Published on October 31st, 2013 | by Cynthia Shahan


Canada Ranks Top Bird Killers, Wind Turbines Not Even Close To The Top

October 31st, 2013 by  

This article is about debunking myths (deliberately perpetrated) regarding wind energy. First, watch the video:

Billion dollar businesses and billion dollar interests have a lot of money they can use to attack their up-and-coming competitors. Even if those competitors are driven by clear thinking and clean energy, money directed in an effective way can make them look bad. Promoting misinformation lacks integrity, but it’s very common within large industries and economic sectors.

People are busy. They do not have the time to research each myth out there. Thus, we sometimes get fooled. Here at CleanTechnica, we try to make it a bit easier to get some straight-up, correct information. Greed-driven myths hurt the world, and our #1 goal is simply to help the world.

top bird killers bird deaths

I came upon this bird directly in front of the door of my local library. The bird hit the glass of the library door and died. Yes, 3rd on the list of things that cause birds to die, is collisions with buildings.

Peter Sinclair provides us with The List of Top Bird Killers (via CBC):

1. Domestic and feral cats: 200 million
2. Power lines, collisions and electrocutions: 25 million
3. Collisions with houses or buildings: 25 million
4. Vehicle collisions: 14 million
5. Game bird hunting: 5 million
6. Agricultural pesticides 2.7 million
7. Agricultural mowing: 2.2 million young birds, equivalent to one million adult birds
8. Commercial forestry: 1.4 million nests, equivalent to 900,000 adult birds
9. Communications towers: 220,000

A resource that cannot be depleted or sacrificed is wind. Wind is not toxic (unless it carries pesticides, that is). Wind cuts global warming pollution. Wind turbines use much, much less water than fossil fuel power plants, nuclear power plants, and even solar power plants. Wind does not use slave labor to produce it. (If I am wrong about this, please comment and let us know.)

Another Peter, Peter Singer also communicates change and generates extraordinary vibrations of thought considering humanitarian value systems. Central reasoning of Peter Singer is bestowed as follows: “If we can prevent something bad without sacrificing anything of comparable significance, we ought to do it.”

Wind power doesn’t even make the list above. Wind turbines have been increasingly improved in a way as to minimize bird deaths. We need wind power, and it’s nice to know that it’s not the big bird killer it’s made out to be. For sure, there is room for improvement, but there almost always is, and that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t use the best, cleanest, safest options we have.

Complete our 2017 CleanTechnica Reader Survey — have your opinions, preferences, and deepest wishes heard.

Check out our 93-page EV report, based on over 2,000 surveys collected from EV drivers in 49 of 50 US states, 26 European countries, and 9 Canadian provinces.

Tags: , , , , , , ,

About the Author

is a Mother, an Organic Farmer, Licensed Acupuncturist, Anthropology Studies, and mother of four unconditionally loving spirits, teachers, and environmentally conscious beings who have lit the way for me for decades.

  • brett vroman

    Domestic and feral cats kill 200 million birds. The wind turbine killing birds thing was overblown knowing how people love birds including me.

  • Russell Higgins RA

    Really, all the comments attack wind generation as an environmental disaster?

    Well, 85% of Russians believe the US is about to invade.

    So much for public opinion polls.

    What then of the stats, that PER MW wind gen produces the fewest bird deaths, from extensive studies going back to the 1800’s on bird death from obstacles from telegraph lines to 2000 foot tall block wide buildings, including over 40,000 wind gens in the US alone and far more outside the US. See

    If we don’t embrace the most economic and sustainable form of energy on the planet earth we are doomed to burn coal, proven to kill not only more birds per MW at the plant, and uncounted million more from poisoning the environment with everything from acid to mercury, but also proven to kill humans through their pollution.
    The choice is CLEAR to anyone who isn’t a shill for the established energy industry, or has a heart just too big to fit in our world (in which case, sorry).

  • Jonathan De Reuck

    OMG! I can almost guarantee that all the retarded people who do not have brains to comprehend the fact that there is a HUGE reduction on the amount of birds being killed apposed to other means of power generating facilities, are all 400lbs or more and own 50 cats each. The kind who will praise the cats no doubt too, every time they catch a bird. People who find fault in the GOOD intentions of others, always have an unmentioned, hidden agendas. Just as Christianity has done for ever. If we were so bothered as to want to check up on my speculation, and set foot into one of the above mentioned cat lover’s, filthy houses, you would actually find just as many bibles as you will, cats.

    Why don’t all of you negative people do your selves and everyone else a favour and take a hop, skip and a jump into one of the wind turbine’s spinning blades.

  • Alec Sevins

    This article fails to mention two big factors:

    1) Birds (and don’t forget bat) deaths from wind turbines are in ADDITION to other causes, not magically subtracted from them,

    2) Deployment of wind turbines is (unfortunately) still in its infancy and the total body count will surely rise. One study from Stanford envisioned 3.8 MILLION wind turbines worldwide as part of a “sustainable” future.

    Furthermore, the sheer blight on the landscape from wind turbines will always be an issue, and bird/bat deaths are just one aspect of their intrusion on nature. Renewable energy may turn out to be the biggest land grab since oil drilling or coal mining, since it’s much less energy dense. To “save the environment” we seem bent on pillaging it of natural scenery.

    • Bob_Wallace

      Alec, take a look at bird deaths per GWh.

      That’s how you decide whether it makes sense to install wind turbines or not.

      Wind farms kill roughly 0.27 birds per GWh.

      Nuclear plants kill about 0.6 birds per GWh. (2.2x wind)

      Fossil-fueled power stations kill about 9.4 birds per GWh. (34.8x wind)

      Now, someone who really cares about birds should be advocating for more wind turbines so that we can close the real bird killers – coal and nuclear.

      Don’t cha think?

  • AM

    Okay, folks. I’ve been an environmental scientist for over a decade, and have worked both inside and outside of industry (including wind), and have been involved in wildlife impact studies, and having to help make decisions about mitigating impacts.
    Want to help protect birds and other wildlife? Consume less!
    Power down equipment, get outside, don’t just throw away or buy more stuff (electronics, clothes, vehicles) because they aren’t the latest and greatest, etc. All this consumes tons of energy! Energy that is being generated by fossil fuels and renewables, such as wind.

    The reality is that most sources of energy generation (solar is one of the only types of energy generation that has a low impact on wildlife) cause some kind of impact to some kind of animal. Many of the life supporting activties of human existance in developed nations have a negative impact on life forces, including our own.

    Short of giving up all the modern conveniences, and our disposable way of life ( that we all enjoy and typically take for granted), there will always be impacts wildlife. Wind certainly isn’t perfect, but it’s a step towards less impactful energy sources, and as long as we continue to be a power-hungry society, we will continue to see negative impacts to wildlife.

    • I am an electrical engineer. You are partially correct. The problem with wind is that is it NOT owned by individuals and they have to pay large plutocrats money no matter what.
      If you want to save the world, use solar panels on your house. Reduce all the devices you use to DC and stop converting AC to DC in your home. Use LED’s for lighting and use direct DC to all your electronic devices that convert AC to DC anyway and waste more energy in the conversion.

      The only issues is for you to get a low energy use refrigerator and we have those now that run on DC or gas. Dishwasher, switch to solar water heat and use DC motors. Washing machine, the same.
      For less than $20,000 in most areas of the earth you can have 30 years of service and replace quality batteries once every 5 years. Still cost far less they buying electricity from plutocrats who push anything but individual off grid. With this system you give up NOTHING. LED’s run cheap and are very bright and ARE DC.

      All computers,m TV’s, microwaves, digital “anything”, laptops, run on DC. When you plug it in that thing called the “power supply” converts the AC to DC at a few different voltages. This is easy to convert.

      • Bob_Wallace

        You are kidding, right?

        You’re going to try to talk people into installing storage and greatly increasing their cost of electricity?

        Do you realize how little energy is lost in a DC to AC inverter?

        Do you realize how much more expensive DC appliances are than AC? You actually want people to use propane refers?

        I really don’t think you’ve given this enough thought.

        • I am an electrical engineer. Do you know how much loss there is in converting AC to DC in ALL your home appliances. Just the rectifier circuit loses about 10% and then it has to be smoothed out by capacitors that cause more loss.
          I have done the math. For 20,000 USD you can say FU to the grid and be free of it.
          Or you can be a slave to nonsense based on greed, plutocrats who lie to you and politicians.
          Your choice.

          I think you are very ignorant and being sold a pile of horse crap.

          • Bob_Wallace

            I’m off the grid. Have been for over 25 years. My present house system cost me less than $10k. OK?

            Now, being off the grid I have a pretty good understanding of how much electricity costs when one gens it for themselves. I know the price of batteries, generators and fuel.

            Been there, done that, don’t buy your ….

          • You obviously don’t know what you are doing. I am sorry but the technology has changed.

            Did you convert your entire house to DC? Install DC LED’s. NOT AC. Put in DC converter plugs for each TV or computer? Do you even understand what I am saying?

            Did you convert all your appliances to DC?

            Why do you use ANY generators if your system is designed correctly? Who taught you how to do this? Did you read any books on electrical engineering or just “wing it” from some other stupid people?

            I am sorry but you really don’t know what you are talking about. You are not really educated on modern technology.

          • Bob_Wallace

            No, and no one I know does anything with DC any longer. We’ve been there, done that.

            What one might save on panels won’t cover the cost of DC appliances.

          • Everything in your home is DC except for the motors in your washing machine. You don’t know much at all, and what you do no is an insult to scientists. So, if you want to think that those UGLY < UGLY, political BS wind turbines are nice, then you are blind also. Go look at how they destroy the beauty of nature. It is just another way to grease the palms of those who are elite rich bastards and that is all.

          • Bob_Wallace

            Let’s see…

            Table saw
            Coffee grinder

            Nope, AC motors.

            Switching out the world’s AC devices for DC devices would cost far, far more than just adding more wind/solar generation to cover the small amount of conversion loss. Got to watch that penny wise, pound foolish stuff.
            Love the majesty of those beautiful wind towers bringing us clean electricity and helping us save the planet from the ravages of burning fossil fuels.

            Do we need to do something about the pay/wealth inequality problem? Yes. But if we leave things the same as they are then 20 years from now the coal-wealthy will have been replaced by the solar-wealthy. Economic structure is divorced from energy source.

          • I have a full shop and am making a steam powered AC generator for that.

            Your shop is NOT YOUR HOME.

            If you need to run AC then get a steam generator and get off all need for this system.

            Coffee grinder, use a manual one. You turn it by hand, and get some exercise.
            Blender easy to make DC. It is a brush motor. Buy one from China for 12 dollars including shipping.

            Mixer, use a hand beater hand mixing and stop being lazy.

            We have no mixer in our home. I am 66 years old and wonder why that is so important.

            I already told you there are many low energy refrigerators. And if you have an energy hog, you can still put a DC motor on it.

            But only if you have any brains and any mechanical electrical ability.

            You want to promote more and more wasted money given to the rich elites who are the only ones making money off wind generator bull crap.

            Wind Trubines:

            They are UGLY, UGLY, destroy the beauty of every landscape.
            Only a hater of nature type of person or someone in the business of selling and making them would say anything good about them.

            I have driven across this country at least 100 times in my work and MOST OF THE TIME THE DAMN THINGS ARE NOT TURNING.

          • Bob_Wallace

            I walk directly from my kitchen into my woodworking shop. My shop is part of my house. I built it that way. (I left off my chain saw sharpener. And water wheel grinder. And compressor.)

            And I keep my blender, mixer and refer in my kitchen.

            I used a manual coffer grinder from the mid 1970’s until a few months ago. Then my wrist started giving me problems and I switched to an electric. (Plus the electric grinds finer and I use fewer beans. Less fuel spend bringing me beans.)

            By the time I buy a $12 DC motor for this and a $12 DC motor for that I will have spent enough to add a few more percent capacity to my solar array.
            Oh, I forgot my 120 vac submersible well pump. Putting a $12 DC motor in that puppy would be quite the trick.

            I recently drove through the Front Range. Marveled at the beauty of those great beasts standing tall and spinning slowly in the wind, creating clean electricity for us to use.

          • Now you are making no sense at all. A DC motor uses the same energy and AC. NO difference. WATTS are WATTS. However when you take AC and turn it into DC to run TV, computers, sound systems, lighting you are wasting energy in the conversion. Buying LED’s that run on AC is stupid because the part that uses most energy is the converting of the AC to DC at lower voltages is also the part that doesn’t last. The LED”s last for a least 10,000 hours. .

            In my expert opinion all new houses need to be made energy efficient and without any perceivable loss of convenience. The only problem with this is that it is far less impact on the environment, and no money goes to plutocrats and politicians.

            The plutocrats now have liberal idiots putting solar panels on their houses and selling electricity back to the grid at below wholesale, and then buying it back at extremely high profits.

            How stupid does a person have to be to not know basic economic math.

            In less than 10 years a house made this intelligent way will have free electric for the remaining 20 years of solar panel life and you have NO electric bills and no need for any connection to the grid. Basically it is $166 per month for 10 years then free for 20 years. Batteries replaced every 10 years.

            Solar panels are not as toxic to make to the environment as it is to make huge fiberglass styrene manufacturing used in wind turbines, which is hazardous to all animals and humans.

            This ideology sold to the public has only one purpose to destroy the environment, and to make a plutocrat’s dream come true.

            There is a reason why they are so UGLY. The whole industry behind it is ugly, greedy and liars.

          • Apparently you have never designed nor built anything and are a victim of fraud and will never accept this reality.

          • Bob_Wallace

            Apparently you are wrong.

            But thanks for playing.

            “What does our contestant get as a consolation prize, Johnny?”

            “A new pair of house slippers? Great! Let’s hope they’re the fuzzy kind.”

            “And now a word from our sponsors….”


            Here is a great video on the life cycles of carbon based life on earth. LEARN from it. Carbon is the foundation of life on earth it is not a poison. Who ever sells this idea does so by taking advantage of stupid people.

          • Bob_Wallace

            If you don’t understand the difference between the normal carbon cycle and what happens if it gets overloaded then what sort of engineer could you be? This is such basic science.

          • You don’t understand anything I have taught you from real science. There is no such thing as a carbon footprint. The earth and all life is carbon based. CARBON IS GOOD>

            Watch the video and learn how it life really is.

            The oil in the ground is LIFE and SO is coal.

            It is not evil as you think. Your beliefs are from brainwashing.

          • Bob_Wallace

            We don’t shout at each other around here.

            Kill the allcaps stuff.

          • You have an uncanny knack of not reading what I say and using “straw man” arguments based on NOT reading.

            Let me make this clear. I am an electrical/mechanical engineer. I design and build factories. I am pro business and economy and environmentally fully aware how the ecosystem works.. I am against all stupid forms of human ignorance and I want the environment to be free from UGLY, crap destroying the beauty of nature for no reason other than some ideological BS.

            If you own stock in a wind turbine company or some crap like that then be honest.

            I have driven across this country over 100 times because of my work. And it has gotten progressively UGLY out in open areas that used to be pristine because of UGLY non rotating wind turbines.

            90% of them are NEVER turning. Therefor, from first hand experience, they are a fraud on the public. Sold as something good, when at the core is some rich people working the stupid masses into some emotional frenzy over electric power from coal or some other fantasy.

            Do you even know what coal is? It is the most natural fuel there is, and so is petroleum. All of that carbon based fuel was on top of the earth at one time feeding nature and turning it into plants and animals, just like now.

            Burning it the way we do now is full combustion, which leaves almost no un-burned hydrocarbons. Do you understand what I am talking about in terms of chemistry?

            Bringing it back to the top and burning it feeds the ecosystem. Feeds plant life.

            Clearing fields of trees and plant life is a problem and if you fill the fields with wind turbines, you cannot grow trees. The trees and wind turbines are not compatible. Trees block wind.

            It is human stupidity on parade, fed by BS from rich politicians and greedy bankers ready to reap huge profits from selling emotionalism and fear to the stupid, poorly educated, public.

            Speaking of which we got the news today that 40% of high school seniors in the USA cannot read nor write and do not have rudimentary math skills, can’t understand even how to balance a checkbook.

  • Sven DiMIlo

    There’s something deliciously ironic in an article about ‘debunking myths’ and ‘clear thinking’ being written by a ‘Classical Homeopath’.

  • marykaybarton

    Cars, cats, and buildings do NOT typically KILL EAGLES, whooping cranes, bats, and many other endangered avian species — Industrial wind turbines do.

    There is an old saying which tells us, “When bats become extinct, the human race is next.” For some reason, bats are drawn towards wind turbines where their lungs explode due to pressure differentials – something known as “Barotrauma.” If bats can be so negatively impacted by industrial wind turbines, what about human beings who are stuck living TOO CLOSE?!? What about children living in these homes, who are far more sensitive as they are still growing and developing???

    Question for Ms. Shahan – Would you buy and move your family into a home within the sprawling footprint of an industrial wind factory – with its 430-foot-tall towers and their 7-ton, bird-chopping blades spinning overhead, only hundreds of feet from your home??? We have yet to meet anyone who boasts about the wonders of wind who would.

    With $BILLIONS of taxpayer & ratepayer dollars spent, and over 250,000 industrial wind turbines installed worldwide today, rounded to the nearest whole number, worldwide electricity generation from wind is still ZERO. That’s right – ZERO.

    No conventional power plants have been closed thanks to wind, and CO2 emissions have not been significantly reduced anywhere. Furthermore, wind costs more jobs than it creates – in large part due to its associated “skyrocketing electricity rates” – one promise Obama has actually made good on.

    With 308 430-foot-tall industrial wind turbines, and their 7-ton bird-chopping blades spinning over peoples’ homes here in Wyoming County of Western New York State – NO meaningful, permanent jobs have been created here, but peoples’ most expensive life investments – their homes, have been rendered virtually worthless.

    As has been correctly cited by Environmentalist Jon Boone, “The only thing reliably-generated by industrial wind has been complete and utter civil discord.” Industrial wind is a civil, economic, and environmental disaster!

  • Grad

    Global warming will wipe out millions of birds, many of them unique species driven towards extinction. Compare this to those couple of bird deaths because of wind turbines.

    • RIDICULOUS. YOU ACTUALLY BELIEVE THAT? Humans destroying habitat is the cause!

      • A Real Libertarian

        So are you claiming climate change doesn’t destroy habitats?

        Or, are you claiming climate change isn’t caused by humans?

        • Climate change is natural and even if it is caused by man it will self balance. These fuels we use once were on the top of the earth and are part of the ecosystem. Like when an entire forest burns it puts huge amounts of CO2 and natural fertilizers in the air, which comes down as rain and cause a renewed forest in a few years with far better health than the one that burned. Then it gets old and it burns over and over.
          This ash from burned hydrocarbons is used by plankton in the ocean to feed the bottom line of life in the ocean.

          If the air warms then plants will grow better and there will be more rain. More rain is healthy for the earth.

          All of the fossil fuels were at one time on top of the earth in the form of life and vegetation. It is a perfectly natural and recycled fuel. It is also self replenishing over time. There is no magical permanent damage by these cycles of energy on earth.

          It amazes me that people fall for the religion of plutocrats used to make profits for them. Are people really that stupid? The answer is obvious.

          • A Real Libertarian

            At least now we know what the “F” in “Good Science F You” means.

          • So, basically, you believe in support the rich and powerful and destroying the landscape, positioning the air and believing that humans can overcome greed and power hungry politicians. It is these same humans who are destroying all life on earth and this is just another ignorant but extremely profitable pile of BS.

            The history of humans is mostly division, hate, power, war, bottomless pit of greed and if they sell you this human greedy crap as some form of religious idea that something that is actually destroying the environment is “good for it” because the paid off shills of the government, the fake “scientists” are the salespeople who make a train load of money if they just don’t make any waves or tell the truth.

            Every hear of the cigarette lobby. The big pharma lobby, the paid off politicians or do you live in a bubble of “hunky dory” as long as the BS works for you.

            You need a dose of George Carlin or something.

          • Bob_Wallace

            Good (do you have a name?), do you want to discuss renewable, clean energy or do just want to thrash around and make noise?

            Your choice….

          • There is NOTHING clean about wind turbines. Unless you don’t know anything about the toxins used to manufacture, and the huge profits made. The fact that is destroys any possible trees in the area, and is very inefficient, and most of these stupid things are not running right now, but the keep putting more and more UGLY wind turbines destroying the natural beauty of our earth.

            If there is no money then the government greedy politicians would never sell this crap.

            I don’t know how to get through to you. I think it is a hopeless cause of emotional attachment to what you believe. It is certainly not based on any physics or life science anywhere in any book.

          • Do you also promote GMO’s, you hero Bill Gates thinks that corn that causes sterility in humans is a good idea to send to Africa. Most elite rich people have no concern at all for life, they just want to stay rich.

          • A Real Libertarian

            you hero Bill Gates thinks that corn that causes sterility in humans is a good idea to send to Africa

            Bill Gates thinks that wind power doesn’t work:


          • A Real Libertarian

            The cigarette lobbyists are now working for fossil fuel companies claiming that climate change is fake.

            P.S. I prefer Bill Hicks.

          • Bob_Wallace

            Climate change has happened for reasons other than humans burning fossil fuels (and some other things that humans have been doing to excess). But this time it is on us.

            Yes, things will self balance. Eventually. After we will have put humans and other living things through a few centuries of extreme hurt.

            It’s clear that some people are stupid…..

      • Bob_Wallace

        Shouting is coming down. Watch your head!

        (Kill the allcaps stuff.)

        • A Real Libertarian

          Here’s something for that:

  • Bob Smith

    Oh boy…. I like to start talking about bird kills by talking about airplanes. Let’s say some wind-nut company signs an option for land at the end of a regional airports runway. Let’s say they successfully get their project approved and build their 600 ft towers. Let’s say a few months an airplane crashes into one of these tragically…. all hypothetical. Such an incident would not be justification to ban ALL wind turbines everywhere – I think we call agree on that logically. Similarly with birds – building turbines in the middle of bird sanctuaries, parks, migration routes, and major bird habitat will have a significant impact on the LOCAL bird population. Bird fatality is a site-based impact – specific to the site.

    Unfortunately, the wind industry has a terrible record of paying any attention to its impact on … well… anything. In fact, as a marketing organization it goes out of its way to state that its product has no impact on anything or anybody anywhere. That’s just what GWEC, AWEA, CANWEA and all the other WEA’s do. And they do it very, very well.

    So if the Wind Industry finally admitted that there are many sites where they SHOULD NOT build their product, and clearly adopted mandatory practices for its many, many members to follow, that would be nice. But they won’t.

    Its pretty simple. If you build lots of spinning towers in places where there are lots of birds flying about, you’re going to kill a lot of birds.

    Those wind towers go where there aren’t highways, skyscrapers, legions of domestic cats, etc. etc. etc. It is a NEW hazard to birds introduced invasively into THEIR habitat. The end result will be MORE fatalities and likely in the case of a few threatened avian species, a tipping over the threshold towards extinction. I’m not sure how many Whooping Cranes are killed annually by domestic cats or cars but if you put several THOUSAND wind turbine smack in the middle of their migration path – well you get the picture. It doesn’t matter whether COAL plants killed the first 50%, it only matters that something new kills the last 1%. Its called “Cumulative Impact” in ecological circles and it is the consideration TOGETHER of ALL hazards.

    You know it doesn’t really matter to us humans whether turbines kill off the last 300 Whooping Cranes or finish off an eagle species here or there. That is a tragedy but for us erect-walkers, life goes on. We’ve killed a few things off before and we’ll kill off more – that’s just the natural order of things. BUT, if we do finish off BATS – already under siege from other forms of habitat deprivation, white-nose fungus and a few other things – well…. that’s when we’re really dicking around with our kids future…. BATS is the real serious impact – we NEED bats – lots and lots of them. And Turbines are incredibly efficient bat-killers – way better at killing bats than cats or cars, or coal plants. That’s why the industry is very, very silent about BAT kills – it is a potentially industry-threatening impact.

    • Bob_Wallace

      I quit reading your comment after this part –

      “So if the Wind Industry finally admitted that there are many sites where they SHOULD NOT build their product, and clearly adopted mandatory practices for its many, many members to follow, that would be nice. But they won’t.”

      That’s is so incredibly wrong.

      Please, educate yourself.

      • marykaybarton

        In fact Mr. Wallace, Mr. Smith is correct.

        Wind Industry standards we uncovered recommend setbacks for the safety of their own workers should be a minimum of 1300 feet. Yet, as many times as these facts were submitted during public hearings in our rural-residential area here in Western New York State, the wind industry salesmen working the area here (Michael Polsky’s Inevenrgy, in this case) — relentlessly pushed for the very unsafe setbacks of only 700 feet from peoples’ homes – with no regard at all for the health, safety and welfare of residents in the area.

        The criminally-negligent disregard for non-participating neighbors within the massive sprawling footprint of industrial wind factories is because the 700-foot setbacks were the only way the project would “fit” within the more densely populated Town.

        The only conclusion we can draw from our personal experience of dealing with these wind snake-oil salesmen is that the wind industry does NOT care at all about people, and “will NOT adopt mandatory practices for its members to follow” because all they care about is their bottom line – taxpayers, ratepayers & rural residents be damned.

    • James Van Damme

      Therefore, each of the hundreds of turbines should have a large pile of dead bats at the bottom. And there should be pictures of them, somewhere….?

      I’m surprised you haven’t brought up the impact on air route surveillance radar. Because that’s something I actually know something about.

    • Bob_Wallace

      “Those wind towers go where there aren’t highways, skyscrapers, legions
      of domestic cats, etc. etc. etc. It is a NEW hazard to birds introduced
      invasively into THEIR habitat. The end result will be MORE fatalities
      and likely in the case of a few threatened avian species, a tipping over
      the threshold towards extinction.”

      This “concern” can be dismissed because wind farms replace coal and coal kills 35x more birds per GWh of electricity than wind.

      Wind is a bird savior.

      Bat kills is something of a problem. There seems to be two different problems. One is kills during migration. That problem is being solved by turning off turbines during migration times which is a week or two. The other problem is bat kills while feeding. That problem is being solved by turning off turbines when wind speeds are low. Insects fly only when wind speed are adequately low. Higher wind = no bugs = no bats flying around.

      Your statements about the wind industry not working to minimize bird/bat deaths is 100% bullshit.

  • Bob_Wallace

    From a comment on another site –

    There are over 20,000 Golden Eagles and over 9000 breeding pairs of Bald
    Eagles in the lower 48 states per the Department of Interior and US
    Fish and Wildlife Service. Please try to keep the deaths in perspective.
    The number killed by the over 50, 000 thousand of wind turbines in the
    US is about 13 per year.

    • Jim Wiegand

      Bob likes to cut and paste from bogus studies. There are not
      over 20,000 Golden Eagles in the lower 48 states.

      Anyone wanting the truth from an expert not hired on behalf of the wind
      industry should read the following articles: EDITORIAL: GOLDEN EAGLES

      Expert: San Diego Wind Farm May Devastate Eagle Population


      Readers will also gain insight into to how wind industry studies are manipulated to hide the truth.

      • Bob_Wallace

        Status of Golden Eagles
        The most recent survey of Golden Eagles
        across four large Bird Conservation
        Regions (BCRs) in the West (80 percent
        of the species’ range in the lower 48
        states is in these BCRs) provided an
        estimate of 20,722 Golden Eagles of all
        ages across the survey area.
        Sorry, Jim, you are simply too dishonest to remain in the discussion. We don’t play your bullshit game here.

        • Why are you defending something so UGLY and inefficient, wasteful and stupid as wind turbines.
          You must have some stock in a wind turbine company.
          I have a good friend who works for one. They are made of all sorts of toxic chemicals, air pollutants. Toxic to humans, animals and yet this is supposed to be “environmentally friendly”. Libtards are full of hypocrisy.

          • Bob_Wallace

            I’m taking down all further posts in which you shout at us.

            If you create a lot of work then you’ll simply be banned.

            Is that clear?

            BTW, this site also does not allow people to call each other names. We attempt to engage in civil and reasoned discussion. So no more warnings on the name calling.

            Now, are turbines ugly? Some think so, some think not.

            Do we stop ripping the tops off mountains because that’s ugly? So far, we haven’t.

            Are wind turbines made of ” all sorts of toxic chemicals, air pollutants”? I’m sure there are some. The same can be said of the solar panels you love.

            There are no perfect solutions. We have to choose the “least bad”. Wind and solar are far less bad than coal and natural gas.

  • Bob_Wallace

    How about we take a look at the recently released statement by the AWEA on eagle kills? This followed a piece of poor reporting of the type we’ve seen a couple of people do in this thread….

    As with previous coverage by Associated Press’s Dina Cappiello on eagles and wind energy, critical context about wind power and wildlife went missing from her report today. It is concerning that Ms. Cappiello again minimizes wind power’s perspective despite an abundance of important information made available to her.

    No one takes wildlife impacts more seriously than the wind industry, and while unfortunately some eagles occasionally collide with turbines at some wind farms, this is not a common occurrence: fatalities of golden eagles at modern wind facilities represent only 2 percent of all documented sources of human caused eagle fatalities, while only a few bald eagles have died in collisions in the history of the industry. Yet the industry is committed to, and strives for, further reducing these impacts.

    This figure is far lower than eagle fatalities due to other leading causes, including lead poisoning, poisoning in general, electrocutions, collisions with vehicles, drowning in stock tanks, and illegal shootings. Further, the only reason we know as much as we do is because unlike these other sources, the wind industry is conducting pre- and
    post-construction surveys and self-reporting the losses.

    Further, a recent study published in the Journal of Wildlife Management shows stable golden eagle populations throughout North America. The lead author is Brian Millsap, National Raptor Coordinator with FWS.

    This study examined population data throughout the range of golden eagles over the past four decades (i.e., 1968-2010) and found that the population has, in general, remained stable, and in fact slightly increased overall. The study concludes, “Our results clarify that golden eagles are not declining widely in the western United States.”

    This is an important data point, which contradicts claims that golden eagle populations have been declining throughout their range, with some in the anti-wind community attributing that trend to the expansion of wind energy. Despite the fact that this information was delivered to the AP on deadline before the story was published, it makes no mention of the fact that there is no decline in golden eagles in the American

    Even so, the wind industry is and will remain actively engaged with both the regulatory and conservation communities to find ways of further avoiding, minimizing and fully mitigating for any impacts to both eagle species.

    An infographic with the story also uses a contentious figure of bird strikes at wind farms, despite our sending her a comprehensive analysis showing in detail why that figure reflects the opinion of one biologist and is an outlier when compared to other mortality estimates conducted by numerous biologists and statisticians over the past several decades.

    When we realized several of these facts went missing in Ms. Cappiello’s story, we submitted them in an online comment on the AP site. While the comment was ultimately approved and posted, that process took more than a day.

    Ultimately, the story exaggerates the point of view of less credible opponents of wind power. It omits mainstream bird conservation groups such as National Audubon Society and National Wildlife Federation, which support developing more wind power because it helps avoid the vastly greater wildlife impacts of other forms of energy. And it leaves out information on the progress made by the industry-conservation
    partnership, American Wind Wildlife Institute, which we’ve provided Ms. Cappiello previously.

    We again urge AP to treat this topic more fairly and not with unbalanced advocacy journalism that relies on misleading and incomplete information, and lacks context for its readers’ understanding of a complex issue.

    Notice the dishonest of the AP story? Similar to anything you’ve read recently?

    • marykaybarton

      As mentioned in my post above — the wind industry has proven that they don’t even care about people, let alone wildlife.

  • Jim Wiegand

    Canada Ranks Top Bird Killers but they also endorse bogus mortality studies.

    Just how bogus are wind industry mortality studies?…………………… “mortalities officially recorded in the industry’s two 2011 6 month reports totaled 442 birds, 24 raptors and 533 bats. In reality, after taking into account the various methods used to minimize carcass counts, the Wolfe Island turbines are actually slaughtering 644 raptors, 21,512 other birds and 29,831 bats!”

    “Based on carcass locations reported, searchers only examined
    a total area equivalent to about 1/6 of a 50-meter search radius around each
    turbine (1/6 of 7,854 square meters or 0.33 acres) – when they should have
    searched a 200-meter-radius area (31 acres), an area 94 times larger.

    “In my expert opinion, the 86 Wolf Island turbines are killing over 50,000 birds and bats a year, including many vitally important species. This is more than 250 fatalities per MW, and more than 500 per turbine”.

    “Properly designed and executed studies would show similar numbers – with far more species showing up on the mortality lists, beyond thefew listed in the official reports”.

    The methodology of the Wolfe Island studies was endorsed by Canadian officials.

  • Roy L Hales

    There are two things I find very disturbing about this article.

    First, the persistent use of statistics to hide the real problem. The real debate is about the impact these wind turbines are having on raptor populations, not the total number of bird fatalities. You do not read about many Golden Eagles, or other raptors, killing themselves crashing into windows. Though experts may be divided in their explanations as to the reason, California’s Golden Eagle population is disappearing.

    Second, there is the attempt to dismiss criticisms by claiming they are paid for by oil companies. This is both insulting and misleading.

    • Bob_Wallace

      The problem with Golden kills is limited to a very few wind farms. Altamont Pass was a bad one for Goldens but now most of the problem has been eliminated with taller, monopod towers and slower rotating blades.

      I really doubt that the oil industry is paying for any anti-wind activities, wind does not impinge on their profits. The coal industry however….

      • Jim Wiegand

        Golden Eagles are killed in every location across the world there are turbines and eagles. The information about so many golden eagles being killed at Altamont is primarily because the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area must do annual mortality studies and keep track of raptor kills. Thanks to our government agencies, most other wind farm locations do not have these requirements. Even so the mortality to thousands of birds and bats is still hidden at Altamont with the use of 30-90 day search intervals. Enough time for most carcasses to disappear.

        • Bob_Wallace

          Right. Zillions of great big birds are being killed but we can’t find the evidence.

          • Jim Wiegand

            Bob I do not understand why you would support an industry that uses mortality search areas for protected species, 94 times to small (Wolfe Island) and search intervals of 30-90 days (Altamont), allowing enough time for most carcasses to disappear.

            I do not know why you would support an industry that does not look for or count eagles and other high priority species found outside “their” tiny search areas, 94 times too small.

            And I certainly do not understand how anyone in good
            conscience could make any mortality comparisons about wind energy when all the data is severely flawed and completely unreliable.

          • Bob_Wallace

            Because I’ve read some of the studies and know that many/most are far more careful than what you describe. Many of the studies involve daily bird counts over long periods of time. And scientist/biologists are quite careful about getting stuff right.

            The 30/90 day sorts of counts are simply followups to assure that things haven’t changed. When field biologists do a 30 day count in no way do they assume that they are observing all the birds killed in the last 30 days. They are comparing that count to previous 30 day counts. It’s fairly simple sampling policy.

            I suspect you haven’t read the literature but have glommed onto a couple of things taken out of context and used to support anti-wind efforts.

          • Jim Wiegand

            Sorry but I have read every mortality ever conducted at Altamont and many others from across the country. So tell us, exactly what good is being careful and searching daily if your designated search areas are 94 times too small? Let us know exactly which studies have you actually read? Also tell readers anything about your background that gives expertise on any of this.

          • Bob_Wallace

            Being that you’ve read every Altamont Pass study would mean that you’ve read “Avian Mortatlity at Rotor Swept Area Equivalents, Altamont Pass and Montezuma Hills, California” by Howell, 1997 – the first study I opened from Google Scholar.

            And you would have read that they surveyed twice a week for almost two years. And that they started with 250′ transits but reduced the distance to 150′ because they were finding no carcasses at the extremes.

            You’d know, having read the literature, that this is how field studies are typically carried out. In fact you would know that there papers and books written on the correct way to carry out field studies.

            But you, with full knowledge of your actions, cherry-pick a couple of pieces and use them to misrepresent the science.

          • CaptD


            Nice try, hoping to generate (pun intended) anti-wind turbine buzz by calling out the Wind Industry for “mis-information”!

            How about all the bogus information from the Nuclear Industry GLOBALLY of which Japan’s Fukushima is the poster boy of *Nuclear Baloney (NB)*? It is so bad that even MSM is scared to even mention it; compared to that the wind Industry is PERFECT.

            Japanese governor calls out TEPCO for ‘institutionalized lying’



          • marykaybarton

            Bob, You must live in a city, as you seem to be totally clueless about wildlife. We have an extremely healthy carnivore populations in our rural areas – ie: coyotes, fox, wild cats & dogs, bear, turkey vultures, etc…. Nothing makes for improving their populations than easy pickin’s hurled to the ground by turbines.

          • Are you a government shill?

          • Bob_Wallace

            Keep it under control.

          • If you don’t understand what I am talking about, the ask me.

            I am up to date on modern solar technology. You know we have panels now that last 35 years with 80% output?
            You do know about LED.s? That they actually run on DC?
            You do know that ALL of your home appliances run on DC except for the motors which can be converted to DC?

            You do know that modern batteries last over 10 years if you regulate the charging and use anti sulfide chemicals?

            You do know that the world has made all sorts of advancement in this area?

            Why would you promote slavery to large plutocrats over cheap electricity?

          • Bob_Wallace

            Panels degrade 0.5% or less depending on the conditions under which they are mounted. UV and wind can speed degradation.


            The University of Oldenburg array suffered a 0.4 W loss over 35 years. 3,88% total loss. 0.1% per year loss.
            LEDs run both AC and DC. Due to economies of scale we’re going to get more affordable, higher lumen bubs in “AC packages”.

            The new Trojan RE series is rated at 4,000 20% DoD cycles. That’s about 11 years. Just installed a set about two months ago.

            I’m not interested in your political blather. It’s causing you to do bad math. Going off the grid (unless you have a 12 month hydro system) just is more expensive than grid power. (Except in a few places such as Australia or Hawaii.)

          • I can’t help the ignorant. You cannot buy a solar panel today for use on a home that is not warranted to last for 30 years, because that is the length of the loan on most houses. If you buy some cheap piece of crap because you are cheap, then you would be unhappy. Understand?

            Therefore they guarantee MODERN panels, made for this purpose, designed by Germans, not stupid Americans to last for 30 years with 80% of the original output on any UV situation.
            You can put them on a home in extreme altitude as we find in the mountains of Colorado and they are just fine.

            If you are some sort of shill for plutocrats then you would listen to them and be ignorant. Or you are just here to be “politically correct” and lie to people in order to sell some ignorant agenda to use very ugly wind turbines that make a lot of money for the rich who build them.

            Getting off the grid is what they don’t want. Everything they sell to the public is to make money.

            Stupid people always trust their government.

          • It is a simple question. Government shills work these boards all the time to keep the greed train working for them.

          • Bob_Wallace

            Please point one out to me and I shall smite him with the fury of a thousand dragons.

          • A Real Libertarian

            Bob, it’s pretty oblivious that you’re a government shill, given that you still insist that Obama isn’t a Kenyan, Islamo-Marxist, Nazi, Ninja from France who double-fecklessed BENGHAZI!!!BENGHAZI!!!BENGHAZI!!! on purpose.

          • If it smell like a government shill, sounds like one that promotes the death of the human species, destroying life on earth, then it is one. Go look in the mirror.

          • Bob_Wallace

            You’ve now violated an adequate number of site rules.


      • marykaybarton

        Mr. Wallace,

        Nothing has exposed your bias and ignorance on the subject than your final sentence above. Apparently, you are clueless to the fact that it is the very same big, “bad” coal, oil, gas and nuclear corporations who own wind – ie: GE, BP, AES, FPL, Iberdrola, E.On, etc…

        Wind’s purpose is still the same as in the days of ENRON (the initiator of industrial wind in the U.S.) – Wind serves as a tax-shelter generator for these mega-corporations – many of whom have not paid any federal income taxes in the U.S. in years.

    • marykaybarton

      Some very good articles by some very smart ornithologists:

      “Location, Location, Location… Migration, Migration, Migration,” by Wayne Wegner, The Wildlife Wizard:

      “The Sierra Club: How Support for Industrial Wind Technology Subverts Its History, Betrays Its Mission, and Erodes Commitment to the Scientific Method,” by Jon Boone:

  • This argument is popular among wind advocates, but it really doesn’t stand up to scientific scrutiny.

  • RamboSTiTCH

    One interesting tidbit from the pdf is on page 18, where it shows the table of all the sources of mortality. “Hydro reservoirs” kill 152,162 (think nests) while the “power – wind energy” median number is 16,700. So hydo kills 10 times more than wind!

  • Jim Wiegand

    The public needs to understand that this is not a green industry but a disgraceful industry that has been hiding behind fraudulent studies for several decades. Hidden has been the fact that these turbines are such prolific killers that in years to come these turbines will be the reason for the extinction of many species. I am not talking about starlings and pigeons but rare species that live in remote habitats.

    One of the wind industry’s biggest deceptions is in the methodology of
    their mortality studies that are used to hide reported mortality. It one of the
    primary reasons that the true mortality from these turbines is 10, 20, or even
    100 times greater than what is reported in wind industry studies.

    Imagine taking batting practice and hitting baseballs from home plate.
    Direct hits are launched far away and the pop-ups land close to you. The wind
    industry’s contrived studies are designed to look for the pop-ups (birds and
    bats) around the tower bases and under the blades. This is the area where most
    of the turbine blade strike carcasses will not be found. This pattern of
    distribution showing most of the carcasses landing much further away from the
    turbine blades was proven at Altamont.

    A Major League baseball swing has a speed of about 70 mph. The huge blade tips of the industry’s turbines move three times faster. Even pedestrians hit by a cars at ground level can be thrown 50-75 feet from the point of impact. Yet wind industry studies and your government expect people to believe birds and bats to drop right under the turbine blades after being smacked by 200 mph impacts hundreds of feet in the air. There in no doubt that industry’s studies are deliberately set up to avoid locating these carcasses.

    The blade strike slaughter from wind turbines applies to everything that flies that must share the same habitat with these turbines. This includes bees and other insects as well. For birds and bats the mortality footprint of every single turbine reaches out thousands of miles because of migration patterns of these species.

    The wind industry hides over 90% of their mortality with “their” studies. When taking into consideration the rigged methodology in mortality studies, it has been determined that the birds killed by these turbines are in the many millions each year in America. Most are highly protected species but this industry gets a free pass for their slaughter and a free pass for their fraudulent studies.

    Everyone should search the internet because there is a terrible history behind the development and expansion of these turbines that is finally coming out.

    • Gen Xer

      Good job on removing this guy’s (“Jim Wiegand”) stoooopid & malicious “comments”…..
      This RANT above needs 2 b treated similarly…. to the trash bin!! 🙂

      • Laura Griffin

        Are you always so afraid of information that might cast a shadow on anything you consider green?

        • Bob_Wallace

          No, Laura.

          It’s just that we are tired of idiotic claims by ignorant people.

          • Laura Griffin

            Because they’re not part of your ‘green’ bible, they’re idiotic claims? Nothing so terrible as someone who puts on the blinders so that their religion isn’t offended.

          • Bob_Wallace

            When one doesn’t seem to be able to understand the difference between 1, 2.2 and 38 then certain opinions are formed about that individual.

          • marykaybarton

            It has been my experience that people who resort to personal attacks because they do not have the facts to back up their positions.

      • Jim Wiegand

        Censorship will backfire

    • The only reason for these UGLY wind turbines is huge profits for politicians and plutocrats. It takes only a tiny bit of scientific understanding to realize that the “grid” must be maintained in order to have huge profits and to scare people into ridiculous and expensive electricity.

      You can take your house off the grid, using a far less harmful solar technology and it will cost you about $83 per month for 30 years and the rate will never go up. There would be zero concessions on energy usage and a fully functioning home, that never has a power outage.

      These UGLY wind turbines destroy land where trees need to be planted where we need to restore vegetation, not put up UGLY wasteful hogs of time and space.

      The materials used to make these turbines is far more toxic than solar panels ever will be. Any composite engineer knows this.

      When I travel across the country 90% of these turbines are NEVER turning and are “feathered” the “propellers are aimed so they don’t turn”. Why is that? Could it be that these things are frauds? Yet we keep seeing more and more of them just sitting there not turning.

      Pay attention next time you see a field full of these UGLY things how many are actually turning even in a tremendous amount of wind?

  • Laura Griffin

    I find it interesting that this article says that wind turbines are not toxic. Maybe not once built, however, an article that was published last week stated that the production of wind turbines creates as much (if not more) radioactive waste as the nuclear industry does each year.
    Vestas (the turbine manufacturer) states in an internal report (easily Googled online) that one ton of toxic and hazardous waste is created with the production of every single turbine blade. One ton of waste. Where does everyone think it goes?
    Just because something is labelled ‘green’ does not mean that everyone should just blindly close their eyes to the fact that they can also be environmentally damaging.

    • Ivor O’Connor

      Perhaps you ought to educate yourself. Start with the Vestas internal report you apparently don’t understand:

      • Laura Griffin

        So reading that link, Vestas has reduced their hazardous waste by 42.5% in the past year. That’s to be applauded. So now, they create just over HALF a ton of hazardous and toxic waste for each turbine blade. Can you explain how that makes wind turbines “pollution free”?

        • Ivor O’Connor

          I could. However you are just a hater that can’t be bothered to think. I don’t want to waste time.

          • Laura Griffin

            How am I a ‘hater’? Such a childish school-yard term. I’m not a hater. I actually have been an activist for the environment since the 60’s. I’ve marched in all sorts of protests to fight for the preservation of our planet.
            I’ve written enough letters to enough politicians to fill a small library over the past 50 years. I’ve donated untold thousands of dollars to the WWF, the Audabon Society, etc.

            Just because over the years, I’ve figured out that big multi-billion dollar industries have found out that if they label something ‘green’, people will fall for it, hook-line-and-sinker, doesn’t mean I’m not still fighting for this earth.

            Yet somehow this makes me a hater. Interesting.

          • Bob_Wallace

            And here’s what the Audubon Society has to say about wind turbines –

            “For Audubon, wind power is a good news, bad news story. The good news is that many new wind-power projects are being proposed across the country. For example, not long ago I flew over South Dakota and saw hundreds of wind turbines dotting the landscape. The state of Texas recently announced its intention to become the country’s wind-power capital.

            The bad news is that wind turbines sometimes kill a lot of birds. Some early wind projects like Altamont in California are notorious for killing many raptors, including golden eagles. Modern wind turbines are much safer for birds than their predecessors, but if they are located in the wrong places, they can still be hazardous and can fragment critical habitat. In cases where the birds affected are already in trouble, such as sage grouse in windy parts of the plains states, the turbines could push them closer to extinction.

            On balance, Audubon strongly supports wind power as a clean alternative energy source that reduces the threat of global warming. Location, however, is important. ”


            I don’t know that you’re a “hater” or an industry shill, Laura. I’m willing assume that you might be a seriously concerned environmentalist.

            That said, you are in my opinion focusing on the wrong part of our energy system in your attempt to save birds. It’s coal that is really killing birds, not wind. Go after coal. That’s our common enemy.

          • Jim Wiegand

            The Audubon society is and has been endorsing a very deceitful industry for about the last 15 years.The Audubon
            society endorses an industry that hides over 90% of their mortality to protected species.This practice should outrage a group like the Audubon Society but it doesn’t (Money).

            For them it is OK to dismiss from studies, mortality wounded birds like golden and bald eagles that wander for days away from the turbines with amputated wings, legs or smashed bones. In a recently released AP image
            (September 11, 2013 ) of bald eagle killed by a wind turbine, the dead bald eagle is well over 400 meters from the nearest turbines. The wind industry’s “scientific” studies do not look for or count these bodies in their mortality studies because they are located outside their tiny designated search areas. Peer reviewed or not, there is nothing scientific about this wind industry charade.

            You will never hear this from Audubon but no source of energy production even comes to killing eagles and other protected species like the wind industry does. It is
            important for the public to understand that they are being duped by this industry and from the silence of groups like the Audubon Society.

            So despite what any uneducated spokesman from the Audubon Society claims, no honest mortality studies have ever been conducted around the industry’s wind turbines and no honest cumulative impact studies have been conducted on the species being slaughtered by these turbines. Otherwise they would have found an 80-90% rate
            of abandonment in the golden eagle habitat in California due to the mortality from wind turbines. I found this rate of
            territory abandonment hidden in surveys that were conducted over thousands of square miles for Solar Energy Projects.

            It has been about 14 months since I made this public and there has not been one word about this decline from Audubon or any new surveys planned to document this terrible wind turbine impact. It is all too obvious that Audubon and other conservation groups are standing on the sidelines for this deceitful industry.

          • Bob_Wallace

            Jim, you are simply posting crap.

            We aren’t interested in your disinformation.

          • Jim Wiegand

            Mt postings are not for you. They are for other readers.

          • Bob_Wallace

            If your postings are not for me then they are for no one who reads this site. Take your junk elsewhere.

    • Gen Xer

      So “Laura”… do u “work” 4 the nuclear industry, or do you just play one on TV?….
      You guys don’t even try to disguise yourselves anymore:
      “an article published last week stated”….? Where’s the LINK
      “internal report (easily Googled online)….? Can YOU Google OFFLINE? If you’re such a geenie-ous maybe you can show that mysterious internal document….. maybe you found it next to Saddam’s Phantom WMD….

      “You ARE the weakest link!!!” Google this…

    • James Van Damme

      I don’t know where you get “radioactive”. Do you have any idea what it is?

      • Valewood

        According to that article released last week….

        “Estimates of the exact amount of rare earth minerals in wind turbines vary, but in any case the numbers are staggering. According to the Bulletin of Atomic Sciences, a 2 megawatt (MW) wind turbine contains about 800 pounds of neodymium and 130 pounds of dysprosium. The MIT study cited above estimates that a 2 MW wind turbine contains about 752 pounds of rare earth minerals.

        To quantify this in terms of environmental damages, consider that mining one ton of rare earth minerals produces about one ton of radioactive waste, according to the Institute for the Analysis of Global Security. In 2012, the U.S. added a record 13,131 MW of wind generating capacity. That means that between 4.9 million pounds (using MIT’s estimate) and 6.1 million pounds (using the Bulletin of Atomic Science’s estimate) of rare earths were used in wind turbines installed in 2012. It also means that between 4.9 million and 6.1 million pounds of radioactive waste were created to make these wind turbines.

        For perspective, America’s nuclear industry produces between 4.4 million and 5 million pounds of spent nuclear fuel each year. That means the U.S. wind industry may well have created more radioactive waste last year than our entire nuclear industry produced in spent fuel. In this sense, the nuclear industry seems to be doing more with less: nuclear energy comprised about one-fifth of America’s electrical generation in 2012, while wind accounted for just 3.5 percent of all electricity generated in the United States.”


        • Bob_Wallace

          You’re not trying to say that uranium ore is the same as the concentrated uranium in nuclear reactor waste are you?

          • Valewood

            I quoted the article. I didn’t write it.

          • James Van Damme

            Well, you need to see if those 6 million pounds of “radioactive waste” really do exist, and whether it is kept in sealed casks in holding pools surrounded by guards for the next 100,000 years. Also, the rare earths are not used up every year, they will run for 20 years and then get recycled. Spent fuel just piles up, and up, every year. Wind is free.

          • Valewood

            Yeah, I know. Wind is free. So is coal and gas and oil and water. What’s your point?

          • A Real Libertarian

            “So is coal and gas and oil and water”


          • Valewood

            Oh yeah. Wind, water, oil, gas, coal. They’re all natural resources that we get free from Mother Earth.

          • A Real Libertarian

            If you burn coal, gas or oil can you use it again?

            Do you have to pay for coal, gas or oil?

          • Valewood

            Wind is only free until it’s turned into a commodity by a multi-billion dollar corporation. It’s no coincidence that in every area that has embraced wind and solar, energy poverty is rampant.

            The Auditor General in Ontario specifically states that our electricity rates will continue to rise, mostly due to wind and solar. If they’re so free, why are our rates going up instead of down?

            Ontario as of November 1, now has one of the highest rates in North America. An article in the Globe and Mail states,

            “Ontario has become an island of high-priced electricity in a North American sea of falling rates.”

          • A Real Libertarian

            Maybe the nuclear rathole wasn’t a great place to stash our energy money, hmm?

            And of course renewable energy is embraced by poor, energy deprived countries. Should they quietly starve so the profits of the utilities aren’t bothered?

          • Valewood

            The biggest installers of renewable energy (Germany, the UK, Denmark, Ontario, etc) are hardly poor energy deprived countries.

            Meanwhile, if you want an interesting read for this morning….

            Google the following article from today:

            “Renewable Energy Needs Huge Mineral Supply

            Humankind could be about to exchange one kind of energy crisis for another. The switch from the finite store of fossil fuels to renewable sources could involve a huge additional demand for the world’s equally finite store of metals and minerals.

            …to match the power generated by fossil fuels or nuclear power stations, the construction of solar energy farms and wind turbines will gobble up 15 times more concrete, 90 times more aluminum and 50 times more iron, copper and glass. Right now wind and solar energy meet only about 1 percent of global demand; hydroelectricity meets about 7 percent.

            …. if the contribution from wind turbines and solar energy to global energy production is to rise from the current 400 terawatt hours to 12,000 terawatt hours in 2035, and 25,000 terawatt hours in 2050, that will require 3,200 million tons of steel, 310 million tons of aluminum and 40 million tons of copper to construct state-of-the-art generating systems.”

            Yeah, wind energy is certainly ‘free’.

          • A Real Libertarian

            Wind is free. You don’t have to pay for fuel. That is what we are talking about.

            “if the contribution from wind turbines and solar energy to
            global energy production is to rise from the current 400 terawatt hours to 12,000 terawatt hours in 2035, and 25,000 terawatt hours in 2050, that will require 3,200 million tons of steel, 310 million tons of aluminum and 40 million tons of copper to construct state-of-the-art generating systems.”

            World Steel Production: 1,547.8 Million Tonnes

            World Aluminum Production: 44.1 Million Tonnes

            World Copper Production: 15.1 Million Tonnes

            Even assuming no efficiency improvements… not that big a problem compared to climate change.

          • Valewood

            Wind is not free. Let’s put that nonsense to rest now, shall we? When the wind industry (mostly owned by the oil industry) meets with it’s shareholders each year, I’m sure they say, “Well, we didn’t make a single cent this year. Thank God for that.”

          • A Real Libertarian

            And how is fuel being free supposed to make an industry unprofitable? Shouldn’t fuel being free make it easier to be profitable?

          • Valewood

            Are we on the same planet? Who gets free fuel? Please, tell me what the hell you’re talking about. The wind industry gives it’s product away for free? Where do I sign up?

          • A Real Libertarian

            Who does the wind industry have to pay to get wind? No one! Therefore the fuel is free.

          • Valewood

            Who does the oil company have to pay to get their oil? No one. Therefore the oil is free. Who does the gas company have to pay to get their gas? No one. So gas is free.

            But you still haven’t told me where I sign up to get this free fuel. I want to email all of my friends over in Germany and the UK who pay more for their electricity bills than their mortgages and tell them which companies are giving it away for free.

          • Bob_Wallace

            Actually oil companies have to pay the owners of the land on which they drill their wells or they have to purchase the land.

            You’ve beaten this poor dishonest horse enough.

          • Valewood

            And wind companies don’t have to pay the landowners to put their turbines up?

          • Bob_Wallace

            Vale – stop it.

            You made a foolish statement. Man/woman up and accept the fact that you were wrong and let’s get on to something useful.

          • Valewood

            I made no foolish statement. The statement that is ridiculous is that wind is free. So is every other resource given to us by this planet. If you can show me one landowner who doesn’t get paid by the wind industry for them to put 500 foot tall industrial machines on his property, then I will gladly agree that I was wrong. Last time I checked, landowners get paid gobs of money for leasing their land to the wind industry.

          • Bob_Wallace

            The charge is for land use. It is not for resource extraction.

            The landowner does not give up wind that they own. Land owners sell oil, coal and natural gas from their land and once sold, they have none left.
            Now, please, no more of this foolishness.

          • Valewood

            I think I’ve made my point.

          • Bob_Wallace

            Well, you’ve certainly proved something…. ;o)

          • A Real Libertarian

            No electricity company gives their product away for free.

            Fossil generators have to pay their coal/oil/natural gas bill, nuke generators have to pay their uranium bill, but the wind industry doesn’t have pay a wind bill.

            Do you understand now?

          • Valewood

            So they don’t have to pay the landowners for the use of their property? Hmmm.

          • A Real Libertarian

            The wind is not anyone’s property.

          • Valewood

            Spin your rhetoric and semantics however you want. There’s a heck of a lot of people getting very very rich on this ‘free’ wind.

          • A Real Libertarian

            Who owns the wind then?

          • Bob_Wallace

            Please. This is simply foolish.

            Wind farms have no fuel costs. Coal, NG and nuclear plants have fuel costs.
            If you have a legitimate point to make, then make it. But arguing that ‘water is not wet’ is a waste of everyone’s time.

    • Bob_Wallace

      Vestas states that they produce one half tonne hazardous waste per MW of shipped turbines. Hazardous, not toxic and hazardous.

      Toxic waste is waste material that can cause death, injury or birth defects to living creatures

      Hazardous waste is waste that poses substantial or potential threats to public health or the environment.

      Now I’ve read about this supposed radioactive waste problem but only on anti-wind sites. It is true that some rare earth minerals are found with low level uranium deposits, but it not clear if this is a particular problem and it is certainly not specific to wind turbine. Your TV, computer and cell phone contain rare earth minerals.

      BTW, some wind turbines are built without rare earth minerals.

      Now, what’s your take on the millions of people who suffer and die because we burn coal? That fine with you?

    • marykaybarton
  • Jim Wiegand

    Canada Ranks Top Bird Killers and Canada also supports fraudulent wind turbine mortality studies. It is all part of the wind industry’s pattern of fraud.

    Just how fraudulent are wind industry mortality studies?…………………… “mortalities officially recorded in the industry’s two 2011 6 month reports totaled 442 birds, 24 raptors and 533 bats. In reality, after taking into account the various methods used to minimize carcass counts, the Wolfe Island turbines are actually slaughtering 644 raptors, 21,512 other birds and 29,831 bats!”

    “Based on carcass locations reported, searchers only examined
    a total area equivalent to about 1/6 of a 50-meter search radius around each
    turbine (1/6 of 7,854 square meters or 0.33 acres) – when they should have
    searched a 200-meter-radius area (31 acres), an area 94 times larger.

    “In my expert opinion, the 86 Wolf Island turbines are killing over 50,000 birds and bats a year, including many vitallyimportant species. This is more than 250 fatalities per MW, and more than 500 per turbine”.

    “Properly designed and executed studies would show similar numbers – with far more species showing up on the mortality lists, beyond the
    few listed in the official reports”.

  • Valewood

    That list of fatalities has been making the rounds for over 10 years now, since approximately 2002 when there were hardly any wind turbines anywhere, especially in North America where that study was done.
    If you go back to the original article, right at the very bottom, it specifically states that the number of bird deaths caused by wind turbines will rise exponentially as more turbines are put up.
    Well compare the number today with the number in 2002. Then multiply that and you will find that wind turbines are no longer at the bottom of the list.
    Even so, I find it interesting that neo-environmentalists are so willing to chuck everything on the altar of collateral damage, so long as nothing bad is said about their eco-crucifix. Birds, bats, endangered species, humans, fragile ecosystems, recognized biospheres. Everything is fair game and expendable. Just don’t touch their turbines!

    • Bob_Wallace

      Linear, not exponentially. Of course bird deaths will increase as the number of turbines increase.

      However, bird deaths per GWh of electricity produced by wind remains lower than coal and nuclear so as we install turbines to replace coal and nuclear we save the lives of birds.

      Wind farms kill roughly 0.27 birds per GWh.

      Nuclear plants kill about 0.6 birds per GWh. (2.2x wind)

      Fossil-fueled power stations kill about 9.4 birds per GWh. (34.8x wind)

      Additionally wind turbine technology and careful siting is decreasing bird kills.

      In 2009 there were 12.5 bird kills per MW installed wind capacity.

      In 2012 there were 9.5 bird kills per MW installed wind capacity.

      That’s a 24% decrease. A very major improvement in bird safety. And we aren’t done yet.
      Please update your information bank and don’t report incorrectly going forward….

      • Laura Griffin

        Thank you for that link to the American Bird Conservancy. Right on the FRONT page, it states

        “but even so-called renewable sources such as wind power and hydro electricity can have detrimental effects on bird populations”

        • Bob_Wallace

          There are no perfect solutions.

          If you wish to ban wind turbines and hydro facilities then you must accept the responsibility for a much higher number of bird kills.

          I would think that someone concerned about birds would work to decrease the number killed, not increase the number.

          • Laura Griffin

            Why does one negate the other? So in your mind, if they’re killed by turbines, than it’s okay?

          • Bob_Wallace

            Here’s the choice –

            Keep using coal and kill 34.8x more birds. And wreck the environment via climate change and wipe out species and trillions of individual birds.

            Install more nuclear reactors and kill 2.2x more birds.

            Can you understand relative cost? Or do you have a magic unicorn that farts electricity?

          • Ad van der Meer

            “Or do you have a magic unicorn that farts electricity?”

            Priceless! I am gonna shamelessly steal that one!

          • CaptD

            Awesome reply Bob
            I’d love to get a link(s) for the data so I can share it widely!

          • Bob_Wallace

            Here’s a draft of something I started writing. It has the links and more. If you see a problem please let me know….

            Highest estimates are that in 2012 there were 573,000 birds killed by wind turbines. (1) That number is an outlier which was published in March of this year and was not based on actual kill counts but on “assumptions”. It’s as much as 17x higher than research papers based on actual counts. We’ll have to wait a while to see how the scientific community treats that paper.

            But let’s go with it. A bit over 1/2 million. Let’s err on the side that makes wind as bad as possible. (While keeping in mind that the science says less than 35 thousand.)

            And let’s put it in perspective.

            Domestic cats in the United States kill up to 3.7 billion birds each year. (6,457x wind)


            Collisions with buildings kill 976 million birds each year. (1,703x wind)


            Collisions with vehicles kill 380 million birds each year. (663x wind)


            Collisions with communication towers kill 174 million each year. (304x wind)


            Poisoning kills 72 million bird each year. (126x wind)


            The Exxon Valdez spill killed almost a half million birds.


            Conclusion: Wind turbines are a tiny, tiny cause of bird death.

            But bird deaths aren’t a good thing regardless of the numbers. So why don’t we stick with coal and nuclear energy to save birds? Let’s check to see if that would work.

            Based on bird kills per gigawatt hour of electricity produced.

            Wind farms kill roughly 0.27 birds per GWh.

            Nuclear plants kill about 0.6 birds per GWh. (2.2x wind)

            Fossil-fueled power stations kill about 9.4 birds per GWh. (34.8x wind)


            OK, so now we know that wind farms are not one of our birds’ big problems. And we know that closing nuclear and coal plants and replacing them with wind farms would be better for the birds. Should we stop there?

            No, we can make wind farms even safer for birds.

            In 2009 there were 12.5 bird kills per MW installed wind capacity.

            In 2012 there were 9.5 bird kills per MW installed wind capacity.

            That’s a 24% decrease. A very major improvement in bird safety. And we aren’t done yet.

            (1) Annual bird kills 2009 and 2012

          • CaptD


            SALUTE (yet again) for providing massive amounts of factual information that we all can not only use but also hopefully share widely via the web, so others globally can also learn from!

            Remember, together we Win -CaptD

          • Dick Weed

            Indirectly yea. Actually he farts methane and shits manure which I collect methane from and then I burn both in my natural gas generator to make electricity…

          • Alec Sevins

            You think forcing thousands or even millions of noisy 400+ foot white skyscrapers into rural and wild areas is somehow NOT wrecking the environment? Get over the green myopia and look at lost scenery. When did the landscape itself cease to be part of the environment? These monster towers are a taste many would rather not acquire.

            I really wonder how many advocates have seen them in large numbers against formerly scenic backdrops? Some smart Germans were already dismayed back in 1998 when they wrote the “Darmstadt Manifesto,” lamenting the loss of countryside character and historical sense of place. These things loom over nature like tripods from War of the Worlds. They’re just too large.

          • Bob_Wallace

            Lovely mountain top you’ve got in your icon there Alec.

            Think it will be as beautiful once climate change removes the snow?

            How about that nice green forest. Think you’ll enjoy looking at it after it’s been bug-killed and wildfire burned thanks to our rising temperatures?

          • A Real Libertarian

            Think it will be as beautiful once climate change removes the snow?

            How about when its top gets blown off to access the coal inside?

          • Bob_Wallace

            Don’t the Koch boys have an oil painting of that in their board room?

          • A Real Libertarian

            How vulgar.

            They keep the pictures hidden under the bed for “alone time”, obviously.

          • sambar

            If you want to stop bird deaths, why aren’t you leading a revolt to rid the world of cats?

      • Jim Wiegand

        You forgot to mention ………..all done with fraudulent studies and data. “Based on carcass locations reported, searchers only examined
        a total area equivalent to about 1/6 of a 50-meter search radius around each turbine (1/6 of 7,854 square meters or 0.33 acres) – when they should have searched a 200-meter-radius area (31 acres), an area 94 times larger”.

        • Bob_Wallace

          I assume you’re referring to the paper by Smallwood in which he speculates that bird kills were undercounted in all the numerous studies, some of which were run by turbine opponents and some which he, himself, did?

          As far as I can tell no serious biologist has agreed with his speculations. And he has proved zero data to support his assumption.

          But let’s assume he’s correct. Even using his hypothetical numbers wind turbines still kill many fewer birds per GWh than nuclear and coal.

          • Jim Wiegand

            Show me a single eagle carcass killed by coal or nuclear. The wind industry has most likely killed ten of thousands of eagles across the world.

          • Bob_Wallace

            Jim, it’s clear that you are opposed to wind energy.

            Now, please describe to us your ideal electricity generation mix that would kill fewer birds. And keep the price reasonable enough so that it has a chance of being adopted.

            Oh, and please avoid hypothetical technologies. Stick with the stuff we know works.

          • Jim Wiegand

            I am against the propeller style wind turbine and the lies protecting this mass killer. I am not against bird safe wind turbines and never have been. You are also avoiding this…….Show me a single eagle that has ever been killed by coal or nuclear power.

          • Bob_Wallace

            Sorry, that is not an adequate answer.

          • Jim Wiegand

            It is adequate for most readers to see your character and foolishness. And will once again any readers will see that you can not provide a single eagle fatality related to coal or nuclear. Only bogus data which is what this entire article is about.

          • Andy701

            Ad hominem attacks and everything is a conspiracy….well, you certainly fulfill the troll requirements, congratulations!

          • Calamity_Jean

            Can you give some links to “bird safe wind turbines”? I’d like to see what’s available.

          • Bob_Wallace

            Essentially all wind turbines are bird safe.

            There are no perfect solutions. Coal kills more birds per GWh. Nuclear kills more birds per GWh.

            Worry about cats, hunters, buildings, cars, and a bunch of other things if birds are your actual concern. Worry double hard about climate change which is really going to kill a lot of birds if we don’t quit using fossil fuels.

            If you’re just trying to toss crap at wind turbines, please go away.

          • sambar

            I heard cats love the sound of wind turbines, they purr. It’s the cats hanging around the turbines.

          • Ad van der Meer

            I am sure that you won’t find a carcass of an eagle near a coal powered plant, but that eagle doesn’t need to come close to that power plant to feel the consequences of that plant. The exhaust gasses of that plant are not limited to 50 meters or even 200 meters around that plant as you well know. That plant is responsible for the early deaths of ALL species, human included for a much larger area.
            Every coal powered plant replaced by wind turbines (placed in efficient locations) is a win for the world and not just the eagles.
            As I mentioned just above, I am gonna steal Bob’s line and ask you: “Or do you have a magic unicorn that farts electricity?”

          • Jim Wiegand

            There are no links between coal and nuclear energy
            production and the deaths to eagles. The wind industry on the other hand has been exterminating thousands of eagles from our skies all over the world.This number killed by turbines has accelerated over the last 20 years with the expansion of wind energy.

            Thanks to bogus wind industry studies and the bad character of this industry, many thousands of others have gone unreported. But the death to rare species from wind turbines extends to many other species besides eagles.
            These are species dying from turbine blade strikes. They are not being killed from windows, cats building and abstract comparisons to other forms of energy.

          • Bob_Wallace

            Jim, you are not responding to requests for information and continuing to post the same old drivel.

            Step up your game or go away.

          • Sean Con

            dude, you got to be really, really kidding us.

      • william yeatman

        Just so we’re all on the same page here regarding the source of Bob’s data: Whereas all avian mortality resulting wind power was due to birds striking turbines, which is a measurable and accurate figure, 98 percent of the avian mortality attributed to fossil fuels is due to the
        indirect effects of climate change, which (as related to avian mortality) is of course much, much, much less precise (relative to bird death attributable to wind). Moreover, the quantitative relationship between climate change and avian mortality is based on a 2004 paper, so this tenuous connection is based on dated assumptions. Finally, it should be noted that the remaining 2 percent of avian mortality attributed to fossil fuels is due to upstream impacts (i.e., gas drilling and coal mining). No such analysis was performed for wind power (i.e., bird mortality during the mining for the ore that goes into turbines, etc.). All in all, the paper from which Bob takes his numbers should be taken with a shaker of salt.

        • Bob_Wallace

          Let’s look at some of the ways fossil fuels kill birds other than what could happen with climate change. From the Sovacool literature review –

          Starting with the upstream part of their fuel cycle, Winegrad (2004) estimates that mountaintop removal and valley fill operations in four states – Kentucky, Tennessee, Virginia, and West Virginia – destroyed more than 387,000 acres of mature deciduous forests. Such a loss of forest will result in approximately 191,722 deaths of the global population of Cerulean Warblers. These deaths can be loosely calculated to amount to 0.02 Warbler deaths per GWh (Sovacool 2009).

          Anderson (1978) observed 300 waterfowl killed each year by
          colliding into Kincaid Power Plant near Lake Sangchris, Illinois.

          Acid precipitation and deposition occurs when sulfur and nitrogen compounds rise into the atmosphere and combine with water to then fall to the earth as rain, snow, mist, and fog. Studies have linked acid rain to bronchial constriction, elevated
          pulmonary resistance, and metabolism changes within a variety of avian species (Treissman et al. 2003). After taking into account and adjusting for soil, habitat alteration, population density, and vegetation cover, an extensive study from the Cornell Laboratory of Ornithology estimated that acid rain annually reduced the population of the wood thrushes in the United States by 2% to 5% (Hames et al.2002). The upper end of the estimate reflects wood thrushes living at higher elevations and thus subject to greater levels of acid rain found in the Adirondacks, Appalachian Mountains, Great Smokey Mountains, and the Allegheny Plateau. The results can be used to loosely quantify avian deaths of 0.05 fatalities per GWh.

          Mercury, another hazardous pollutant with fossil-fueled electricity generation, can cause decreased bird egg weight, embryo malformations, lowered hatchability, neural shrinkage, and increased mortality. Mercury poisoning and contamination
          were responsible for population declines ranging from 1% to 11% across 14 species of penguins, albatross, ducks, eagles, hawks, terns, gulls, and other birds (Burger and Gochfeld 1997).

          Now, please note that only a few species and locations were studied. It is very reasonable to assume that if Cerulean Warblers are being impacted by coal emissions and waterfowl are flying into the Kincaid Power Plant similar impacts are being felt on other species and at other fossil fuel plants.

          William engages in typical fossil fuel industry behavior – attempting to discredit inconvenient science.

          • william yeatman

            Exactly–this is what I state above (regarding how the paper on which you cite your data takes into account bird mortality from upstream processes in the fossil fuel industry, but it doesn’t do so for upstream processes relating to wind power.) These upstream bird deaths due to coal mining account for a fraction of 1 percent of bird deaths attributable to fossil fuels. Again, virtually all avian mortality attributable to fossil fuels is due to indirect effects of climate change, as opposed to wind power, which causes birds to die by chopping them up. It’s an inapt comparison, which was my point.

          • Bob_Wallace

            There is a lot more to my comment than the first paragraph.

            Read the rest.

          • william yeatman

            Bob–“The rest” of your post tallies bird mortality that amounts to a fraction of one percent of the total you attribute to fossil fuels. (e.g., your data on wood thrush mortality due to acid deposition–.05 fatalities for GWh–is one-half of one-percent of mortality attributable to climate change). That’s not “discrediting inconvenient science.” That’s using your source data to make a point: namely, that your comparison is inapt. You are comparing bird deaths due to striking wind turbines, which is a direct effect, with bird deaths due to climate change, which is an indirect effect. This isn’t controversial; it’s precisely what is explained in the studies you cite.

          • Bob_Wallace

            First, there are many species co-existing with the wood thrush. It’s not unreasonable to suspect that the non-studied species are also being harmed by coal pollution.

            Second, whether birds die from hitting coal plants, loss of habitat or from global warming they are still dead and coal is still the cause.

      • Alec Sevins

        Don’t forget that natural scenery is also dying every month as more are installed. That’s the elephant in the living room with wind turbines for many people. How can we call this “clean” power when it presents such an eyesore? Ringed turbine designs that attempt to minimize bird kills are even more unnatural looking and denser to the eye.

        • Bob_Wallace

          So, Alec, what in your eye is uglier.

          a) wind turbines

          b) millions of acres of forests killed by climate change

    • RamboSTiTCH

      The Canadian report was published in 2013 and all of the references are from 2013 or 2012. Maybe you should read it, there is a link in the article above (CBC) that takes you to the page where the pdf is avaialble.

      Granted, I cannot fathom how you could begin to be assured that X amount of birds are killed by (fill-in-the-blank). Though there are some assumptions and uncertainties listed in the pdf.

  • Darin Selby

    This author hasn’t a clue about how environmentally devastating these 300 ft tall spinning monstrosities are.

    We’ve all pretty much bought the wind farm about what has been sold to us, concerning how “green” the technology is, of mega-watt spinning wind energy generation systems!

    The presently-used technology at wind farms demonstrates an almost complete disregard for the vast numbers of migrating birds & BATS, which they daily interfere with!

    Why weren’t the bats mentioned?

    The bats that are harmed, don’t even have to come into direct contact with the spinning blades. They only need to be in the vicinity of the intense chaos of vacuum vortexes created in high winds, which then causes their little lungs to explode!

    Erin Baerwald of the University of Calgary in
    Canada. “An atmospheric-pressure drop at wind-turbine blades is an
    undetectable-and potentially unforeseeable-hazard for bats, thus
    partially explaining the large number of bat fatalities at these
    specific structures.
    “Given that bats are more susceptible to barotrauma than
    birds, and that bat fatalities at wind turbines far outnumber bird
    fatalities at most sites, wildlife fatalities at wind turbines are now a
    bat issue, not a bird issue.

    The technology of spinning wind energy-production is also starting to get a foothold underwater, and
    is already being utilized in major river systems. This oscillating
    Delta wing concept could work as equally well underwater.

    As proven by recent research by the U. of Illinois:


    -reveals the little-known detrimental effects of wind farms, and the “chaos vortices” they produce downwind on the local flora of an area…up to 2 miles away!

    Here is a website that reveals just what people are saying about having to live next to a spinning-propeller wind farm:

    Windfarms Give False Tornado Readings:

    Another windfarm band-aid fix with sonar bat deterrence:

    “Holy sonar romance…”

    So, let me get this straight…

    When flying downwind of a giant spinning wind power generator, bats will be killed, due to the affects of barotrauma,


    communication sonar gets scrambled by the stronger windfarm repelling
    sonar signal. They don’t mate, the bat population drastically


    “Wind Turbines Impact Local Weather Patterns”

    “Recycling Turbines Must Be Taken Into Account”

    $16 Billion For New U.S. Windfarms

    And at tops, they may last 20 years before falling apart. When the whole thing gets DECENTRALIZED to the household family unit, then it starts to make much more sense. And it empowers the small guy to make his own wind-powered electricity…minus the grid.

    Yes, the GRID and all of its toxicity and upkeep must be also taken into account as well. With ugly wires strewn all over the place marring the landscape. All that goes away when the homestead is empowered with small wind-power units.

    Take a look at my unique invention that I call the “Whale’s Tail Wind Energy Harvester” which is documented as 3X as efficient as its spinning bladed counterpart, without the chopping turbine blades.

    And please, do share with me your thoughts.

    • Alec Sevins

      More like 400-500 feet tall, counting the blades, and some of the blades sweep an area of 1.5 acres. Bats are also attracted to them at night and are dying in droves.

      I am tired of the wind industry hiding behind a green badge. It uses the same propaganda tools as any industry that knows it has large impacts on nature. Same general smugness, changing the subject, always putting out best case scenarios, and flat out lying.

Back to Top ↑