Environmental impact of wind power

The environmental impact of wind power is relatively minor when compared to that of fossil fuel power. Compared with other low-carbon power sources, wind turbines have one of the lowest global warming potentials per unit of electrical energy generated by any power source.[2] According to the IPCC, in assessments of the life-cycle global warming potential of energy sources, wind turbines have a median value of between 15 and 11 (gCO
2eq/kWh) depending on whether offshore or onshore turbines are being assessed.[3][4]

Wind turbines overlooking Ardrossan, Scotland
Livestock grazing near a wind turbine[1]

Onshore wind farms can have significant impacts on the landscape,[5] as typically they need to be spread over more land than other power stations[6][7] and need to be built in wild and rural areas, which can lead to "industrialization of the countryside"[8] and habitat loss.[7] Conflicts arise especially in scenic and culturally-important landscapes. Siting restrictions (such as setbacks) may be implemented to limit the impact.[9] The land between the turbines and access roads can still be used for farming and grazing.[10][11]

Habitat loss and fragmentation are the greatest impacts of wind farms on wildlife.[7] Wind turbines, like many other human activities and buildings, also increase the death rate of aviary creatures such as birds and bats. A summary of the existing field studies compiled in 2010 from the National Wind Coordinating Collaborative identified fewer than 14 and typically less than four bird deaths per installed megawatt per year, but a wider variation in the number of bat deaths.[12] Like other investigations, it concluded that some species (e.g. migrating bats and songbirds) are known to be harmed more than others and that factors such as turbine siting can be important. However, many details, as well as the overall impact from the growing number of turbines, remain unclear.[13][14] The National Renewable Energy Laboratory maintains a database of the scientific literature on the subject.[15]

Wind turbines also generate noise, and at a residential distance of 300 metres (980 ft) this may be around 45 dB; however, at a distance of 1.5 km (1 mi), most wind turbines become inaudible.[16][17] Loud or persistent noise increases stress which could then lead to diseases.[18] Wind turbines do not affect human health with their noise when properly placed.[19][20][21][9] However, when improperly sited, data from the monitoring of two groups of growing geese revealed substantially lower body weights and higher concentrations of a stress hormone in the blood of the first group of geese who were situated 50 meters away compared to a second group which was at a distance of 500 meters from the turbine.[22]

Most of the wind turbines contain SF6 gas, which is 23,500 times more potent a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide and remains in the atmosphere for at least 1,000 years.[23] Turbines leak a small amount of gas during normal operation.[24]

Basic operational considerations

Net energy gain

The energy return on investment (EROI) for wind energy is equal to the cumulative electricity generated divided by the cumulative primary energy required to build and maintain a turbine. According to a meta-study, in which all existing studies from 1977 to 2007 were reviewed, the EROI for wind ranges from 5 to 35,[25] with the most common turbines in the range of 2 MW nameplate capacity-rotor diameters of 66 meters, on average the EROI is 16.[26][27] EROI is strongly proportional to turbine size, and larger late-generation turbines average at the high end of this range, and according to one study, is approximately 35.[25]

Wind turbine manufacturer Vestas claims that initial energy "payback" is within about 7–9 months of operation for a 1.65-2.0MW wind turbine under low wind conditions,[28][29] whereas Siemens Wind Power calculates 5–10 months depending on circumstances.[30]

Pollution and effects on the grid

Pollution costs

Wind power doesn't consume water[31] for continuous operation and has near negligible emissions directly related to its electricity production. Wind turbines when isolated from the electric grid, produce negligible amounts of carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide, mercury and radioactive waste when in operation, unlike fossil fuel sources and nuclear energy station fuel production, respectively.

With the construction phase largely to blame, wind turbines emit slightly more particulate matter (PM), a form of air pollution, at an "exception" rate higher per unit of energy generated(kWh) than a fossil gas electricity station("NGCC"),[32][33] and also emit more heavy metals and PM than nuclear stations, per unit of energy generated.[34][35] As far as total pollution costs in economic terms, in a comprehensive 2006 European study, alpine Hydropower was found to exhibit the lowest external pollution, or externality, costs of all electricity generating systems, below 0.05 c€/kWh. Wind power externality costs were found to be 0.09 - 0.12c€/kW, while nuclear energy had a 0.19 c€/kWh value and fossil fuels generated 1.6 - 5.8 c€/kWh of downstream costs.[36] Except for the latter fossil fuels, these are negligible costs in comparison to the cost of electricity production, which is approximately 10 c€/kWh in European countries.

Findings when connected to the grid
See also: Wind power § Variability
The Vattenfall utility company study found Hydroelectric, nuclear stations and wind turbines to have far less greenhouse emissions than other sources represented.

A typical study of a wind farm's Life cycle assessment, when not connected to the electric grid, usually results in similar findings as the following 2006 analysis of 3 installations in the US Midwest, where the carbon dioxide (CO
2) emissions of wind power ranged from 14 to 33 tonnes (15 to 36 short tons) per GWh (14–33 gCO
2/kWh) of energy produced, with most of the CO
2 emission intensity coming from producing the concrete for wind-turbine foundations.[37] By combining similar data from numerous individual studies in a meta-analysis, the median global warming potential for wind power was found to be 11–12 g CO2/kWh and unlikely to change significantly.[3][38][39]

However these relatively low pollution values begin to increase as greater and greater wind energy is added to the grid, or wind power 'electric grid penetration' levels are reached. Due to the effects of attempting to balance out the energy demands on the grid, from Intermittent power sources e.g. wind power (sources which have low capacity factors due to the weather), this either requires the construction of large energy storage projects, which have their own emission intensity which must be added to wind power's system-wide pollution effects, or it requires more frequent reliance on fossil fuels than the spinning reserve requirements necessary to back up more dependable sources. The latter combination is presently the more common.[40][41][42]

This higher dependence on back-up/Load following power plants to ensure a steady power grid output has the knock-on-effect of more frequent inefficient (in CO
2e g/kWh) throttling up and down of these other power sources in the grid to facilitate the intermittent power source's variable output. When one includes the total effect of intermittent sources on other power sources in the grid system, that is, including these inefficient start up emissions of backup power sources to cater for wind energy, into wind energy's total system-wide life cycle, this results in a higher real-world wind energy emission intensity. Higher than the direct g/kWh value that is determined from looking at the power source in isolation and thus ignores all down-stream detrimental/inefficiency effects it has on the grid. This higher dependence on back-up/Load following power plants to ensure a steady power grid output forces fossil power plants to operate in less efficient states. In a 2012 paper that appeared in the Journal of Industrial Ecology, it states.[38]

"The thermal efficiency of fossil-based power plants is reduced when operated at fluctuating and suboptimal loads to supplement wind power, which may degrade, to a certain extent, the GHG(Greenhouse gas) benefits resulting from the addition of wind to the grid. A study conducted by Pehnt and colleagues (2008)[43] reports that a moderate level of [grid] wind penetration (12%) would result in efficiency penalties of 3% to 8%, depending on the type of conventional power plant considered. Gross and colleagues (2006) report similar results, with efficiency penalties ranging from nearly 0% to 7% for up to 20% [of grid] wind penetration. Pehnt and colleagues (2008) conclude that the results of adding offshore wind power in Germany on the background power systems maintaining a level supply to the grid and providing enough reserve capacity amount to adding between 20 and 80 g CO2-eq/kWh to the life cycle GHG emissions profile of wind power."

In comparison to other low carbon power sources Wind turbines, when assessed in isolation, have a median life cycle emission value of between 11 and 12 (gCO
2eq/kWh). The more dependable alpine Hydropower and nuclear stations have median total life cycle emission values of 24 and 12 g CO2-eq/kWh respectively.[3][44]

While an increase in emissions due to the practical issues of load balancing is an issue, Pehnt et al. still conclude that these 20 and 80 g CO2-eq/kWh added penalties still result in wind being roughly ten times less polluting than fossil gas and coal which emit ~400 and 900 g CO2-eq/kWh respectively.[43]

As these losses occur due to the cycling of fossil power plants, they may at some point become smaller when more than 20–30% of wind energy is added to the power grid, as fossil power plants are replaced, however this has yet to occur in practice.[45]

Rare-earth use

The production of permanent magnets used in some wind turbines makes use of neodymium.[46] Pollution concerns associated with the extraction of this rare-earth element, which is primarily exported by China, have prompted government action in recent years,[47][48] and international research attempts to refine the extraction process.[49] Research is underway on turbine and generator designs which reduce the need for neodymium, or eliminate the use of rare-earth metals altogether.[50] Additionally, the large wind turbine manufacturer Enercon GmbH chose very early not to use permanent magnets for its direct drive turbines, to avoid responsibility for the adverse environmental impact of rare-earth mining.[51]

Landfill use

Before 2019, many wind turbine blades were made from fiberglass with designs that only provided a service lifetime of 10 to 20 years.[52] Given the available technology, As of February 2018 there was no market for recycling these old blades.[53] One common disposal option was to truck them to landfills. Because they were designed to be hollow, blades took up enormous volume compared to their mass. Landfill operators have started requiring operators to crush the blades before they can be landfilled.[52]

Ecology

Land use

Wind farms are often built on land that has already been impacted by land clearing. The vegetation clearing and ground disturbance required for wind farms are minimal compared with coal mines and coal-fired power stations. If wind farms are decommissioned, the landscape can be returned to its previous condition.[54]

A study by the US National Renewable Energy Laboratory of US wind farms built between 2000 and 2009 found that, on average, only 1.1 percent of the total wind farm area suffered surface disturbance, and only 0.43 percent was permanently disturbed by wind power installations. On average, there were 63 hectares (156 acres) of total wind farm area per MW of capacity, but only 0.27 hectares (0.67 acres) of permanently disturbed area per MW of wind power capacity.[55]

In the UK many prime wind farm sites - locations with the best average wind speeds - are in upland areas that are frequently covered by blanket bog. This type of habitat exists in areas of relatively high rainfall where large areas of land remain permanently sodden. Construction work may create a risk of disruption to peatland hydrology which could cause localised areas of peat within the area of a wind farm to dry out, disintegrate, and so release their stored carbon. At the same time, the warming climate which renewable energy schemes seek to mitigate could itself pose an existential threat to peatlands throughout the UK.[56][57] A Scottish MEP campaigned for a moratorium on wind developments on peatlands saying that "Damaging the peat causes the release of more carbon dioxide than wind farms save".[58] A 2014 report for the Northern Ireland Environment Agency noted that siting wind turbines on peatland could release considerable carbon dioxide from the peat, and also damage the peatland contributions to flood control and water quality: "The potential knock-on effects of using the peatland resource for wind turbines are considerable and it is arguable that the impacts on this facet of biodiversity will have the most noticeable and greatest financial implications for Northern Ireland."[59]

Wind-energy advocates contend that less than 1% of the land is used for foundations and access roads, the other 99% can still be used for farming.[11] A wind turbine needs about 200–400 m² for the foundation. A (small) 500-kW-turbine with an annual production of 1.4 GWh produces 11.7 MWh/m², which is comparable with coal-fired plants (about 15-20 MWh/m²), coal-mining not included. With the increasing size of the wind turbine the relative size of the foundation decreases.[60] Critics point out that on some locations in forests the clearing of trees around tower bases may be necessary for installation sites on mountain ridges, such as in the northeastern U.S.[61] This usually takes the clearing of 5,000 m² per wind turbine.[62]

Turbines are not generally installed in urban areas. Buildings interfere with the wind, turbines must be sited a safe distance ("setback") from residences in case of failure, and the value of land is high. There are a few notable exceptions to this. The WindShare ExPlace wind turbine was erected in December 2002, on the grounds of Exhibition Place, in Toronto, Ontario, Canada. It was the first wind turbine installed in a major North American urban city centre.[63] Steel Winds also has a 20 MW urban project south of Buffalo, New York. Both of these projects are in urban locations, but benefit from being on uninhabited lakeshore property.

Livestock

The land can still be used for farming and cattle grazing. Livestock is unaffected by the presence of wind farms. International experience shows that livestock will "graze right up to the base of wind turbines and often use them as rubbing posts or for shade".[54]

In 2014, a first of its kind veterinary study attempted to determine the effects of rearing livestock near a wind turbine, the study compared the health effects of a wind turbine on the development of two groups of growing geese, preliminary results found that geese raised within 50 meters of a wind turbine gained less weight and had a higher concentration of the stress hormone cortisol in their blood than geese at a distance of 500 meters.[22]

Semi-domestic reindeer avoid the construction activity,[64] but seem unaffected when the turbines are operating.[65][66]

Impact on wildlife

Environmental assessments are routinely carried out for wind farm proposals, and potential impacts on the local environment (e.g. plants, animals, soils) are evaluated.[54] Turbine locations and operations are often modified as part of the approval process to avoid or minimise impacts on threatened species and their habitats. Any unavoidable impacts can be offset with conservation improvements of similar ecosystems which are unaffected by the proposal.[54]

A research agenda from a coalition of researchers from universities, industry, and government, supported by the Atkinson Center for a Sustainable Future, suggests modeling the spatiotemporal patterns of migratory and residential wildlife with respect to geographic features and weather, to provide a basis for science-based decisions about where to site new wind projects. More specifically, it suggests:

  • Use existing data on migratory and other movements of wildlife to develop predictive models of risk.
  • Use new and emerging technologies, including radar, acoustics, and thermal imaging, to fill gaps in knowledge of wildlife movements.
  • Identify specific species or sets of species most at risk in areas of high potential wind resources.[67]

Birds
Data largely from a preliminary study,[68] conducted by B. Sovacool, into causes of avian mortality in the United States, annual
SourceEstimated
mortality
(in millions)		Estimated
deaths
(per GWh)
Wind turbines[69][70][71]0.02 – 0.570.269
Aircraft[72]0.08(n/a)
Nuclear power plants[68][69]0 - 0.330 - 0.416
Oilfield oil waste & waste water pits[73][74]0.50 – 1(n/a)
Nuisance bird control kills (airports, agriculture, etc...)[75]2(n/a)
Communication towers (cellular, radio, microwave)[69]4 – 50(n/a)
Large communications towers (over 180', N. America)[76]6.8(n/a)
Fossil fuel powerplants[69]145.18
Cars & trucks[69][75]50 – 100(n/a)
Agriculture[69]67(n/a)
Pesticide use[69]72(n/a)
Hunting[69][75]100 – 120(n/a)
Transmission lines (conventional powerplants)[69][75]174 – 175(n/a)
Buildings and windows[77]365 – 988(n/a)
Domestic and feral cats[69][78][79][80]210 – 3,700(n/a)

The impact of wind energy on birds, which can fly into turbines directly, or indirectly have their habitats degraded by wind development, is complex. Projects such as the Black Law Wind Farm have received wide recognition for its contribution to environmental objectives, including praise from the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, who describe the scheme as both improving the landscape of a derelict opencast mining site and also benefiting a range of wildlife in the area, with an extensive habitat management projects covering over 14 square kilometres.[81]

The preliminary data,[68] from the above table during 2013, 'Causes of avian mortality in the United States, annual', shown as a bar graph, inclusive of a high nuclear-fission bird mortality figure that the author later recognized was due to a major error on their part.[68]

The meta-analysis on avian mortality by Benjamin K. Sovacool led him to suggest that there were a number of deficiencies in other researchers' methodologies.[69] Among them, he stated were a focus on bird deaths, but not on the reductions in bird births: for example, mining activities for fossil fuels and pollution from fossil fuel plants have led to significant toxic deposits and acid rain that have damaged or poisoned many nesting and feeding grounds, leading to reductions in births. The large cumulative footprint of wind turbines, which reduces the area available to wildlife or agriculture, is also missing from all studies including Sovacool's. Many of the studies also made no mention of avian deaths per unit of electricity produced, which excluded meaningful comparisons between different energy sources. More importantly, it concluded, the most visible impacts of a technology, as measured by media exposure, are not necessarily the most flagrant ones.[69]

Sovacool estimated that in the US wind turbines kill between 20,000 and 573,000 birds per year, and has stated he regards either figure as minimal compared to bird deaths from other causes. He uses the lower 20,000 figure in his study and table (see Causes of avian mortality table) to arrive at a direct mortality rate per unit of energy generated figure of 0.269 per GWh for wind power. Fossil-fueled power plants, which wind turbines generally require to make up for their weather dependent intermittency, kill almost 20 times as many birds per gigawatt hour (GWh) of electricity according to Sovacool. Bird deaths due to other human activities and cats total between 797 million and 5.29 billion per year in the U.S. Additionally, while many studies concentrate on the analysis of bird deaths, few have been conducted on the reductions of bird births, which are the additional consequences of the various pollution sources that wind power partially mitigates.[69]

Of the bird deaths Sovacool attributed to fossil-fuel power plants, 96 percent were due to the effects of climate change. While the study did not assess bat mortality due to various forms of energy, he considered it not unreasonable to assume a similar ratio of mortality.[69][82] The Sovacool study has provoked controversy because of its treatment of data.[83][84] In a series of replies, Sovacool acknowledged a number of large errors, particularly those that relate to his earlier "0.33 to 0.416" fatalities overestimate for the number of bird deaths per GWh of nuclear power, and cautioned that "the study already tells you the numbers are very rough estimates that need to be improved."[68]

A 2013 meta-analysis by Smallwood identified a number of factors which result in serious under-reporting of bird and bat deaths by wind turbines. These include inefficient searches, inadequate search radius, and carcass removal by predators. To adjust the results of different studies, he applied correction factors from hundreds of carcass placement trials. His meta-analysis concluded that in 2012 in the United States, wind turbines resulted in the deaths of 888,000 bats and 573,000 birds, including 83,000 birds of prey.[85]

Also in 2013, a meta-analysis by Scott Loss and others in the journal Biological Conservation found that the likely mean number of birds killed annually in the U.S by monopole tower wind turbines was 234,000. The authors acknowledged the larger number reported by Smallwood, but noted that Smallwood's meta-analysis did not distinguish between types of wind turbine towers. The monopole towers used almost exclusively for new wind installations have mortality rates that "increase with increasing height of monopole turbines", but as of yet, it remains to be determined if increasingly taller monopole towers result in lower mortality per GWh.[86][87]

Bird mortality at wind energy facilities can vary greatly depending on the location, construction, and height, with some facilities reporting zero bird fatalities, and others as high as 9.33 birds per turbine per year.[88] A 2007 article in the journal Nature stated that each wind turbine in the U.S. kills an average of 0.03 birds per year, and recommends that more research needs to be done.[89][90]

A comprehensive study of wind turbine bird deaths by the Canadian Wildlife Service in 2013 analyzed reports from 43 out of the 135 wind farms operating across Canada as of December 2011. After adjusting for search inefficiencies, the study found an average of 8.2 bird deaths per tower per year, from which they arrived at a total of 23,000 per year for Canada at that time. Actual habitat loss averaged 1.23 hectares per turbine, which involved the direct loss of, on average, 1.9 nesting sites per turbine. The effective habitat loss, which was not quantified, was observed to be highly variable between species: some species avoided nesting within 100 to 200 m from turbines, while other species were observed feeding on the ground directly under the blades. The study concluded that, overall, the combined effect on birds was "relatively small" compared to other causes of bird mortality, but noted that mitigation measures might be required in some situations to protect at-risk species.[91]

While studies show that other sources, such as cats, cars, buildings, power lines, and transmission towers kill far more birds than wind turbines, many studies and conservation groups have noted that wind turbines disproportionately kill large migratory birds and birds of prey, and are more likely to kill birds threatened with extinction.[92][93] Wind facilities have attracted the most attention for impacts on iconic raptor species, including golden eagles. The Pine Tree Wind energy project near Tehachapi, California has one of the highest raptor mortality rates in the country; by 2012 at least eight golden eagles had been killed according to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS).[94] Biologists have noted that it is more important to avoid losses of large birds as they have lower breeding rates and can be more severely impacted by wind turbines in certain areas.

Large numbers of bird deaths are also attributed to collisions with buildings.[95] An estimated 1 to 9 million birds are killed every year by tall buildings in Toronto, Ontario, Canada alone, according to the wildlife conservation organization Fatal Light Awareness Program.[96][97] Other studies have stated that 57 million are killed by cars, and some 365 to 988 million are killed by collisions with buildings and plate glass in the United States alone.[77][90][98] Promotional event lightbeams as well as ceilometers used at airport weather offices can be particularly deadly for birds,[99] as birds become caught in their lightbeams and suffer exhaustion and collisions with other birds. In the worst recorded ceilometer lightbeam kill-off during one night in 1954, approximately 50,000 birds from 53 different species died at the Warner Robins Air Force Base in the United States.[100]

Arctic terns and a wind turbine at the Eider Barrage in Germany.

In the United Kingdom, the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB) concluded that "The available evidence suggests that appropriately positioned wind farms do not pose a significant hazard for birds."[14] It notes that climate change poses a much more significant threat to wildlife, and therefore supports wind farms and other forms of renewable energy as a way to mitigate future damage. In 2009 the RSPB warned that "numbers of several breeding birds of high conservation concern are reduced close to wind turbines" probably because "birds may use areas close to the turbines less often than would be expected, potentially reducing the wildlife carrying capacity of an area.[101]

Concerns have been expressed that wind turbines at Smøla, Norway are having a deleterious effect on the population of white-tailed eagles, Europe's largest bird of prey. They have been the subject of an extensive re-introduction programme in Scotland, which could be jeopardised by the expansion of wind turbines.[102]

The Peñascal Wind Power Project in Texas is located in the middle of a major bird migration route, and the wind farm uses avian radar originally developed for NASA and the United States Air Force to detect birds as far as 4 miles (6.4 km) away. If the system determines that the birds are in danger of running into the rotating blades, the turbines shut down and are restarted when the birds have passed.[103] A 2005 Danish study used surveillance radar to track migrating birds traveling around and through an offshore wind farm. Less than 1% of migrating birds passing through an offshore wind farm in Rønde, Denmark, got close enough to be at risk of collision, though the site was studied only during low-wind conditions. The study suggests that migrating birds may avoid large turbines, at least in the low-wind conditions the research was conducted in.[104][105] Furthermore, it is not thought that nocturnal migrants are at higher risk to collision than diurnally active species.[106]

Old style wind turbines at Altamont Pass in California, which are being replaced by more "bird-friendly designs". While newer designs are taller, there is as yet, no definitive evidence that they are "friendlier". A recent study suggests that they might not be safer to wildlife,[107] and are not a "simple fix", according to Oklahoma State University ecologist Scott Loss.[86]

In 2012, researchers reported that, based on their four-year radar tracking study of birds after the construction of an offshore wind farm near Lincolnshire, that pink-footed geese migrating to the U.K. to overwinter altered their flight path to avoid the turbines.[108]

At the Altamont Pass Wind Farm in California, a settlement between the Audubon Society, Californians for Renewable Energy and NextEra Energy Resources who operate some 5,000 turbines in the area requires the latter to replace nearly half of the smaller turbines with newer, more bird-friendly models by 2015 and provide $2.5 million for raptor habitat restoration.[109] The proposed Chokecherry and Sierra Madre Wind Energy Project in Wyoming is allowed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to "take" up to 16 eagles per year as predicted by the Fish and Wildlife Service, while making powerlines less damaging.[110][111] A 2012 BLM study estimated nearly 5,400 birds each year, including over 150 raptors.[112] Some sites are required to watch for birds.[113] In 2016, the Obama administration finalized a rule that granted 30-year licenses to wind-energy companies that operate high-speed turbines permitting them to kill or injure up to 4,200 golden eagles and bald eagles, four times the existing limit, before facing penalties.[114] There are 143,000 bald eagles and 40,000 golden eagles in the United States.[114]

Bats

Bats may be injured by direct impact with turbine blades, towers, or transmission lines. Recent research shows that bats may also be killed when suddenly passing through a low air pressure region surrounding the turbine blade tips.[82]

The numbers of bats killed by existing onshore and near-shore facilities have troubled bat enthusiasts.[115]

In April 2009 the Bats and Wind Energy Cooperative released initial study results showing a 73% drop in bat fatalities when wind farm operations are stopped during low wind conditions, when bats are most active.[116] Bats avoid radar transmitters, and placing microwave transmitters on wind turbine towers may reduce the number of bat collisions.[117][118]

It is hypothesized that a portion of bat fatalities are attributed to the wind displacement caused by the wind turbine blades as they move through the air causing insects in the area to become disoriented making it a dense area of prey - an attractive hunting ground for bats.[119] To combat this phenomenon ultrasonic deterrents have been tested on select wind turbines and has been shown to reduce bat fatalities from collision and barotrauma.[120] Testing of the ultrasonic deterrents has shown significantly reduced bat activity around wind turbines; according to study done in Zzyzyx, California, bat activity was reduced by 89.6-97.5% when ultrasonic acoustic deterrents were used.[121]

A 2013 study produced an estimate that wind turbines killed more than 600,000 bats in the U.S. the previous year, with the greatest mortality occurring in the Appalachian Mountains. Some earlier studies had produced estimates of between 33,000 and 888,000 bat deaths per year.[122]

Weather and climate change

Wind farms may affect weather in their immediate vicinity. Turbulence from spinning wind turbine rotors increases vertical mixing of heat and water vapor that affects the meteorological conditions downwind, including rainfall.[123] Overall, wind farms lead to a slight warming at night and a slight cooling during the day time. This effect can be reduced by using more efficient rotors or placing wind farms in regions with high natural turbulence. Warming at night could "benefit agriculture by decreasing frost damage and extending the growing season. Many farmers already do this with air circulators".[124][125][126]

A number of studies have used climate models to study the effect of extremely large wind farms. One study reports simulations that show detectable changes in global climate for very high wind farm usage, on the order of 10% of the world's land area. Wind power has a negligible effect on global mean surface temperature, and it would deliver "enormous global benefits by reducing emissions of CO
2 and air pollutants".[127] Another peer-reviewed study suggested that using wind turbines to meet 10 percent of global energy demand in 2100 could actually have a warming effect, causing temperatures to rise by 1 °C (1.8 °F) in the regions on land where the wind farms are installed, including a smaller increase in areas beyond those regions. This is due to the effect of wind turbines on both horizontal and vertical atmospheric circulation. Whilst turbines installed in water would have a cooling effect, the net impact on global surface temperatures would be an increase of 0.15 °C (0.27 °F). Author Ron Prinn cautioned against interpreting the study "as an argument against wind power, urging that it be used to guide future research". "We're not pessimistic about wind," he said. "We haven't absolutely proven this effect, and we'd rather see that people undertake further research".[128]

Impacts on people
See also: Renewable energy debate –Community debate about wind farms

Aesthetics
See also: Wind turbines on public display and Windfall (2010 film)
The surroundings of Mont Saint-Michel at low tide. While windy coasts are good locations for wind farms, aesthetic considerations may preclude such developments in order to preserve historic views of cultural sites.

Aesthetic considerations of wind power stations have often a significant role in their evaluation process.[5] To some, the perceived aesthetic aspects of wind power stations may conflict with the protection of historical sites.[129] Wind power stations are less likely to be perceived negatively in urbanized and industrial regions.[130] Aesthetic issues are subjective and some people find wind farms pleasant or see them as symbols of energy independence and local prosperity.[131] While studies in Scotland predict wind farms will damage tourism,[132] in other countries some wind farms have themselves become tourist attractions,[133][134][135] with several having visitor centers at ground level or even observation decks atop turbine towers.

In the 1980s, wind energy was being discussed as part of a soft energy path.[136] Renewable energy commercialization led to an increasing industrial image of wind power, which is being criticized by various stakeholders in the planning process, including nature protection associations.[137] Newer wind farms have larger, more widely spaced turbines, and have a less cluttered appearance than older installations. Wind farms are often built on land that has already been impacted by land clearing and they coexist easily with other land uses.

Coastal areas and areas of higher altitude such as ridgelines are considered prime for wind farms, due to constant wind speeds. However, both locations tend to be areas of high visual impact and can be a contributing factor in local communities' resistance to some projects. Both the proximity to densely populated areas and the necessary wind speeds make coastal locations ideal for wind farms.[138]

Loreley rock in Rhineland-Palatinate, part of UNESCO World heritage site Rhine Gorge

Wind power stations can impact on important sight relations which are a key part of culturally important landscapes, such as in the Rhine Gorge or Moselle valley.[139] Conflicts between the heritage status of certain areas and wind power projects have arisen in various countries. In 2011 UNESCO raised concerns regarding a proposed wind farm 17 kilometres away from the French island abbey of Mont-Saint-Michel.[140] In Germany, the impact of wind farms on valuable cultural landscapes has implications on zoning and land-use planning.[139][141] For example, sensitive parts of the Moselle valley and the background of the Hambach Castle, according to the plans of the state government, will be kept free of wind turbines.[142]

Wind turbines require aircraft warning lights, which may create light pollution. Complaints about these lights have caused the US FAA to consider allowing fewer lights per turbine in certain areas.[143] Residents near turbines may complain of "shadow flicker" caused by rotating turbine blades, when the sun passes behind the turbine. This can be avoided by locating the wind farm to avoid unacceptable shadow flicker, or by turning the turbine off for the time of the day when the sun is at the angle that causes flicker. If a turbine is poorly sited and adjacent to many homes, the duration of shadow flicker on a neighbourhood can last hours.[144]

Noise

A 2014 study by Health Canada [145] involving 1238 households (representing 79 percent of the households in the geographic area studied) and 4000 hours of testing in Ontario and on Prince Edward Island includes the following supportive statements of wind turbine low frequency noise annoyance in its summary:

"Wind turbines emit low frequency noise, which can enter the home with little or no reduction in energy, potentially resulting in.. annoyance."

Regarding the comparison of low frequency wind turbine noise annoyance to transportation noise annoyance, the Health Canada study summary states: "Studies have consistently shown.. that, in comparison to the scientific literature on noise annoyance to transportation noise sources such as rail or road traffic, community annoyance with (low frequency) wind turbine noise begins at a lower sound level and increases more rapidly with increasing wind turbine noise."

The summary also includes the following three findings of its own study:

"Statistically significant exposure-response relationships were found between increasing wind turbine noise levels and the prevalence of reporting high annoyance. These associations were found with annoyance due to noise, vibrations, blinking lights, shadow and visual impacts from wind turbines. In all cases, annoyance increased with increasing exposure to wind turbine noise levels."

"Community annoyance was observed to drop at distances between 1-2 kilometers (0.6 to 1.2 miles) in Ontario." (It dropped off at 550 meters (1/3 mile) on Prince Edward Island.)

"Annoyance was significantly lower among the 110 participants who received personal benefit, which could include rent, payments or other indirect benefits of having wind turbines in the area e.g., community improvements."

Wind turbine syndrome, a psychosomatic disorder, pertains to the belief that low frequency wind turbine noise, either directly or through annoyance, causes or contributes to various measurable health effects related to anxiety, for which there is little general evidence.[146]

The above Health Canada summary states that "no statistically significant association was observed between measured blood pressure, resting heart rate, (hair cortisol concentrations) and wind turbine noise exposure."

Safety

Some turbine nacelle fires cannot be extinguished because of their height, and are sometimes left to burn themselves out. In such cases they generate toxic fumes and can cause secondary fires below.[147] Newer wind turbines, however, are built with automatic fire extinguishing systems similar to those provided for jet aircraft engines. These autonomous systems, which can be retrofitted to older wind turbines, automatically detect a fire, shut down the turbine unit, and extinguish the fires.[148][149][150][151][152]

During winter, ice may form on turbine blades and subsequently be thrown off during operation. This is a potential safety hazard, and has led to localised shut-downs of turbines.[153] A 2007 study noted that no insurance claims had been filed, either in Europe or the US, for injuries from ice falling from wind towers, and that while some fatal accidents have occurred to industry workers, only one wind-tower related fatality was known to occur to a non-industry person: a parachutist.[154]

Given the increasing size of production wind turbines, blade failures are increasingly relevant when assessing public safety risks from wind turbines. The most common failure is the loss of a blade or part thereof[155]

Offshore

Many offshore wind farms have contributed to electricity needs in Europe and Asia for years, and as of 2014 the first offshore wind farms are under development in U.S. waters. While the offshore wind industry has grown dramatically over the last several decades, especially in Europe, there is still some uncertainty associated with how the construction and operation of these wind farms affect marine animals and the marine environment.[156]

Traditional offshore wind turbines are attached to the seabed in shallower waters within the near-shore marine environment. As offshore wind technologies become more advanced, floating structures have begun to be used in deeper waters where more wind resources exist.

Common environmental concerns associated with offshore wind developments include:[157]

  • The risk to seabirds being struck by wind turbine blades or being displaced from critical habitats;
  • Underwater noise associated with the installation process of monopile turbines;
  • The physical presence of offshore wind farms altering the behavior of marine mammals, fish, and seabirds by reasons of either attraction or avoidance;
  • Potential disruption of the near-field and far-field marine environments from large offshore wind projects.

Germany restricts underwater noise during pile driving to less than 160 dB.[158]

Due to the landscape protection status of large areas of the Wadden Sea, a major World Heritage Site with various national parks (e.g. Lower Saxon Wadden Sea National Park) German offshore installations are mostly restricted on areas outside the territorial waters.[159] Offshore capacity in Germany is therefore way behind the British or Danish near coast installments, which face much lower restrictions.

In January 2009, a comprehensive government environmental study of coastal waters in the United Kingdom concluded that there is scope for between 5,000 and 7,000 offshore wind turbines to be installed without an adverse impact on the marine environment. The study—which forms part of the Department of Energy and Climate Change's Offshore Energy Strategic Environmental Assessment—is based on more than a year's research. It included analysis of seabed geology, as well as surveys of sea birds and marine mammals.[160][161] There does not seem to have been much consideration however of the likely impact of displacement of fishing activities from traditional fishing grounds.[162]

A study published in 2014 suggests that some seals prefer to hunt near turbines, likely due to the laid stones functioning as artificial reefs which attract invertebrates and fish.[163]

gollark: (also, I'm still annoyed at crates.io squatting)
gollark: Rust is great except for 1 and learning curve.
gollark: JS meets... very slightly 2 (Ramda exists), 4, occasionally (very occasionally) 5, obviously 6 and mostly 7.
gollark: Haskell meets 1 (obviously), 2, 3, kind of 5 and maaaybe 7.
gollark: - nice, nonbrackety haskell syntax- functional-programming-oriented- strongly typed- pragmatic and not horribly complicated - yes, selective applicative functors or whatever new haskell thing is now being worked on may be elegant, but learning every needlessly fancy thing just takes away from *actually writing useful stuff*- good tooling (see: Rust; run screaming from: Go, C(++))- web platform, ideally (yes, it has Problems™, but there's something to be said for ability to just navigate to a webpage and run your stuff- good libraries/community

See also

References
  1. Buller, Erin (2008-07-11). "Capturing the wind". Uinta County Herald. Archived from the original on 2008-07-31. Retrieved 2008-12-04. The animals don't care at all. We find cows and antelope napping in the shade of the turbines. – Mike Cadieux, site manager, Wyoming Wind Farm
  2. Guezuraga, Begoña; Zauner, Rudolf; Pölz, Werner (2012). "Life cycle assessment of two different 2 MW class wind turbines". Renewable Energy. 37: 37–44. doi:10.1016/j.renene.2011.05.008.
  3. "IPCC Working Group III – Mitigation of Climate Change, Annex II I: Technology – specific cost and performance parameters" (PDF). IPCC. 2014. p. 10. Archived from the original (PDF) on 16 June 2014. Retrieved 1 August 2014.
  4. "IPCC Working Group III – Mitigation of Climate Change, Annex II Metrics and Methodology. p. 37–40, 41" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on 2014-09-29.
  5. Thomas Kirchhoff (2014): Energiewende und Landschaftsästhetik. Versachlichung ästhetischer Bewertungen von Energieanlagen durch Bezugnahme auf drei intersubjektive Landschaftsideale, in: Naturschutz und Landschaftsplanung 46 (1), 10–16.
  6. What are the pros and cons of onshore wind energy?. Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment. January 2018.
  7. Nathan F. Jones, Liba Pejchar, Joseph M. Kiesecker. "The Energy Footprint: How Oil, Natural Gas, and Wind Energy Affect Land for Biodiversity and the Flow of Ecosystem Services". BioScience, Volume 65, Issue 3, March 2015. pp.290–301
  8. Szarka, Joseph. Wind Power in Europe: Politics, Business and Society. Springer, 2007. p.176
  9. Loren D. Knopper, Christopher A. Ollson, Lindsay C. McCallum, Melissa L. Whitfield Aslund, Robert G. Berger, Kathleen Souweine, and Mary McDaniel, Wind Turbines and Human Health, [Frontiers of Public Health]. June 19, 2014; 2: 63.
  10. Diesendorf, Mark. Why Australia Needs Wind Power, Dissent, Vol. No. 13, Summer 2003–04, pp. 43–48.
  11. "Wind energy Frequently Asked Questions". British Wind Energy Association. Archived from the original on 2006-04-19. Retrieved 2006-04-21.
  12. "Wind Turbine Interactions with Birds, Bats, and their Habitats:A Summary of Research Results and Priority Questions" (PDF). National Wind Coordinating Collaborative. 31 March 2010.
  13. Eilperin, Juliet; Steven Mufson (16 April 2009). "Renewable Energy's Environmental Paradox". The Washington Post. Retrieved 2009-04-17.
  14. "Wind farms". Royal Society for the Protection of Birds. 14 September 2005. Retrieved 6 December 2012.
  15. "Wind-Wildlife Technology Research and Development". NREL National Wind Technology Center. Retrieved 7 May 2019.
  16. "How Much Noise Does a Wind Turbine Make?". 2014-08-03.
  17. Wind Energy Comes of Age By Paul Gipe
  18. Gohlke, Julia M.; Hrynkow, Sharon H.; Portier, Christopher J. (2008). "Health, Economy, and Environment: Sustainable Energy Choices for a Nation". Environmental Health Perspectives. 116 (6): A236–7. doi:10.1289/ehp.11602. PMC 2430245. PMID 18560493.
  19. Professor Simon Chapman. "Summary of main conclusions reached in 25 reviews of the research literature on wind farms and health" Sydney University School of Public Health, April 2015
  20. Hamilton, Tyler (15 December 2009). "Wind Gets Clean Bill of Health". Toronto Star. Toronto. pp. B1–B2. Retrieved 16 December 2009.
  21. W. David Colby, Robert Dobie, Geoff Leventhall, David M. Lipscomb, Robert J. McCunney, Michael T. Seilo, Bo Søndergaard. "Wind Turbine Sound and Health Effects: An Expert Panel Review", Canadian Wind Energy Association, December 2009.
  22. Mikołajczak, J.; Borowski, S.; Marć-Pieńkowska, J.; Odrowąż-Sypniewska, G.; Bernacki, Z.; Siódmiak, J.; Szterk, P. (2013). "Preliminary studies on the reaction of growing geese (Anser anser f. Domestica) to the proximity of wind turbines". Polish Journal of Veterinary Sciences. 16 (4): 679–86. doi:10.2478/pjvs-2013-0096. PMID 24597302.
  23. McGrath, Matt (2019-09-13). "'Dirty secret' gas boosts climate warming". BBC News. Retrieved 2020-02-19.
  24. McGrath, Matt (2019-09-13). "'Dirty secret' gas boosts climate warming". Retrieved 2019-12-12.
  25. Kubiszewski, Ida; C. J. Cleveland; P. K. Endres (1 January 2010). "Meta-Analysis of Net Energy Return for Wind Power Systems". Renewable Energy. 35 (1): 218–225. doi:10.1016/j.renene.2009.01.012.
  26. Weißbach, D.; Ruprecht, G.; Huke, A.; Czerski, K.; Gottlieb, S.; Hussein, A. (2013). "Energy intensities, EROIs (energy returned on invested), and energy payback times of electricity generating power plants". Energy. 52: 210–21. doi:10.1016/j.energy.2013.01.029.
  27. Dailykos - GETTING TO ZERO: Is renewable energy economically viable? by Keith Pickering MON JUL 08, 2013 AT 04:30 AM PDT.
  28. "Vestas: Comparing energy payback". Archived from the original on 2013-06-15. Retrieved 2013-05-05.
  29. "Life cycle assessment of electricity produced from onshore sited wind power plants based on Vestas V82-1.65 MW turbines Archived 2014-12-04 at the Wayback Machine" page 4. Vestas, 29 December 2006. Accessed: 27 November 2014.
  30. Wittrup, Sanne. "6 MW vindmølle betaler sig energimæssigt tilbage 33 gange" English translation Ingeniøren, 26 November 2014. Accessed: 27 November 2014.
  31. Mielke, Erik. Water Consumption of Energy Resource Extraction, Processing, and Conversion Harvard Kennedy School, October 2010. Accessed: 1 February 2011.
  32. LCA in Wind Energy: Environmental Impacts through the Whole Chain
  33. Wind Energy Environmental issues. table V.1.2 & V.1.15
  34. ExternE. The EU's Externality study.Page 35 figure 9
  35. Hydropower-Internalised Costs and Externalised Benefits"; Frans H. Koch; International Energy Agency (IEA)-Implementing Agreement for Hydropower Technologies and Programmes; Ottawa, Ontario, Canada. p. 131–134, Figure 1.
  36. ExternE. The EU's Externality study.Page 37
  37. White, S. W. (2007). "Net Energy Payback and CO2 Emissions from Three Midwestern Wind Farms: An Update". Natural Resources Research. 15 (4): 271–281. doi:10.1007/s11053-007-9024-y.
  38. Dolan, Stacey L.; Heath, Garvin A. (2012). "Life Cycle Greenhouse Gas Emissions of Utility-Scale Wind Power". Journal of Industrial Ecology. 16: S136–S154. doi:10.1111/j.1530-9290.2012.00464.x. SSRN 2051326.
  39. "IPCC Working Group III – Mitigation of Climate Change, Annex II Metrics and Methodology. p. 37–40, 41" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on 2014-09-29.
  40. "Claverton-Energy.com". Claverton-Energy.com. Retrieved 29 August 2010.
  41. "Is wind power reliable?". Archived from the original on 5 June 2010. Retrieved 29 August 2010.
  42. Milligan, Michael (October 2010) Operating Reserves and Wind Power Integration: An International Comparison. National Renewable Energy Laboratory, p. 11.
  43. Pehnt, Martin; Oeser, Michael; Swider, Derk J. (2008). "Consequential environmental system analysis of expected offshore wind electricity production in Germany". Energy. 33 (5): 747–759. CiteSeerX 10.1.1.577.9201. doi:10.1016/j.energy.2008.01.007.
  44. "IPCC Working Group III – Mitigation of Climate Change, Annex II Metrics and Methodology. p. 37–40, 41" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on 2015-09-08.
  45. Breyer, Christian; Koskinen, Otto; Blechinger, Philipp (2015). "Profitable climate change mitigation: The case of greenhouse gas emission reduction benefits enabled by solar photovoltaic systems". Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews. 49: 610–628. doi:10.1016/j.rser.2015.04.061.
  46. Hilsum, Lindsey (6 December 2009). "Chinese pay toxic price for a green world". London: The Sunday Times. Retrieved 2011-03-02.
  47. Bradsher, Keith (26 December 2009). "Earth-Friendly Elements Are Mined Destructively". The New York Times. Retrieved 2011-03-02.
  48. Biggs, Stuart (6 January 2011). "Rare Earths Leave Toxic Trail to Toyota Prius, Vestas Turbines". Bloomberg L.P. Retrieved 2011-03-02.
  49. Ingebretsen, Mark. Developing greener, cheaper magnets Ames Laboratory. Accessed: 10 March 2011.
  50. Biello, David (13 October 2010). "Rare Earths: Elemental Needs of the Clean-Energy Economy". Scientific American. Retrieved 2011-03-02.
  51. Enercon explanation on p.4 on avoidance of Neodymium use
  52. Joe Sneve (4 September 2019). "Sioux Falls landfill tightens rules after Iowa dumps dozens of wind turbine blades". Argus Leader. Retrieved 5 September 2019.
  53. Rick Kelley (18 February 2018). "Retiring worn-out wind turbines could cost billions that nobody has". Valley Morning Star. Retrieved 5 September 2019. “The blades are composite, those are not recyclable, those can’t be sold,” Linowes said. “The landfills are going to be filled with blades in a matter of no time.”
  54. New South Wales Government (1 November 2010). The wind energy fact sheet Archived 2011-03-20 at the Wayback Machine Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water, p. 13
  55. Paul Denholm, Maureen Hand, Maddalena Jackson, and Sean Ong, Land-Use Requirements of Modern Wind Power Plants in the United States, National Renewable Energy Laboratory, NREL/TP-6A2-45834, Aug. 2009.
  56. Prentice, Colin (19 December 2013). "Climate change poses serious threat to Britain's peat bogs". London: Imperial College London. Retrieved 2013-12-19.
  57. Smith, Jo; et al. (5 September 2012). "Renewable energy: Avoid constructing wind farms on peat". Nature. 489 (7414): 33. Bibcode:2012Natur.489Q..33S. doi:10.1038/489033d. PMID 22955603.
  58. Stevenson, Tony Struan (20 May 2009). "Bid to ban peatland wind farms comes under attack". Sunday Herald. newsquest (sunday herald) limited. Archived from the original on 27 June 2009. Retrieved 20 May 2009.
  59. David Tosh, W. Ian Montgomery & Neil Reid A review of the impacts of onshore wind energy development on biodiversity Archived 2015-05-31 at the Wayback Machine, Northern Ireland Environment Agency, Research and Development Series 14/02, 2014, p.54
  60. Erich Hau. Windkraftanlagen: Grundlagen, Technik, Einsatz, Wirtschaftlichkeit, Berlin: Heidelberg 2008, pp. 621–623. (German). (For the english Edition see Erich Hau, Wind Turbines: Fundamentals, Technologies, Application, Economics, Springer 2005)
  61. Forest clearance for Meyersdale, Pa., wind power facility
  62. Statement of the Government of Brandenburg, Germany.
  63. "Canada's First Urban Wind Turbine - Not Your Average Windmill". Toronto Hydro. 2006-02-06. Archived from the original on 2008-03-30. Retrieved 2008-04-11.
  64. Skarin, Anna; Nellemann, Christian; Rönnegård, Lars; Sandström, Per; Lundqvist, Henrik (2015). "Wind farm construction impacts reindeer migration and movement corridors". Landscape Ecology. 30 (8): 1527–1540. doi:10.1007/s10980-015-0210-8.
  65. Flydal, Kjetil; Eftestøl, Sindre; Reimers, Eigil; Colman, Jonathan E. (2004). "Effects of wind turbines on area use and behaviour of semi-domestic reindeer in enclosures". Rangifer. 24 (2): 55. doi:10.7557/2.24.2.301. mirror
  66. "Article list". Archived from the original on 2018-09-20. Retrieved 2016-02-26.
  67. Zehnder and Warhaft, Alan and Zellman. "University Collaboration on Wind Energy" (PDF). Cornell University. Archived from the original (PDF) on 1 September 2011. Retrieved 17 August 2011.
  68. "... the study already tells you the numbers are very rough estimates that need to be improved. I even explicitly state this, as well, in the conclusion: 'the rudimentary numbers presented here are intended to provoke further research and discussion,' in the abstract 'this paper should be respected as a preliminary assessment,' and in the title of the study, which has the word 'preliminary' in it...you are correct that errors 1 and 2 are true..." Benjamin Sovacool, Benjamin Sovacool takes issue with Lorenzini's criticism of his work, Atomic Insights website, 11 July 2013.
  69. Sovacool, Benjamin K. (2013). "The avian benefits of wind energy: A 2009 update". Renewable Energy. 49: 19–24. doi:10.1016/j.renene.2012.01.074.
  70. "U.S. Fish & Wildlife Estimate of Bird Mortality Due to Wind Turbines" (PDF). Letter to the Department of the Interior. American Bird Conservancy. 22 March 2012. Retrieved 6 December 2012.
  71. Smallwood, K. S. (2013). "Comparing bird and bat fatality-rate estimates among North American wind-energy projects". Wildlife Society Bulletin. 37: 19–33. doi:10.1002/wsb.260.
  72. Ruane, Laura (6 November 2008). "Newest Air Defense: Bird Dogs". USA Today. Retrieved 6 December 2012.
  73. Contaminant Issues - Oil Field Waste Pits, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, U.S. Department of the Interior. Retrieved July 30, 2013.
  74. Johns, Robert. Actions by Feds Cut Annual Bird Deaths in Oil and Gas Fields by Half, Saving Over One Million Birds From Grisly Death, Washington, D.C.: American Bird Conservancy, January 3, 2013. Retrieved July 30, 2013.
  75. Bird, David Michael. The Bird Almanac: The Ultimate Guide to Essential Facts and Figures of the World's Birds, Key Porter Books, 1999, ISBN 155263003X, ISBN 978-1552630037.
  76. North-Hager, Eddie. "Millions of Birds Perish at Communication Towers, USC Study Finds". University of Southern California. Retrieved 6 December 2012.
  77. Foderaro, Lisa W. Researching Stop Signs in the Skies for Birds, May 14, 2014, p. A21 (New York edition), and May 13, 2014 online. Retrieved from nytimes.com on May 14, 2014. Quote: "In January, scientists concluded that, nationwide, 365 million to 988 million birds die annually after crashing into buildings and houses."
  78. "Cats Indoors! The American Bird Conservancy's Campaign for Safer Birds and Cats". National Audubon Society. Archived from the original on 5 June 2010. Retrieved 6 December 2012.
  79. Angier, Natalie. , The New York Times, January 29, 2013, Retrieved January 30, 2013.
  80. U.S. Cats Kill Up To 3.7 Billion Birds, 20.7 Billion Small Mammals Annually, Paris: Agence France-Presse, January 29, 2013. Retrieved from The Globe and Mail website, January 30, 2013.
  81. UK's most powerful wind farm could power Paisley, British Wind Energy Association, January 2006.
  82. Baerwald, Erin F; D'Amours, Genevieve H; Klug, Brandon J; Barclay, Robert MR (2008-08-26). "Barotrauma is a significant cause of bat fatalities at wind turbines". Current Biology. 18 (16): R695–R696. doi:10.1016/j.cub.2008.06.029. OCLC 252616082. PMID 18727900. Lay summary – CBC Radio - Quirks & Quarks (2008-09-20). Laysource includes audio podcast of interview with author.
  83. Craig K.R. Willis; Robert M.R. Barclay; Justin G. Boyles; R. Mark Brigham; Virgil Brack Jr.; David L. Waldien; Jonathan Reichard (2010). "Bats are not birds and other problems with Sovacool's (2009) analysis of animal fatalities due to electricity generation". Energy Policy. 38 (4): 2067–2069. doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2009.08.034. hdl:2263/11581.
  84. Lorenzini, Paul (April 30, 2013). "Nukes kill more birds than wind?". Atomic Insights. Retrieved 26 August 2013.
  85. K. Shawn Smallwood, "Comparing bird and bat fatality-rate estimates among North American wind-energy projects", Wildlife Society Bulletin, 26 Mar. 2013.
  86. Loss, Scott R.; Will, Tom; Marra, Peter P. (2013). "Estimates of bird collision mortality at wind facilities in the contiguous United States". Biological Conservation. 168: 201–9. doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2013.10.007.
  87. "Study: California Wind Power is the Worst For Wildlife, Chris Clarke, November 2013". Archived from the original on 2014-02-20.
  88. Barclay, Robert; E. F. Baerwald; J.C. Gruver (2007). "Variation in bat and bird fatalities at wind energy facilities" (PDF). Canadian Journal of Zoology. 85 (3): 381–387. doi:10.1139/Z07-011. Archived from the original (PDF) on 4 March 2016. Retrieved 6 December 2012.
  89. Marris, Emma; Daemon Fairless (10 May 2007). "Wind farms' deadly reputation hard to shift". Nature. 447 (7141): 126. Bibcode:2007Natur.447..126M. doi:10.1038/447126a. PMID 17495894. Retrieved 28 June 2013.
  90. Emma Marris; Daemon Fairless (10 May 2007). "Wind farms' deadly reputation hard to shift". Nature. 447 (7141): 126. Bibcode:2007Natur.447..126M. doi:10.1038/447126a. PMID 17495894.
  91. J. Ryan Zimmerling, Andrea C. Pomeroy, Marc V. d'Entremont and Charles M. Francis, "Canadian estimate of bird mortality due to collisions and direct habitat loss associated with wind turbine developments", Avian Conservation & Ecology, 2013, v.8 n.2.
  92. Thaxter, Chris B.; Buchanan, Graeme B.; Carr, Jamie; Butchart, Stuart H. M.; Newbold, Tim; Green, Rhys E.; Tobias, Joseph A.; Foden, Wendy B.; O'Brien, Sue; Pearce-Higgins, James W. (13 September 2017). "Bird and bat species' global vulnerability to collision mortality at wind farms revealed through a trait-based assessment". Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences. 284 (1862): 10. doi:10.1098/rspb.2017.0829. PMC 5597824. PMID 28904135.
  93. Hutchins, Michael (April 8, 2017). "Understanding the Threat Wind Energy Poses to Birds". abcbirds.org. American Bird Conservancy. Retrieved 2019-06-18.
  94. Sahagun, Louis (16 February 2012). "U.S. probes golden eagles' deaths at DWP wind farm". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved 6 December 2012.
  95. Balogh, Anne L.; Ryder, Thomas B.; Marra, Peter P. (2011). "Population demography of Gray Catbirds in the Suburban Matrix: Sources, Sinks and Domestic Cats". Journal of Ornithology. 152 (3): 717–726. doi:10.1007/s10336-011-0648-7.
  96. Austen, Ian. Casualties of Toronto's Urban Skies, The New York Times, October 28, 2012, p. A6. Retrieved online November 2, 2012.
  97. Kennedy, Joe. Country Matters: City Birds Battered To Oblivion, Dublin, Ireland: Sunday Independent, November 4, 2012. Retrieved online, November 4, 2012.
  98. Lomborg, Bjørn (2001). The Skeptical Environmentalist. New York City: Cambridge University Press.
  99. 10,000 Birds Trapped In The World Trade Center Light Beams, StapleNews, September 16, 2010.
  100. Johnston, D; Haines (1957). "Analysis of Mass Bird Mortality in October, 1954". The Auk. 74 (4): 447–458. doi:10.2307/4081744. JSTOR 4081744.
  101. Fitch, Davey. Upland birds face displacement threat from poorly sited wind turbines (press release), Royal Society for the Protection of Birds website, September 26, 2009. Retrieved August 2, 2013. This press release in turn cites:
    • Pearce-Higgins, J. W.; Stephen, L.; Langston, R. H. W.; Bainbridge, I. P.; Bullman, R. (2009). "The distribution of breeding birds around upland wind farms". Journal of Applied Ecology. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2664.2009.01715.x.
  102. Elliott, Valerie (28 January 2006). "Wind Farms Condemned As Eagles Fall Prey To Turbines". The Times.
  103. McDermott, Matthew (2 May 2009). "Texas Wind Farm Uses NASA Radar to Prevent Bird Deaths". Treehugger. Retrieved 6 December 2012.
  104. "Wind Turbines A Breeze For Migrating Birds". New Scientist (2504): 21. 18 June 2005. Retrieved 6 December 2012.
  105. Desholm, Mark; Johnny Kahlert (9 June 2005). "Avian Collision Risk At An Offshore Wind Farm". Biology Letters. 1 (3): 296–298. doi:10.1098/rsbl.2005.0336. PMC 1617151. PMID 17148191.
  106. Welcker, J.; Liesenjohann, M.; Blew, J.; Nehls, G.; Grünkorn, T. (2017). "Nocturnal migrants do not incur higher collision risk at wind turbines than diurnally active species". Ibis. 159 (2): 366–373. doi:10.1111/ibi.12456.
  107. Will Newer Wind Turbines Mean Fewer Bird Deaths? The jury is still out on what works to protect wildlife. By Andrew Curry, for National Geographic. 2014
  108. Bob Yirka (15 August 2012). "British researchers find geese alter course to avoid wind farm". Phys.org. Retrieved 6 December 2012.
  109. Dalton, Andrew (7 December 2010). "Altamont Pass to Get Less-Deadly Wind Turbines". SFist. Archived from the original on 16 April 2013. Retrieved 6 December 2012.
  110. "Critical federal approvals for massive Wyoming wind project". AP. 18 January 2017. Retrieved 29 October 2017.
  111. "BLM Announces Major Milestone and FWS Issues Record of Decision for Potential Eagle Take Permit for Chokecherry and Sierra Madre Phase I Wind Energy Project". Bureau of Land Management. 9 March 2016. Retrieved 29 October 2017. "take" (disturb, injure or kill)
  112. "Federal Environmental Impact Statement for Chokecherry and Sierra Madre Wind Energy project". Bureau of Land Management, Rawlins Field Office. 3 July 2012. Archived from the original on 14 August 2012. Retrieved 6 December 2012.
  113. McCoy, Janet (12 February 2016). "Auburn's eagles participating in Colorado wind technology research to help prevent bird strikes". Auburn University. Retrieved 29 October 2017.
  114. Daly, Matthew (December 14, 2016). "Final wind-turbine rule permits thousands of eagle deaths". Associated Press.
  115. "Caution Regarding Placement of Wind Turbines on Wooded Ridge Tops" (PDF). Bat Conservation International. 4 January 2005. Retrieved 2006-04-21.
  116. "Effectiveness of Changing Wind Turbine Cut-in Speed to Reduce Bat Fatalities at Wind Facilities" (PDF). American Wind Energy Association. 2009-04-28. Retrieved 2009-04-28.
  117. Aron, Jacob (2009-07-17). "Radar beams could protect bats from wind turbines". London: The Guardian. Retrieved 2009-07-17.
  118. Nicholls, Barry; Racey, Paul A. (2007). Cresswell, Will (ed.). "Bats Avoid Radar Installations: Could Electromagnetic Fields Deter Bats from Colliding with Wind Turbines?". PLoS ONE. 2 (3): e297. Bibcode:2007PLoSO...2..297N. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0000297. PMC 1808427. PMID 17372629. Lay summary – The Guardian (2009-07-17).
  119. Arnett, Edward B.; Hein, Cris D.; Schirmacher, Michael R.; Huso, Manuela M. P.; Szewczak, Joseph M. (2013-09-10). "Correction: Evaluating the Effectiveness of an Ultrasonic Acoustic Deterrent for Reducing Bat Fatalities at Wind Turbines". PLoS ONE. 8 (9). doi:10.1371/annotation/a81f59cb-0f82-4c84-a743-895acb4b2794. ISSN 1932-6203.
  120. Arnett, Edward B.; Hein, Cris D.; Schirmacher, Michael R.; Huso, Manuela M. P.; Szewczak, Joseph M. (2013-09-10). "Correction: Evaluating the Effectiveness of an Ultrasonic Acoustic Deterrent for Reducing Bat Fatalities at Wind Turbines". PLoS ONE. 8 (9). doi:10.1371/annotation/a81f59cb-0f82-4c84-a743-895acb4b2794. ISSN 1932-6203.
  121. Arnett, Edward B.; Hein, Cris D.; Schirmacher, Michael R.; Huso, Manuela M. P.; Szewczak, Joseph M. (2013-09-10). "Correction: Evaluating the Effectiveness of an Ultrasonic Acoustic Deterrent for Reducing Bat Fatalities at Wind Turbines". PLoS ONE. 8 (9). doi:10.1371/annotation/a81f59cb-0f82-4c84-a743-895acb4b2794. ISSN 1932-6203.
  122. Morin, Monte. 600,000 bats killed at wind energy facilities in 2012, study says, LA Times, November 8, 2013.
  123. "Wind Power Found to Affect Local Climate".
  124. "Turbines and turbulence". Nature. 468 (7327): 1001. 2010. Bibcode:2010Natur.468Q1001.. doi:10.1038/4681001a. PMID 21179120.
  125. Baidya Roy, Somnath; Traiteur, Justin J. (2010). "Impacts of wind farms on surface air temperatures". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 107 (42): 17899–904. Bibcode:2010PNAS..10717899B. doi:10.1073/pnas.1000493107. PMC 2964241. PMID 20921371.
  126. Wind farms impacting weather Archived 2010-09-06 at the Wayback Machine, Science Daily.
  127. Keith, David W.; Decarolis, Joseph F.; Denkenberger, David C.; Lenschow, Donald H.; Malyshev, Sergey L.; Pacala, Stephen; Rasch, Philip J. (2004). "The influence of large-scale wind power on global climate". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 101 (46): 16115–20. Bibcode:2004PNAS..10116115K. doi:10.1073/pnas.0406930101. PMC 526278. PMID 15536131.
  128. MIT analysis suggests generating electricity from large-scale wind farms could influence climate — and not necessarily in the desired way MIT, 2010.
  129. Tourismus und Regionalentwicklung in Bayern, Diana Schödl, Windkraft und Tourismus – planerische Erfassung der Konfliktbereiche, in Marius Mayer, Hubert Job, 05.12.2013, Arbeitsgruppe "Tourismus und Regionalentwicklung" der Landesarbeitsgemeinschaft Bayern der ARL, p 125. ff
  130. Günter Ratzbor (2011): Windenergieanlagen und Landschaftsbild. Zur Auswirkung von Windrädern auf das Landschaftsbild. Thesenpapier des Deutschen Naturschutzrings DNR Archived 2014-01-16 at the Wayback Machine, p. 17-19
  131. Gourlay, Simon. Wind farms are not only beautiful, they're absolutely necessary, The Guardian, 12 August 2008.
  132. "Tourism blown off course by turbines". Berwickshire: The Berwickshire News. 2013-03-28. Retrieved 2013-10-08.
  133. Young, Kathryn (2007-08-03). "Canada wind farms blow away turbine tourists". Edmonton Journal. Archived from the original on 2009-04-25. Retrieved 2008-09-06.
  134. Zhou, Renjie; Yadan Wang (2007-08-14). "Residents of Inner Mongolia Find New Hope in the Desert". Worldwatch Institute. Archived from the original on 2010-11-09. Retrieved 2008-11-04.
  135. "Centre d'interprétation du cuivre de Murdochville". Archived from the original on 2008-07-05. Retrieved 2008-11-19. - The Copper Interpretation Centre of Murdochville, Canada features tours of a wind turbine on Miller Mountain.
  136. Windenergie in Deutschland: Konstellationen, Dynamiken und Regulierungspotenziale Im Innovationsprozess, Bö Ohlhorst, Springer-Verlag, 2009, p.90 ff
  137. Windenergie in Deutschland: Konstellationen, Dynamiken und Regulierungspotenziale Im Innovationsprozess, Bö Ohlhorst, Springer-Verlag, 2009, p.163, "Kritik an zunehmend industrieller Charakter der Windenergienutzung"
  138. Dipert, Brian. Cutting the carbon-energy cord: Is the answer blowin' in the wind?, EDN Network website, December 15, 2006.
  139. Sören Schöbel (2012): Windenergie und Landschaftsästhetik: Zur landschaftsgerechten Anordnung von Windfarmen, Jovis-Verlag, Berlin
  140. UNESCO's Wind Turbine Problem: Mont-Saint-Michel's World Heritage Status Under Threat, Stefan Simons, Der Spiegel
  141. Nohl, Werner (2009): Landschaftsästhetische Auswirkungen von Windkraftanlagen, p.2, 8
  142. Fittkau, Ludger: Ästhetik und Windräder, Neues Gutachten zu "Windenergienutzung und bedeutenden Kulturlandschaften" in Rheinland-Pfalz, Kultur heute, 30 July 2013
  143. Rod Thompson (20 May 2006). "Wind turbine lights have opponents seeing sparks". Honolulu Star-Bulletin. Retrieved 2008-01-15.
  144. New South Wales Government (1 November 2010). The wind energy fact sheet Archived 2011-03-20 at the Wayback Machine, Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water of New South Wales, p. 12.
  145. https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/health-risks-safety/radiation/everyday-things-emit-radiation/wind-turbine-noise/wind-turbine-noise-health-study-summary-results.html
  146. Committee on Environmental Impacts of Wind Energy Projects, National Research Council (2007). Environmental Impacts of Wind-Energy Projects, p. 158-9.
  147. Turbine goes up in flames Retrieved August 26, 2013.
  148. Brown, Curt. Dartmouth Select Board OKs Permit For Two Wind Turbines, SouthCoastToday.com January 05, 2010. Retrieved February 8, 2012.
  149. Major Offshore Wind Farm Fitted With Fire Extinguishers Archived 2013-01-26 at Archive.today, Infor4Fire.com website, August 19, 2011. Retrieved February 8, 2012.
  150. Fire Protection For Wind Turbines: Safe For Certain – MiniMax, Minimax.de website. Retrieved February 8, 2012.
  151. Aspirating Smoke Detector AMX4004 WEA For Wind Energy Plants: Cool Down Fire Protection By Minimax, Minimax.de website. Retrieved February 8, 2012.
  152. Built-in fire brigade: water vs nitrogen; Dealing with fire is likely to become an increasingly hot topic for the wind turbine business, Modern Power Systems, May 1, 2007.
  153. Wardrop, Murray (2008-12-04). "Wind turbine closed after showering homes with blocks of ice". The Daily Telegraph. London.
  154. Michael Klepinger, Michigan Land Use Guidelines for Siting Wind Energy Systems Archived 2013-05-03 at the Wayback Machine, Michigan State University, October 2007
  155. Brouwer, SR; Al-Jibouri, SHS; Cardenas, IC; Halman, JIM (2018). "Towards analysing risks to public safety from wind turbines". Reliability Engineering and System Safety. 180: 77–87. doi:10.1016/j.ress.2018.07.010.
  156. Rodmell, D. & Johnson, M., 2002. The development of marine based wind energy generation and inshore fisheries in UK waters: Are they compatible? In M. Johnson & P. Hart, eds. Who owns the sea? University of Hull, pp. 76–103.
  157. "Tethys".
  158. Pace, Dr. Federica (21 July 2015). "Did You Hear That? Reducing Construction Noise at Offshore Wind Farms". www.renewableenergyworld.com. Retrieved 29 October 2017. an SEL limit of 160 dB re 1 μPa2 s outside a 750-meter radius for pile-driving operations appears in the licence conditions for offshore wind farms
  159. Internationales Wirtschaftsforum Regenerative Energien (IWR), German wind power industry Offshore windpark website Archived 2014-07-29 at the Wayback Machine
  160. Study finds offshore wind farms can co-exist with marine environment, BusinessGreen.com website.
  161. UK Offshore Energy: Strategic Environmental Assessment, UK Department of Energy and Climate Change, January 2009.
  162. Johnson, M.L.; Rodmell, D.P. (2009). "Fisheries, the environment and offshore wind farms: Location, location, location". Food Ethics. 4 (1): 23–24.
  163. Warwicker, Michelle. "Seals 'feed' at offshore wind farms, study shows" BBC, 21 July 2014. Accessed: 22 July 2014. Video of seal path

Further reading
  • Robert Gasch, Jochen Twele (ed.), Wind power plants. Fundamentals, design, construction and operation, Springer 2012 ISBN 978-3-642-22937-4.
  • Erich Hau, Wind turbines: fundamentals, technologies, application, economics Springer, 2013 ISBN 978-3-642-27150-2 (preview on Google Books)
  • Alois Schaffarczyk (ed.), Understanding wind power technology, Wiley & Sons 2014, ISBN 978-1-118-64751-6.
  • Hermann-Josef Wagner, Jyotirmay Mathur, Introduction to wind energy systems. Basics, technology and operation. Springer 2013, ISBN 978-3-642-32975-3.
This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.