Wind turbine kills golden eagle — the first in Washington state
May 19th, 2009 by cdunaganThe first known eagle casualty from a wind turbine in Washington state has been recorded.
The bird was a golden eagle that died April 27 in a collision with the blades of a turbine at the Goodnoe Hills Wind Project southeast of Goldendale, according to Vancouver Columbian reporter Kathie Durbin, whose story appeared yesterday.
My first reaction to this incident was that an eagle death was bound to happen sooner or later. And those in charge seemed to be responding appropriately. Durbin quoted Travis Nelson, the state’s lead wildlife biologist on wind power issues:
“This is certainly not the outcome that anyone who was involved in planning and permitting this operation would have wanted, especially the project owner. We have convened a small review group internally to discuss how we can avoid this in the future.”
But then I read down to the end of the story, where Shawn Smallwood, an independent wildlife ecologist, said another project in Klickitat County — the two-year-old Big Horn Wind Energy Project — may have killed 243 raptors in its first year. That compares to the 33 raptors that a consultant predicted would be killed each year. (The birds were not identified by species.)
While those of us who live on the west side of the Cascades are enjoying the benefits of wind power from Eastern Washington, I guess we need to pay attention to the environmental costs of our choices.
While scenic vistas are a key issue in the battle over the Whistling Ridge Energy Project in the Columbia River Gorge, environmental groups also are raising concerns about wildlife damage. Check out “Talking Points” on the Web site of Friends of Columbia River Gorge.
I’m not an alarmist, but we should never kid ourselves about the full costs of power projects. Because wind power is competitive in price to other power sources, we are likely to see more turbines — including plans for the Pacific Coast. While the impact on birds is an old subject (see Federal Wind Siting Information Center), we need to keep an eye on this topic.
Tags: eagles, wind energy
Scripps Interactive Newspapers Group
May 22nd, 2009 at 12:44 pm
I’m sorry eagles are being killed in our quest for more power. But we are doing the same destruction here on the wet side of the Cascades, aren’t we?
We’re ripping up habitat, leaving our wild creatures nowhere to go. How is it different or worse than our careless spread of sprawling news homes and neighborhoods into our formally wooded areas? We are pushing wildlife out of their habitats and changing their/our environment forever – why is that okay?
We dammed up rivers for power, now we’re spending a dollar or two to remove them.
Where will our increasing need for power come from – harness a fish?
It seems to me that aversion measures could be invented to keep the eagles away from the wind turbines – the same type aversion devise needed to keep our whales away from ships – including submarines.
The only surprise to me is that no one has done it before now.
Sharon O’Hara
btw: I remember driving through states seeing mile after mile of oil derricks fouling the landscape – nothing attractive about them either.
Sharon O’Hara
May 27th, 2009 at 12:50 pm
The first few words of this post tell us everything we need to know: this was the *first known* golden eagle casualty from a wind turbine. Yes, it’s tragic that a bird was killed, but it’s just one. There are thousands of turbines operating in the Pacific Northwest that have had no problems; there is no need for panic.
Moreover, the golden eagle is neither threatened nor endangered. This one casualty will have no effect on the species as a whole. You know what will affect the whole species? Climate change. The National Audubon agrees: “global warming resulting from the burning of fossil fuels is a severe threat to birds, wildlife, and habitat, and we have a moral obligation to take action now to control the pollution that causes global warming before it is too late.”
These wind farms go through extensive environmental planning and siting processes. I am sure that Goodnoe Hills has evaluated the situation and will do their very best to mitigate any future problems (especially with all the attention they’re receiving).
We will all benefit from the clean energy – bird populations included. Let’s not overreact to one bird casualty.
Sonja Lane
http://www.wwnw.org
For the full Audubon statement, see http://www.audubon.org/campaign/testimony_0507.html
August 24th, 2009 at 6:06 am
Vertical axis wind turbine may reduce the possibility of this problem but it is difficult to avoid compeletly. Maybe a radar systme with micro-wave can stop this problem in future.
October 6th, 2009 at 9:40 am
Sonja is either VERY ill informed OR she stands to gain personally from the development of a wind farm. There is No benefit to the citizens from wind turbines! WE citizens pay for them through taxes (subsidies that go to the developer) AND after the farms are up WE the citizens pay VERY high rates that they charge because this form of electricity is so prohibitively expensive that the utilities must make up for that somehow… She is a Kool-Aid drinker OR she gets cash. If a person actually researches the wind industry you will find that the HUGE corporations that build them don’t do it on their own dime. It costs too much. T. Boone Pickens figured that out. The economics is one thing, but to just BLOW OFF the environmental costs to wildlife is another. So, she thinks this will help Global Warming? What about all of the back up power that MUST be used to carry the grid when wind is not blowing? Do you really believe that the wind blows ALL the time? If the wind farm were in a place that actually has good wind, it probably blows up to 25% of the time. Did you know that when it isn’t blowing another electrical source has to pitch in? That is usually fossil fuel powered. So, Sonja, the more wind farms you build, the more fossil fuel you need to back them up! Doesn’t that make you think? Or are you one of those EMOTIONAL people who like to support Green things no matter the cost?
I don’t mean to rip on you totally, Sonja. Your heart may be in the right place, BUT you should read up on the wind and get the truth. Don’t listen to the hype promoted by the industry itself. AND it isn’t just one bird! It’s WAY bigger than that.
October 6th, 2009 at 10:40 pm
Carolyn,
I think that Sonja made some very valid and interesting points. I think you did as well. We are all entitled to our opinions and it is through our voiced opinions that we can change the direction we are headed. I hope that you are contributing your thoughts to your elected official(s) as it is obvious that you have very strong ideas regarding wind power and I applaud your enthusiasm. However, I don’t think calling some one a Kool-Aid drinker helps support your important contributions to the conversation or enables you to be taken seriously. To be honest, I think the reporting of ONE bird casualty is indicative of the NEWS in general. I would think that there are larger events taking place worth reporting other than ONE bird casualty in regards to wind power. Sonja even went so far as to supply a reference to back up what she was contributing to the discussion. Do you have any documentation to back up what you brought to the conversation? If so, I think it would add some strength to your argument and I for one might become more educated in what you are trying to communicate.
October 6th, 2009 at 10:47 pm
By the way, Sharon, I really like your comments and addition to this discussion and have enjoyed your posts in the past. Please keep your contributions coming as I find your input to be articulate and informative.
All my best,
Rob
October 9th, 2009 at 11:32 am
Wow. Carolyn, calm down and stop SHOUTing at us.
Your post raises a number of questions. The one I’ll ask is this: Even though wind does not blow ALL the time, as you put it, and thus requires some backup from other sources (which might be fossil fuel, or might not – thermal, hydro, even nuclear are theoretically possible), why would that in itself be a reason to reject it? If it reduces fossil fuel use by 50 percent, wouldn’t that be good for the climate?
One can argue about the financial side of it, of course, but the fact that wind doesn’t blow all the time hardly seems a reason to reject the technology as bad for the climate.
And there are a lot of supporters of wind power, to some degree or another. Surely we aren’t all “getting cash” from developers. You could bring a smidgen more respect to the conversation, you know. It wouldn’t kill you.
October 9th, 2009 at 2:42 pm
It’s interesting how we get ourselves in an uproar when a bird is killed by a wind turbine. Tell me, how many people here know about the mortality rate associtaed with birds and transmission lines? Or cats? For a broader sense of human-caused mortalities to birds, see FWS Fact Sheet:
http://www.fws.gov/birds/mortality-fact-sheet.pdf
I am not saying we should not be concerned, I am saying we should be concerned – about human caused mortality to migratory birds from all sources.
About Carolyn’s statement on the Pickens Plan…I am a supporter of that Plan and take issue with the insinuation that wind energy is not part of it. Taken directly from the Pickens Plan website:
http://www.pickensplan.com/theplan/
“The Pickens Plan.
There are several pillars to the Pickens Plan:
* Create millions of new jobs by building out the capacity to generate up to 22 percent of our electricity from wind. And adding to that with additional solar generation capacity;
* Building a 21st century backbone electrical transmission grid;
* Providing incentives for homeowners and the owners of commercial buildings to upgrade their insulation and other energy saving options; and
* Using America’s natural gas to replace imported oil as a transportation fuel in addition to its other uses in power generation, chemicals, etc.
While dependence on foreign oil is a critical concern, it is not a problem that can be solved in isolation. We have to think about energy as a whole, and that begins by considering our energy alternatives and thinking about how we will fuel our world in the next 10 to 20 years and beyond.
New jobs from renewable energy and conservation.
Any discussion of alternatives should begin with the 2007 Department of Energy study showing that building out our wind capacity in the Great Plains – from northern Texas to the Canadian border – would produce 138,000 new jobs in the first year, and more than 3.4 million new jobs over a ten-year period, while also producing as much as 20 percent of our needed electricity.”
November 18th, 2009 at 11:09 pm
The last post by groovyjoker needs a response. IF you have done any amount of homework on the renewable wind energy debacle, you must know that in Spain, where they have been very green for quite some time —- and have MANY wind farms, there is a loss of 2 regular jobs for every 1 renewable energy job. Spain is in trouble with a capital “T.” Look it up. You have to go to every source available to find the facts. You are not going to get the facts from the developers. They all say there are NO environmental impacts with wind, whatsoever. That simply is not true. Placement is a HUGE issue. In California they have placed wind farms all along the Pacific Flyway, with devastating consequences. Right now they are contemplating putting wind farms in the Eastern Pacific Flyway, in Eastern Washington. The losses of birds, Eagles and many other raptors has been epic in the 30 years that wind energy has been in California. Where are all the folks who don’t want extinction of species???? I don’t get it. They fight for a little “snail darter” and a little “frog” or SALMON — but Eagles and Hawks…. not so much! It is sad. IF you don’t care that a wind turbine, which costs (today) around $2 Million, which takes approximately 25 truckloads of cement for a pedestal and about 20 toms of rebar for reinforcement — is paid for my Taxpayers, with the developers getting tax exemptions in the states where they are developing (like WA state) AND they only produce when wind is blowing (18 – 25% of the time) —- then just what do you like about it? Have you ever read T. Boone Pickens quote about them not being on land near his home because they are ugly? We have some very scenic areas in our nation and to defile them and make them into commercial zones is pathetic UNLESS there is such a dire need AND the solution is actually viable. Wind is not that solution. My husband and I “conserve” — anyone out there do that? We don’t have all the electrical gadgets and we recycle everything. If the average American used some common sense and didn’t waste energy we’d be in better shape and wouldn’t be having this debate. The TRUTH is that if you follow the trail of money from Jeffrey Imelt, GE (wind) and Larry Sommers, former CEO of D.E. Shaw Group (Hedge fund) and now Obama’s chief economic adviser —- (D.E. Shaw closely connected to First Wind) – and you start to connect the dots, you will find that the Wind Energy deal is a HUGE transfer of money from taxpayers/ratepayers to Middle Eastern countries — I challenge anyone to put as much effort into this research as I have. If you are open-minded and really want the truth, that is what you should do. The renewable energy jobs thing is a myth — just like the numbers of jobs created by the stimulus is a myth. Check it out. Don’t be fooled. If you are, then likely one day you will awake and be surrounded by wind turbines littering the landscape as far as the eye can see and you will be no better off than you were before someone got filthy rich because of them.
I didn’t mean to go on so long, but people just usually spout off and don’t research the issues. If they did, they’d be singing a different tune. There are species of birds that will be extinct because of wind turbines. You cannot blast sound out to keep them away because there are actually people who like the tranquility of the rural lifestyle and that what could be worse — wind farms and low frequency noise, along with LOUD noise to scare birds away!??? Just think about it.
November 23rd, 2009 at 12:27 pm
Carolyn,
Your comment regarding Spain and their economy is not accurate.
http://greeneconomypost.com/debunk-spanish-study-green-jobs-1582.htm