The AWEA Blog: Into the Wind


Fact check: FOX News article fails to put wind development in context

A recent article on the FOX News website painted a very one-sided picture of wind energy generation’s impact on bird populations. Quoting long-time anti-wind columnist Robert Bryce, the article recycled many inaccurate and previously refuted statements on the impact of wind power development on wildlife populations.

 

Also, contrary to the article’s assertions, the wind energy Production Tax Credit, extended yesterday by Congress in the “fiscal cliff” deal, has helped to power the growth of a brand new manufacturing sector in practically every state in the union. Today nearly 500 U.S. manufacturing plants located in all regions of the country provide tens of thousands of jobs.


Along the way, wind power has added billions of dollars of new investment into the nation’s economy, provided local communities with millions in new tax revenue, and allowed electric utilities to lock in costs, protecting consumers against volatile fossil-fuel prices. However, like any energy source, developing wind energy will have some impact on the natural environment.


When considering specific occurrences of bird kills, it is important to have an understanding of the broader context in which a variety of human activities effect wildlife populations.


Wind farms have a very limited effect on bird populations relative to other human activities. On the basis of an analysis late last year of publicly available studies conducted at over 100 wind farms, it is estimated that less than 150,000 birds are killed annually by wind power generation.  In contrast, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and other organizations estimate that 100 million to 1 billion birds die in collisions with buildings each year, 60 million or more may be killed by vehicles, and up to 2 million are killed in oil and wastewater pits.


Further, a recent study by the American Bird Conservancy, a group critical of the wind industry in the FOX News article, found that cats kill at least 500 million birds per year.  Additionally, in the Conservancy's own 2010 book, “The American Bird Conservancy Guide to Bird Conservation,” it was noted that 3.1 birds per MW of wind energy are taken at wind farms nationally, which at current operating capacity is roughly 160,000 birds annually (this figure is within the margin of error of the latest study cited above).


The eagle “take” permit is not a wholesale license to kill eagles, nor is it specifically designed for the wind industry. This permit was created under the 2009 Eagle Permit Rule of the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act and provides legal protection to an individual or company (whether in wind energy, oil & gas, the utility business, etc.) for the "take" of an eagle that is incidental to, and not the purpose of, otherwise legal activity--including energy production.


Regarding migratory birds, the Department of Justice has issued specific guidance for U.S. Attorneys on migratory bird prosecutions. Their memo suggests that when businesses engage with the USFWS, employ best practices, and work to remedy problems if they arise, prosecution is unlikely.


With this in mind, wind energy developers typically engage with USFWS staff early on in project development and throughout the siting, construction, and operations of a facility. Additionally, wind developers do more to study potential and actual effects on birds and bats--both before and after construction--than any other energy industry.  It is this proactive approach that has likely kept the focus of law enforcement action off the wind industry.


The truth is that wind energy will always be a vanishingly small factor in human-caused bird fatalities. Even so, the wind industry continues to makes every effort to work proactively with the government and conservation groups to address the environmental impacts it does have.


In fact, last year, as a culmination of the wind industry’s ongoing efforts to reduce wildlife impacts, the USFWS released the final version of the Voluntary Land-Based Wind Energy Guidelines (found here). These guidelines are the result of over five years of collaboration between representatives of the wind energy industry, the conservation community, USFWS, states, and tribes and hold the wind industry to a higher standard for wildlife protection than is legally required.


In short, no energy source, or human activity for that matter, is completely benign. Regardless of how we decide to power our society, some impact will result. However, different energy sources have different impacts and some have especially acute, negative impacts on the health of our children, the quality of the air we breathe, the water we drink, and wildlife populations. Given that wind power requires no mining or drilling for fuel, uses virtually no water, and creates no air or water pollution, it is one of the most beneficial energy sources for wildlife (and humans!) available today.

 

Related articles:

 

Fact check: CFACT's Driessen wildly off base on bird claims, December 24, 2012

Wind-wildlife meeting highlights wind industry's proactive approach, December 3, 2012

Fact check: Voice of America article on wind and birds lacks context, November 2, 2012

Sage-grouse collaborative to fund two wind-related studies, August 13, 2012

Fact check: Wired story bypasses wind industry's efforts on bats, July 10, 2012

Opinion: Wind energy threat to eagles relatively low, June 26, 2012

American Wind Wildlife Institute releases white paper on eagles and wind power, May 25, 2012

Already following federal bird guidelines, wind co. says, March 29, 2012

Fact check: Bryce missteps on wind and birds, March 8, 2012

Colorado collaboration: Wind companies, conservation groups agree on wildlife best practices, February 6, 2012

The Fish & Wildlife Eagle Permit Rule: Our perspective, January 10, 2012

Wind power's impact on birds: modest, December 15, 2011

Birds and wind: Bad news leads, good news in weeds, August 29, 2011

Fact check: Fox News off base on bird collisions, August 19, 2011

News story draws questionable conclusions from eagle collisions with old turbines, June 6, 2011

WINDPOWER report: Whooping cranes may avoid wind farms, more research ahead, May 25, 2011

Wind developer launches intensive avian monitoring program, May 23, 2011

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, AWEA, wind developers sign agreement to promote endangered species conservation, April 20, 2011

 


1 response

  1. Nick January 4, 2013 12:52PM
    How virtuous of you to get to decide the winners and losers - the impact of wind turbine siting as the "Director of Siting Policy"! Forget bird kills - who are you to say private developers and the government should be allowed to collude to change the rules for wind energy or other questionable commercial developments under the excuse of 'the public good'? When I bought my 'backyard' it was done with a set of laws in place relative to the local area land use in an agricultural zone, and I paid a price based on the market's perceived value given the 'permitted uses' and its impact on lifestyle, view, etc. Those rules were established in the local county zoning ordinances. Now, when someone comes along and wants to change those rules - say, by variance / special exception, by 'overlay district' (overlaying an industrial zone on top of the agricultural zone), or by creating a state 'siting board' to usurp our right to 'home rule' in land use matters - and the end result is they get to steal my property value and my right to 'quiet enjoyment' of my land without fair compensation, then you can bet I will take a stand and fight. 'Quiet enjoyment' is the legal right of a property owner to enjoy his/her property in peace without interference. Specific legal 'nuisances' that interfere with the physical condition of the property (e.g., vibration, noise, pollution, raising or lowering the water table and/or affecting underground water supply), or interfere with the comfort, convenience, health, or mental tranquility of the occupant (e.g., blocked access, foul odor, excessive smoke / dust / shadow / light / sound / temperature) are common law torts - civil wrongs redressed by monetary damages or injunction. If a private company like Walmart convinces the local authorities that yet another big box store is 'needed' for the greater good and 'public use' so they attempt to seize your property and that of your neighbors via eminent domain, if you chose to fight to preserve your property rights, doubtful anyone would accuse you of selfishly destroying the planet and the environment… If a regulated public utility needed my land for, say, transmission towers or an electrical substation 'for the greater good of society' and it was approved by the powers that be, they may exercise their right of eminent domain ('inverse condemnation') - and I do agree we need such things, they have to go somewhere. I can still negotiate for a fair market value of my condemned property; I may not like it and grieve the intangible loss, but at least I have not suffered a tangible financial loss. Wind developers, however, are not regulated public utilities. These are private companies making secret deals with farmers to control tens of thousands of acres then pressuring the local government to change the rules in the developer's favor. Many wind developers behave like the unscrupulous carpetbaggers of olden days, manipulating local politics (bribing officials with PILOT - Payment In Lieu Of Taxes - essentially a redistribution of federal taxpayer money via the subsidies they receive, for which the county officials can take credit as being used for its schools, parks, fire departments etc.), exploiting the 'wind' ignorance of the rural population for personal gain, and badgering little old ladies (who own large farms after the husband passes away) to sign unconscionable one-sided legal contracts by lying and saying 'your neighbors have already signed and you will be hurting them if you don't'. The wind industry has no accountability and is subject to virtually no oversight or regulation. It's the Wild West out there. Why do only a few of us have to be forced to live in an industrial zone and risk suffering a potential loss of property value and rights, for the benefit of everyone else and at no cost to them? Let's assume the 'new development' is the creation or expansion of an industrial park. The entire area (what, a few hundred or maybe even a thousand acres?) would be zoned 'industrial' and no one would be expected to, or even allowed to, live within it. Residential property owners would be bought out presumably at fair market value, and suffer no loss. The project cost would increase by the amount of the buy-outs and be passed on to the companies in the park and the taxpayers, because the business model will support the cost, and everyone is sharing some of the pain. However, a large scale industrial wind farm can cover tens of thousands of acres - hundreds of square miles within just a single county, maybe even the entire county except for the towns. People in the rural areas are expected to continue living inside the new industrial zone! And without being compensated for the reduced value of their property, let alone the effect it will have on their lives. The cost and pain is not shared, but is borne only by the unfortunate non-participants - while participants cash checks. The wind energy business model is already not profitable and cannot stand on its own; if the wind developer were similarly required to buy-out everyone who doesn't want to live in the industrial zone at fair market value before the development, and that cost was added to the new development, imagine what the real cost of wind-generated electricity would be … The wind industry maintains that the presence of turbines and wind farms have no adverse effects on rural residential property values. But statistics and mass data studies funded by biased pro-wind organizations are meaningless - full of spin, manipulation, and bad methodologies; for example, diluting the results by including undeveloped tillable farm land which is not affected; including the very farms which host turbines that have gone up in value because of the certainty of the cash flow from the lease income; and including rural properties up to ten miles away where values are not affected. No one can tell you in advance exactly how a wind farm will affect your property value. All real estate prices are sensitive to location, 'curb appeal', and the quality of the view from the property. These matter even more so for rural residential properties, each of which is unique. 'Comparables' used to determine value are much more subjective for country residential real estate (therefore values are much more difficult to assess) than those for similar-type houses in a subdivision, so proof of loss cannot be ascertained from mass data studies, only from independent appraisals. An attempt to support a position citing a 'study' conducted using mass data from rural residential property sales is just plain silly. No realtor worth his/her salt would agree that you can assess the impact of a development on the value of a property without actually visiting the property! If, as the pro-wind side believes, property values don’t decline when a wind farm is in the view shed, then why don't wind developers offer everyone nearby a 'property value guarantee' / PVG contract? You know why. Ordinary citizens forming a grass-roots movement to fight for their property rights and values do not have an ‘agenda’ or the resources to pay for biased studies to support their position, unlike the wind energy industry. Ultimately, studies are unnecessary to prove what logic and common sense already tell you: if two identical properties are for sale, and one is very near a turbine with a dozen in sight (a 'material adverse effect'), and the other is a few miles away and out of the view shed, which one do you think is more attractive to buyers and will get more offers and at higher prices? You know the answer. Astute 'non-participants' also know that an ordinance with a setback from residences (as is sought by wind developers) rather than property lines means that unofficial (and what should be illegal) eminent domain has essentially been exercised over their property by a private company; a 'no-build' zone has been created on their land for the acreage between their residence and property line. In other words, a setback of 1.1x turbine height (say, 440 feet for a typical turbine that is nearly 40 stories tall, although many are now going almost 50 stories) on the participant's property to the shared adjoining property line, combined with an 'industry standard' of 1,000 feet to the foundation of a non-participant's residence, results in a 'dead zone' of 10 to 20 acres that cannot be developed by the non-participant (e.g., cannot be sold to someone to build a house on it, for example). While the participant landowner is cashing checks, what is the compensation received by the non-participant for this loss forced on him by the participant and allowed by the county ordinance? Zero. The AWEA has no answer against this.

Please Enter Comments