[Coach_Owens87]

Excerpts from the article
On Aug. 13, ExxonMobil pleaded guilty in federal court to killing 85 birds that had come into contact with crude oil or other pollutants in uncovered tanks or waste-water facilities on its properties. The birds were protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, which dates back to 1918. The company agreed to pay $600,000 in fines and fees.

The number of birds killed by wind turbines is highly variable. And biologists believe Altamont, which uses older turbine technology, may be the worst example. But that said, the carnage there likely represents only a fraction of the number of birds killed by windmills. Michael Fry of the American Bird Conservancy estimates that U.S. wind turbines kill between 75,000 and 275,000 birds per year. Yet the Justice Department is not bringing cases against wind companies.

According to the American Wind Energy Association, the industry's trade association, each megawatt of installed wind-power results in the killing of between one and six birds per year. At the end of 2008, the U.S. had about 25,000 megawatts of wind turbines.

By 2030, environmental and lobby groups are pushing for the U.S. to be producing 20% of its electricity from wind. Meeting that goal, according to the Department of Energy, will require the U.S. to have about 300,000 megawatts of wind capacity, a 12-fold increase over 2008 levels. If that target is achieved, we can expect some 300,000 birds, at the least, to be killed by wind turbines each year.


http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424...lenews_wsj

Thoughts?

To really use this as a anti-wind argument, shouldnt you also show why coal fired power plants, or other energy sources are more avain friendly then wind?

The only way birds can be killed by wind turbines is to directly fly into them, but coal can have many ways of harming and killing wildlife. Acid Rain, MTR, mine run off!

So lets compare some sources of energy and thier effects on avian life. Becuase if you arent comparing the anything, what good is this anti-wind argument you are using?

Here is some suprising info about the subject.



"When these avian deaths are correlated with the units of electricity those power plants produce, some may find the results surprising. Based on real world operating experience of 339 wind turbines comprising six wind farms constituting 274 MW of installed capacity in the U.S., average avian mortality for wind appears to be about 0.269 fatalities per GWh.

Based on real world operating experience for two coal facilities as well as the indirect damages from mountain top removal coal mining in Appalachia, acid rain pollution on wood thrushes, mercury pollution, and anticipated impacts of climate change, average avian mortality for fossil fueled power stations appears to be about 5.18 fatalities per GWh.

Based on real world operating experience at four nuclear power plants and two uranium mines and mills, average avian mortality for nuclear systems is about 0.416 GWh.

In terms of birds killed per electricity produced, nuclear power is slightly worse but comparable to wind energy, but fossil-fueled facilities are about 17 times more dangerous to birds on a per kWh basis. In absolute terms, since wind turbines produced a relatively small amount of national electricity in the United States in 2006, they may have killed about 7,000 but fossil fueled stations killed 14.5 million and nuclear power plants 327,000.

Clearly, wind energy is not as bad for birds as many environmentalists make it out to be, and conventional resources are much more damaging to birds than is commonly believed."

http://www.scitizen.com/stories/future-e...index.php?

To do some further reading on the subject, and to see where this author got his information, go here.

http://www.spp.nus.edu.sg/docs/fac/benja...tality.pdf