Wind farms vs wildlife

The shocking environmental cost of renewable energy

5 January 2013

9:00 AM

5 January 2013

9:00 AM

Wind turbines only last for ‘half as long as previously thought’, according to a new study. But even in their short lifespans, those turbines can do a lot of damage. Wind farms are devastating populations of rare birds and bats across the world, driving some to the point of extinction. Most environmentalists just don’t want to know. Because they’re so desperate to believe in renewable energy, they’re in a state of denial. But the evidence suggests that, this century at least, renewables pose a far greater threat to wildlife than climate change.

I’m a lecturer in biological and human sciences at Oxford university. I trained as a zoologist, I’ve worked as an environmental consultant — conducting impact assessments on projects like the Folkestone-to-London rail link — and I now teach ecology and conservation. Though I started out neutral on renewable energy, I’ve since seen the havoc wreaked on wildlife by wind power, hydro power, biofuels and tidal barrages. The environmentalists who support such projects do so for ideological reasons. What few of them have in their heads, though, is the consolation of science.

My speciality is species extinction. When I was a child, my father used to tell me about all the animals he’d seen growing up in Kent — the grass snakes, the lime hawk moths — and what shocked me when we went looking for them was how few there were left. Species extinction is a serious issue: around the world we’re losing up to 40 a day. Yet environmentalists are urging us to adopt technologies that are hastening this process. Among the most destructive of these is wind power.

Every year in Spain alone — according to research by the conservation group SEO/Birdlife — between 6 and 18 million birds and bats are killed by wind farms. They kill roughly twice as many bats as birds. This breaks down as approximately 110–330 birds per turbine per year and 200–670 bats per year. And these figures may be conservative if you compare them to statistics published in December 2002 by the California Energy Commission: ‘In a summary of avian impacts at wind turbines by Benner et al (1993) bird deaths per turbine per year were as high as 309 in Germany and 895 in Sweden.’


Because wind farms tend to be built on uplands, where there are good thermals, they kill a disproportionate number of raptors. In Australia, the Tasmanian wedge-tailed eagle is threatened with global extinction by wind farms. In north America, wind farms are killing tens of thousands of raptors including golden eagles and America’s national bird, the bald eagle. In Spain, the Egyptian vulture is threatened, as too is the Griffon vulture — 400 of which were killed in one year at Navarra alone. Norwegian wind farms kill over ten white-tailed eagles per year and the population of Smøla has been severely impacted by turbines built against the opposition of ornithologists.

Nor are many other avian species safe. In North America, for example, proposed wind farms on the Great Lakes would kill large numbers of migratory songbirds. In the Atlantic, seabirds such as the Manx Shearwater are threatened. Offshore wind farms are just as bad as onshore ones, posing a growing threat to seabirds and migratory birds, and reducing habitat availability for marine birds (such as common scoter and eider ducks).

I’ve heard it suggested that birds will soon adapt to avoid turbine blades. But your ability to learn something when you’ve been whacked on the head by an object travelling at 200 mph is limited. And besides, this comes from a complete misconception of how long it takes species to evolve. Birds have been flying, unimpeded, through the skies for millions of years. They’re hardly going to alter their habits in a few months. You hear similar nonsense from environmentalists about so-called habitat ‘mitigation’. There has been talk, for example, during proposals to build a Severn barrage, that all the waders displaced by the destruction of the mud flats can have their inter-tidal habitat replaced elsewhere. It may be what developers and governments want to hear, but recreating such habitats would take centuries not years — even if space were available. The birds wouldn’t move on somewhere else. They’d just starve to death.

Loss of habitat is the single biggest cause of species extinction. Wind farms not only reduce habitat size but create ‘population sinks’ — zones which attract animals and then kill them. My colleague Mark Duchamp suggests birds are lured in because they see the turbines as perching sites and also because wind towers (because of the grass variations underneath) seem to attract more prey. The turbines also attract bats, whose wholesale destruction poses an ever more serious conservation concern.

Bats are what is known as K-selected species: they reproduce very slowly, live a long time and are easy to wipe out. Having evolved with few predators — flying at night helps — bats did very well with this strategy until the modern world. This is why they are so heavily protected by so many conventions and regulations: the biggest threats to their survival are made by us.

And the worst threat of all right now is wind turbines. A recent study in Germany by the Leibniz Institute for Zoo and Wildlife Research showed that bats killed by German turbines may have come from places 1,000 or more miles away. This would suggest that German turbines — which an earlier study claims kill more than 200,000 bats a year — may be depressing populations across the entire northeastern portion of Europe. Some studies in the US have put the death toll as high as 70 bats per installed megawatt per year: with 40,000 MW of turbines currently installed in the US and Canada. This would give an annual death toll of up to three -million.

Why is the public not more aware of this carnage? First, because the wind industry (with the shameful complicity of some ornithological organisations) has gone to great trouble to cover it up — to the extent of burying the corpses of victims. Second, because the ongoing obsession with climate change means that many environmentalists are turning a blind eye to the ecological costs of renewable energy. What they clearly don’t appreciate — for they know next to nothing about biology — is that most of the species they claim are threatened by ‘climate change’ have already survived 10 to 20 ice ages, and sea-level rises far more dramatic than any we have experienced in recent millennia or expect in the next few centuries. Climate change won’t drive those species to extinction; well-meaning environmentalists might.

The second edition of Clive Hambler’s Conservation (Cambridge University Press) is out now.

Subscribe to The Spectator today for a quality of argument not found in any other publication. Get more Spectator for less – just £12 for 12 issues.

Show comments
  • http://www.evfit.com Keith Thomas

    A good start, Clive. But look at the health-related objections humans have to wind turbines. You have not covered the ways turbine operation may also affect other animals. Humans have been made sick and driven from their farms and homes, without being swiped by turbine blades. Could it not be that other animals (birds, mammals, insects, soil life, ecological communities) are also made sick? I suspect the impact of sound generated by turbines is having a far greater effect on nearby life than the more easily-quantified physical assault.

    • http://www.facebook.com/SnowdoniaFamilyandGroupAccommodation Snowdonia Breaks

      As someone who suffers from a vestibular disease and know the effect infrasound has on my condition I cannot accept that wildlife and livestock equally suffer, the later of which are penned in to these areas with no means of escape. It is an utter outrage.

    • http://www.facebook.com/SnowdoniaFamilyandGroupAccommodation Snowdonia Breaks

      As someone who suffers from a vestibular disease and know the effect infrasound has on my condition I cannot accept that wildlife and livestock dont equally suffer, the later of which are penned in to these areas with no means of escape. It is an utter outrage.

      • J4zonian

        The way animals are treated and then killed horribly simply because of habit, hatred and dietary misconceptions IS an outrage. The only outrage concerning wind energy is that it’s not (paired with solar) the main energy powering global civilization. Forty years after the OPEC oil embargo woke up people of intelligence, wisdom and sensitivity and started them working for renewable energies conservatives continue to tell the same (and new) lies and spread the same fears to preserve the profits of a tiny number of oil, coal and gas executives and shareholders. Fossil fuels kill roughly 17 times more birds as wind per KWhr, and have drastically worse effects on other wildlife and humans. The idea that wind pollution isn’t a million times better than the lead, mercury, arsenic, and hundreds of other toxic waste spewed by burning coal is so utterly absurd anyone who claims so should be laughed out of the public square and confined to an institution for the duration of the crisis. The chief threat to plants and animals including humans is climate catastrophe. The answer to that is to switch from coal, oil, gas and nukes to efficiency, wind, solar and other smaller local renewables.

    • J4zonian

      Crap and nonsense. Lies, distortions, idiocy. Read the science.

  • Chris Hanning

    Keith is absolutely correct. There is very good research evidence that humans can be severely affected by wind turbine noise. There is anecdotal evidence of effects on farm animals and wildlife other than direct physical injury but no controlled research as yet with the exception of one study which showed that several small bird species made themselves scarce around wind turbines.

    • http://twitter.com/GenesisPOrridge Bob Harper

      Hi Chris, can you link to that research evidence on the effects on humans?

      • Chris Hanning

        British Medical Journal 2012;344:e1527

        • alphydan

          From the discussion in your article (C Hanning) in the BMJ,

          Hanning and Evans, two writers who declare histories of anti-windfarm activity, say that “a large body of evidence” now exists that wind turbines disturb sleep and impair health within permissible distances from housing[1]. They are correct in saying that a large body of relevant evidence exists, but wildly incorrect in their interpretation of its conclusions. I have located no less than 17 reviews of the evidence on whether wind turbines and infrasound cause health problems, nearly all which satisfy the fully “independent” provenance being called for [2]. Predictably, none are referenced in the editorial.

          As will be seen, all of these reviews make strong statements that the evidence is very poor that wind turbines in themselves cause problems. What these reviews conclude is that :

          • A small minority of exposed people claim to be adversely affected by wind turbines
          • Negative attitudes to wind turbines are more predictive of reported adverse health effects and annoyance than are objective measures of actual exposure
          • Being able to see wind turbines is similarly predictive of annoyance
          • Deriving income from hosting wind turbines on one’s land may have a “protective effect” against annoyance and health symptoms. Here, it is important to note that claims made by anti-wind farm groups that turbine hosts sign “gag” clauses which prevent them from complaining, are contestable. I have obtained contracts from different Australian firms and none say anything about “gags”. Also, no contract would ever preclude a citizen from pursuing a claim of negligence in common law.

          So do you have any independent references besides your own article? (I have also worked 150m away from a 750kW turbine during a year without any noticeable effects. Cars however were very noisy … but have not been banned since)

          • Daniel Maris

            People are disturbed by lots of rural activities: crop spraying, tractor noise, fox hunting, silage smells, smoke from stubble burning, cattle injuring people on public footpaths etc.

            I very much doubt any serious problems occur. Most rural communities are disturbed by the visual intrusion on a familiar landscape – something that does have to be considered of course. In Denmark and Germany rural communities benefit from turbine revenue but in class bound UK it is only the big landowners who make the big money.

          • http://www.evfit.com Keith Thomas

            On the one side there are those who complain about a variety of effects from nearby wind turbines. On the other side we have those who see themselves as realists, but many of whom have a tendency to mocking – some, even, to bullying.

            Where is the research?

            I am not expert in the field, but as no one else is designing the research, let me have a first shot.

            For a start, let’s assume that some of the complaints are real. The job of the scientists is to find out and measure these real effects – if possible. Their approach should be one of searching for previously unknown features of the human brain and senses, using the most imaginative techniques and tools available.

            We need a significant sample size of people who complain about serious disturbance from wind turbines, at the time and place when the disturbance is manifesting itself. Then we need a small team of curious and imaginative researchers: an acoustic engineer with sensitive equipment, a neurophysiologist to advise on thresholds at which disturbance (by all sound qualities: frequency, pitch and variation, not mere volume) is known to be perceptible in humans. We may need to wire these people up with sensors to detect variations in their brain activity. We need a medical ear and hearing specialist. We also need an audiologist, a meteorologist to specify the ambient atmospheric conditions and a topographer to describe the landscape in which the disturbance is being reported. We should seek advice from a GP known for his good “bedside manner”, who is known for taking his patients seriously. Importantly, none of these people should display the mocking, dismissive approach apparent in this column or come to the issue with assumptions that the importance of wind power to help combat climate change is sufficient reason to constrain their curiosity.

            The thresholds of neuroscience understanding and research are being pushed back all over the world. Much amateur speculation in neuroscience is, however, uninformed and simplistic. Let’s have the best scientists deployed on good science, not uninformed commentary, hyperbole and light-hearted dismissal – from all sides – that does nothing to get to the bottom of this.

          • Daniel Maris

            You haven’t got much of a sample. There are v. strict rules about siting of turbines. There are hardly any people at all within conscious hearing distance. Whether the low frequency noise issue is genuine I don’t know, but come to London and we can tell you about low frequency noise from planes that take country folk off to exotic locations around the globe.

            What we need to do is ensure that people in rural communities share in the wealth generated by turbines – that will change attitudes.

          • http://www.evfit.com Keith Thomas

            Daniel, you say you “haven’t got much of a sample”. Are you asserting that for this reason there is no need to do any research, and we can therefore justifiably accept the hyperbole and dismissiveness of some participants in the debate (and in this thread)?

            And who are the “we” who “need to ensure that people in rural communities share in the wealth generated by turbines”? The way you write your second paragraph, you appear to be a proponent of siting wind turbines in rural communities – and that you reckon “they” can be bribed to reduce their opposition. It might work with some opportunistic opponents; it works in other areas of planning.

          • Daniel Maris

            No, I wasn’t asserting that no research should be undertaken. But plenty of research has been carried out on noise issues. As I said, it is not as though millions of people aren’t subjected to low frequency noise in cities. Where are the health effects there? The people living under the flight path in South and West London have much better health outcomes than those living in North London and East London.

            The “we” is the nation at large as represented through our democratic government. I am suggesting that “we” do what Dennmark and Germany do in making sure local communities – not just big land owners – benefit financially from wind turbine development in rural areas. I don’t think anyone is suggest turbines be plonked in the middle of villages. We are talking about siting them in non-residential areas.

          • http://www.evfit.com Keith Thomas

            Daniel, you are telling me there is “plenty of research” on “noise issues” and you refer to low frequency noise in cities. So you miss my point. I am asking for research on the effect of wind turbines on human health among the people who complain about these effects, when and where they are experiencing them. This should include low frequency noise, but it should not be confined to that. Look at the sensitivity by cetaceans to sound carried through the oceans by their mates, by naval operations and by mineral exploration – we learned about this only recently and what a surprise it has been.

            So, actually, you do appear to be saying we need do no further research; that we know all there is to know. I maintain that we don’t. And in fact I detect an unreasonable reluctance to even consider appropriate research.

            I take the position that not all the complainants are malingerers, land speculators, trouble makers, hypochondriacs and attention-seekers – though I will not rule out the possibility that some may be. It would be easy to design research so that the subjects were asked to report on the effects of turbines when they did not know whether or not the turbine was operating. Even a double blind methodology could be used.

            I am all for a democratic process on matters of human affairs, but a popular vote is not the way to determine the validity or relevance of scientific evidence. Fortunately, our democratic institutions allow for appeals and even for protests. “We” are not obliged to touch our forelock to our “democratic government” and accept their initial decisions as if we were under an authoritarian regime – to “deal with it” as the Americans say.

          • Daniel Maris

            I’m sorry – LOL – you’re not going to get James Delingpole to sign up to concern about the effects of yacht engine noise on cretaceans. That’s his one aim in life to get on a big yacht and mix with the Masters of the Universe.

            Yes, of course I have nothing against further research, I am just saying that any low frequency noise experienced by possibly a couple of hundred people in the countryside from wind turbines is nowhere near the amount of low frequency noise experienced by millions of people every day in London. Are you saying we should suspend Heathrow Airport operations entirely? Are you saying country folk don’t understand what us townies have to put up with? – maybe I am. 🙂

            No, a popular vote does not decide science, but it should decide how we deal with the science.

            Modern wind turbines do not cause this sort of problem. It’s from the pro-wind side, but have a read of this as I think an antidote to some of the nonsense perpetrated on this site (you seem to be a rational being unlike some of the others…) –


          • http://www.evfit.com Keith Thomas

            Daniel, I just don’t know. Unlike most others I’d like to know more before I come to a conclusion. Most others seem to believe that research in other areas trumps the first-hand experience of all the people who complain about illness and discomfort from wind turbines.

            What really concerns me is that these people may be canaries in the coalmine for other species and ecosystems. Usually we humans rely on other species (like the iconic canaries) to warn us about perils to our health. But could it be that for once the obvious sufferers are human and hence articulate enough to warn us about the possible effects on other species.

            Let me mention for the third time in this thread that we should not rule out effects of wind turbines that are due to other than low-frequency sound. The sound levels from the operation of Heathrow Airport may not be relevant to the effects of wind turbines. You say that “modern wind turbines do not cause this type of problem”, but I would like some reputable research to identify just what is “this type of problem” that hundreds of people report.

            You suggest there are “a couple of hundred people in the countryside”, but I would like to add in a few thousand more in the USA and Australia who report similar effects.

            I admit to being dismayed at the lack of curiosity about this topic. Not only is there a lack of curiosity, it’s paraded with patronising bravado (see ‘dalai guevera’ above). I just can’t work it out, and I am reminded about the willful lack of curiosity about high profile paedophiles – a neglect that allowed damage to continue, with effects ultimately across society and its valued institutions, not only for the victims.

          • Latimer Alder

            I beg to differ. One of Mr Delingpole’s aims is to wind people like you up into a fury. He seems to be achieving it in spades.

          • Daniel Maris

            Not at all. I find him mildly amusing about things like his dope smoking habit and the like. But I know on this subject he is completely, deeply irrelevant. I am just tweaking his ear.

          • http://www.facebook.com/andreas.marciniak Andreas Marciniak

            You don’t have any Idea of what your Talking about! Denmark and Germany, and Australia, and any other country with Turbines have reported health problems as far back as 20+ years, I have been on the land for over 20 years, never had to leave my Home because of stubble burn off, “People are disturbed by lots of rural activities: crop spraying, tractor noise, fox hunting, silage smells, smoke from stubble burning, cattle injuring people on public footpaths etc.” your words Daniel Maris !Yes ? have you ever heard of some one leaving there home because of the things you say are disturbing ?? Don’t think .

          • dalai guevara

            Sorry, but what is this nonsense all about? A coal fired power station is something you would love to live next to? Or bathe in the hot springs of Sizewell? The vast majority of turbines will be sited….offshore. Time to move on, nothing to see here.

          • berosos_bubos

            Don’t forget off-shore wind is 5 times the cost of coal.

          • the viceroy’s gin

            Actually, it’s more than 5 times that cost… but let’s not quibble.

          • J4zonian

            Actually it’s neither of those. But let’s not quibble. Unless you have some proof of those outlandish claims.

          • dalai guevara

            At the moment – would that explain why no one is quarreling about coal fired power stations’ contribution to the energy mix?

          • the viceroy’s gin

            Perhaps, but unfortunately, you wouldn’t understand or be capable of analyzing his figures, because, well…. you’re stupid.

          • http://www.facebook.com/people/Chris-Varrone/528767573 Chris Varrone

            only if you ignore the cost of coal, i.e., health cost which is 18 c/kWh by itself (Harvard Medical School paper, 2011)

          • ion

            have you included the externalities in your calculus? – health and pollution costs for 30 to 40 years. I think not.

          • J4zonian

            put up or shut up. that is absolute nonsense, even not accounting for the enormous subsidies coal has accumulated over more than a century, and the externalizing of its horrific health effects. If coal operators actually had to pay the full cost of their diabolical substance there would never be another coal burner built in the world.

            And that’s not even counting that pesky climate change thing. The cost of sending civilization into collapse and making 90% or more of the species on Earth extinct should be factored into the equation as well.

          • http://www.evfit.com Keith Thomas

            “Time to move on, nothing to see here.” Yet another contributor whose position is settled on the basis of … what? Certainly not rigorous research.

          • dalai guevara

            Give me a break with what you refer to as ‘research’. Fine, some birds die, jeez (can you tell I am not an environmental fruitcake?).

            DeadlyinArms has posted a thoughtful response below, perhaps read it?

          • Susan Bye-Walsh

            No, I’d take a 50 story spinning, flashing, roaring, & keeping me awake EVERY NIGHT industrial turbine.
            People are abandoning their homes to save their & their children’s health.!

          • Latimer Alder

            So your research into the effects of wind turbines – that you write about to the point of tedium – is limited to the purely theoretical? Being a Londoner you have no first hand experience, je crois? When I last looked there weren’t a lot of them in Southwark Park, nor sited on top of Big Ben.

            Yet you still feel able to lecture us all (in an uninformed and patronising way) about how good for us it is to cover our local environment with wind farms. No doubt we will all treat your views with the consideration they deserve.

            I hold still out some small hope that you are just some snotty clever-clever adolescent still with time to grow up. But I have a horrible feeling that your current level of maturity is as far as you’re going to get.

          • http://www.facebook.com/people/Tony-Clark/100002130833499 Tony Clark

            Then how come I know a number of Landowners who are trying to get out of their contracts to host wind turbines? apparently this is worldwide – take a look at epaw.org

          • Julie Gray

            Who do you work for? there are thousands of people living within touching distance of these things and in Europe people are paid to leave their homes with a silence order.

          • john s

            That is a complete lie. I can easily cite a number of facilities which are clearly (audibly) within range. Oops, I am sorry I see you used the word ‘hardly’ so that you could say such an unsupported and ridiculous thing with sort refuge in semantics. Bravo.

          • Venture Guy

            There is plenty of science showing the harm. This is from the National Renewable Energy Lab in the USA showing wind turbines and associated towers and equipment as the number one cause of death to Golden Eagles being tracked by radio collars http://www.nrel.gov/wind/pdfs/26092.pdf

          • J4zonian

            There has been research. It continues. It mostly shows wind turbines have nothing but good effects on health of humans and all other beings. Coal, on the other hand, is one of the worst health scourges in the world; most of the toxic mercury in the world and huge amounts of lead, arsenic and many other poisons are caused by burning coal. Oil and gas also do immense harm to the world, that has been well-documented for decades despite pressure from powerful fossil fuel interests. Replacing them with wind, solar and efficiency would be one of the best moves humans have made for millennia. In any case, climate chaos means the age of fossil fuels is over. Wind and solar are the energies of today, and the energies of the future.

          • http://www.facebook.com/arthur.stordahl Arthur Stordahl

            “disturbed by the visual intrusion” I have always thought very majestic and mesmerizing. But, I see now you added “familiar” which changes things.

          • phishing4men

            You can prove anything with statistics and research reports depending on how you list and interpret them, bottom line wind generators are a waste of time and effort regardless of their effect on wild and human life. ” (I have also worked 150m away from a 750kW turbine during a year without any noticeable effects” The ill effects you have suffered are evident by you confused state of mind as evidenced in your remarks.

          • http://www.facebook.com/EastCountyMagazine Miriam Raftery

            In San DIego the Manzanita Indians are having severe health problems and are enrolled in a university health study to determine if proximity to 325 ft-tall wind turbines are the cause. Stray voltage 1,000 times normal has been measured in their tribal hall, church and homes by an epidemiologist who believes the turbines are causing the illnesses. They appear to have a cancer cluster. People off the reservation also have serious problems. I’ve stood near one of those turbines and my ear popped and hurt. yet our county health official wrote a whitewash report claiming there’s no evidence wind turbines harm health – ignoring all the sick Native Americans. I know a woman who moved away from her home to escape these turbines and her health improved. Now they want to build a new wind farm near her new home. They should not allow these to be built unless they are proven safe.

          • http://www.facebook.com/arthur.stordahl Arthur Stordahl

            Same with overhead power lines. Where I grew up I could feel the voltage in the air. Unsure if it was 70’s weed, I took a 4ft florescent bulb held over my head~it indeed lit up.
            Also visited a large/huge hydroelectric water way, within a football field I had a splitting headache and immediately turned around.
            Any type of high power should be avoided and not infringe on homes or ppl-nature is smarter, animals will avoid a band avoiding the current.

          • Berglind Kristjánsdóttir

            I heard that that damage is the same as living in close proximity to highways can cause. That is just common seance but not highly destructive

    • http://www.facebook.com/arthur.stordahl Arthur Stordahl

      I guess you have never visited wind turbines, they are nearly silent and very slow moving-tricky to hit IMO.I will however bike by this summer and honestly observe. Some countries obtain nearly all power from wind turbines ie no coal/oil/gas. Much less damage than big oil/fracking or Gmo pushing herbicide/pesticide company.
      Yes OT but, leftist pseudoscience-As I found our local school is funded by Monsanto and has been testing/researching for decades…I am moving. Bill Gates and NPR may think they are fab, inventive and the future, but not I. Why-I actually care about the environment-grew up and live in it, not in a bubble. He can keep his $23 million investment of self destruction or destroy everything else stock.
      And no, not a republican-recovering dem given up after…well, whatever happened??

  • Phillip Bratby

    The wind industry lies and lies and lies to protect its luctrative subsidies. Politicians ignore the truth. Environmental NGOs ignore the truth. Ordinary people and wildlife are the ones to suffer.

    • J4zonian

      Yes, the powerful wind lobby mafia has completely outstripped oil, coal, gas and nuclear corporations in influence in the halls of Congress, Parliament, and other government institutions. We should just give up because the wind and solar lobbies are just too mighty at this point to defeat.

      • http://batman-news.com Andrew Dodson

        The wind lobby IS the oil, gas, and coal lobby ya dingus!!

        GE makes turbines for all of the above. Its all the same power scam man!

        If you really wanted to be free, we could have small modular nuclear power in every region across america for a fraction of a penny per kWh. We could crank these things out like hot cakes and solve the energy problems of the developing world and get off of coal in a reasonable 25 year time frame.

        The solutions aren’t impossible. We can make intelligent change… but its going to take invested, entrenched interests backing off from preventing competition.

        Current regulatory and market structures have made it impossible to compete. We are choking to death on stupidity!

        • J4zonian

          I’m not surprised to learn you’re choking on stupidity, but you know what helps with that? Education and psychotherapy. Not necessarily in that order.

          GE also makes reactors.

          But of course you believe that’s not a scam. If there were a market solution out of this dire crisis the market would have found it. De-regulation, that is, turning the psychopathic corporations and those running them loose on the world, has made the problem a hundred times worse and continues to accelerate our gallop toward utter destruction. We don’t need to compete any more; we need to cooperate. You know what works for that? Government.

  • General_Patton

    I think every person who calls themselves by the idiotic moniker “progressive” needs to live next to one of these awful wind turbines for one year and then we can have a sensible discussion on the subject. As for that bitch Caroline Lucas I would just tie her to a turbine blade and let the birds peck her eyes out!

    • http://www.facebook.com/lark.descending Lark Descending

      Metaphorically speaking she appears already blind and certainly has very little foresight!

    • General Amusement

      Ah yes, one of those sensible discussions that begins with torture. I think every person who calls someone a bitch on comments pages should live next to a slag heap for a year.

    • Julie Gray

      Go General Patton I think that applies to all of the so called environmentalists that are paid by wind turbine companies to lie.

  • http://www.facebook.com/lark.descending Lark Descending

    RSPB take note. “You are letting true conservationists down badly.”

  • Barghumer

    I have see this about birds and bats before but never saw the numbers quoted in this article. If these numbers are true (they seem extremely high) then it would normally be expected to be an issue raised by newspaper reporters, the local and international media. The silence is deafening.

    • Evil Heretic

      As always. There’s Holy Writ handed down (Books entitled ‘The Prophesies of … ‘ … Hansen, Mann, Santer, Jones the Phil …&c.) Justifies their silence.
      To me, those numbers are not high. The RSPB (& the American equivalent [Aubadon?] conceal the truth.

      • J4zonian

        Yes, it’s a vast conspiracy by bird watchers to kill as many birds as possible.
        Huh–wha? You people are completely batshit loony. Read the science.

    • Barking 66

      It’s because they are bollocks. Look up the organisation quoted. They are a special interest group and like all special interest groups they use facts like I use a street lamp after a heavy session on a Friday night. For support and not illumination. And if the fact isn’t helpful enough, you misquote it.

    • Marie

      I have read the german scientific investigation into the number of 200.000 bats killed pr. year in Germany. It counting is based on scientific methods. Do not know anything about the numbers from Spain but the numbers from Norway are confirmed and correct

  • bob sweet

    The wind industry usually counters by saying far more birds are killed on our roads, but that does not give them the right to kill more . Man has been responsible for the extermination of more creatures in the last 200 years than climate change. I do not understand why the government still bends to the green over wind farms .

    • AshesAnne

      I agree. The flaw with those wind industry studies saying that more birds are killed by buildings etc. is that they look at birds as a whole, the whole dang animal group! But you have to look at the details of a things to get the whole picture. And the details are that wind farms are wiping out individual species like bats, raptors, and humming birds. You can’t just lump all the data together, it’s ridiculous. That’s how you lose the facts.

  • Jim Wiegand

    It is good to see articles like this one because there is a worldwide crises developing because of the wind industry.

    Over the last several years enough evidence has surfaced against the wind industry to shut down every one of their projects. At the very least a moratorium should in place until honest wind turbine research is conducted. The truth is that bogus research has been produced by the wind industry for over 28 years to hide their carnage.

    Both Congress and industry both know full well these turbines are not going to save us or even begin to solve our energy needs. They just want to sell turbines. They also know these wind turbines will also have no impact on CO2 emissions across the world. But all of this sounds good to the gullible fools that believe all the filtered stories put out by the media.

    I remember one of the first big wind industry lies told to America.The one about how these turbines were going to help us get away from Middle East oil. The media, preying on our Nationalistic pride used this deflective argument to offset all the eagle and raptor deaths at Altamont Pass. Of course in America today we use much more Middle East oil now than in 1980 and sensible mileage standards for cars, which would have helped, were put off for over 35 years.

    The wind turbine still has nothing to do with the oil imported from the Middle East. In the meantime while the world is being lied to about this so called “Green Energy” these turbines are slaughtering off bird populations across the world.

    Even the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, a federal agency entrusted by the people to protect wildlife, has been helping the wind industry to hide their bird and bat slaughter. They have been doing it for over 25 years. If anyone does believe any of this then look at how the USFWS is dealing with the rapidly declining and highly endangered whooping crane population.

    After decades of increasing a rate of about 4% per year, the Aransas-Wood
    Buffalo population has been declining. This population decline correlates with
    the explosion of wind turbines put along their 2500 mile migration route in
    recent years. Last year only 192 were actually counted. In an effort to conceal
    this decline, last year the USFWS changed their survey methodology so their
    true numbers could be concealed.

    Today the free flying whooping Crane population is in a very serious state of decline
    and over 200 of them have vanished in recent years. There have also been no reports about the wind industry’s golden eagle slaughter that has taken place in Texas. even though Texas was known to at one time to have more golden eagles than California. Topping off this massive industry and government cover-up are the USFWS “Voluntary Guidelines” bestowed upon the Wind industry. With these worthless regulations our own Government has given this industry the right to lie, cheat and steal.

    What I just wrote about is typical of the industry’s deception that has been going on for decades. I can tell readers that virtually every wind industry document I have ever
    read has been written with deception or has had research methodology designed
    to hide the truth. I could provide dozens and dozens of similar examples from
    all over the country or the world.

    In a Democracy this outrage would be met with Congressional hearings. But we no longer have a Democracy in America and there will be no congressional hearings. We now have new political system that is basically the flip side of socialism. Instead of the means of production and distribution being controlled by the people, it is all controlled by industry.

    If people across the world watched the news in the last few weeks there was a lot of talk of a contrived crisis, the Fiscal Cliff. The Fiscal Cliff as Congress calls it, has always been “their fiscal cliff”. They spent the money and if one were to look close, most if not all this deficit was money siphoned off the treasury and given to corporations. The wind industry is only one of many benefactors.

    As I have been saying for weeks, only corruption could save the 12 billion dollar wind industry tax credit. Two days ago corruption played its hand again and
    the American taxpayers were fleeced.
    Was I surprised? No because when society is controlled by industry this is exactly what one should expect to happen. We can also expect to be sold many more wind turbines.

    • JustinTurco

      Excellent post Jim. Thanks for also making it a bit clearer for me as to why the PTC got extended.

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Tony-Clark/100002130833499 Tony Clark

      Jim is absolutely correct.
      The wind industry is based on greed,ignorance and institutional deceit. Its
      propaganda rewards the greedy,flatters the gullible and exploits the well
      Alan Watts

    • J4zonian

      Loons. Utter insane anti-science, anti-reality lunatic psychopathic lying morons.

      To believe the health effects of wind are not better than the health effects of coal is to believe that turtles are the main threat to life on Earth and that the blue-shifted light of planets in distant and receding galaxies is causing the right arms of tennis players to swell inordinately. You people should 1. read some science. and 2. get into therapy.

      • http://batman-news.com Andrew Dodson

        wow what a troll!

  • barbel

    Some spectacular conspiricy theories here.

    • Jim Wiegand

      How many wind industry studies have you read? What experience if any do you have with wildlife? Have you ever conducted one bit of wildlife research in your entire existence?

    • Evil Denier

      Simple question. Have you counted the dead bodies? Yourself?
      I have.
      Count the subsidies. Just add ’em up.

    • http://www.facebook.com/gary.gudalefsky Gary Gudalefsky

      Since lewandowski’s study showed it is primarily AGW true-believers who are the conspiracy (note the Correct spelling!) nuts, you are probably having a high old time thinking this is one.

    • http://twitter.com/shelliecorreia Shellie Correia

      I wish they were only theories.

  • Tom Hope

    Interesting article but could you please publish links to the source of your data. The discrepancy with previous estimates is almost three orders of magnitude. One much quoted study indicates bird death rates at 1.3/turbine /year (only 28,000 per year) but it was funded by the wind industry. (see http://www.dialight.com/Assets%5CApplication_Notes%5CSignaling%5CObstruction%20Lighting%20Bird%20Strike%20Study.pdf )

    • Steve Crook

      It’s difficult to know what to believe until there’s been a proper peer reviewed study looking at several large scale modern wind farms both onshore and offshore. Given the size of modern farms and the difficulty of getting to corpses before they’re scavenged it would be a fairly mammoth undertaking. Even if the study you quote is correct, most of the fatalities were raptors and that doesn’t bode well for Scotland’s plans for large scale adoption of wind power…

    • Steve Crook
  • Patrick Wise

    There’s much in this article that I seriously question, but suffice it to say that I think blaming our loss of wildlife on one technology or another gets us nowhere. It is surely a combination of many if not most of our activities, old and new, that is contributing to the problem.
    So let’s stop blaming each other and work together to solve it, before we all regret it. Please.

    • Steve Crook

      Well, either the numbers are correct or they’re not, It’s going to be pretty difficult to mistake death by turbine for anything else, so I don’t think false counting is likely to be much of a problem.

      One thing I’ve found is the DECC seem to be passing the buck. There have been several FOIA requests for the count of DBT and DECC say that they don’t keep the numbers, and that if available they’ll be held by the wind farm companies. The companies are exempt from FOIA. How convenient.

      There probably isn’t a solution as birds’ll fly where they want, and turbines seem likely to be placed in windy places where birds like to fly. We may have to make a pretty ugly choice. Ironic when “Silent Spring” has just passed its 50th.

      • http://twitter.com/shelliecorreia Shellie Correia

        It’s an easy choice. Stop spending billions of dollars on turbines, and use the money for research into producing our current energy sources as cleanly and safely as possible. But that is not glamorous or exciting enough. They want to use Ontario to produce energy to sell. It is a financial decision. Wind turbines require gas generating stations for back up, and they require back up most of the time. The money invested by the super-rich and influential is the reason for the secrecy and cover-ups. They want their pay-back, and they want access to our pockets to get it. The government has taken away our rights to protect ourselves for this reason. We are going to have these things imposed on us if they have their way, regardless of safety, damage to the environment, community discord, unaffordable energy costs, loss of property value, etc. Look at the outrageous “gifts” our government gives these scammers. They do not care about anything but MONEY!!!

        • J4zonian

          That’s actually a terrible choice that will exacerbate human as well as wildlife mortality and extinction, especially as fossil fuels’ EROEI continues to decline drastically and climate catastrophe ramps up its horrific effects. It’s already the main cause of extinctions and will worsen exponentially until we stop it by moving to efficiency, clean energy, reforestation and local organic low-meat permaculture.

          Wind and solar are complementary back ups for each other, and when used in a smart grid with EVs as mobile batteries are the main answer to climate chaos as well as many other problems.

          And of course, you point out the greed and corruption of wind energy magnates, as opposed to the many oil and coal executives who have chosen lives of poverty, simplicity and sack cloth while encouraging the use of their quite benign and peace-fomenting fuels.

          • disqus_tObYqppPWg

            You are brainwashed…..stop drinking the green kool-aid. This is just a huge money-grab….a SCAM!!!

          • J4zonian

            Wind, solar and efficiency are the chief solutions to climate catastrophe (with reforestation, local organic low-meat permaculture, and changed lives.) The opponents to those solutions, motivated by money, power, politics and above all psychological dysfunction, will do and say anything to stop progress. They are committing crimes against humanity and the Earth, and you’re being used by them. Stop allowing them to do that. Read the facts. Ask questions when you don’t know something instead of making absurd assertions. Stop spreading lies.

      • J4zonian

        Less than 3 thousandths of one percent of bird deaths a year and that doesn’t include habitat loss, the main cause of bird deaths and extinctions, nor does it include the effects of other things–fossil fuels, for example–on other plants and animals including humans.
        Wind generation experts are aware that Altamont was poorly designed and poorly sited: it accounts for almost half (as I recall) of the wind bird deaths in the US. Which means vast improvements have already been made. They continue. Offshore, onshore, whatever. The combination of efficiency, solar and wind is the best thing humans have ever done for wildlife.

        • Steve Crook

          I agree completely that DBT pales compared to other pressures on bird populations taken as a whole. However, the issue is really with raptors and bats. It’s already clear that migratory bats have a problem, and that large wind farms placed across migration routes are having a impact on their populations. See Eurobats.

          Raptors also seem to be particularly vulnerable. To a sufficient extent that (can’t find source for this) US wind farm operators have been given an exemption from prosecution for deaths of protected raptors.

          I know there are a number of long term studies under way to try and determine the effects of turbines on these two groups, but they’re going to take years and are hampered by the inability to adequately patrol large areas and be sure that a representative number of corpses over a wide enough area can be collected before they are scavenged.

          The truth is that, regardless of location, I don’t think we have anywhere near enough evidence to make any determination on the long term effect of wind turbines on bird and bat populations.

          Environmentalists are keen to invoke the precautionary principle. Is this a case where it should be used to block turbine developments in areas close to migratory bird routes and where there are significant bat and raptor populations?

          • J4zonian

            The precautionary principle absolutely should be our guide here. It tells us to get off our asses, stop letting psychopathic reactionaries drag progress down with lies, and it tells us to shut down fossil fuel use asap while replacing it with clean energy, mainly wind and solar. By far the biggest threat to plants and animals (including humans) in the world today and for the foreseeable future is climate catastrophe. To avoid it we need to move rapidly and massively to wind and solar.

            We don’t know everything; we never do. But it’s clear that the complementary combination of efficiency, wind and solar greatly outperforms fossil fuels and also outperforms nuclear reactors in preserving wildlife of all kinds. (17 times more bird deaths from coal per KWhr,* for example and that includes less effective old wind designs.) Huge improvements have already been made in wind generation; further improvements are happening now (siting, tubular design instead of frames, purple blades that turn slower…) and are being investigated and planned. Offshore wind has significant advantages over onshore, including probably this. There are also radical new designs that could eliminate wildlife concerns completely. If we had not been slowed for decades by conservatives (who obviously care nothing for wildlife, btw) we would probably have those in place by now.


            Virtually every environmentalist will say we should make sure we implement efficiency and conservation as top priority, and site wind where it will be most beneficial for wildlife and people. Even designed and sited badly it’s still better than the fossil fuels we’re using now and we should build out wind and solar, especially small-scale distributed, as fast as we possibly can. It’s been suggested that we need to build at least 4 times faster than we are to meet reasonable goals (that is, goals that don’t ignore physics and have a reasonable chance of avoiding utter catastrophe); that doesn’t include the help to poor people in the third world that’s absolutely necessary for us to survive this crisis so we have no time to delay further.

            PS don’t give us any crap about proprietary information; environmentalists and the left in general have been working for decades to increase transparency of government and corporations while the right has been working to obscure… well, everything. (Dick Cheney’s energy task force that exempted fracking from all the relevant protections and hides the substances used, for example, and corporate stooge Obama has launched vengeful and beyond-the-pale persecutions of whistle blowers while using corporate government secrecy to pursue insane, destructive and immoral policies just like the Republicans.)

    • http://twitter.com/JamesDelingpole James Delingpole

      Maybe we could all hold hands and stand in a circle and chant: “Save the wildlife! Save the wildlife!” Is that the sort of thing you had in mind, Patrick? Let’s do it. Please.

      • Daniel Maris

        Maybe you could have a word with Fraser and say: “I am concerned about all these articles you have in the Spectator promoting building residential homes in the countryside. You do realise that will result in the destruction of huge amounts of bird habitat? And of course that is the one big thing I am really concerned about as you can tell from all my articles. “

  • http://www.facebook.com/morningglori Laura Griffin

    Thank you Clive for helping to get the word out about the huge scam that wind energy is and the devastating impact this contrived ‘green’ energy is having on wildlife, humans, valuable farmland, etc. It’s all about the billions and billions of dollars to be made by the wind industry. Anyone who believes this is about saving the planet should contact me. I have some great swampland for sale in the Sahara Desert.

    • burningbeardy

      Dont forget the billions being taken from taxpayers in subsidies for these projects and the increases in fuel prices to the public to help them along too.

  • barbel

    Chains like this so often degenerate into a series of rants. I’m afraid the good professor seems to have started it that way saying environmentalists “know next to nothing about biology”. The RSPB, WWF, Natural England, Wildlife Trusts etc. etc. etc. I would think know quite a lot. They do not hesitate to object to projects in sensitive areas but not otherwise. Seems a good approach to me. Saying they are all in some sort of conspiracy of silence is a bit far fetched to put it mildly.
    Sure some species survive climate change, might as well say that because we have survived 2 world wars another won’t matter. Climate change is also going to hurt humans somewhat.
    Numbers quoted in this way (even if they are accurate which I doubt) get us nowhere. Cats kill 55million birds a year in the UK according to, oddly, the Small Mammal Society. This is, according to the RSPB, not threatening to any species yet is many times the number he claims are killed by turbines in Spain (where, as he correctly says, some terrible errors were made putting turbines in totally the wrong places).
    When people insult anyone who disagrees with them they’ve lost it so far as I’m concerned. A pity, there is a serious issue at the heart of this.

    • http://twitter.com/JamesDelingpole James Delingpole

      “The RSPB, WWF, Natural England, Wildlife Trusts etc I would think know quite a lot.” Love that sarcastic understatement. This shows what a deep thinker you are and how nobody’s going to pull the wool over your eyes with pesky facts that don’t suit your worldview. Never mind that most of these environmentalist NGOs now earn handy extra cash from bribes – sorry, consultancy fees – from Big Wind and that the RSPB has actually applied to put up wind turbines on its own land.

      • http://www.facebook.com/people/Bigcitylib-StrikesBack/510717518 Bigcitylib StrikesBack

        Wow, James Delingpole trolling another guy’s comments sections. How the mighty have fallen. Surprised he hasn’t asked for donations.

        • David Norman

          Wow Murp, finally worked up the courage to take a swipe at your better…what! Mikey not around to bolster your false sense of moral superiority.

        • http://www.evfit.com Keith Thomas

          Welcome, James!

          Anyone who thinks James’ contribution above is “trolling” should get out on the web a bit more. Sarcasm and irony are not trolling.

    • Vindpust


      You have obviously not had experience of the RSPB and their willingness to sell out their supposed principles in favour of wind industry interests.

      In Northumberland, their local representative recognised that proper bird surveys had not been done for the ‘Moorsyde’ wind farm in 2004. in fact their survey counted only 84 geese during the whole (inadequate) survey period while several thousand Greylag geese were, during the survey period, using the field in which the project anemometer mast was sited!

      The RSPB eventually conceded that the surveys were seriously defective, but, as consultees, refused to do anything about it, merely saying that they would require that it be done properly “in future applications”. And, “As is our practice, we have requested that the local planning authority include
      conditions on the planning permission requiring the developer to monitor
      local bird populations in the area and take appropriate action should
      this reveal any problems.”

      We have seen this time and time again. Their role as consultees is now seriously compromised. Many of their members in our area were so disgusted by their behaviour that they cancelled their membership.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Andrew-Watts/100001935746510 Andrew Watts

    The Ontario government amended the ‘Environmental Protection Act’ late last year and just before the ‘green energy’ Premier resigned and ‘prorogued’ parliament and effectively shut down government until a new Premier is elected later this year.
    At one time the Ontario EPA was held up as an environmental ideal and the envy of many other countries, not just provinces or states. It had the support on many environmentist interest groups.
    The amendments were included in a Budget Bill which included legislation to speed up the approval process for green energy projects, both wind and solar, to counter increasing popular opposition from communities being threatened by these projects.
    Just three weeks ago these amendments were publicly acknowledged with the approval of a wind energy project in a recognized and protected environmentally sensitive area and known bird migratory area.
    Specifically the Ontario Ministry of the Environment issued ‘Kill Notices’ for Whippoorwills and Blandings Turtles, both Endangered Species, on the project site. The wind energy company involved is not required to take any measures to protect either of these species. I guess all the other birds, bats and creatures on this site are just viewed as ‘collateral damage’ not worth commenting on!
    I have yet to read a comment from any ‘environmentalist’ who supports ‘green energy’ in respect to such approvals?
    And if some of us sound like ‘conspiracy theorists’ then perhaps its time for those so called environmentalists, continually condemning us for being NIMBY’s and Luddites,
    to show one iota of proof that anything to do with industrial wind and solar energy is in anyway ‘green’ or ‘environmentally friendly’?
    We all know the whole worldwide wind and solar hysteria is now proving to be no more than a colossal scam based on lies from governments and wind and solar energy companies going back years.
    Can some sincere(?)environmentalist out there please show how either wind and solar energy has benefited the planet you all pretend concern for in any single way?
    Andrew Watts

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Bigcitylib-StrikesBack/510717518 Bigcitylib StrikesBack

      “The wind energy company involved is not required to take any measures to protect either of these species.”

      Actually, they are required to take quite a few measures as outlined in the MOE document. Whether those measures are enough is an argument one could have, but you are not having it. You are instead BSing.

      • David Norman

        Murp, no BS… this company, Gilead Power, was in fact given legislated dispensation by the MNR to “harm and/or kill” these endangered creatures, which even you should understand does not require them to protect these species… or do have some convoluted notion of what harm and kill means? You are way out of your league here… ask Mikey, he’ll eat anything!

        • http://www.facebook.com/people/Bigcitylib-StrikesBack/510717518 Bigcitylib StrikesBack

          Still BS I’m afraid. The permit lays out what Gilead power’s obligations are here: http://www.ebr.gov.on.ca/ERS-WEB-External/displaynoticecontent.do?noticeId=MTEyODc0&statusId=MTY5Mjg1&language=en

          They hardly get a blank check. When they can build, for example, is limited. We can argue whether this is enough, but you choose the BS route.

          • David Norman

            Wrong again Murp… there is no “absolute” or implied protection in this document. There are considerations, however, the permit to “harm and/or kill” these animals supersedes the authority of these should Gilead Power decide to work outside of these parameters .The most absurd statement was “educational and speed limit signage would be installed and limits of 30km/h would be implemented on roads”. I’ve yet to encounter a Blandings Turtle that could scurry out of the way of a vehicle travelling at this speed! And the bit about commissioning an educational institution to study the ecology of the Blandings Turtle and Whip-poor-wil is an absolute joke. This study is of no value without equally extensive pre construction study at this site.

          • Andre

            Lets see now. Southern Ontario has 900 existing wind turbines with a 1,000 more planned vs. 57 pairs of nesting bald headed eagles. So how does the Ministry of Natural Resources with the mandate to protect wildlife rule when there is a conflict between a wind turbine and an eagles nest? Go ahead and chop down the bald headed eagles nest? It’s okay. It’s just the price of progessivism. http://ontario-wind-resistance.org/2013/01/05/wind-turbine-company-nextera-mnr-destroy-bald-eagle-nest-habitat/

    • J4zonian

      The ecological superiority of wind and solar are blatantly obvious to anyone paying the slightest bit of attention. That there are people attacking them and defending………COAL’s (!!!) …. health effects should put to rest permanently any idea that the right has any even tenuous grasp left on either reality or morality.

      Stop this utterly insane attack on science, fact, reality and the effective solutions to climate catastrophe.

      • Andrew Watts

        J4zonian. You continually rabbit on about ‘the science’ but do nothing to produce facts? Perhaps you can answer the following, no other pro-wind zealot has been able to so far…..
        Will you provide proof of a single, credible benefit that either industrial wind or solar power have contributed to the world environmentally, economically or societally?
        Andrew Watts

        • J4zonian

          Are you serious, Andy? You have just got to be kidding. The health effects of coal as well as oil, gas and nukes are notorious and well-documented. Lead, arsenic, the main source of mercury in the world, particulates… and many other toxic substances are released by burning fossil fuels. Fracking contaminates water supplies and causes increased GHG emissions and other air pollution. Decades of peer-reviewed studies—many thousands of them—prove the harm that fossil fuels have committed. Lies and crimes have been rampant—pretty much endemic—in the long-running effort to protect the profits of those who own the energy companies and virtually own the US and other governments, especially in coal and oil states and countries. The corruption that inevitably accompanies fossil fuel extraction is a blight on the world, causing wars, intolerable and destructive secrecy, monumental ecological destruction, millions of premature deaths and health effects… The idea that wind, solar and efficiency aren’t vastly better than all of that is ridiculous.

          33,700 peer-reviewed studies show the reality and effects of climate catastrophe. The main cause is fossil fuel use (with meat eating, soil depletion and deforestation); that’s also been undeniably demonstrated by science. While conservatives have been able to drastically slow development and deployment of clean energy, especially wind and solar, rapid change is finally happening. Not nearly fast enough but better than it has been, no thanks to you and other anti-science, anti-environmental, anti-human delayalists. (I don’t know exactly what brand of
          denying delayalist you are and don’t feel like checking so I apologize for all those that don’t apply.)

          The US installed 3,313 MW of solar capacity last year; while conservatives have so far lied to and confused the people of the US and so delayed the shutting down of enough fossil fuels, some of the oldest coal burners have been closed and new ones have been prevented, by a combination of environmental activism and ff’s replacement by efficiency, wind and solar. (US electrical needs have declined, partly because of the speculation and corruption-caused economic downturn and partly because of increased efficiency.) Worldwide, solar and wind capacity combine for 200GW. http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/global-solar-pv capacity-passes-the-100-gigawatt-mark All of that—or at least most—would be provided by fossil fuels or nuclear with far greater ecological and health effects than wind, solar and efficiency. Other countries are ahead of the US; Germany, Iceland, Denmark, Norway, Spain, even China are building faster, replacing coal faster or have a higher percentage of their energy use met by clean energy.

          But the clear superiority of solar wind and efficiency makes the doubts you express—real or fake—pointless and absurd. Ecologically, economically, socially, democratically, and in other ways renewables are by far our best choice. They are the energy of the future and are the main means (along with eating less meat) by which we will avoid climate catastrophe. Proof? It’s everywhere. Do your own homework. I’m sick to death of providing facts and reasoning and citations to denying delayalists to whom science, facts and reasoning mean nothing. If you could could be convinced by such things it’s almost certain you would have been already.


  • rxc

    You don’t understand The Plan. FIrst, they got dams damned, because rivers should run wild. Then they demonized the devil element, Plutonium, and convinced the public that no more nukes should be built, even though the three major nuclear reactor accidents (TMI, Chernobyl, and Fukushima) did not produce any identifiable dead bodies at all.

    Then they came after the mother element, Carbon, with stories of evil and sin that were completely terrifying, and completely undeniable, because they were all based on computer games. This is supposed to be the final push to make us use windmills and solar panels. But there is one more act in the play…

    Once the carbon is all safely locked into the ground, and we are all bankrupt from paying support to the countries that can’t support themselves, they will turn around and discover all the birds and bats that are being killed, and the cry will go up “Dead Bird! Dead Bats!. No one ever told us about this! The Evil Wind Business has been hiding it from us, because it never got reported in the NY TImes or the Guardian!” And then they will shut down all the windmills, leaving only the solar panels.

    And so we will end up sitting in the dark, at night, telling scary stories to one another about the dangers of energy storage schemes (which is why we won’t have any lights at night), and the unethical aspects of candles (we can’t let our desire to do stuff at night let us exploit animals or engage in any Wicked Chemical Activity, can we?), or burning wood (the Trees, the Glorious Trees!).

    And all will be good.


    The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary. —H. L. Mencken

  • Simon Mason

    Lets have some perspective.. It’s estimated that at least 100,000,000 birds are killed and even more are injured every year across North America alone by collisions with windows

    • http://twitter.com/JamesDelingpole James Delingpole

      Lets have some perspective. Plate glass windows serve a useful purpose. Wind Turbines don’t.

      • Rob Ryan

        Speaking of “nobody’s going to pull the wool over your eyes with pesky facts that don’t suit your worldview.” Pot ->Kettle=black.

      • Daniel Maris

        Let’s have some perspective. That’s just the sort of irrelevant comment we’ve come to expect from you. Wind energy is already supplying 10% of Germany’s massive electricity needs (Germany actually being an industrial giant compared with this country). Presumably you are so concerned about birds you are going to oppose building on bird habitat in the countryside, something the Spectator consistently favours.

      • dalai guevara

        Plate glass – wind turbines.

        So a Sixties coal fired power station serves a purpose? Jeez…

        I’ll tell you what serves no purpose: it serves no purpose whatseoever to keep the lights switched on overnight throughout commercial office space in the UK. It serves no purpose to allow ‘tanks’ with an mpg consumption of 8 on our roads. It serves no purpose that it is not OUTLAWED to put homes on the rental market that have SINGLE glazing fitted.

        The waste and inefficiency on the UK energy market and its customers is immense. We have not even started to incinerate our waste properly yet – we are miles behind the First World – time to stop babbling and start raising standards.

        • the viceroy’s gin

          Yes, let’s be stupid and listen to you stupids babbling stupidly about “raising standards”. That’s the ticket.

          • dalai guevara

            Aha, the bloke with no varifiable opinion is back…thought you wouldn’t be able to post any content, it’s simply beyond your cerebral capabilities.

          • the viceroy’s gin

            …and wherever those capabilities are, they’re beyond the stupid… which is you, to be specific.

  • Mike

    The detrimental heath aspects of low frequency sounds are often ignored. Off shore windfarms producing low freqency sounds and the impact on marine life need to be researched

  • Stiffit

    The birds wouldn’t move on somewhere else. They’d just starve to death.

    So those aren’t seagulls on our local tip, nor foxes on our suburban lawns?

  • duncan2001

    “Renewables pose a far greater threat to wildlife than climate change”… you need some very warped logic to come up with that conclusion. We’re on course for 4+ degrees warming this century with massive global habitat change and acceleration of wildlife extinction.

    Onshore wind is problematic for lots of reasons including wildlife impacts. For the UK, offshore wind and tidal power have the greatest potential to meet electricity demand through renewable technologies. It would be better to have a reasoned analysis of appropriate technologies rather than railing against the entire renewables industry.

    • wgulden

      What in the world do wind turbines have to do with fixing climate change? They just add to the destruction. If you (or anyone else) knows of a study that demonstrates any emissions savings due to wind turbines, I’d certainly like to see it. And by “demonstrates” I mean with real numbers off a real grid. Models, calculations and estimates – by those with an interest in the industry – don’t count. A very plausible argument can be made that they save essentially nothing.

      • Daniel Maris

        This might be of help to you:


        • wgulden

          Thanks for the link, as this Guardian article is a good illustration of my point. The numbers contained therein relate generation of wind to generation of gas. That’s fine as far as it goes (even though there are likely problems with their regressions that are too complicated for here), but getting from lower generation to lower gas consumption to lower emissions requires some favorable assumptions, and therein lies the rub.

          • Daniel Maris

            What do you mean? Gas is the most efficient fossil fuel when it comes to carbon emission. So to compare with gas is to raise the bar. I guess you could theoretically compare with nuclear. Is that what you mean?

          • wgulden

            Daniel, please read the Guardian article carefully. After all, you provided the link. It discusses the effect of wind on gas, nothing else. If you want to discuss the effect of wind on nuclear, I’m ready for that one too – it is even uglier.

          • Daniel Maris


            Please review your original comment. You’ll see it makes no sense. The article makes clear it is talking about real usage, not assumptions.

            If wind replaces gas then there are lower carbon emissions. End of story.

          • the viceroy’s gin

            However, even if that’s true, carbon emissions don’t matter to anyone but you envirowhackos.

          • d knight

            strange how the precautionary principle so beloved of greenies does not apply to their wind turbines

            I wonder why?

          • J4zonian

            They will soon matter to you as well, and people, especially in the third world where it’s caused the least but felt the most, will establish 2 things for you: 1. fora, including websites, where you can apologize for your past intransigence and refusal to read science and recognize reality, and 2. a Truth and Reconciliation Process whereby you can be convicted of crimes against humanity and Earth or apologize in a more formal court.

          • wgulden

            No, it is NOT the end of the story. Think it though, in a rigorous manner. There are plausible ways that lowering gas generation does not lead to lower gas consumption, and that lower gas consumption does not lead to lower emissions. You cannot just automatically assume it, given the existence of these plausible ways. No assertions you make can change this reality.

            If you want to accept it on faith, go ahead. Please don’t confuse your faith with science, or reality.

  • PG_Bill

    Worrying statistics. Clearly there is much to discuss here, but I have to challenge the idea that “renewables pose a far greater threat to wildlife than climate change”.

    If we get runaway climate change – and we aren’t so far doing much to stop it – then the whole fabric of the natural world will be torn apart. Think back to the Permian Extinction when climate change (for whatever reason, but taking place over a much longer timescale than we’re bringing it about in) did for about 95% of then-existing species. There was only one sizeable land animal left. We may not be triggering anything quite that drastic – but I wouldn’t bet on it (…except, we are!).

    My guess, too (and it is a guess – I have no science to back it up) is that birds will soon learn to avoid wind turbines, just as they avoid raptors, but even if they don’t it’s a price we (or rather they on our behalf) have to pay.

  • http://twitter.com/Atomicrod Rod Adams

    My theory is that wind energy promotion is a distraction tactic invented by the fossil fuel focused establishment and supported by the equipment vendors. Fossil fuel suppliers know that wind does not actually threaten their market sales very much and equipment suppliers know that machinery that only operates about 20-30% of the time means that a lot more machinery has to be purchased to supply the required production. That is good for their sales figures.

    The real mystery for some is the support of “environmentalists” for wind, despite its enormous visual and life-threatening impact. I can explain that one as well. Many groups that claim the moniker of “Environmental” are actually anti nuclear organizations. Some trace their history to organized opposition to nuclear weapons and mistakenly associate nuclear energy with nuclear weapons. The fossil fuel industry, hating the competitive qualities of nuclear energy, have provided a large quantity of financial resources for the traditional “environmental/antinuclear” movement.

    Wind and solar are the supposed power sources of some kind of a “renewables” powered utopia that obviates the need for nuclear energy. Again, I call this whole endeavor a distraction designed to slow nuclear development as long as possible.

    We have a reliable, emission free, low impact power source. We should use it instead of building massive industrial strength wind turbines that kill birds and bats and make life unpleasant for all other close neighbors.

  • David Norman

    On Ontario’s, Wolfe Island there are 89 Industrial Wind Turbines which are reported to result in one of the highest bird and bat mortality rates in North America. And it has been said that the mortality rate there is suspected to be much higher still…that the true figures are derived from flawed sampling formulas. I took the time to examine the reports of the consultancy company that tallies up these “kill” statistics and discovered to my dismay that not only were they created by the company itself, but that these formulas rely on limited sampling data with “adjustments”, “corrections” and estimations which are not appropriate to this statistical application. They created a “standard” variability for these on the basis of very short and singular trials for factors such as “scavengers” and “carcass collector efficiency”. This is at best laughable and at worst fraudulent. I’d refer to the wind industry folk who concocted this data as “bird brains” but this would be an insult and injustice to the birds and bats that have and will meet their deaths by these eco crucifixes.

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Bigcitylib-StrikesBack/510717518 Bigcitylib StrikesBack

      Wolfe Island turbines killed about about 600 birds over a 6 month period. To compare, some estimates have buildings in the Greater Toronto Area (Wolfe Island is about 200 klicks East of Toronto) killing 14,000 birds every day.

      I must say, most of the issues Hambler raises are already well known and have in some cases been solved or mitigated. But his numbers seem miles too high compared to anything else I’ve ever read.

      • David Norman

        Ah! Mr. Murphy… to what do I owe this honor? You and your bud Mikey up to no good?
        You say, “some estimates have buildings in the Greater Toronto Area killing 14,000 birds every day”. Years ago I took part in a “dead bird species” study in and around the TD buildings. The death rate from window collision is indeed disheartening… did you know that the mitigation recommendations that the scientists heading up this study had proved would reduce this kill rate over %50 were completely ignored despite attempts over a number of years to get the building’s operations to implement them… well gee, silly me, of course you wouldn’t know that. This statement you made up, “have in some cases been solved or mitigated” is absolutely, completely, entirely untrue… there is not a single piece of empirically based science to justify this blatant intentional fraudulent contention.
        Mind if I just call you Murp

        • http://www.facebook.com/people/Bigcitylib-StrikesBack/510717518 Bigcitylib StrikesBack

          Here is one paper on how altering turbine blade speeds can cut down bat mortality: http://www.esajournals.org/doi/abs/10.1890/100103?journalCode=fron

          There are other examples.

          • Daniel Maris

            Bigcity….Don’t expect Mr Norman to be impressed by reasoned argument and evidence.

          • David Norman

            Ah Daniel… this is one of many comments in this thread on which you have
            mustered up the courage to express your pathological desire for an
            elusive coherent view of your idiosyncratic reality by pathetically attempting to make your opponents the “butt of a joke”, the “subject of satire” and/or an “object of rebuke”. You’re way out of your league son… you just don’t comprehend the wonderfully changing and adjusted narrative strategies… however, just like being gay, there’s nothing wrong with that.

          • David Norman

            Murp Murp Murp! Did you actually read the study or are you just surmising your confirmation bias from the available abstract. I quote the concluding statement; “Our findings suggest that increasing turbine cut-in speeds at
            wind facilities in areas of conservation concern during times when
            active bats may be at particular risk from turbines could mitigate this
            detrimental aspect of wind-energy generation.” I emphasize the word “could” from this quote… the stats you read in the abstract were derived from specific turbines within the test area. They were not controlled for blade speed, rather they were observed to be operating at “curtailed” speed due to wind speed conditions. This hypothesis, and that is all it is, may in fact reflect on bat mortality, but this has yet to be empirically proved under methodology where this variable is controlled for. Hence the qualifiers “suggest” and “could”. I dare say I think I’ve read all current studies in this reference… bring em on!

      • Daniel Maris

        Agreed. 600 birds over 6 months would seem to equal something like 3-4 per turbine over a year = nothing. Nature will soon replace those 3-4 over a year because the thousands of individuals will be in competition for limited resources – huge numbers die naturally as it is.

        But if we look at the Spectator programme for building in the UK countryside, that will destroy habitat for hundreds of millions of birds over the next three decades.

      • Vindpust

        “Last month’s guilty verdict against Syncrude in the deaths of
        1,606 ducks at an oilsands tailings pond received international media

        “Meanwhile, little attention has been paid to 1,982 bird and bat
        deaths at Canada’s second-largest wind farm, Ontario’s Wolf Island
        Eco-Power Centre.

        “According to a monitoring report in May, the nearly 2,000 bird and
        bat deaths during the first eight months of the wind farm’s operation
        involved 33 birds species and five bat species. No charges have been
        (‘Bird and bat deaths don’t seem to tar wind industry’, Calgary Herald, July 10, 2010).

      • J4zonian

        And that same amount of electricity generated by fossil fuels would have killed more than 4000 birds over the 6 month period.

  • not persuaded

    Climate change
    will leave the human species to extinction, the problem is 7.5 billion people,
    this means rivers can’t run wild and the air can’t be free for birds. all the while
    habitat is continually being destroyed The issue of human population needs to
    be addressed, no yelling from soap boxes about wind farms will do anything,
    Just think what effect on birds and habitat on multitude of species will a 2 degrees rise
    in global temperature do, and that’s the best case scenario if we do everything we can to reduce green house gas emissions. I think the worst case is 6 degrees

  • http://www.facebook.com/bernard.juby Bernard Juby

    Watching the video of the carnage of bats using infra-red imagery is a sickening sight. Wind-turbine promoters should be forced to watch this and in public!

    • Daniel Maris

      Do you have a link to the video?

      • finbar_saunders
        • Daniel Maris

          Yes, v. dramatic video. However you do have to dig into the research
          paper related to those images. What you find there is 0.5 contacts with
          bats per turbine over 10 days (and those contacts were in August, which I
          would surmise is the busiest time of year for bats). So that’s 0.05
          contacts with bats per turbine per day, or about 18 per annum per
          turbine. And please note, contact does not necessarily equal death, plus
          with seasonal activity variation the real figure will be far less.

          would agree there seems to be a particular problem with bats which
          needs a lot more research. It may be that there are ways to warn off
          bats or it may be that siting issues need to be addressed more
          comprehensively. I am sure progress can be made. It’s a serious issue
          that has to be addressed, just as the effect of building port facilities
          for import of gas or the effect on water courses of fracking have to be

          • Ulric Jessop

            The figure was 0.5 per turbine per night – 20 per night (extrapolated) for the studied facility. Quite a lot for a highly protected species.

            It’s nice that you acknowledge that there’s a problem that needs a lot more research. How about putting the research before the killing?

          • Latimer Alder

            So instead of 0.05 per day as D. Maris suggested, the actual rate was 20 per day?

            D. Maris is out by a factor of 400 times. Why am I not surprised?

          • Daniel Maris

            No, Ulric got it wrong. It’s clear the total for ten nights of observation is 0.5 per turbine = 0.05 average for one night. I got it right, Ulric got it wrong. People are being misled because they lead with accumulated figures for wind farm sites but they cleary state what the average figure for individual turbines is.

          • Latimer Alder

            I looked at the paper ‘Horn et al’


            Table 1 clearly states:

            Total/turbine/night = 0.5. as Ulric states. Not 0.05 as you claim. I suspect that you have misunderstood their method, They did not look at ten turbines for ten nghts. But looked at one turbine for one night a different one for the second night, a third for the third and so on. There is no need for the additional division by ten that you have done.

            Ulric was right – for a 40 turbine installation this gives 20 per night overall.

            If you have access to different information, please show the citation…including the ‘h’ in ‘http’.

          • Daniel Maris

            No you’ve got it wrong. It was 0.5 Total per turbine over ten nights. So that equates to 0.05 per night. Please apologise for your error and implying I made the error.

          • Ulric Jessop

            Oh dear.
            It’s really very simple. Read the report. Ten nights. One turbine per night. Five bat impacts. 0.5 impacts/turbine/night. Looks like you’re one of those innumerate oafs that typifies your average wind shill.
            I suggest you do a bit of apologising

  • http://www.facebook.com/bernard.juby Bernard Juby

    It will be interesting to see what the accoustics industry makes of its recently concluded research into infra-sound. The current standard is not fit for purpose since, because of A weighting it automatically cuts out any infra-sound effects which are the ones that are so damaging to animal life.

  • DeadlyInArms
    • Daniel Maris

      An excellent riposte and rebuttal of this incredibly misleading and duff article.

      Also, to add: the Spectator is always encouraging us to build new houses in the countryside to accommodate its mass immigration policy. It is loss of habitat through such construction that is the real killer of wildlife. Wind turbines act as a defence against development and so protect and preserve natural habitat.

      Where there is the occasional bird kill (in the tens of thousands across teh whole of the USA for wind turbines), it has to remembered that except for very rare species, there will be another bird along to replace the one that died, just as happens naturally in relation to other causes of death. Remember all these birds are competing for the same resources.

      • the viceroy’s gin

        So you’re a zoologist in addition to a power engineer, then?

        Perhaps you should quit while you’re behind, son.

        • Daniel Maris

          I can say I have never once seen a bird flying anywhere near a wind turbine. It’s not like you to believe the statistics of nutty eco-warriors.

          Onshore wind is clean, makes us more energy-independent, is cheaper than coal and nuclear and protects animal habitat against encroachment by humans. What’s not to like?

          • the viceroy’s gin

            Again, it’s amusing that you’re now playing zoologist, after your previous floundering attempts at playing power engineer.

            Onshore wind power isn’t cheaper than coal, son. And it’s far less reliable. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b6/Levelized_energy_cost_chart_2%2C_2011_DOE_report.gif

            You really should quit while you’re behind.

          • Daniel Maris

            Well thanks Viceroy. Your link shows that the cheapest form of onshore wind beats the cheapest form of conventional coal. It also beats the advanced and CCS forms of coal. It also beats nuclear fission as I said.

            All in all, I would say that bears out what I said, and let’s not forget the cost of wind energy continues to decline whereas coal has pretty much plateaued. So, don’t expect any good news for your fossil fuel industry in the next five years.

          • the viceroy’s gin

            No, that link does not show that “that the cheapest form of onshore wind beats the cheapest form of conventional coal”. It shows the precise opposite, meaning your statement is false.

            But then, you’re ignorant and uneducated, so we can’t expect you to be capable of understanding and processing data.

            So then, both natural gas and coal are cheaper than your envirowhacko wetdream windmills.

            You really need to stop crossdressing, son. You’re ignorant and uneducated, and have no understanding of any of this. Just stop.

          • dalai guevara

            Wind combined with advanced CC Gas (that’s the deal here, mate) costs what? Coal costs what in comparison?

            Do explain it to us, hot shot.

          • the viceroy’s gin

            Certainly, but first, you must go back and address the questions posed to you previously, back when you were first exposed attempting to play power engineer, much as you’re doing now in fact.

            In other words, you’ll first have to present yourself as something other than, well… stupid.

            Nothing’s changed, son. You’re stupid until you prove otherwise.

          • dalai guevara

            Back then? The answer is right in front of you.

            Senile pensioner trolls like you with a restricted lexis are best kept waiting – read and understand your own sourced material, you fully grown dimwit!

          • the viceroy’s gin

            …well, if we’re being kept waiting for evidence of your de-stupidization, I suspect we’ve nothing to wait for. Mission impossible, it is.

          • dalai guevara

            Only a dimwit like you would provide the data that proves the opposite of your own transcendental belief structure. Do you have many episodes? Does it hurt?

          • the viceroy’s gin

            So like your fellow power engineering zoologist, you’re ignorant of the analysis and processing of data as well?

            You know, I’m not just saying this to be amusing. You really are stupid.

          • Latimer Alder

            I’d make an educated guess that you’ve never even seen a windmill at all. You live in London and there aren’t any in Battersea Park.

  • http://twitter.com/Sewallhouse Sewall House Yoga

    Philip is right from what I have been told by Mainers already affected by this- the companies lie and once they are up they care not a bit about the humans or wildlife.
    It should be criminal and our President is endorsing it. Something is very wrong and as usual it has to be greed. Our pristine beautiful highly ranked lakes that (up until now and presumably or future generations) were preserved by the State have, like the eagles, been a nonconsideration for these destructive lying companies. http://www.protect-our-lakes.org
    we cannot even fight them legally and win..it is just sad and sick.

  • http://twitter.com/SimonChapman6 Simon Chapman
    • Daniel Maris

      The Delingpole Dervishes are spinning themselves into mass hysteria – all reason gone, just repetition of the usual mantras “they don’t work, they make people ill, they kill wildlife, they cause hypothermia”. Meanwhile across the world sensible people are getting on with the business of creating viable alternatives to carbon based and nuclear fission energy.

    • David Norman

      Crikey Simon, either you didn’t in fact read the study and are being disingenuous or like the European Commission link you posted, you simply cherry picked a stat that you fraudulently presented as justification. I’m not about to explain this … read the actual study so you can understand the nature and context of this number which is not at all what you portray it to be (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-2664.2011.02054.x/abstract).

  • stfan short

    all you out there please help Mid Wale this coming year ,we are about to be deverstated with 800 or more turbines along with a hub the size of 24 football pitches and hundreds of pylons through our most beautiful valleys and uplands, we need national help!.

  • George

    “but the evidence suggests that, this century at least, renewables pose a far greater threat to wildlife than climate change” Really? Climate change is likely to be the biggest factor pushing species to extinction this century, and you casually assert that windmills and damns will be worse. Rubbish.

  • Daniel Maris



    I am starting a petition on this thread for all those concerned about bird deaths to sign up and oppose the Spectator policy of building on bird habitats in the countryside which will result in the deaths of hundreds of millions of birds (and all just to support their policy of encouraging mass immigration!).

    I invite Mr Delingpole to be the first signatory.

    Please sign below:

    • Daniel Maris

      What – no takers? I thought you were all desperately concerned about bird deaths. Doesn’t bird death by starvation through loss of habitat concern you?

      • MichtyMe

        The greatest cause of unnatural bird mortality is the result of the keeping of domestic cats. Suggest a petition for the culling of cats.

        • Daniel Maris

          Very true – all tabby lovers are bird killers as well.

          • the viceroy’s gin

            The difference being that the tabby lovers aren’t stealing cash from the people of the land, to subsidize their tabbies, as you windmill fetishist envirowhackos are doing.

            I am enjoying your zoology professional practice though, son. Cats, birds, bats… you seem to know it all… much like your power engineering.

          • Daniel Maris

            I’m going to let you into a secret Viceroy – how do I come by this amazing store of knowledge?…reading and reflecting! I know, mind-boggling. And here’s another secret: try reading opinions both for and against – then, you’ll find you get what us seasoned old pros call a “balanced view”. I know…this must be all very new to you…still it’s worth a try.

          • the viceroy’s gin

            You wouldn’t know what a “balanced view” is, son, because you’re ignorant and uneducated, and are merely babbling about things you have no clue about.

            It is amusing though, your combination zoology and engineering practice.

  • Janet Walker

    I object to the statement, “the Tasmanian wedge-tailed eagle is threatened with global extinction by wind farms”. The reality is that wind farms make up only a small proportion of overall eagle deaths in Tasmania, compared with shooting, trapping, and collisions with electrical wires and fences. The only detailed assessment of extinction risk with and without wind farms (http://www.environment.gov.au/epbc/publications/pubs/wind-farm-bird-risk-tasmanianwedgetailedeagle.pdf) concluded there was no significant effects due to wind farms.

    And for those that claim the wind industry is trying to hide any evidence: the operators of the largest wind farm in Tasmania not only reports on eagle deaths, it is working hard to reduce mortality.

    • Jim Wiegand

      Pretty dumb statement. Are you aware how small this population is? Are you aware of how many of these very rare eagles have been killed by turbines? Lastly there is a world of difference between working hard to reduce mortality and actually succeeding. If they were really working hard they would be tearing down these turbines because there is NO OTHER WAY to make the safe.

  • http://twitter.com/e_w_craney Eric Craney
  • http://twitter.com/LordWelby Lord Welby

    I whole heartedly agree with you that there are people in denial about the damage being inflicted on the environment – what is equally as shocking though, is the blatant cover-up and misinformation being disseminated by politicians, energy supply companies and so-called environmentalists !

  • bigbanker

    This is why turbines will be situated offshore. At sea the evidence will disappear.

  • http://www.facebook.com/jules.bywaterlees Jules Bywater-lees

    “Natural England also reported species losses in England had
    apparently declined in recent decades, but the Oxford study suggests
    that this is not the case. Hambler and colleagues found there are about
    1000 endangered species on the brink of extinction in Britain — indeed
    many of these may already be extinct.

    ‘People tend to be hesitant in declaring extinction, which leads to
    problems assessing the current rate,’ said Mr Hambler. ‘Many ancient and
    important habitats in Britain are threatened today because of human
    activity and population growth — whether it’s an increase in water use,
    growing use of wood fuel, or the growth of urban sprawl. Despite
    conservationists’ efforts it’s very likely extinction rates will
    continue to rise in Britain and globally for many years. These losses
    will impact on human welfare, and I’d say conservation needs a profile
    and resources even bigger than climate change.’

    Alongside studies of birds, the researchers believe that recording
    rates of habitat loss will provide a good, simple measure of some
    elements of biodiversity loss.

    Mr Hambler said: ‘This work strengthens the claim that the world is
    suffering a mass extinction. We can now be much more confident that
    across the planet the less conspicuous and less well-known species are
    going extinct at a similar high rate to that already witnessed in birds,
    fish and amphibians.'”

    Mr Hambler your previous priority was habitat destruction- turbine deaths are in comparison a minor issue compared to other more serious problems- which would include climate change. Severn Barrage is perhaps an opportunity for wildlife, currently waders don’t find a great deal of food in mudflats that are scoured by such fast tides.

  • http://www.facebook.com/jules.bywaterlees Jules Bywater-lees

    Only a single peer reviewed paper from the 1990s is cited but a visit to Google Scholar produces many new studies- here is a well cited one from 2009

    Contextualizing avian mortality:


    This article explores the threats that wind farms pose to birds and bats
    before briefly surveying the recent literature on avian mortality and
    summarizing some of the problems with it. Based on operating performance
    in the United States and Europe, this study offers an approximate
    calculation for the number of birds killed per kWh generated for wind
    electricity, fossil-fuel, and nuclear power systems. The study estimates
    that wind farms and nuclear power stations are responsible each for
    between 0.3 and 0.4 fatalities per gigawatt-hour (GWh) of electricity
    while fossil-fueled power stations are responsible for about 5.2
    fatalities per GWh. While this paper should be respected as a
    preliminary assessment, the estimate means that wind farms killed
    approximately seven thousand birds in the United States in 2006 but
    nuclear plants killed about 327,000 and fossil-fueled power plants 14.5
    million. The paper concludes that further study is needed, but also that
    fossil-fueled power stations appear to pose a much greater threat to
    avian wildlife than wind and nuclear power technologies.

  • VioletElizabethBott

    Isn’t it high time the RSPB got off the fence and kicked the wind turbine advocates firmly in the goolies ? What is holding them back, their intervention would be decisive, and few organizations are better placed to shift the debate on the desirability of nuclear energy?

    • Daniel Maris

      No. See the Bywater-lees post. Nuclear and fossil-fuel are a greater threat to birds.

  • Roy

    When we get epidemics of flying insects we will know the reason why.

  • James Morrison

    There are some key problems with traditional wind turbines.
    1. They have to be high altitude to operate
    2. They are limited (traditionally) by Betz law resulting with with an average energy efficiency of 40%.
    3. They are incredibly high maintenance because of the stresses they are under.
    4. With a high school knowledge of physics you can work out that the traditional wind turbines are flawed.

    Fortunately the best wind turbine in the world (Produced by Windjoule Ltd UK) is 80%+ energy efficient.
    Its a vertical machine with a height of 17 metres and provides 3X the energy efficiency compared to any competitors.
    Remember that turbines don’t have to have a propeller to work.

    As with all technology it takes time to develop. Look at the history of the motor car and how good they are now compared to 100 years ago.
    In say 70 years time wind turbines will be of the same standard.
    Oil does not have a sustainable future, and Nuclear power plants have a 30 – 50 year lifespan.
    The new turbines have the same lifespan but don’t cost £Billions and the risk of leathal pollution.
    Instead of sitting back with your big degrees I recommend you do some networking and find out what the leading technology can do.
    And most importantly stop getting paid off by the oil companies to knock sustainable technology cause your just becoming a slave to the big wheel.

    • Daniel Maris

      There are some serious problems with your reasoning…

      1. Er – yes we know that…so what? Dams also have to have very high walls to operate efficiently. Coal needs to be stacked very high at coal power stations. Your point?

      2. Also, big deal. So what? – with wind we are talking about free fuel here (not true of gas, coal or nuclear). The only relevant consideration here (in terms of efficiency) is cost and onshore wind is pretty cheap, especially when you take into account the postives of clean air, good health benefits and employment within the domestic economy.

      3. Nonsense. One of the benefits of wind energy is that compared with combustion processes or nuclear wind turbines are incredibly low cost in terms of maintenance. Happy to provide evidence if you want, since you provided none.

      4. Does that mean you are at high school? OK…how are they flawed, kid? And when are you going to tell the German Chancellor (head of the most succesful non-Asian manufacturing and exporting economy on the planet) that their national energy policy is flawed?

      …I went through all that only to realise you are trying to sell something. LOL If you have a more efficient wind turbine, the world will beat a path to your door. Now, on your way yer little tyke.

      • the viceroy’s gin

        And you follow right behind him, little uneducated tyke.

  • Daniel Maris

    I am seriously p’d off that James Delingpole who was so clearly sincerely concerned about bird deaths hasn’t signed my petition…



    What can be the matter? I’m sure he can’t be one of these Speccie types who spends his weekends out shooting grouse and pheasant in a pathetic attempt to be accepted as a fully paid up member of the ruling class… So where can he be? Well obviously not on one of those Rothschild yachts whose propellers cause mayhem to cretaceans sensitive to low frequency noise…Not mellowed out either…the days of ganja-promotion seem to be long gone…

    What can it be?…I would have thought he would be eager to sign up.

  • http://www.facebook.com/jules.bywaterlees Jules Bywater-lees

    Reading this article it would appear the bigger issue is the standard of journalism and scientific approach by Clive Hambler who is a university professor and ecologist. I profess to be neither but I can check sources in a few moments.

    “SEO/Birdlife — between 6 and 18 million birds and bats are killed by wind farms.” this statement comes from SEO’s website jan 2012 – yet gives no reference, however they do offer a PDF in Spanish that offers guidelines to wind developments to reduce mortality. A review of Google Scholar does find studies of wind+mortality+avian+ Spain yet none of these offer the 6 to 18 million avian figure. If I were writing the same article I would want to track down the original source as it would be embarrassing if there were an error, not something I could face down if confronted by a student.

    So what peer reviewed studies are stated?The Benner paper dates from 1993 [Benner JHB, Berkhuizen JC, de Graaff RJ, Postma AD
    (1993) Impact of wind turbines on birdlife. Final report No. 9247.
    Consultants on Energy and the Environment, Rotterdam, The Netherlands] but no online copy can be found, it is however cited by several papers in the last decade. So why are none of these not mentioned?

    If Clive Hambler were to have looked at peer reviewed papers he would not have had the impact of millions of bird deaths from wind turbines as a headline.

    How about eagle deaths in Tasmania? A well cited study -“Modelling human impacts on the Tasmanian wedge-tailed eagle (Aquila audax fleayi) Sarah A. Bekessy et al,” in its abstract – “The Tasmanian wedge-tailed eagle is classified nationally and at a State
    level as endangered due to its small number of breeding pairs, low
    breeding success and high rate of mortality from unnatural causes. The
    subspecies experiences mortality throughout its range from shooting,
    poisoning, trapping, road accidents, electrocutions and collisions with
    wind turbines, aircraft, fences and overhead wires, which we term
    ‘un-natural mortality””- the abstract continues- “The predicted decline over the next 160 years (∼65%) will most likely be driven largely by loss of current and potential future nest sites associated with harvesting activities, exacerbated by unnatural mortality in the wider landscape”

    According to the Australian Government -The total population size of the Wedge-tailed Eagle (Tasmania) is estimated at less than 1 000 birds.- and the biggest problem is habitat loss.

    I have tried chasing up some of the other claims with little success as to where the figuires come from- the 400 vulture deaths for instance derives from an anti wind site from a non peer-reviewed study- and ultimately derives from another anti wind website run by—- Mark Duchamp.

    Clive, as you say Mark Duchamp is a friend but I suggest you do your own research. I really hope your students pick you up on this piece as I am sure you would pick them up on a poorly, non referenced essay.

  • Cath

    With all of this wildlife carnage being the case, WHY are we Not using our technological brains to install Sonar Deterrents? Turbine or solar power would drive them. We use these deterrent devices to train our pets, so they certainly would not be more harmful on the animals than the lethal blades of the turbines, and the sound emitted is undetectable to humans – too sensible a solution I suppose to ever be used.

  • MykT

    A recent issue in the journal of Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews shows that as the proportion of renewable energy penetrating the electricity grid grows, the reduction of CO2 emissions drops sharply. By the time wind power (and, by
    analogy, solar) reaches about 20 percent of the grid, the savings in CO2 emissions are negligible, of the order of a few percent. The result seems counter-intuitive – surely the more renewable energy, the greater the reduction of CO2 emissions. But the reason for this finding can be found on the miles per gallon sticker on the windows of new cars. The mileage for highway driving is always greater than that for city – stop and go – driving. When we touch the brake pedal, we change the engine speed. The lower mileage for city driving means less efficiency from the gasoline, and more pollution per mile driven. It is the same way with back-up electricity (mostly natural gas power plants), when the wind doesn’t blow and the sun doesn’t shine, it is ramped up and down, so that there are more CO2 emissions compared to when the back-up is running full blast. Result – much of the emissions savings from using wind power or solar is lost.
    Dr. Inhaber found results from Colorado, Texas, Germany, Ireland, Estonia and other countries, bolstering his argument. If we are to reduce CO2 emissions, wind turbines and solar panels will not do the job. They will however drive industry and employment out of the country while driving increasing numbers of people into fuel poverty

    The reference to the paper is

    Renewable and Sustainable Energy
    Reviews, volume 15 (2011) pages

    2557–2562, “Why wind power
    does not deliver the expected emissions reductions”, by Herbert Inhaber.

  • http://www.facebook.com/ffvandewoord Frank Van de Woord

    CO2 production is the biggest problem to be solved. It makes the oceans more acid and kills the planton that should feed the ocean animals. The acid makes it difficult for the swimming sea snales in plankton to make their houses from calcium.Fish live on plankton and all the other sealife lives on fish…we need to change our lifestyle to eliminate this problem. Less use of cars and airplanes helps a lot. Holidays in your own country and live where you work. Less lights in the streets during the night reduces also the use of fossile fuel supplies

  • Kate O’Dell

    I am so pleased to have read this article and would be interested as to whether micro hydro has such a devastating effect on wild life. I think the present preoccupation with windfarms is that they are so visible it is used by governments to SHOW they are doing something even if is not efficient and damnright damaging..

  • herodoxo

    Here is an interesting quote by the Spanish Ornithological Society (SEO/Birdlife) from their 2010 atlas on the state of conservation of Spanish birds regarding the recent evolution of the population of the Griffon Vulture in Spain:
    “The evolution in the last decade is clearly positive, there are 7.272 couples more that in 1999, which means a 42% increase in the last 9 years. It is not considered in any endangered category”
    How can it be? The more wind turbines are installed in Spain the more Griffon Vultures seem to be thriving? You could put the number of turbines and the number of couples of Griffon Vultures in a graph and see a clear correlation, couldn´t you? An then come to the conclusion that… more windturbines is good for these birds! But hey, if you were an Oxford professor you wouldn´t do that, right? You would first check the data and the sources and analyze what could be the cause of this “anomaly”. So where is the scientific rigor in these article? You just take a quote from your friend Duchamp (well known in Spain for his antiscientific and demagogical articles) and then you” splash” it on the internet without checking if even one word is true? Is that how you teach in Oxford? That’s a rather expensive form of non-education.

  • http://www.facebook.com/pete.parks1 Pete Parks

    She has some nice boobs.

  • SirMortimerPosh

    The real deal breaker with windfarms is that they will never produce power in the reliable and dependable way we need it to be provided. Not only is it astronomically expensive in comparison to what we already have, it needs to be supported by keeping fossil fuel power stations running ready for fluctuations in the wind. How ridiculous is that?

    Worst of all is the vile sop to green nutcases of paying £0.48 per kilowatt hour to people who put solar panels on their roofs, or cynical farmers who filled their fields with them. Only corrupt politicians could have created such a bonanza for greedy scum and inspired nutters like Caroline Lucas. Meanwhile, grannies on feeble old age pensions are paying through the nose for power (or shivering in the dark) because they can’t afford to pay bills inflated by the need to cover these outrageous costs that are more than ten times the cost of fossil fuel produced electric power.

    I used to think Africa was badly governed, but we are no better.

  • Ian Bradbury

    lots of claims, but where are the references?

  • ramesh m p

    Mr.Clive is publishing books on environment and windmills are giving good publicity. What his comments would be I wonder! I also wonder what kind of statistics he has in his possession to say that wind turbines last only a few years! And wind turbines blades must be really smeared with blood at the end of one year of successful bird killing!

    I hope he looks at Nuclear power plants. We can also say that the oil mafia is sponsoring such articles! Why did many species become extinct before advent of wind turbines, probably he will draw a cosmic connection to them too! i know some more cases where people have complained that wind turbine blades cut the clouds and therefore there will be scanty rainfall. They had almost succeeded in getting wind farms permanently stopped. Fortunately that year we had such copious rains that these objections were also drowned along with many things. I have heard cases where some villagers claiming loss of potency but no apparent lower birth rates in the village! Good luck with this ‘scholarly’ article. Hope he will succeed with his book sell very well with wind turbines helping along!

  • Barking66

    Wholeheartly agree with the allegation that wind farms kills bats and birds. Wind farms – very bad things. But Clive, we need to be courageous in our position here. We need to root out all the culprits.

    Lets start with cars. In a study in Denmark (2010), cars killed 30 times more birds than wind turbines (Denmark is one of the most wind farm intensive countries in the world, by the way). Get rid of cars. Especially those 4×4’s driven by school mums.

    How about windows? Tricky things, windows. They got 100 times as many birds as wind farms. In evolutionary terms, birds will get the hang of them, but in the meantime, let’s put up some kind of safety rigging.

    Now, let’s move to the real mass murderers. Cats. These silent killers are to you ‘Tiddles’, but to the average nightingale, they are Hannibal Lector. 55 million birds were wiped out by cats in the UK in 2001, and in a study carried out in the US, the mortality rate was 200 times that of turbines.

    If you are serious about the conservation of birds, there is only one answer. And it involves a bag, a brick and a canal.


  • Barking 66

    Wholeheartly agree with the allegation that wind farms kills bats and birds. Wind farms – very bad things. But Clive, we need to be courageous in our position here. We need to root out all the culprits.

    Lets start with cars. In a study in Denmark (2010), cars killed 30 times more birds than wind turbines (Denmark is one of the most wind farm intensive countries in the world, by the way). Get rid of cars. Especially those 4×4’s driven by school mums.

    How about windows? Tricky things, windows. They got 100 times as many birds as wind farms. In evolutionary terms, birds will get the hang of them, but in the meantime, let’s put up some kind of safety rigging.

    Now, let’s move to the real mass murderers. Cats. These silent killers are to you ‘Tiddles’, but to the average nightingale, they are Hannibal Lector. 55 million birds were wiped out by cats in the UK in 2001, and in a study carried out in the US, the mortality rate was 200 times that of turbines.

    If you are serious about the conservation of birds, there is only one answer. And it involves a bag, a brick and a canal.


  • ants815

    How about the spectator get an ecologist to write their ecological articles considering this sounds about as intelligible as arts student trying to write about lung cancer. Look up how climate change is affecting birds you utter moron.

  • ants815
  • ants815

    His sheer IGNORANCE is highlighted by ” But the evidence suggests that, this century at least, renewables pose a far greater threat to wildlife than climate change.” Say that to any ecologist, zoologist or environmental scientist and they will verbally slap you across the face with education, which this man certainly needs.

  • cyllan2

    spain 6-16 million birds and bats killed by eco-wind turbines each year…….green energy right?

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=649330731 Peter Buckland

    I don’t pretend to have a complete answer to the question of avian mortality from wind turbines.

    That said, the alarming tone of this article prompted me to revisit a few things. According to an NRC study from 2007, wind turbines comprised just 3 out of every 100,000 human-caused bird deaths. Clearly there are other and bigger killers out there than wind turbines, among them coal-fired and gas-fired power plants. According to a study by Sovacool, wind power causes.3 to .4 avian deaths per gigawatt hour while fossil fuel power plants cause 5.2 avian deaths per gigawatt hour. There are some things I think when I look at these different sources (and others).

    First, the species under threat from these two different sources are different it seems. Raptors and bats are especially vulnerable to wind turbines. They are also harmed by coal as much as everything else is. So the argument that wind should stop and we should carry on with coal will not hold muster.

    Second, there is no such thing as a free lunch. Whatever we do, we should be doing it more efficiently and doing it less. Suffice it to say that the best thing we can do on energy for all of our fellow denizens – avian, mammalian, reptilian, icthian, human, etc – is to use less energy per person and control how many people are using energy. Too many people using too much stuff too fast to make more people to use more of too much stuff even faster has caused the ecological problems we observe.

  • Annie Underwood

    Research has actually found fossil fuel power stations are responsible for thirteen times more bat and bird deaths than wind farms (Sovacool 2009), so I’m not sure this is entirely accurate. Similarly, in response to the comments below, scientific studies have shown no direct causal link between living near wind turbines and adverse health effects (Knopper & Ollson, 2011; and Colby et al, 2009) – it was actually found the reported health effects were the result of noise annoyance and not noise itself. I’m not saying wind farms should be constructed everywhere, but suggest more attention must be paid to the environmental impacts during the planning stage.

  • http://www.facebook.com/arthur.stordahl Arthur Stordahl

    Really people, wind turbines destroy nature? Um how about the flocks of birds dropping from the sky from unknowns? Likely GMO crops w/pesticides, but wind turbines? Get a grip and realize science of the day is bought and sold to highest bidder. ie big oil.
    News flash: Solar panels are sucking up all the solar energy. This greatly reduces the remaining amounts for plant life. Solar kills Rainforests!

    • Guest

      flocks of birds

  • Larry Cosgrave

    how are birds and bats killed? the author mentions 200mph but any turbines i have seen rotate very slowly and nothing that would pose a problem for a bat considering how they last second maneuver around a human walking by. And would birds not be able to easily negotiate the slowly moving blades when they wing unimpeded through forests etc.? I don’t understand.

    • http://twitter.com/ZodiacNine ZodiacNine

      Barometric pressure waves

    • Jim Wiegand

      Tip speed. These blade tips travel 300 feet per second. It fools people like you as well as birds.

  • http://twitter.com/ZodiacNine ZodiacNine

    I disagree that most environmentalists are in denial about the negative issues surrounding wind energy. Most environmentalists (not all) support wind energy, but do so with many caveats, not least that they should be erected only in the right places. Most environmentalists also agree that wind power is not the only renewable energy and would welcome more diversification into hydro, solar and geothermal energy. Unfortunately successive UK Govts. seem to put most of their eggs in the wind-turbine basket.

  • Rich_Cooper

    Cats and car windshields kill more birds. 1000s of times more. You are reading that correctly THOUSANDS of times more. Until cats start generating electricity, people should focus on banning them before engaging in a windmill witch hunt.

  • http://barnardonwind.wordpress.com/ Mike Barnard

    For a lecturer and zoologist, Mr. Hambler is remarkably willing to believe and quote the most extreme and shoddy studies instead of the majority. The SEO/Birdlife study is widely derided and accurate numbers of roughly 1.3 birds per turbine per year are easily available to anyone with an academic interest in truth instead of an anti-wind propaganda agenda.

    Here’s one that took me a good two seconds to find:

    Weak relationship between risk assessment studies and recorded mortality in wind farms – Ferrer – 2011 – Journal of Applied Ecology

    Similarly, Mr. Hambler’s information on wind turbine lifespan is equally bogus, concocted by anti-wind lobbyists cherry picking their data. You’d think an academic might care about the quality of his resources. This myth has an element of truth; while wind farms typically exceed 20 years of life when allowed to, usually they are repowered earlier because it’s profitable to put bigger, more modern wind turbines in to exploit more of the wind resource.

    And Mr. Hambler ignores the real threat to bird species: global warming. As was recently announced, 97.1% of papers and 98.4% of climate scientists who have taken a position on global warming agree that it is happening, that it is caused by man and that it is a serious threat. Wind turbines are part of the solution to that, not part of a problem. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/brendan-demelle/consensus-confirmed-97-of_b_3282447.html

    Of course, anyone who claims Mark Duchamp as a colleague is automatically suspect in their statements about wind energy. Mr. Duchamp is, at last count, head of three separate anti-wind lobbyist groups. If he puts a subject, a verb and an object together about wind energy, you can be guaranteed of two things: it will be negative and it won’t be accurate.

    For the real story on wind and wildlife, please see this material: http://barnardonwind.wordpress.com/2013/02/15/how-significant-is-bird-and-bat-mortality-due-to-wind-turbines/

  • http://barnardonwind.wordpress.com/ Mike Barnard

    The comments associated with this article are full of much as much disinformation as the article. A few leavening facts:

    Wind farms don’t harm human health, anti-wind campaigners do. 17 major reviews world wide of all of the available research by credible, independent groups have cleared wind farms of health impacts. Meanwhile, studies in the UK, Australia and New Zealand point the finger at anti-wind lobbyists spreading health fears and jacking up stress. http://barnardonwind.wordpress.com/2013/02/17/wind-farms-dont-make-people-sick-so-why-the-complaints/

    Infrasound produced by wind farms is harmless; humans evolved with infrasound and wind farms produce less than waves on a beach, yet beach front property is in major demand. http://barnardonwind.wordpress.com/2013/02/20/humans-evolved-with-infrasound-is-there-any-truth-to-health-concerns-about-it/

    Wind farms are the best source of energy for wildlife including birds: global warming and air pollution are the big threats. http://barnardonwind.wordpress.com/2013/02/15/how-significant-is-bird-and-bat-mortality-due-to-wind-turbines/

    Wind farms reduce greenhouse gases; real world results in Texas, the UK and Australia prove this is true. Industry standard, full lifecycle analyses for all forms of energy find that wind turbines pay back their carbon debt faster than any other form of generation. Every MWh produced by wind energy eliminates 99.8%+ of the CO2 that would have been generated by shale gas or coal, as they are first to be eliminated from the grid as generation sources. As the full lifecycle analyses show shale gas has 50 times the CO2e and coal has 100 times the CO2e per MWh, that’s a lot of global warming gases that are eliminated with every MWh of wind energy. http://barnardonwind.wordpress.com/2013/03/05/wind-energy-reduces-green-house-gas-emissions/

    Whooping cranes and wind farms co-exist peacefully. Joint efforts by the US Fish and Wildlife Service, whooping crane preservation organizations, electrical utilities and the wind industry have resulted in numerous extraordinary mitigations to ensure no whooping crane is harmed by wind turbines despite the proliferation of wind farms along their migration corridor. http://barnardonwind.wordpress.com/2013/02/21/wind-farms-are-being-built-along-whooping-crane-migration-paths-is-there-any-risk-to-them/

    Wind farms don’t harm property values: five major studies in the US and UK of 46,000 property transactions confirm this. As with health complaints, anti-wind campaigners whipping up fears are responsible for minor lulls before wind farms become operational, with properties often accruing value faster near operational wind farms. This makes sense: more jobs and more tax-revenue funded services make wind farm regions more attractive to people. http://barnardonwind.wordpress.com/2013/02/19/property-values-evidence-is-that-if-wind-farms-do-impact-them-its-positively/

    • J4zonian

      As always, great stuff and useful information well-organized, Mike. Thanks.

  • Jim Wiegand

    The world will soon know all about the hidden slaughter going on at Wolfe
    Island. Simply put the Wolfe Island studies are the worst I have ever seen in North America. The only study I have seen that was worse was produced in Europe by backers of the wind industry. Their fraudulent study blamed tourism on the disappearance (abandoned territories) of the golden eagle from Finland.

    Just because a few greedy landowners, turbine peddlers, and the parasites sucking off the turbine food chain love these killers, it doesnot justify the fraud and or the environmental disaster being caused by these turbines.

    Everyone should read this article …….”Birdwatchers see rare swift killed by wind turbine” because this tragic scenario plays out everyday all over the world but witnesses are rarely present. One death at a time this is the wind turbine path to extinction I keep writing about. Dozens of species will be driven to extinction because of these wind turbines.

    Bird safe wind turbines like the FloDesign wind turbine and others will not be ready for years. Most of this problem is deliberate or corruption related. These bird safe turbines will be delayed for as longas possible because the industry is still making a fortune off their product line of killers.

    The wind industry’s killers have been protected for decades with bad science, sell out conservation groups, fraudulent studies, and corrupt politicians. They have also been protected by gag orders written into contracts and this keeps landowners and workers silent about these accounts. In other words the public would not have known about it.

    Today’s wind turbines slaughter everything that can fly and this is why the public has to get more involved. In the remote habitats of the world where species once found refuge, there is a wind turbine genocide taking place.

    • J4zonian

      Wind power saves wildlife, clear and simple. Improvements have been made since the early days and continue and will continue. To attack wind energy for doing what coal, oil and gas do far worse is to spread lies and stop progress on the energy combination that is the best thing humans have done for the natural world for 10,000 years–wind, solar and efficiency. Stop lying, Jim Wiegand.

      • Jim Wiegand

        What is your real name, who do you work for and what are your wildlife/environmental credentials? I have no lies to tell, just trying to save birds from this terrible industry.

        • J4zonian

          Save them from cars. Save them from buildings, toxic industry and industrial agriculture, sprawl, feral cats, meat-eating that destroys habitat here and in the third world. Save them from coal. Those, not even including habitat loss (the biggest cause of wildlife deaths and extinctions although being eclipsed by climate catastrophe) kill 4000 times more birds than wind every year; the number killed by habitat loss and now global warming is incalculable and growing. Above all, save them from conservatives and corporations who have created, worsened and supported every one of those projects for decades or centuries while doing everything they could including lying, to slow progress on the switch to a wise energy policy with efficiency, wind and solar as the foundation.

          Stop spreading lies. Stop allowing yourself to be used by those who would (and will) throw you under a train for 50 cents.

          Can’t argue my points so you thought you’d find out who I am and attack me personally or try to discredit me with more lies and innuendos? Disgusting. To head off your implication, I don’t work for the wind industry in any way shape or form. I have an undergraduate degree in environmental sciences and a long-running interest in keeping people like you and those who are using you from destroying civilization. I’ve been fighting for alternative, clean energy for 30 years, opposed always by the same lies and confusion spread by the people who are using you. Stop spreading their lies.

          • Jim Wiegand

            This is an attack? ……Just be honest so readers can better understand your statements. What is your real name, who do you work for and what are your wildlife/environmental credentials? And how am I being used? I volunteer my services for Save the Eagles International.

          • J4zonian

            Asked and answered. Stop spreading lies.

          • Jim Wiegand

            You never answered. So tell us all…..What is your real name, who do you work for and what are your wildlife/environmental credentials? I am sure readers would like to know. Especially since you have been commenting on so many articles like this.

          • J4zonian

            You’ve already shown your propensity to lie; I have no idea what you and others like you are capable of. I have no wish and no obligation to reveal anything to you. I’ve answered honestly all of your personal questions I’m going to. I’ve posted many many times on this and other sites, and revealed enough about the way I live to show I live up to my ideals and am leading the way toward a sustainable US and world. Feel free to refer to them.

            Since you’ve read some of my posts besides these, presumably including some of the many in which I gave citations proving my assertions (which you haven’t done even once) you should answer the questions and refute the facts or apologize for spreading Koch/Exxon/ALEC/Donor’s Trust talking points. Stop obfuscating and trying to distract from the issue; stop your false assertions and deceptive omissions about wind energy, one of the chief solutions to our most dire problems. Stop lying.

          • Jim Wiegand

            Another made up story like your other posts about me. You still have not answered one of the three questions that I asked so I will reduce it to one….Tell us all about your wildlife/environmental credentials since this is what this story is about. Even the author has his credentials cited.

          • DFH2point0

            So tell us Mr. Antiques Dealer cum VP of Anti-Wind Lobbying Group…what type of mental disorder has you believing that everyone that challenges you is doing so with a “made up story”? Paranoid much?


          • J4zonian

            As I said, I’ve answered all the personal questions of yours I’m going to. You have lied, or passed on lies you could easily have refuted before posting.

            “the parasites… love these killers,”

            “Dozens of species …wind turbines.”

            “The wind industry’s… protected for decades …politicians.”

            Those are just some of the outright lies you packed into your falsity-dense post; the last in particular is so utterly absurd it amazes me you thought anybody would be stupid enough to believe it who isn’t already, like you, irrationally opposed to wind power. I think you’re confusing the alleged powerful wind mafia (Seriously? You couldn’t come up with anything less moronic and loony than that?) with the actual practices of the coal and oil industries over more than a century. Your fanciful and lurid descriptions are ludicrous and so over the top no one could actually give you any credibility. So no, I don’t trust you and others who may be even crazier (as hard as it is to imagine) with personal information. Yet more evidence of your tenuous contact with reality that you thought I would, or would let such attacks distract us from the subject. My credentials are not what the exchange is about, the exchange is about the effects of wind generators, about which you have told many lies you keep refusing to back up with facts while trying to distract from the subject.

            Give it up.

            Now answer the real questions and issues. Provide some references for your ridiculous melodramatic claims or apologize for lying.

          • Jim Wiegand

            The truth is that you do not like my message. How could you possibly even know, if you have done no wildlife research or have any background in any environmental capacity? Name one wind energy mortality study that you have read and I will tell you what is flawed or rigged about it.

          • J4zonian

            You’re absolutely right; I don’t like lies in service of genocide, global chaos and ecological cataclysm.

            You seem to be impervious to facts; I already told you I have education enough to read and understand ecological concepts, studies and issues better than 99% of the people who support your addled position.

            Provide support for your ludicrous fairy tales and we’ll see who knows more about science and is psychologically healthy enough to judge reality accurately. If you don’t do that in this post it will obvious you have none. Of course that’s obvious anyway. The horrific effects of coal and only a little better, oil and gas, are well documented and the combination of wind, solar and efficiency will be hundreds or thousands of times better, in effects on birds, bats, humans, herps, mammals, ecosystems, and the Earth’s climate system. it’s perfectly obvious to anyone not insane or stupid or both that we have to replace fossil fuels with renewable clean energy. Stop getting in the way of that by lying and help preserve civilization and the wildlife you imply you care about.

          • DFH2point0

            This is typical of you to attempt to use personal knowledge of this poster as a means to discredit him/her. These are the same tired extremist tactics you use on the wind industry as a whole and the scientists that publish findings that contradict your propaganda.

            Why is it that you won’t address the points made by J4zonian? Are you unable to? Come on, impress me with your “expertise”.

          • Jim Wiegand

            I am in agreement with the author (Clive Hambler) of this article who also happens to be a credible expert. So tell us all…..what is your real name, who do you work for and what are your wildlife/environmental credentials? I am sure readers would like to know.

          • DFH2point0

            You haven’t answered my questions. You haven’t replied to the points made by J4zonian and it appears you want another roll in the mud with me. Great, have it your way…it’s only your reputation that’s at stake here…Mr. Expert.

            BTW, in case you haven’t noticed…this thread is 6 months old. There are no “readers” here other you, me and J4zonian.
            So let’s get jiggy…shall we?

    • Flighter

      Jim, I have only just become aware of the above article and cannot understand why it has not been awarded more publicity. Do you know how robust the figures are and has anything further emerged in the interim?

      • J4zonian

        The figures are utter deceptions. The article is ridiculous lying nonsense. Fossil fuels are 17 times worse for birds than wind energy, vastly worse on virtually every other kind of wildlife and humans, and that’s not even counting climate catastrophe, the most dire crisis humans have ever faced. Fossil fuels are killing the biosphere and will cause the collapse of civilization and extinction of millions of species including humans if we don’t act massively and rapidly to stop using them and replace them with wind, solar, efficiency, smaller but locally important amounts of other renewables, changed lives, permaculture, reforestation and a few other similar solutions.

        • Flighter

          I hear what you say and you may even be right, who knows. However, my immediate interest is in establishing how accurate the author’s figures are. Do you have any links to contrary reports, peer reviewed if possible?

          • J4zonian

            Read my other posts here, and Mike Barnard’s. Read his bloggy-like thing on wind. Look up Audubon’s website to see their policy and reasoning on wind. Look up Sovacool’s study.


            100,000 dead Aussie bats in heat wave http://www.alternet.org/environment/100000-bats-fall-sky-australia-due-extreme-heat-wave?akid=11386.208971.ZuQHBg&rd=1&src=newsletter945370&t=5
            Look up causes of avian mortality in the US; you’ll see that wind causes less than 3 thousandths of one percent of bird deaths caused by humans every year, and that’s a gross overestimate of the effects of wind because 1. it doesn’t include habitat loss, possibly the biggest killer and extinction-cause, 2. it doesn’t include the ongoing and rapidly increasing effects of climate cataclysm, and 3. One old and poorly designed and located site, Altamont Pass, is responsible for almost half the wind bird deaths in the US. Newer designs, better siting and operation are dramatically reducing the already infinitesimal effect wind has on birds. Indications are very strong that effects on bats are similar– many, many, many, many, many more are killed by the toxic effects of fossil and nuclear fuels, mines, processing, storing etc. Want to save wildlife? Work to promote wind and solar. The way to solve this is to make every energy company pay a reasonable fee–approximately what it would cost to replace him or her, for every death they cause, of humans, birds, other mammals, herps, fish, and other assorted large and valuable animals and plants. Any accurate counting would immediately bankrupt every fossil fuel company in the world. The combination of wind, solar, efficiency and changed lives is the most benign energy source humans have ever come up with, and the best thing humans have done for wildlife in 10,000 years.

      • Jim Wiegand

        Read some of my articles, They describe some of the wind industry fraud taking place very clearly. I would start by reading “Exposing the wind industry genocide”.

        • Flighter

          Thanks, will do.

  • Jim Wiegand

    I had a meeting with a very prominent Judge a few weeks back about the wind industry. I discussed the mountain of bogus wind industry studies I had come across. I told this judge that almost every study I had come across had been designed to hide the truth with bogus methodology and conclusions. This Judge was very aware of the practice of creating bogus studies with predetermined outcomes saying “it was common in all fields”. This judge also told me what a “waste of money these turbines are”. I recently reviewed a mortality impact study taking into consideration the bogus methodology. This study was designed to hide mortality. My analysis taking into consideration the miniature search areas, flawed searcher detection studies, scavenger removal rates, and search intervals showed at least 600 birds and bat fatalities per MW. Of course nothing close to this mortality was disclosed. It was hidden in the rigged methodology and contrived formulas.

    • J4zonian

      Your irrational fear of windmills is something you should seek help with in psychotherapy, Jim. While there you should also look into your morbid and paranoid beliefs about loony conspiracy theories. I wish you well; if you’ll tell me your address or phone number I can send you some referrals.

  • Jim Wiegand

    From the wind industry and FWS you will hear that these turbines kill 2.9 – 11 birds per MW. I can now say that this figure is between 30-300 bird deaths per MW depending on the location. The truth to all of this bird and bat carnage could be easily settled with 24 hour video surveillance. It was suggested by biologists over 20 years ago so they could better understand the mortality impacts from these turbines. But this industry protected by “voluntary regulations” and with a million skeletons to hide, will have no part in any of this.

  • brossen99
  • Count Rollo

    Evidently the RSPB admitted to ONE only bird death!!! They do, of course, have a strong vested interest. Bunch of hypocrites, – a typical charity with a substantial fleet of cars, dream salaries, heavenly pensions, fabulous offices, and not much to ever do.

  • Julie Gray

    Yes, Yes,

  • Calvinius

    But the evidence suggests that, this century at least, renewables pose a far greater threat to wildlife than climate change.

    This might very well be the stupidest single sentence ever published.

  • harry potter

    Hello i think wind farms are intresting

    • harry potter


      • harry potter

        i know

  • Jim Wiegand

    The biggest problem in all this is that NOTHING presented by profit driven wind energy developers can be trusted. A perfect example is their fraudulent mortality data produced by the industry that is being used in mortality projections.

    Decades before wind turbines came on to the scene wildlife biologists used daily searches when looking for carcasses around communication towers. They did this because it was proven to be the most reliable methodology to get accurate mortality data. Periodic searches were also conducted far beyond standard search areas checking for missed carcasses. Generally these standard search areas were as far out from towers as the tower was tall and expanded searches were conducted as far as 1 1/2 times tower height.

    Today with this disgusting “green” industry, there is no science. Carcass searches are not daily and for 400 -500 ft tall turbines, the industry studies do not even fully search an area 150 feet out from turbines. Proper search areas for these turbines should be 600 feet out from towers with periodic searches out even further. with this industry any carcasses found beyond their tiny standard search areas are generally dismissed as being incidental. Hundreds of carcasses are now being dismissed from studies.

    Like I have stated many times, there is nothing scientific about this industry. Their mortality studies are not even close to being studies because their studies are all deliberately rigged to hide the truth. Industry searches like those described here were also used to hide several hundred endangered birds and bats killed by wind turbines in Hawaii since 2007.This was kept from the publc until a few weeks ago when the information was leaked to the media.

    Industry shills are being paid millions for these miserable studies while I expose wind industry fraud at no cost to taxpayers.

    Most of the public does not realize that the wind industry not only conceals most their devastating impacts to wildlife, but that other energy sectors across the world are increasing at rates that will always make renewable energy mandates unreachable.

    Since 2008 world oil consumption has increased over 6%, Coal consumption has increased over 9%, and natural gas consumption has increased over 10%. Wind energy production while increasing is lagging far behind the growth in other sectors and even if tripled, wind can not close this widening gap. In the end, despite what is being said by the industry promoters, wind energy can do nothing for our climate but it is wiping out rare species.

    • J4zonian

      No doubt Jim is comparing the people involved in wind, solar and efficiency, and other renewables with the saintly people involved in coal, oil and gas, and now tar sands, oil shales and all manner of new forms of fix for the addiction. These people of course are fine upstanding citizens in no way responsible for the millions of deaths they’ve caused of humans and absolutely uncountable numbers of deaths of birds, bats, amphibians, reptiles, other mammals, trees, wildflowers, whole forests, grasslands, fish, whales, porpoises, reefs, whole regions of oceans, ecosystems… and who are now gunning for the entire biosphere. Apparently cancer, emphysemia, black lung, horrible birth defects, union busting, hundreds of millions of ruined and shortened lives, bribery and corruption on a scale unimaginable in any other industry, oppression, beatings, murder… have just not been enough for them. In Jim’s eyes these people come out looking better than those involved with preventing utter catastrophic climate chaos, the collapse of civilization and the extinction of millions of species. Wow. Jim really should take my advice from a year ago and see a therapist. I’m still happy to refer someone.

      • Jim Wiegand

        The unavoidable facts are that the wind industry is a completely corrupt enterprise. They routinely create fraudulent documents, and their product slaughters rare species like no other industry in this world. Are there other problems in the world? Yes. But if you had any decency or credibility you would not use a fake name. You would also show great concern for the the fraudulent documents being produced on behalf of this industry to hide their terrible impacts. By the way old age is a huge killer, you forgot to add that one.

        • J4zonian

          Jim should show proof of fraud or stop claiming it. Want fraud? Millions of examples of lying fossil fuel executives and operatives have defrauded governments, citizens, and despoiled the Earth. Replacing fossil fuels with wind, solar, efficiency, other renewables and ecological lives, which is happening now and which Jim opposes, is the best thing humans have done for ourselves, for wildlife and for the rest of nature in 10,000 years. Opposing it is insane. It is the most enormous mass murder-suicide ever contemplated. Jim needs to be in therapy and needs to stop spreading the Koch-Exxon-ALEC et al lies that are slowing actions needed to preserve civilization. Want to save wildlife? Support renewables.

          • Jim Wiegand

            Supporting wind is supporting fraud and species extinction. That is my message and my message alone. Anyone wanting proof concerning the wind industry’s fraudulent studies, should read “Exposing the wind industry genocide”.

          • J4zonian

            The effects of fossil and nuclear fuels being as devastating as they are and there being absolutely no possible debate about that, and the effects of the combination of wind, solar and efficiency being as benign as it is, and there being absolutely no debate about that… one would have to either A. lying B. very, very stupid, C. insane or D. all of the above, to believe Jim’s assertions. Asking people who are any of the above which of those they are is useless as they either don’t know–by definition–or will lie about that too. But it’s clear that anyone who would lie in order to delay action on humanity’s main hope of survival… would lie just to preserve the profits of a very small group of already-astronomically wealthy individuals and corporations, or in the interests of ideology at the risk of the collapse of civilization and the extinction of millions of species, is insane as well as lying. Also, clearly, they’re afflicted by SISS, Sychologically Induced Stupidity Syndrome, or they wouldn’t be believing or posting such blatantly moronic lies so easily disproved by a simple look at the (non-cherry-picked, non loony-conspiracy-theory) facts. So the only possible answer to the question is D. Rant on, Jim.

          • Jim Wiegand

            Save it Airbag. My facts are the facts.

  • Lee McCreanor

    I was effected by wind turbine noise and vibrations. FACT! I did not sleep in my own bed at night for over 6 months (the vibrations were worse at night), until my body and brain adapted. I was sleep deprived all that time. I do not need some experts telling me I’m wrong. I lived it. And the only thing that was different in the area was the turbines. There is nothing else there! We have more raptors in the area now attracted by the turbines and they get chopped down. I see it happen. We are losing numerous bats in the area. I do not need anyone to tell me in studies. I see it with my own eyes every day. I am surrounded by fields. I have nothing else to look at but the wildlife. It is being seriously impacted. And they want to put 2 more up. And nobody in authority cares about the wildlife impact or the human impact or the impact on the zoo animals (the turbines are in the grounds of a zoo – the animals must be driven crazy by the noise and vibrations) All the government care about is pushing on with getting up as many turbines up as possible. It is destroying communities, pitting families against each other and destroying our countryside, and half the time the stupid things are standing idle, or broken, so they never generate anywhere near the power they are sold as being able to generate, and we, including our wildlife and zoo animals, are suffering due to this insanity. The only reason they will stop fracking is when there are noticeable earthquakes where none have been before. But they will never stop with these turbines, even though they are inefficient and hurt everything and everyone around them.

  • Jim Wiegand

    Here is a quick lesson for readers about Europe’s wind turbines, carbon emissions, and climate ……….

    There is currently the equivalent of around 117,000 1MWturbines (about twice the US) installed in Europe. The EU consumes about 14 million barrels of crude oil a day. If all of these turbines are running at about 20% of capacity (which is unlikely), the net energy from these turbines equals no more than 2% of the energy Europe receives from crude oil.

    But there is something even more important, the amount of energy created from wind has not even covered the yearly increase in demand for crude oil in Europe.

    Now think this……….How could these turbines possibly fix climate or solve any of society’s energy problems? Then since they contribute so little energy in the big picture, and so many of them are needed to be built, where is Europe,even going to fit or even find enough good wind for the energy needed?

    It can not be done and the sickest part about “green” wind energy is that these turbine peddlers cashing in already know all of this.

  • Jim Wiegand

    More about the Wind industry’s mortality cover-up in Europe and North America………….. During the 1990’s golden eagles began disappearing along with the wind energy boom in Europe. Golden eagle territories were being abandoned at an alarming rate in Scandinavia. The habitat was there but the eagles were not. The reason was because these eagles from the north had to migrate in the winter months to survive and now had to face an onslaught of turbines constructed in their winter habitat.

    The industry knew all about it because they were finding the bodies around
    their turbines. In a fraudulent effort to hide this genocide the EU LIFE Environment Program which is backed by European financial institutions and the wind industry, paid for a 2008 study called “Territory occupancy and breeding success of the Golden Eagle (Aquila chrysaetos) around tourist destinations in northern Finland”.

    I encourage everyone to look at this study so they get a glimpse of the fraud taking place from this industry. Read it and see the garbage that is being passed off science by this industry.

    According to this study, an increase in tourism(snowmobiles and skiers) was the likely cause for the golden eagle habitat abandonment in Finland.
    What is amazing (or disgusting) about the study is that no direct evidence was
    ever provided. But it would have been so easy to get with a couple of fly-overs
    around nest sites. In other words no footprints, ski trails, or snowmobile
    tracks were ever shown to be near any active or abandoned nests.

    In Scandinavia eagles begin nesting in March and a blanket of snow stays on the ground into May. Ariel photos and observations of human activity would have been critical to this study. Yet none were provided. But these photos would have also shown that human disturbances around eagle nest sites did not exist.

    I happen to be an expert on Golden eagles and an expert on wildlife research. I am also not on the take and would not accept a dime for rigging a wildlife study or lying to the public about these turbines. I can not stress this enough, this is an industry that has been built on fraud. In fact many of the people behind this industry should be in prison. If anyone takes the time to look there is a very clear trail of fraud dealing with energy
    projections, health impacts, the coming extinction of species, and these
    turbines being able to fixing climate. All of this fraud is taking place so investors
    can steal billions from taxpayers.

    The most serious part of the wind turbine fraud taking place involves the coming extinction of species from turbines. This will occur to birds, bats, and even some even insects. Hawaii’s wind turbines have reported the bodies of 50 endangered species killed from just 200 MW of wind energy since 2007. This was kept secret for 7 years by the same people claiming to be saving the world with green energy. But the real number of endangered species killed by Hawaii’s turbines is really in the hundreds because I have read these studies and can witness the industry’s “look but don’t see” rigged methodology used in them.

    Conservation groups (corrupted industry mouth pieces) believe wind turbines serve the greater good and are a necessary trade off for fixing climate. But these turbines can not possibly solve any climate problems and extinction of species will be inevitable from these killers.

    Instead of listening and supporting any of these groups, the public really needs to run all of them over a cliff because all bird species would be much better of with out them.

    As it is I have yet to come across a single credible study related to the wind industry’s mortality impacts. Peer reviewed or not it does not matter because these studies are rigged to hide the truth. If the FWS, the Interior Department, or even the AWEA can produce a single credible and scientifically sound wind turbine mortality study, I would like to see it. I have formally made this known to all of these parties and have heard nothing back.

    I also have very credible evidence of wind turbine mortality searches written up in studies near my home in Northern CA that did not even take place. I have made this known to the Interior Department but have heard nothing back from them. But why would I hear back when they are part of this cover-up?

    The wind industry even lied to congress about their turbine mortality in 1997 stating that the “lattice towers were the primary reason” eagles are killed at wind farms. When the truth is that eagles are killed primarily because 200 mph spinning wind turbine blade tips and billions of cubic feet of deadly rotor sweep are being are placed in their habitat.

  • rmpbklyn .




    eagle hit http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=8NAAzBArYdw


    Wind farms are clusters of turbines as tall as 30-story buildings, with spinning rotors as wide as a passenger jet’s wingspan. Though the blades appear to move slowly, they can reach speeds of up to 170 mph at the tips, creating tornado-like vortexes. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/03/12/house-panel-subpoenas-white-house-on-wind-power-eagle-deaths/

    Bob Sallinger with the Audubon Society of Portland said wind farms across the country have killed more than 80 eagles over the last decade.

    “If you have dozens and dozens of them on the landscape it is basically a giant Cuisinart for birds,” said Sallinger. “Bald eagles took decades to recover … we almost lost them because of DDT. Golden eagles are a species biologists are concerned about because they appear to be declining.” http://www.kgw.com/news/Official-Wind–257599781.html

    “Improperly sited and operated wind energy facilities can kill significant numbers of federally protected birds and other species,” said U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Director Dan Ashe, urging developers to follow the Service’s Land-based Wind Energy Guidelines. “That’s why it’s imperative that wind energy developers work with the Fish and Wildlife Service to minimize these impacts at every stage in the process.”
    Commercial wind power projects can cause the deaths of federally protected birds in four primary ways: collision with wind turbines, collision with associated meteorological towers, collision with, or electrocution by, associated electrical power facilities, and nest abandonment or behavior avoidance from habitat modification.

    A recent study by federal and state scientists found that U.S. wind turbines could kill up to 1.4 million birds of all species per year by 2030 as the wind energy industry continues to expand. http://www.ibtimes.com/should-wind-turbines-be-allowed-kill-eagles-debate-ratchets-bird-group-lawsuit-1607240


    Kay Armstrong, who lives near a wind farm in Ontario, Canada, has reported that her home is now “virtually uninhabitable” due to the infrasound from the turbines disturbing her sleep and making her feel dizzy. She also says that local deer are agitated and awake all night, that birds are flying around all day rather than going to roost, and that seals in the area are suffering miscarriages. http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-London/2014/06/13/More-Deaths-Linked-to-Wind-Turbines-near-Danish-Mink-Farm —non raptor issues too two people die from explosion at wind turbine: http://www.nieuws.nl/algemeen/20131030/Brand-windmolen-Verlies-collegas-hartverscheurend airplane safety concerns http://blackburnnews.com/chatham/chatham-news/2014/07/06/wind-turbines-near-airport-ordered-removed/ —-ca

    There are currently more than 4,000 turbines by the Altamont Pass. http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2014/05/23/new-design-may-reduce-bird-deaths-in-wind-turbines-on-altamont-pass-livermore-interstate-580-golden-eagle-animals-environment-renewable-energy/

    Wind turbines at Altamont Pass kill an estimated 880 to 1,300 birds of prey each year, including up to 116 golden eagles, 300 red-tailed hawks, 380 burrowing owls, and additional hundreds of other raptors including kestrels, falcons, vultures, and other owl species. The APWRA is an ecological sink for golden eagles and other raptor species and may be having significant impacts on populations of birds that are rare and reproduce infrequently. http://www.goldengateaudubon.org/conservation/birds-at-risk/avian-mortality-at-altamont-pass/

    “Last June, the Los Angeles Times reported that about 70 golden eagles are being killed per year by the wind turbines at Altamont Pass, about 20 miles east of Oakland, Calif. A 2008 study funded by the Alameda County Community Development Agency estimated that about 2,400 raptors, including burrowing owls, American kestrels, and red-tailed hawks—as well as about 7,500 other birds, nearly all of which are protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act—are being killed every year by the turbines at Altamont.”


    Most of the bats die because their lungs collapse when they run into low air pressure around the tips of the wind turbines — not because they hit the towers or blades. http://stopthesethings.com/2015/01/09/green-backed-bat-slaughter-hits-alberta-wind-turbines-turning-bats-lungs-to-mush/

    —nj Near Atlantic City NJ 5 industrial wind turbines were erected which are killing an average of 76 birds and bats per year per turbine(not the 1-2 that AWEA and US Fish and Wildlife publicize). This has been documented by the local Audubon society. Though to make sure not too information is known…they only study for 2 years after installation then after that….It is a shameful secret! These killed a Peregrine Falcon of which there are only 25 breeding pair in the entire state, also numerous Osprey, a Green Heron, a Dunlin and many others….is not worth it for these highly variable power producers which require full CO2 emitting backup and power shadowing. Money would be much better spent on conservation and efficiency…which have been shown to be ten times more cost effective thereby doing more for our planet




    The project proposed by Wind Capital Group of St. Louis would erect 94 wind turbines on 8,400 acres that the Osage Nation says contains key eagle-nesting habitat and migratory routes. http://bdnews24.com/environment/2013/06/15/native-americans-decry-eagle-deaths

    st louis mayor’s office: Phone: (314) 622-3201

    Hours: 8 AM – 6 PM Monday through Friday

    Address: 1200 Market , City Hall, Room 200 St. Louis, Missouri 63103


    facebook https://www.facebook.com/pages/Jay-Nixon/6517667731

    governors twitter https://twitter.com/GovJayNixon

    2007: NRC Report on Environmental Impact of Wind Farms

    “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.” ” http://www.vawind.org/assets/nrc/nrc_wind_report_050307.pdf

    —— http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm?State=OR

    Merkley, Jeff – (D – OR) Class II 313 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510 (202) 224-3753 Web Form: http://www.merkley.senate.gov/contact/

    Wyden, Ron – (D – OR) Class III 223 DIRKSEN SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510 (202) 224-5244 Web Form: http://www.wyden.senate.gov/contact/

    —– http://www.leg.state.or.us/senate/members.htm The Oregon State Capitol Address is: 900 Court St. NE, Salem, Oregon 97301. View a map to the Oregon State Capitol. For information regarding the legislative process, email the Legislative Liaison, or call 503-986-1000. For technical questions about this site, please email Oregon Legislative Information Systems, or call 503-986-1914.

    ———- In Spain, the Spanish Ornithological Society (TSOS) estimates that the country’s 18,000 wind turbines cause between six and eighteen million bird deaths a year. This works out at an average of 333 to 1,000 birds per turbine. http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-London/2014/06/20/RSPB-Condemns-Plans-to-Build-Huge-Wind-Farm-Near-Rare-Bird-Breeding-Area



    • J4zonian

      More ridiculous lies, cherry picked factoids and distortions. Fox news? Breitbart? Daily Mail? Laughably absurd self-discrediting sources of nonsense. Of the 4 ways you say wind supposedly kills birds, 3 are even more true of fossil fuel-generated electricity. Coal kills (not counting these) 17 times more birds per KWhr generated and infinitely more wildlife of other kinds–amphibians, reptiles, mammals, trees, wildflowers, beneficial insects, etc. The horrific toll fossil fuels have taken and continue to take on human health, democracy and the ecosystems we depend on for everything is many, many, many times worse than that of clean renewable energy.
      To talk about Altamont, an early, and poorly-designed and -sited wind farm, and mention what should be happening to improve the situation without saying that those improvements have already been made and are continuing to be improved on, is reprehensible and irresponsible to the extreme. It’s a disgusting lie.
      Most of the same conservatives, conservative corporations and their anti-renewable campaigns that are against wind are also against efficiency improvements which would save birds and other wildlife as well as people no matter what source of energy is used. But the fact remains, that the combination of efficiency, wind, solar and other clean renewables is the most benign source of energy humans have ever invented and the best thing people have done for themselves, wildlife and the biosphere in 10,000 years. Shame on you for spreading lies and confusion about the most crucial change we need to make to avoid utter catastrophe during the lifetime of people now alive. Shame on you. Research the subject properly, retract your post and apologize please.

  • The Master

    Not to worry once the subsidies go away they will all break and be torn down. Because they don’t make enough money to take care of the maintenance.

  • John Macdonell
  • madnessofcrowds

    RSPB calls for UK wind turbines to be increased SIX-FOLD, TO AROUND 22,000 TURBINES.