Are Wind Turbines Actually Bird Blenders?

Wind turbines are blenders for endangered bird species, and wind energy itself way too expensive -- at least that's the way some critics would have us view the technology that is now the most successful of all modern types of renewable energy. For more than 20 years, the wind power industry has been reacting to such accusations and improving technology. The result: the criticism hasn't changed, and some comparisons are eye-opening.

The two oil crises of 1973 and 1979 revealed the dependency of the U.S. on oil to be a critical weakness of the U.S. economy. President Carter responded by implementing the nation's first wind and solar programs. One of the largest wind energy projects began in 1982 at Altamont Pass east of San Francisco. By 1987, a total of 7340 turbines had been installed -- right where a number of endangered raptors flew. In the 60s, the population of one of the species, the bald eagle, had already been decimated to around 30 birds due to the thinning of their eggshells from the effects of DDT. Without DDT, we may never have thought of wind turbines as dangerous to birds.

The first study on the effects of the wind turbines in Altamont was published in 1992. 1169 of the total 7340 turbines were studied for a period of two years (1989-91), but the study was limited to endangered raptors, with other species only being recorded haphazardly. The study found that these 1169 turbines had killed 182 raptors, i.e. one bird per 13 turbines per annum. That's 0.07 per turbine p.a. However, the number of all of the birds killed by the rotor blades is much higher. A study published by the U.S. National Wind Coordinating Committee (NWCC) in August 2001 estimates that the roughly 15,000 wind turbines then operating in the U.S. kill around 33,000 birds annually, i.e. some 2.2 birds per turbine/year, though this figure fluctuates greatly from one location to another.

How many are too many?

The report emphasizes that even if 1 million wind turbines were installed, the number of birds that would then be killed by the blades -- an estimated 2.2 million -- would still only a fraction of the damage that other man-made structures already cause. Buildings (windows) kill an estimated 500 million birds every year, cars and trucks 70 million, and telecommunication antennas about 27million.

The estimated maximum of 2.2 million birds that may be killed nationwide by wind turbines in the distant future pales in comparison, not to mention the estimated 33,000 for 2001. But has anyone ever called cars -- or buildings, for that matter -- blenders? It should be noted that bird protection groups are now taking the Federal Communications Commission to court because environmental impact assessments (EIAs) have not even been mandatory for many communications facilities.

In contrast, EIAs have long been required for wind turbines, despite the drastically lower danger they pose for birds. Would we have had this requirement -- and this confusion -- without DDT? The NWCC manual for wind turbine permits from 2002 pushes the comparison even further when it points out that the Audubon Society estimates that cats (wild and domestic) kill some 100 million birds each year nationwide.

Indeed, the Audubon Society -- the largest bird protection group in the USA -- is hardly an enemy of wind energy as some (such as a speaker from the right-wing Cato Institute on the Diane Rehm show in November 2001) would have us believe. In June 2001 -- five months before the broadcast above -- Audubon's spokesperson John Bianchi answered my query about the Society's position on wind power as follows:

"At Audubon, we believe wind power is a great, non-polluting alternative to fossil fuels. We have only one reservation: wind generation plants must be located away from habitats for endangered birds, especially raptors, which have a higher chance of impacting with wind turbines. With the proper EIS work, wind plants should be a great benefit to people and the environment."