US windfarms avoiding prosecution for eagle deaths

May 14, 2013 | Posted by: roboblogger | Full story: The Guardian

The Obama administration has never fined or prosecuted a windfarm for killing eagles and other protected bird species, shielding the industry from liability and helping keep the scope of the deaths secret, an Associated Press investigation has found.

Comments

Showing posts 1 - 20 of93
< prev page
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:

Since: Aug 08

Everett, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1
May 14, 2013
 

Judged:

4

4

3

From the article:
One of the deadliest places in the country for golden eagles is Wyoming, where federal officials said windfarms had killed more than four dozen golden eagles since 2009, predominantly in the southeastern part of the state.
//////////
Golden eagles are quite fearless. Driving my small car through Wyoming on a two lane highway at a slow pace, a golden eagle took up a position as my 'wingman', flying 10-15 feet away on my passenger side. I slowed even more, so he didn't have to strain, tho we were still going 35-40mph. It was fascinating to watch the eagle's detail while in dramatic motion. After one mile of formation 'flying', I stopped on the lonely highway, which passed between two mountain ranges on either side of the road. The eagle 'peeled off', as I got out of the car & landed on a fence post about a quarter mile away. I watched the eagle with binoculars & a spotting scope. The eagle lifted off the fence post & incredibly came to me & started buzzing me about four times. The eagle swooped close to me, & twice I could feel the air that flowed off its wings, as I ducked to avoid its talons. I didn't get the feeling that the eagle was attacking me, as much as the eagle enjoyed interacting with another being.

Another time, while motorcycling around a bend of a logging road in the mountains in Washington state, a golden eagle lifted off the road & swept to the side. The unexpected majesty of the eagle at very close quarters was almost as exciting as my Wyoming encounter.

Yeah, it is good to drive slow, for all kids, pedestrians, & animals you may encounter. Ya jus' nev'r know when a tree might fall on the road, too........ at least with all the trees in Washington state.
litesong

Everett, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2
May 14, 2013
 

Judged:

4

3

3

From the article:
one(eagle death) in Washington state.......

In 2011 6,209 million kilowatt-hours of electricity were generated from wind power in Washington state.

Many more eagle deaths have been reported in California, where old inefficient wind turbines take a large toll of birds.

More modern wind turbines produce 10 times more energy per bird death. The most modern gearless drive wind turbines kill ever fewer birds per generated megawatts.
//////////
Not so of oil industry bird deaths!
http://www.nwf.org/What-We-Do/Protect-Habitat...

Since: Mar 13

Alexandria, VA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3
May 14, 2013
 

Judged:

6

6

5

Wind-farm owners should have to pay the same fines as any other energy producer for the endangered biota they slaughter.
litesong

Everett, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#4
May 14, 2013
 

Judged:

6

5

2

KitemanSA wrote:
Wind-farm owners should have to pay the same fines as any other energy producer for the endangered biota they slaughter.
Builders of man-made skyscrapers, buildings, glass windows & vehicles that kill wildlife ten thousand times more than wind turbines must work to reduce wildlife death as much as wind turbine developers. Those people, only reprimanding wind farm developers, are biased & clearly have their political winds blowing harder than the winds that turbines tap for power.

Since: Mar 13

Alexandria, VA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5
May 14, 2013
 

Judged:

8

8

8

litesong's auto-judge-bot strikes again! Hee-hee!

"Man-made" skyscrapers (as if there are any other kind) generally provide HABITAT for endangered birds, not kill them. And flying into glass windows is typically something that small flocking birds will do, not endangered raptors.

The point being made, the one pseudo-greens can't accept, is that their proposals generally are more harmful than helpful; but they are sure their proposals are great since "their intensions are good". And thus the put us on the road to hell.

Since: Mar 13

Alexandria, VA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#6
May 14, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

2

By the way, anyone who has a window that birds have flown into more than once, and who hasn't put a raptor silhouette on it is not someone who loves birds.

Since: Mar 13

Alexandria, VA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#7
May 14, 2013
 

Judged:

8

8

8

Oh, and didn't I say they should be fined the same? Why then did litesong start talking about others. Is litesong aware that wind mills are much more prone to kill large endangered raptors than any other form of power? Is he(?) trying to deflect attention? I said the same, and I meant it.
LessHypeMoreFact

Toronto, Canada

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#8
May 14, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

3

KitemanSA wrote:
litesong's auto-judge-bot strikes again! Hee-hee!
"Man-made" skyscrapers (as if there are any other kind) generally provide HABITAT for endangered birds, not kill them.
Totally bogus. Bird strikes on high rises are THE major killer of all birds. Sure, the raptors are killed less often but only because there are fewer raptors than songbirds.

ONE raptor is killed by a wind turbine and KiteHighASS gets his panties in a twist. Hundreds of raptors are killed by collision with high rises and he thinks that is just fine.

Power lines alone will kill exponentially more raptors and birds of prey each year than wind turbines ever will.

For example a french study found that over 3 years along 180 miles of power lines, they found around 700 carcases in which 30% were birds of prey, including 6 eagles.
litesong

Everett, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#9
May 14, 2013
 

Judged:

5

5

3

kiteman sorry ass wrote:
.....Is litesong aware that wind mills are much more prone to kill large endangered raptors than any other form of power?
When fossil fuel proponents forget their own power producing fuels' pollution effects, sure they can make wind turbines look bad.

Fossil fuel AGW deniers opposing wind turbines, use the same data from the Altamont wind turbines & extrapolate it to all other wind turbines. If that inflated data doesn't work, deniers just keep adding to bird mortalities, of course, with no scientific research performed.

You see, toxic topix AGW deniers seldom have science, chemistry, astronomy, physics, algebra or pre-calc for their poorly earned hi skule DEE-plooomaas & almost never have science or mathematics degrees.

Since: Mar 13

Alexandria, VA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#10
May 14, 2013
 

Judged:

5

5

5

LessHypeMoreFact wrote:
<quoted text>
Totally bogus. Bird strikes on high rises are THE major killer of all birds. Sure, the raptors are killed less often but only because there are fewer raptors than songbirds.
ONE raptor is killed by a wind turbine and KiteHighASS gets his panties in a twist. Hundreds of raptors are killed by collision with high rises and he thinks that is just fine.
Power lines alone will kill exponentially more raptors and birds of prey each year than wind turbines ever will.
For example a french study found that over 3 years along 180 miles of power lines, they found around 700 carcases in which 30% were birds of prey, including 6 eagles.
Re: THE major killer. Data please? A study I read says that flocking birds have much worse time with windows because they see their reflection in it and try to flock to that reflection. Raptors tend not to do that.

Re: ONE... buffalo muffins dude. 40% of the golden eagle population alone. It comes out to about 14 per Megawatt per year. Wind mills actually suck dirds into them. Data on high-rises?

Re: So if power lines kill so many birds, why are greens so insistent on supporting energy systems that require HUGE increases in power line build-out to make them even begin to approach economical?

Seems that "greens" should be into power systems that are very easy on the landscape and can provide economical power very close to the end user so long extra-high-tension power lines are not needed. That is what LFTRs can do for us.

Since: Mar 13

Alexandria, VA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11
May 14, 2013
 

Judged:

8

8

8

litesong wrote:
<quoted text>
When fossil fuel proponents forget their own power producing fuels' pollution effects, sure they can make wind turbines look bad.
Fossil fuel AGW deniers opposing wind turbines, use the same data from the Altamont wind turbines & extrapolate it to all other wind turbines. If that inflated data doesn't work, deniers just keep adding to bird mortalities, of course, with no scientific research performed.
You see, toxic topix AGW deniers seldom have science, chemistry, astronomy, physics, algebra or pre-calc for their poorly earned hi skule DEE-plooomaas & almost never have science or mathematics degrees.
Re: Fossil fuel proponent... Who dat? Not me! Your fossil argument is facile.
Re: Altamont turbines worst. All other turbines, still pretty bad. They kill the most per kWh of any source.
Re: Lacking degrees. Show yours first. I will put mine up against most.
litesong

Everett, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#12
May 14, 2013
 

Judged:

5

5

5

KitemanSA wrote:
All other turbines, still pretty bad. They kill the most per kWh of any source.
Re: Lacking degrees. Show yours first. I will put mine up against most.
Of course, you lie. Pollution from fossil fuel production kills far more birds & wildlife, in the air, in water or on land, than even toxic topix AGW deniers can dream wind turbines can kill. Whereas, thousand foot tall oil, coal & gas energy producing chimneys try to dilute their deadly emissions by sending them into other states & even countries, birds quite regularly fly into the midst of chimney pollutions & very very often into distant but still densely polluted downwind chimney pollutants. Due to the height of fossil fuel chimneys, & birds seldom reaching doctors, death on the wing, spiraling into the brush, the fossil fuel industry gets off scott-free.

Most toxic topix AGW deniers have no science, chemistry, astronomy, physics, algebra, or pre-calc for their poorly earned hi skule DEE-plooomaas. Almost none have science or mathematics degrees. Six toxic topix AGW deniers have no hi skule DEE-plooomaas, at all.
LessHypeMoreFact

Toronto, Canada

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#13
May 14, 2013
 

Judged:

6

6

6

KitemanSA wrote:
<quoted text> Re: THE major killer. Data please? A study I read says that flocking birds have much worse time with windows because they see their reflection in it and try to flock to that reflection. Raptors tend not to do that.
Oh, yah. I forgot that they had x ray vision. NOT.
KitemanSA wrote:
<quoted text>
Re: ONE... buffalo muffins dude. 40% of the golden eagle population alone.
I have no idea what this is unless you are misreading the reference.
KitemanSA wrote:
<quoted text>
It comes out to about 14 per Megawatt per year. Wind mills actually suck dirds into them.
The major fact is that fossil fueled power plants tend to be site far away from their users which is why we HAVE so many 'power corridors' while green energy tends to be sited nearby with fewer power lines necessary. Which is the bigger danger, wind turbines or power lines. According to research, power lines win..
KitemanSA wrote:
<quoted text>
Re: So if power lines kill so many birds, why are greens so insistent on supporting energy systems that require HUGE increases in power line build-out to make them even begin to approach economical?
First. Your claim is untrue. Power lines were built to support fossil fuel generation two states away where fossil fuels are located since the cost of transporting the fuel is greater than power line losses. While green energy is usually smaller scale and located near the end user.

Second, you finally expose your true reason here with 'the greens'. Politically motivated hatred based on fossil fuel ideology. It explains your more rational posts on other threads. On raptors, you are neither rational, nor reasonable.
KitemanSA wrote:
<quoted text>

Seems that "greens" should be into power systems that are very easy on the landscape and can provide economical power very close to the end user so long extra-high-tension power lines are not needed. That is what LFTRs can do for us.
You don't even notice that to support your biases, you are now claiming the OPPOSITE of what you said in the previous paragraphs. Yes. There are usually fewer power lines for 'green energy'(which seems to be your real hatred).

Basically you are trying for an emotional reasoning based on 'love of nature' or birds to fight the fact that green clean energy is CHEAPER than dirty fossil fuels. And we don't even need to comment on the radioactive, toxic fly ash, climate change, deaths in coal mines, lack of jobs (most of the money in fossil fuels is in the ownership, not jobs, while green energy tends to need a lot of labor but not much investment) etc.

Not saying that I don't regret any bird deaths due to ANY activity but we need to focus on the PROBLEM, not your hangups.

Since: Mar 13

Alexandria, VA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#14
May 14, 2013
 

Judged:

11

11

11

litesong wrote:
<quoted text>
Of course, you lie. Pollution from fossil fuel production kills far more birds & wildlife, in the air, in water or on land, than even toxic topix AGW deniers can dream wind turbines can kill. Whereas, thousand foot tall oil, coal & gas energy producing chimneys try to dilute their deadly emissions by sending them into other states & even countries, birds quite regularly fly into the midst of chimney pollutions & very very often into distant but still densely polluted downwind chimney pollutants. Due to the height of fossil fuel chimneys, & birds seldom reaching doctors, death on the wing, spiraling into the brush, the fossil fuel industry gets off scott-free.
Most toxic topix AGW deniers have no science, chemistry, astronomy, physics, algebra, or pre-calc for their poorly earned hi skule DEE-plooomaas. Almost none have science or mathematics degrees. Six toxic topix AGW deniers have no hi skule DEE-plooomaas, at all.
You don't know me well enough to say I lie. I may be mistaken, and it behooves you to provide data to demonstrate that. But you seem to have this fixation with some imaginary thing called "toxic topic AGW deniers". It seems to cloud you judgement.

There have been studies on bird deaths. I may have mis-read some. Why don't you look and see.

Again with the sub-literary allitertion, and avoidance of real data. What are YOUR credentials? Do you have thedegrees you deny others have? And how do you know they have no HS diplomas? You accused me of it, put up or shut up.

Since: Mar 13

Alexandria, VA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#15
May 14, 2013
 

Judged:

9

9

9

LHMF wrote:
Oh, yah. I forgot that they had x ray vision. NOT.
This is a silly comment. Have you nothing constructive to add to the debate? Are you implying birds can't see reflections"
LHMF wrote:
I have no idea what this is unless you are misreading the reference.
Let me explain it to you in simple terms.
I said that wind farmers should have to pay the same fines as any other energy sector for the endangered birds (plural) they kill. General statement.
I get attacked by litehead regarding bird kills by other energy sectors.
We discuss the killing of large numbers of birds by various means.
You jump in with some inanity about ONE bird getting my knickers in a knot.
I reply that it is much more than one bird.
Get it? Or is that not simple enough?
LHMF wrote:
The major fact is that fossil fueled power plants tend to be site far away from their users which is why we HAVE so many 'power corridors' while green energy tends to be sited nearby with fewer power lines necessary. Which is the bigger danger, wind turbines or power lines. According to research, power lines win..
Your first statement is partially true in that there are some large plants near coal mines, but there are a lot of them near cities too. There is one about 20 blocks from me here in NoVA.
The second part tends to be false except for very small installations. Most "Corridors" are for hydro power which is considered a green source.
Neither is signifiant since my point was that Liquid Fluoride Thorium Recyclers (LFTRs) could be placed quite near the end user and eliminate a lot of high tension lines.
LHMF wrote:
Second, you finally expose your true reason here with 'the greens'. Politically motivated hatred based on fossil fuel ideology. It explains your more rational posts on other threads. On raptors, you are neither rational, nor reasonable.
This demonstrates your inability to read. I am opposed to the continued use of fossil fuels to generate electricity. There is a much leaner, cleaner, greener source, LFTRs.
LHMF wrote:
You don't even notice that to support your biases, you are now claiming the OPPOSITE of what you said in the previous paragraphs. Yes. There are usually fewer power lines for 'green energy'(which seems to be your real hatred).
You and I have a disagreement about the prevalence of power lines for so called green energy sources. My data says there are more miles of them per kWh of energy provided. What is your data to say differently? Your statements suggest you have data, what is it?
LHMF wrote:
Basically you are trying for an emotional reasoning based on 'love of nature' or birds to fight the fact that green clean energy is CHEAPER than dirty fossil fuels.
It is unfortunate that you have no real idea what "green" energy really costs from a grid level standpoint. If we talk about available power sources for the future (which excludes hydro since it is basically built out) the intermittency of wind and solar make it so that the system level costs are enormous. The real figure of merit for such sources is something called "Capacity Credit". Please read up on it. The CapCred for wind and solar is abysmal.
LHMF wrote:
And we don't even need to comment on the radioactive, toxic fly ash, climate change, deaths in coal mines, lack of jobs (most of the money in fossil fuels is in the ownership, not jobs, while green energy tends to need a lot of labor but not much investment) etc.
Nope, that is one reason I'm agin'em.
LHMF wrote:
Not saying that I don't regret any bird deaths due to ANY activity but we need to focus on the PROBLEM, not your hangups.
My problem is that we are wasting huge $s on low CapCred sources when LFTRs can solve all the issues.
Bernard Forand

Fort Myers, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#16
May 15, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

2

This is where Kiteman gets his facts. From a biased tabloid with no studies or actual science in researching the data they present. Similar to Kiteman. Hey was it not Kiteman that recently was promoting radioactive elements are good for you! Lost that argument and now seeks to bash the Green Energy spectrum. Fragrance of Toxic fuel shill.

Save the Eagles International (STEI) issued a dire warning, providing detailed documentation proving that golden eagles and their nests are disappearing rapidly near wind farms across the U.S.
The group also blasted the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service for changing its mission from protecting wildlife to “catering to the interests of an industry” that is a “ruinous one to boot.”
&#65532;Eagle killed by wind turbineAlthough the studies focused on golden eagles, if no major action is taken, wind turbines' razor-sharp blades will also threaten the existence of other species, STEI predicts.

This from a biased article Then There will SOON be one out for Wolves back on the endangered list.“OR” the endangered desert turtles will SOON be on the endangered list. Gee isn’t that where they want to build a Parabolic Solar Array.??“OR” humans will SOON be on the endangered list due to Global Warming??“OR” the sky will SOONJ fall down!! For all we know this picture was staged. Razor Sharp Blades??? Five Eagles Nest missing?? Gee do you think they decided to move out or is the Global Warming getting to them. Fragrance of a coaly oily radioactive toxic fume is prevalent with some on this thread. Even the EPA bureaucrat can see through this farce and that’s saying something. Same as the turtles that were found to be dying off from the oily fumes of cities and vehicles. People just keep on moving nothing here but our “Chicken Little” Wonder if chicken little will SOON be extinct. Perhaps with a tad more education. Should we dismantle our educational system for “Chicken Little”?
litesong

Everett, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#17
May 15, 2013
 

Judged:

3

2

2

kiteman sorry ass wrote:
But you seem to have this fixation with some imaginary thing called "toxic topic AGW deniers".
I may have mis-read some.
What are YOUR credentials? Do you have thedegrees you deny others have? And how do you know they have no HS diplomas? You accused me of it......
Newbee(every thing is imaginary) conservative exxon oil, energy re-pubic-lick-un "kiteman sorry ass" piles in with toxic topix AGW denier diatribe, not knowing that toxic topix AGW deniers here have used major & deep racism & many threats(some of the most severe types)....... at least it states that it doesn't know.

'kiteman sorry ass', being a newbee, may not know the deep lack of education of toxic topix AGW deniers...... a lack of education that toxic topix AGW deniers are very proud & admit readily. At least six toxic topix AGW deniers have no hi skule DEE-plooomaa, which contrasts dramatically with AGW advocates, who have considerably

While ripping wind turbines for killing birds,'kiteman sorry ass' thinks it can ignore the many armed environmental disasters of the fossil fuel industry, get self-righteous, & man-up its attack mode.

While aligning itself with education avoiding toxic topix AGW deniers, newbee 'kiteman sorry ass' thinks it can demand the education level of long term posters here without showing its education to support its anti-science & misdirected data.

Since: Mar 13

Alexandria, VA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#18
May 15, 2013
 

Judged:

4

4

4

Bernard Forand wrote:
{{This is an exact duplicate of a posting in another thread. For shame BF - editor}}
In the other thread I made a comment on this duplicate post. See that one.

Since: Mar 13

Alexandria, VA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#19
May 15, 2013
 

Judged:

7

7

7

litesong wrote:
<quoted text>
Newbee(every thing is imaginary) conservative exxon oil, energy re-pubic-lick-un "kiteman sorry ass" piles in with toxic topix AGW denier diatribe, not knowing that toxic topix AGW deniers here have used major & deep racism & many threats(some of the most severe types).......
Litehead,
This type of rambling senseless diaTRIBE suggests strongly that you are one of those un-educated clods you accuse your opponents of being. Why not act in a mature manner and have a respectful diaLOG instead?
litesong

Everett, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#20
May 15, 2013
 

Judged:

5

5

5

KitemanSA wrote:
Altamont turbines worst. All other turbines, still pretty bad. They kill the most per kWh of any source.
As in the article, you start with Altamont. The article stops with Altamont, only! Other turbines, you say pretty bad, without any information.

Other turbines cause at least 10 times fewer deaths per generated megawatt-hrs. The newest, most efficient wind turbines cause at least 25% fewer deaths per generated megawatt-hrs. That is why numerous statistics gathered from these newer & newest wind farms show dramatic decreases in deaths. Of course, toxic topix AGW deniers like to ignore data from the newest wind farms, & often lead off their articles & posts with Altamont data.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 1 - 20 of93
< prev page
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

•••
•••