house will not have as much effect as a 300 foot windmill.

Although both transfer energy out the atmosphere, neither nor both does so to a sufficient degree to affect the weather to a detectable degree.

They do move air, as the air propels the turbines, they change the airflow around them. That is why the are set so far apart. There is a lot of turbulence, you might try going to a wind farm and get educated.

They do move air, as the air propels the turbines, they change the airflow around them.

certainly

 

[orogenicman]

Beg to differ. Windmills do not move air, they are moved by air. Both buildings and windmills obstruct air flow. The amount of disruption is dependent on the area (facing the wind) and the configuration or shape of the object. Buildings, due to their more angular shape and their width, would generally be more disruptive to flow. Height, is, of course a factor. A two story house will not have as much effect as a 300 foot windmill.

Although both transfer energy out the atmosphere, neither nor both does so to a sufficient degree to affect the weather to a detectable degree.

They do move air, as the air propels the turbines, they change the airflow around them. That is why the are set so far apart. There is a lot of turbulence, you might try going to a wind farm and get educated.

They do move air, as the air propels the turbines, they change the airflow around them.

certainly

Buildings do, in fact, alter wind flow, and present much larger obstacles for birds than windfarms (which is why so many birds are killed by them), so what, exactly, is your point here?