We're getting wind farms in the area where I live and those who are against it claims that the wind turbines disturb and kill wildlife and that they shouldn't be built because of that. My opinion is that wind turbines don't disturb the wild life anymore than all other man made things in the area, such as buildings, railways and highways. I don't know if I'm right though so I'm looking for answers. (^.^)
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Does wind turbines disturb the wildlife in the area? If so, how much or little?
- Thread starter Dinky
- Start date
donfletcheryh
New member
Wind turbines have killed a lot of birds when they have been placed in a major flight path. You will observe foxes and coyotes make a regular visit to the base of the towers to check for kills. It is not worse than the average highway, it is just in addition to the carnage along the highways.
However, when compared to coal fired electricity with the worst of technology, wind turbines will save lives by avoiding pollution. Coal burned with the best technology available can avoid those deaths too, but it will still have CO2 emissions if the CO2 not be sequestered. We can not say for sure how successful sequestration will be.
What we can predict with confidence is that even the large reserve of coal will be gone eventually and we would be best to use some wind power to allow the coal reserves to last a bit longer.
Other than along major flyways, loss of birds is comparable to loss along a city street. Not negligible, but it does not severely alter the population of birds. It may be surprising but loss of birds to small, higher speed turbines is as great as loss to turbines that produce many times more power and that move much slower. If we want to save birds we may need to insist on lower tip speed for the turbines, and that almost dictates use of generators above 1MW.
However, when compared to coal fired electricity with the worst of technology, wind turbines will save lives by avoiding pollution. Coal burned with the best technology available can avoid those deaths too, but it will still have CO2 emissions if the CO2 not be sequestered. We can not say for sure how successful sequestration will be.
What we can predict with confidence is that even the large reserve of coal will be gone eventually and we would be best to use some wind power to allow the coal reserves to last a bit longer.
Other than along major flyways, loss of birds is comparable to loss along a city street. Not negligible, but it does not severely alter the population of birds. It may be surprising but loss of birds to small, higher speed turbines is as great as loss to turbines that produce many times more power and that move much slower. If we want to save birds we may need to insist on lower tip speed for the turbines, and that almost dictates use of generators above 1MW.
donfletcheryh
New member
Wind turbines have killed a lot of birds when they have been placed in a major flight path. You will observe foxes and coyotes make a regular visit to the base of the towers to check for kills. It is not worse than the average highway, it is just in addition to the carnage along the highways.
However, when compared to coal fired electricity with the worst of technology, wind turbines will save lives by avoiding pollution. Coal burned with the best technology available can avoid those deaths too, but it will still have CO2 emissions if the CO2 not be sequestered. We can not say for sure how successful sequestration will be.
What we can predict with confidence is that even the large reserve of coal will be gone eventually and we would be best to use some wind power to allow the coal reserves to last a bit longer.
Other than along major flyways, loss of birds is comparable to loss along a city street. Not negligible, but it does not severely alter the population of birds. It may be surprising but loss of birds to small, higher speed turbines is as great as loss to turbines that produce many times more power and that move much slower. If we want to save birds we may need to insist on lower tip speed for the turbines, and that almost dictates use of generators above 1MW.
However, when compared to coal fired electricity with the worst of technology, wind turbines will save lives by avoiding pollution. Coal burned with the best technology available can avoid those deaths too, but it will still have CO2 emissions if the CO2 not be sequestered. We can not say for sure how successful sequestration will be.
What we can predict with confidence is that even the large reserve of coal will be gone eventually and we would be best to use some wind power to allow the coal reserves to last a bit longer.
Other than along major flyways, loss of birds is comparable to loss along a city street. Not negligible, but it does not severely alter the population of birds. It may be surprising but loss of birds to small, higher speed turbines is as great as loss to turbines that produce many times more power and that move much slower. If we want to save birds we may need to insist on lower tip speed for the turbines, and that almost dictates use of generators above 1MW.
donfletcheryh
New member
Wind turbines have killed a lot of birds when they have been placed in a major flight path. You will observe foxes and coyotes make a regular visit to the base of the towers to check for kills. It is not worse than the average highway, it is just in addition to the carnage along the highways.
However, when compared to coal fired electricity with the worst of technology, wind turbines will save lives by avoiding pollution. Coal burned with the best technology available can avoid those deaths too, but it will still have CO2 emissions if the CO2 not be sequestered. We can not say for sure how successful sequestration will be.
What we can predict with confidence is that even the large reserve of coal will be gone eventually and we would be best to use some wind power to allow the coal reserves to last a bit longer.
Other than along major flyways, loss of birds is comparable to loss along a city street. Not negligible, but it does not severely alter the population of birds. It may be surprising but loss of birds to small, higher speed turbines is as great as loss to turbines that produce many times more power and that move much slower. If we want to save birds we may need to insist on lower tip speed for the turbines, and that almost dictates use of generators above 1MW.
However, when compared to coal fired electricity with the worst of technology, wind turbines will save lives by avoiding pollution. Coal burned with the best technology available can avoid those deaths too, but it will still have CO2 emissions if the CO2 not be sequestered. We can not say for sure how successful sequestration will be.
What we can predict with confidence is that even the large reserve of coal will be gone eventually and we would be best to use some wind power to allow the coal reserves to last a bit longer.
Other than along major flyways, loss of birds is comparable to loss along a city street. Not negligible, but it does not severely alter the population of birds. It may be surprising but loss of birds to small, higher speed turbines is as great as loss to turbines that produce many times more power and that move much slower. If we want to save birds we may need to insist on lower tip speed for the turbines, and that almost dictates use of generators above 1MW.