I recall an estimate (in Handbook of the Birds of the World - can't recall
the volume) that in the USA alone between 500k and 5m birds a year died in
building collisions, and I would assume that our data would be pro-rata, so
after adding in roadkills etc I guess that windfarms are a very minor
factor.
Of course we will probably never know whether the birds "saved" through less
greenhouse gases are more or less than those lost through collisions!
There is I think too much focus on wind and solar (which are intermittent
technologies) and not enough on energy conservation and storage (needed to
cope with wind and solar) - we need a balanced approach to reduce our impact
on the planet. There are also technologies such as extracting energy from
hot rocks that seem to have a lot of promise (and minimal impact) but have
little publicity.
On 06/09/06, Greg <> wrote:
Hi Evan,
Thanks for your reply. As someone involved in the industry do you have
access to accurate data on the numbers of birds and bats killed by wind
farms each year? I appreciate the fact that some impacts can be mitigated
but still believe that solar would have the least impact on ecosystems.
I am strongly anti-nuclear so am not a pro-nuke person opposing wind farms
from that direction. I just don't want us to replace one technology that
has an adverse impact on the planet with another that, potentially, can
have
a major impact. The noise and visual pollution are minor issues compared
with the potential bird and bat kill impacts. I agree that there are a
number of other structures and machines (motor vehicles, planes etc.) that
kill birds and bats but wind farms are now an additional hazard for
migratory birds and bats to deal with. So if we want wind farms we have
to
be sure that the level of kill is low enough to not adversely impact on
populations or whole species.
I think that people presenting the argument that it is a choice between
coal
or wind farms are over-simplifying the issue. There are other viable
options.
Greg Clancy
|
