next message in archive
next message in thread
previous message in archive
previous message in thread
Index of Subjects
<DIV>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; But that
This is a multipart message in MIME format.
------=_NextPart_000_00E2_01D077C4.0949C7F0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi All,
As someone who has conducted environmental assessments at about a dozen =
wind energy facilities in Nova Scotia I would like to make a =
contribution to this thread. Certainly wind energy will play a crucial =
role in providing renewable energy to Nova Scotia, and so far the =
evidence suggests that bird mortalities at wind energy facilities are =
relatively low compared to other sources of human-generated mortality. =
Nonetheless, I think birders and bird conservationists need to be more =
vigilant in evaluating the effects on birds. First, the mortality =
studies that have been conducted are limited in their ability to measure =
mortalities. Most fatalities probably occur at night and two things can =
happen to mask the extent of mortality. The first is that scavengers can =
clean up carcasses before the carcass searchers arrive in the morning. =
Second, carcass searchers are usually limited to searching the gravel =
pads at the base of the turbines. Depending on the size of the bird, the =
turbine blades can throw the birds well beyond the pads into vegetated =
or rocky areas where they can be extremely difficult to detect. Another =
concern is the lack of regional, peer-reviewed, scientific studies on =
the effects of wind energy facilities on bird and bird habitats. Not =
only is there a danger of collision but birds can be diverted from =
flyways, feeding habitats, and breeding areas in their attempt to avoid =
a turbine or turbine array. So far, studies have been piece-meal, the =
data is often confidential, and assessments are made on a case-by-case =
basis without reference to broader issues, cumulative impacts, and =
habitat fragmentation. Regional studies, including ground, acoustic, and =
radar survey techniques, are especially important in evaluating the =
impact of wind energy facilities constructed in coastal locals, and =
especially headlands. These are the areas where migrants concentrate, =
often in very large numbers and under poor weather conditions (such as =
fog and high winds), and when birds may be already stressed from a long =
flight or from being blown out to sea. Such conditions could lead to =
infrequent but catastrophic events. An example, is the case of the =
natural gas plant St. John, NB., a couple of years ago when hundreds of =
birds were killed in circling a gas flare. So while birds may be able =
to avoid the turbines on coastal headlands under most conditions, we do =
not have the knowledge to predict under what conditions these =
catastrophic events might occur, and without on-going monitoring, we =
might not ever know that they occurred. I would suggest that the =
environmental permits for wind energy facilities require that all data =
collected be made public and that industry, government, and conservation =
groups support regional studies that can lead to a more informed and =
integrated approach to reducing the risk of wind energy production on =
birds.
John
=20
From: naturens-owner@chebucto.ns.ca =
[mailto:naturens-owner@chebucto.ns.ca] On Behalf Of David & Alison =
Webster
Sent: April-15-15 19:25
To: naturens@chebucto.ns.ca
Subject: Re: [NatureNS] wind turbines
=20
Hi Nick & All, Apr 15, 2015
I agree almost entirely with your analysis Nick.=20
=20
In the real world, most choices involve selecting the lesser of two =
evils and, given available options, I have felt for decades that wind =
was way better than alternatives and should be quickly developed to the =
maximum possible.
=20
Nuclear however may make a comeback eventually. The great =
disadvantage of conventional Nuclear Power has been the production of =
radioactive waste (unless you happen to want the waste for potential =
production of dirty atomic weapons). But an alternative based on =
Thorium, in addition to modular design advantages, leads to 95% less =
nuclear waste.=20
=20
But that is for the distant future and, meanwhile, ways to cut =
carbon emissions so climates and ecosystems do not enter an interactive =
death spiral should be top on the agenda. Without meaningful cuts in =
carbon emissions there will be no distant future for many species in =
much of the world.
=20
Yt, Dave Webster, Kentville
----- Original Message -----=20
From: Nicholas Hill <mailto:fernhillns@gmail.com> =20
To: naturens@chebucto.ns.ca=20
Sent: Wednesday, April 15, 2015 4:08 PM
Subject: Re: [NatureNS] wind turbines
=20
This isn't an apology for wind farms but context. What are we to use for =
power?
If we use fossil C then the impact on climate and variability of weather =
patterns are more pronounced.
If we use large scale hydro we get large impacts on the functionally =
important and biodiverse riparian zone. Major use of forest for biomass =
energy will have widespread impact on forest soils their carbon reserves =
and on forest diversity.
Nuclear is an option that few appear to support.
Given the lineup, as naturalists one might think we would look on wind =
more favorably than the others from a habitat and biodiversity =
viewpoint.=20
having been part of an assessment of impacts of wind turbines on =
wetlands and privee to the process of assessing impacts on birds, I was =
impressed at the scrutiny exercised by DNR wildlife division. These are =
complex issues and none, save major reduction in energy use, are without =
impacts. It is good that naturalists show their concerns over these =
choices.
Nick
n Wed, Apr 15, 2015 at 2:30 PM, Fred Schueler <bckcdb@istar.ca> wrote:
>
> On 4/15/2015 11:19 AM, Laviolette, Lance (EXP) wrote:
>
>> Lastly, the last time I looked at the guidelines for conducting bird =
inventories at potential sites they appeared to be inadequate. =
Determining whether there was a risk to migrating birds by censusing a =
site 2-3 times during the fall migrating period just doesn't cut it. =
That was a while ago so perhaps they've now been improved.
>
>
> * back in the 19th Century, Uncle Henry David affirmed that to =
understand a landscape we need one full-time recording naturalist for =
every six miles (each 10km square in modern parlance).
>
> I've never seen any evidence that he was wrong about this.
>
> fred.
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> Frederick W. Schueler & Aleta Karstad
> Daily Paintings - http://karstaddailypaintings.blogs