Talk:Environmental impact of wind power/Archive 1

Bats - Offshore distance
I can't seem to find supporting evidence in the references in the section for the sentence "Offshore wind sites 10 km (6 mi) or more from shore do not interact with bat populations." I've added a fact template. --papageno (talk) 21:22, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The bat article says:
 * "Since bats are terrestrial and light-boned, there are few fossilized remains."
 * That implies bats don't fly much over oceans, where they could become encased in sediments. However, Wikipedia articles do not count as reliable sources. Here are some searches:
 * Search the Web with Google:
 * I didn't find any results among the first few that tell how far bats fly over open water, just a few sources that mention some bats which do fly over water. Such as the Greater Bulldog Bat which hunts small fish. However, that bat uses echolocation to spot a minnow's fin piercing the water surface, which wouldn't seem to work well over rough open water. Other bats that eat insects may be drawn to ponds and lakes where insects swarm. I'd be surprised if many bats ventured far offshore, but I agree we need a reliable source.
 * Search scholarly sources with Google scholar cite:
 * bats fly "open water"
 * bats fly "open water" wind turbine
 * offshore wind turbine bats
 * Both of the above searches find many interesting results, but I did not find a reference that clearly states how far bats will fly offshore. One paper mentions that some birds on Cape Cod don't like to fly over open ocean:
 * An interesting Cape Cod avian phenomenon is that some birds, especially hawks that do not like to fly over open water, follow the southern coast of Cape Cod northward to its tip in Provincetown. Birds that do not want to fly over Cape Cod Bay turn back, flying south along the northern shore of the Cape, and continue towards the mainland. This phenomenon can result in a large number of birds in Provincetown where they congregate before retreating along the Cape (Mass Audubon(b) 2005).
 * If some hawks do not like to fly far over open water, it seems hard to imagine bats would be more eager to do it. However, this abstract mentions bats migrating past a "remote island," but the abstract does not identify the island:
 * One interesting point that several articles make is that bats do not like to fly in high winds, so increasing the wind turbine cut-in speed (the minimum wind speed at which the turbine begins turning) can reduce bat fatalities. --Teratornis (talk) 08:17, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * This source says the Greater Bulldog Bat hunts for small fish by flying close to the surface of water over lakes, streams, and the surf zones of oceans:
 * Offshore wind turbines would presumably not interact with this bat species because the turbines would be far outside the surf zone. --Teratornis (talk) 07:27, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Offshore wind turbines would presumably not interact with this bat species because the turbines would be far outside the surf zone. --Teratornis (talk) 07:27, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Offshore wind turbines would presumably not interact with this bat species because the turbines would be far outside the surf zone. --Teratornis (talk) 07:27, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

More battiness
Here's a link to a USGS Bat Fatalities at Wind Turbines article, in case it has any new bat death-related information for this article. FYI. Thegreatdr (talk) 22:31, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Reference to "Crop Dusting"
That activity is banned in UK and several european countries--Pandaplodder (talk) 19:33, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * That's off topic here but could you dig up a reference and add it to Aerial application where it belongs? Perhaps with an explanation. Bans appropriate for European conditions may not be relevant to North America or Australia, for example.--Wtshymanski (talk) 14:07, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Bird Mortality from Anthropogenic Causes
Hi, I found this paper, which I think would fit well into the article. But I don't have time right now to add it. Splette :) How's my driving? 09:08, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Speaking of bird mortality, I wonder why we never hear complaints about airplanes killing birds? For example, US Airways Flight 1549 wiped out a whole flock. When airplanes kill birds, people blame the birds for getting in the way. Airports invest in noisemakers and other measures to drive birds away. I can't recall anyone objecting to aviation on the basis of its threat to birds. Which makes it all the more amusing when wind-power opponents pretend to care about birds. --Teratornis (talk) 10:30, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I see mangled birds along roadways routinely when I ride my bikes. I don't recall ever hearing anyone mention this as a reason to ban motor vehicles. I suspect that concern for birds is not the real reason why some people object to wind turbines. If someone truly cared about saving birds, they would object to motor vehicles about 1000 times more often, roughly in proportion to the bird kill ratio. --Teratornis (talk) 04:29, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

article offers an opinion
"Some people may still object to wind farms, but their concerns should be weighed against the need to address the threats posed by climate change and the opinions of the broader community.[68]"

I find the above statement weak and biased. "..should.." is the first sign that it should not be included in this article.

Also, the reference to the opinions of the broader community is a paper compiled by an obviously biased group. A reference to a survey with more credibility would desirable.

Bharron (talk) 03:26, 24 April 2009 (UTC)bharron


 * I've made a small change. Hope this helps. Johnfos (talk) 22:08, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Reversion of edits by Kerberos
I considered this for a while, since i haven't been active on this article. And my conclusion is that these additions are significantly POV, and in some cases direct original research. I'm addressing each here:
 * This one i removed immediately, its incorrect (and OR). See for instance this. The IPCC WGIII report has a chapter/section about this.
 * The Holttinen paper is speculative, not a study of actual CO2 offsets.
 * But the IPCC report is not speculative. Splette ) How's my driving? 03:12, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I couldn't find where the IPCC report cites actual studies of CO2 offset by wind. --Kerberos (talk) 12:32, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * WGIII, chapter 4 Energy supply. Its actually rather simple: You calculate the accumulated CO2 emissions and energy generation over the lifetime of a mill, and compare it to the same values for non-renewables, taking into account needed backup suply and grid size. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 13:07, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * That would provide a reasonable estimate, but because of the nondispatchable and variable character of wind energy. it needs to be tested against real-world experience -- in Denmark, Germany, and Spain -- and that has not been done. For example, the actual mix of nonrenewables that are reduced due to wind is likely to be different than their overall use on the grid (i.e., peaking plants are more likely to be affected than baseload plants). And wind may also displace other renewables, particularly hydro, more than their overall share in production. --Kerberos (talk) 13:31, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Now find some reliable sources that provide your argumentation. Or is it purely original research? Without such references its not going to fly - sorry. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 14:22, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Also note that few hydroelectric plants have sufficient river flow to run at full output continuously, and thus they already run as peaking power plants part of the time, while storing up water during times of low power demand. See the capacity factor numbers in the table under Hydroelectricity. The highest listed national average is 0.59 (59%) for Canada's hydroelectric plants. This means hydroelectric plants usually have excess nameplate capacity which makes them ideal for load-balancing. An individual hydro plant might be under other constraints such as on reservoir level or downstream flow which might limit its capacity to buffer wind power, but these are usually policy decisions left over from the time before renewables became significant, and they may require revisiting. And of course Pumped-storage hydroelectricity facilities are specifically for load balancing, and building many more of them would allow wind farms to reduce the need to maintain fossil-fuel plants for spinning reserve. However, the problems of grid management do not solely result from wind power; utilities have been dealing with huge transients in power demand as long as there have been electric grids. Wind power just makes the transients bigger, which basically means we need to start building a lot more Raccoon Mountains and Dinorwigs. --Teratornis (talk) 22:45, 9 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Fair enough, and I would request the same in making claims of CO2 offsets for wind. As I have noted, the sources cited do not hold up to scrutiny. Consider this story from February: Climate change paradox: Wind Turbines in Europe Do Nothing for Emissions-Reduction Goals. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kerberos (talk • contribs) 15:18, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry - but we have given you reliable sources. But in any case, it is you who has to provide a reference for your insertion (per WP:BURDEN). Btw. interesting op-ed, but it confuses European total emissions with German specific reductions, since Germany has reduced its GHG emissions significantly (14.6% between 1990 and 2006, 17.1% in the energy alone!)--Kim D. Petersen (talk) 15:41, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Not as much after east and west merged and still less since wind turbines have been built. CO2 emissions from 1990 to 2006 decreased 13.7%, but from 1991 only 7.8% and from 1992 only 4.3%. From 1998, when wind energy began to be installed in earnest, CO2 emissions decreased only 1.6%. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kerberos (talk • contribs) 17:44, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * And i suppose that the merge of East and West is also the reason that emissions fell to >20% below 1990 in 2007? Now go find some reliable sources for your insertions, since this is not a forum for exchange of opinion. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:38, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Likewise! --Kerberos (talk) 19:23, 8 May 2009 (UTC)


 * this picture is simply advocacy, from an unreliable source. Tells us nothing about long-term impact, how common it is, etc.
 * That photo is no less representative than the one of the turbines on an old coal mine, which is indeed the rarer situation. And the photos of the cows which appear to be quite some distance from the turbine is even less informative.
 * Actually the photo of the cows represents a scene common around the world: livestock paying as little attention to wind turbines as they pay to passing motorists. (Should we ban the use of motor vehicles around cattle? We already know motor vehicles kill cattle.) The photo of the open-pit coal mine with some wind turbines in the distance illustrates the contrast in environmental impacts of various forms of power generation. The proper comparison is never between wind power and nothing, but between wind power and the alternatives (other power sources, reducing power consumption through efficiency campaigns, etc.). Note that every energy alternative, including efficiency, has its vocal opponents. There is no way to keep the lights on while keeping everyone happy. The only choice is between bothering a few people, vs. bothering other people, vs. potentially destroying the planet as a suitable habitat for humans. --Teratornis (talk) 23:01, 9 May 2009 (UTC)


 * this doesn't adhere to NPOV.
 * That's just ridiculous -- trenches and powerline rights-of-way aren't impacts? And the reference already there to show clearing shows that it is about 5 acres around each turbine. And noise is precisely the reason for large setbacks in new regulations, e.g., 2 km in Scotland.
 * The clearing of 5 acres even if true is not necessarily a global phenomenon. The rules of a few states of the US, do not apply to the rest of the world. Besides, generally few wind turbines are build in forrest areas. Finally, we don't need to state the obvious. Its clear to everyone that wind turbines use(in fact very little) space. Do you see any section in the article Building that names as one of the disadvantages of buildings that they use space? And think of how much space the alternatives use... Splette :) How's my driving? 03:12, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The intro of the article states that "only small areas of turbine foundations and infrastructure made unavailable for use", so it is worth clarifying that in forested areas the trees have to be cleared in a much larger area.
 * Whats the percentage of wind deployment in forested areas? And whats the status of replanting? To what extent is existing clearings and roads used? etc etc. But lets make it very much simpler: Find some reliable sources that make this particular point, so that we can weight the relative importance of this issue. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 13:10, 8 May 2009 (UTC)


 * speculation, original research and one item directly wrong.


 * The fault is with the effort to ignore the toll from turbines by pointing to something worse, as if that makes it better. The need for massive new high-voltage lines from the plains is widely known. If wind energy's ability to reduce climate change is more than theoretical, I have yet to see the data (see the Holttinen paper, above). The Devereux paper did indeed do surveys only after the turbines were built.


 * one sided - but might be salvaged by considering weight, and a more neutral description (its one of many noise sources - and not the most significant one). And as far as i can see, the reports point that it is that primarily the construction noise, has a significant effect.
 * Yes, it is particularly construction noise that is the worry -- easily amended.
 * There is no mentioning about the scale. The report also doesn't claim its a 'worry' or 'threat'. All they say is that 'consideration needs to be given to the potential impacts'... By the way, in the section above, the report says similat things about oil rigs. Also, they don't give any dimension of this potential problem. Therefore I don't see how this meets WP:WEIGHT. Splette :) How's my driving? 03:12, 8 May 2009 (UTC)


 * This is completely wrong - the turbine is located within the nacelle, and cannot hit the tower, probably confusion between turbine and blades.
 * Yes, the blades were meant -- easily fixed.
 * Did you mix up blades and turbine? Then thats WP:OR. Regardless of that, is this any important anyway? Splette :) How's my driving? 03:12, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Steady on!
 * Actually the blades are part of the rotor which is part of the turbine. The nacelle houses the gearbox (except for direct-drive wind turbines which have no gearbox) and generator. Modern wind turbines contain multiple safeguards against rotor overspeeding, but anything built by humans can fail, so occasionally a wind turbine does overspeed and a blade clips a tower. This can shatter a blade, or in some cases knock down the tower. Other types of power plants also have their failure modes, but usually these are not as visible to the public as a broken wind turbine. Human observers will tend to notice the rare wind turbine failures, while ignoring the vast majority that work as designed, much as humans tend to overestimate the risks of commercial air travel because of the great publicity given to the statistically rare crashes. --Teratornis (talk) 23:08, 9 May 2009 (UTC)


 * This might be correct - but is collateral damage ;-)
 * ? --Kerberos (talk) 02:25, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Thoughts? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:43, 8 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you for reverting these edits. I was thinking of doing the same thing myself. You have explained very well why each of the edits is problematic. User:Kerberos appears to be an anti-wind single-purpose account. Johnfos (talk) 00:56, 8 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Should the adverse environmental effects of large-scale wind energy be deleted because they betray a "negativity" about wind? Should not the claims of environmental benefit be subjected to the same scrutiny as claims of harm?
 * The article describes adverse environmental effects of wind power at length. If we want to be honest, we need to put these effects in context - how does wind power compare to the environmental effects of business as usual, and to the other alternatives to business as usual? For example, wind turbines kill some birds, and some people object to wind turbines ostensibly on this basis. It's worth pointing out the numbers of birds killed by other human activities, because that gives us a strategy for offsetting the increase in bird kills that might result from an expansion of wind power. For example, we could build more wind turbines, and simultaneously remove enough automobiles and domestic cats to maintain the present level of anthropogenic bird kills. That would be one option to consider - if our real concern is for the birds. If on the other hand we don't really care about birds, but we are just looking for plausible reasons to object to the wind turbines we happen to find bothersome to look at, that is the sort of editing bias that won't fly on Wikipedia, because only a tiny minority of people find wind turbines to be visually disturbing. I happen to find automobiles far more visually disturbing, but I don't go around editing the car articles with frivolous objections to cars because of that. Lots of other editors don't mind looking at cars, so I cannot force Wikipedia to reflect my personal tastes. --Teratornis (talk) 23:20, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I would like to restore my changes. I endeavor to stick to the facts. If there is a concern about bias, the whole opening section of this article should be examined, as it clearly attempts to frame the discussion in one direction. Kerberos (talk) 02:48, 8 May 2009 (UTC)


 * As I said above, Kerberos is an anti-wind single purpose account (see ). He is engaged in POV pushing. Johnfos (talk) 21:16, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * So inaccurate and unsourced statements must stand, and that insistence is not POV pushing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kerberos (talk • contribs) 22:45, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * You have neither demonstrated that what is in the article is inaccurate, nor have you provided any reliable sources to back your additions. In fact its been quite adequately shown that your inclusions are based on undue weight and several of them being completely wrong. Try this on: Provide adequate sourcing for your POV, and give us some indications as to its relative merit and weight as arguments. Otherwise you are simply (pun intended) fighting against windmills. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:42, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * "Livestock ignore wind turbines, and continue to graze as they did before wind turbines were installed." No source.
 * "A wind turbine at Green Park... producing electricity for around one thousand homes" Nonsense. It doesn't require citation of a peer-reviewed scientific study to note that the turbine is supplying the grid and that the number of homes is only an equivalency measure of its production. Are there one thousand homes specially tied to that turbine? If so, it needs a reference.
 * "Clearing of wooded areas is often unnecessary." But noting that clearing of wooded areas is sometimes necessary -- the identical but more appropriate statement in an article about environmental effects of wind power -- is whatever jargon you want to throw at it. Or the agenda of whatever jargon you want to accuse the contributor of. You guys are something. No wonder people scoff about citing Wikipedia. I have in the past found the process to be constructive. You've certainly cured me of that. --Kerberos (talk) 01:51, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * What is not productive about this discussion? The article acknowledges that wind power has environmental impacts, and bends over backwards to mention even the most trivial ones which are common to many types of construction projects. Given that 52% of electricity generation in the United States comes from coal, which was long regarded as the dirtiest fuel even before the looming catastrophe of global warming became apparent, it's almost silly to consider wind power as having an environmental impact. (It's like comparing terminal cancer to the common cold. Fossil fuels are, effectively, a terminal cancer: they will eventually run out no matter what, and the scientific consensus holds that burning enough of them will damage the climate enough to threaten civilization.) This is why the folks who object to wind power (apparently for aesthetic reasons) have such an uphill battle when casting about for rational-sounding arguments against it. See David J. C. MacKay's free online book: Sustainable Energy - without the hot air which explains that we need country-sized renewable energy infrastructure, and yes it is going to draw lots of objections from people who have become accustomed to nature's one-time gift of highly concentrated fossil fuel energy sources. Humans have to stop burning fossil fuels at some point, so either we build wind farms across the countryside now, or we leave it to the next generation who may find the project that much more difficult as the climate deteriorates and the supply of fossil fuels dwindles. --Teratornis (talk) 20:46, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

(undent) It is better to discuss separate items in separate sections on the talk page. And it is also better to make controversial edits to the article one at a time rather than en masse, which makes them more difficult to discuss. Kerberos: if you see a number of items you want to change in an article, not just this one but any article on Wikipedia that has received lots of editing, it's best to pick just one item and start with that, preferably by discussing it on the talk page first. Making large numbers of aggressive edits without discussing them first tends to bias other editors against you, and tends to obscure the individual items for which further discussion would be productive. Many if not most articles about energy technology on Wikipedia are controversial, so this goes with the territory. --Teratornis (talk) 21:36, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Tree clearing
Again I split out an issue to keep the discussion tidy. Wikipedia's technical description of a vague assertion such as this: is weasel wording. The problem is that the word "often" is not quantitative. A better way to phrase this claim would be to note the total amount of deforestation attributable to wind farms, and then compare this to deforestation from other human activities such as urban sprawl, highways, airports, ski resorts, radio antennae, power lines, and agriculture. Furthermore, the predicted future loss of trees due to anthropogenic global warming allows us (at least in principle) to calculate the net impact of a wind turbine on deforestation. It would be interesting to compare the trees saved by carbon emissions avoided to the average trees killed per wind turbine installation. Tree-clearing is mostly an issue for relatively small wind farms in the eastern United States, specifically along Appalachian ridge-tops which have the best wind exposure. (See the wind farm at Mars Hill (Maine) - the mountain already had ski trails carved through its trees, which are visible in this photograph taken before the wind farm construction.) Since trees increase the surface roughness of land, heavily-wooded areas tend to have smaller wind resources than flat treeless expanses like the Great Plains. Thus we can expect the bulk of wind power development to go to the treeless regions first, and this has in fact occurred, with most wind turbines going into farms and ranches that were either previously cleared for agriculture, or had few native trees to begin with. --Teratornis (talk) 20:30, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * "Clearing of wooded areas is often unnecessary."

Effect of housecats on birds
The list of hazards to birds does not mention domestic cats. See Cat. Also see the results of this Google search: As domestic and feral cats constitute one of the largest causes of bird deaths in countries such as the United States, they deserve mention along with vehicles and power lines. I'll see about working that into the article later if nobody beats me to it. --Teratornis (talk) 06:57, 24 August 2008 (UTC)


 * This article is not about cats or cars. If the comparison is made to downplay the effect of wind turbines, then it also needs to be mentioned that wind turbines contribute a very small percentage of energy in the U.S. (less than 0.5%). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kerberos (talk • contribs) 12:01, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The comparison does not "downplay" the effect of wind turbines - a number is a number. It merely reminds readers that cats and cars kill many orders of magnitude more birds than wind turbines do. This is important, because most people are familiar with cats and cars but may not be aware of how many birds they kill, and thus will not have a realistic frame of reference to understand bird kills from less familiar causes. If someone is disturbed by the fact that wind turbines kill birds, they have every right to feel disturbed, and they should feel several orders of magnitude more disturbed by the larger numbers of birds killed by cats and cars. Lots of Wikipedia articles provide comparisons to help readers understand unfamiliar numbers (for example, equating power output in megawatts to the power consumed by some number of average homes - people may not be familiar with a megawatt, but they can picture a home). And last I checked, cats provide zero percent of the energy in the U.S., which is an even smaller percentage than wind turbines provide. As the number of wind turbines grows, wind turbines may trim an order of magnitude or two off the bird kill lead of cats. According to our Wind power in the United States article, the U.S. is on pace to get 20% of its electricity from wind by 2030, up from about 1.25% by the end of 2008, probably not enough for our bird-killing cats to notice. While we're on the subject of comparisons, it's interesting that China's Three Gorges Dam generated more electricity (80 TWh/yr in 2008) than the entire U.S. wind industry (52 TWh/yr, expected annualized output of projects installed by the end of 2008). But in a year or two, U.S. wind power should pass Three Gorges. --Teratornis (talk) 07:04, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Comparative expressions of wind turbine output
Again I split out an issue to keep the discussion tidy. Kerberos wrote:
 * "A wind turbine at Green Park... producing electricity for around one thousand homes" Nonsense. It doesn't require citation of a peer-reviewed scientific study to note that the turbine is supplying the grid and that the number of homes is only an equivalency measure of its production. Are there one thousand homes specially tied to that turbine? If so, it needs a reference.

I agree that the phrase "producing electricity for around one thousand homes" is somewhat imprecise. A better phrasing would be "producing electricity equivalent to the average consumption of around one thousand U.K. homes." (And of course we should check whether that refers to the peak output of the wind turbine (its nameplate capacity), or to its average output (the nameplate capacity times the capacity factor.) The customary quantitative power output of a wind turbine would be in MWh per year. Most readers do not have an intuitive grasp of what a MWh is, so that leads to various comparisons such as to the average domestic power consumption of a household in a given country such as the U.K. Similarly, we could write that a farm raises enough food to feed one thousand people, and most people would understand it doesn't mean the entire output of the farm goes to feed exactly one thousand specific people. Instead, the output of the wind turbine goes onto the grid, and the output of the farm goes into the food distribution system, and these outputs could get split up between very large numbers of consumers who also consume the outputs of other suppliers, but still most people would understand what it means to feed one thousand people. The domestic electric power consumption of a home is also somewhat misleading because it ignores commercial and industrial power consumption, as well as primary energy consumption in other forms such as motor fuels, heating fuels, chemical process heat, etc. David J. C. MacKay (in his book I cited elsewhere on this page) expresses it differently: he adds up the total annual energy consumption of a country, divides it by the population, and expresses it as kWh/day/person. This number is considerably larger than the kWh figure that shows up on the average person's electric bill. But we can argue with MacKay's measure as well, since the various forms of energy that people consume at a given time are not readily interchangeable with existing technology. MacKay acknowledges and discusses these problems at length. --Teratornis (talk) 21:16, 9 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree that it's extremely important to distinguish between the theoretical maximum output, and the average, real world actual output. The news media almost never makes this distinction, and I suspect that most of the time when they cite a wattage, they are referring to the theoretical maximum, because the press usually prefers bigger numbers over smaller ones, even when it comes at the expense of accuracy. Grundle2600 (talk) 06:08, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The nameplate capacity of a wind turbine is not theoretical, the wind turbine will achieve that output routinely when the wind is above a certain design speed. But in most locations the wind is only blowing that fast a small fraction of the time, so the average output may be about a third of the maximum output. That fraction is the capacity factor, and it tends to be fairly stable from year to year (wind is variable on hourly, daily, even seasonal time scales, but is usually consistent on annual scale). Not many news accounts explain this correctly - good thing we explain it on Wikipedia. And yes, whenever I have checked the numbers in a news media story about a wind farm, they always refer to the nameplate capacity. If the wind farm is under construction, the actual capacity factor won't be known until the wind farm has operated for several years, but the developer will have measured wind speed data on the site for at least a year in advance, so they will have a pretty good idea of what to expect. That information rarely makes the news, most likely because most reporters don't know what to ask about. I'm not sure how much harm this does, because the average reader doesn't know what a megawatt is anyway. --Teratornis (talk) 03:38, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Transparent blades
Transparent blades are used to avoid the negative panoramic effects of wind power production.--Nopetro (talk) 13:21, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Used by who? We have several hundred photos of wind turbines on Commons (see Commons:Category:Wind power) and none of them have transparent blades. Many wind turbines in Europe have red bands painted near the blade tips to make them even more visible, presumably to birds (?) and aircraft (?). Wind turbines also have warning lights as do other tall towers. --Teratornis (talk) 07:27, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Wind turbines and livestock
I'm splitting out this item into a separate section to keep the discussion organized. Kerberos demands a reliable source for this assertion:


 * "Livestock ignore wind turbines, and continue to graze as they did before wind turbines were installed." No source.

The demand is fair, since WP:RS says Wikipedia must provide sources for any claim which is challenged. A source may be somewhat hard to find for this claim, because it seems like a trivial assertion. Thousands of cattle graze all around thousands of wind farms in many parts of the world, with no visible sign of disturbance. The photo itself shows some cattle apparently ignoring a wind turbine. Commons has other photos of wind turbines with cattle and sheep grazing around them, showing no apparent interest in the wind turbines. If there had been some hint that wind turbines harm cattle, it seems likely that the problem would be apparent by now, and wind power opponents would have siezed on it just as they have siezed on the bird kill issue (while remaining strangely silent about the thousands of times larger bird kills inflicted by buildings, motor vehicles, and domestic cats). Instead, all we find are sources like this, which inform farmers and ranchers about hosting wind turbines on their land. State agricultural agencies routinely inform farmers about threats to their crops and livestock, so if wind turbines were a threat, we could expect them to be publicizing that. Here is an anectodal report: I will add that as a footnote to support the contested assertion. Anyone is welcome to provide a better source. I would be surprised if anyone has bothered with a formal scientific study of wind turbine impacts on cattle because there isn't any hint of a problem for such a study to find. --Teratornis (talk) 19:56, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * "The animals don’t care at all. We find cows and antelope napping in the shade of the turbines."
 * I've been looking for a study as well - in both English and in Danish - but i haven't found anything at all. On the other hand i can attest for the anecdote as well - i pass mills almost every day, and cattle are grazing around them without any discomfort. And i've never heard about there being a problem either. (and this in a country where windmills are everywhere ;-)) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:14, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Given that farmers are highly attuned to the health of their animals, it seems highly probable that if wind turbines were causing a problem, the immense exposure would have revealed it by now. Consider other health hazards such as tobacco smoking. Anecdotal reports of negative health impacts for smoking circulated for decades, if not centuries, before medical science got around to "proving" it. The anecdotal evidence was strong enough to cause some religious groups to forbid smoking, generations before the science confirmed and quantified what had been obvious. --Teratornis (talk) 20:30, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * It is also important to note that leases from the wind companies typically include gag orders against publicizing any problems that arise. The companies also get many neighbors to sign (for an annual payment) "forbearance easements" that also include gag orders. --Kerberos (talk) 20:45, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry? Can you somehow reliably source this? And can you please explain to me how they would do so in Denmark, where such a "gag-order" would be against the law? In fact such an order would ensure that any whistle-blowing would entail that such a company would have to pay a significantly larger fine than any contractual amount. And in Denmark we have a heck of a lot of livestock (significantly more livestock than people in fact), as well as a heck of a lot of turbines on farmland. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:34, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Wind turbine noise suspected of killing 400 goats --Kerberos (talk) 13:18, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * See: Man bites dog (journalism) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 13:56, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Wind farm 'kills Taiwanese goats' --Kerberos (talk) 18:33, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Interview includes description of agitated alpacas. --Kerberos (talk) 18:36, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's possible that this is a one time event, and/or that these goats may have been killed by some other cause. If goats are truly subject to being killed by wind farms, there will likely be more such reports from other geographical areas in the future, as wind power becomes more common. If that happens, then once it becomes noteworthy enough, it can be put back into the article. Grundle2600 (talk) 06:11, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Likewise, the context-free picture of cows with a turbine in the distance and the hearsay claim of not being bothered should be removed. --Kerberos (talk) 12:05, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Treehugger: Taiwanese Wind Farm Kills Goats By Sleep Deprivation —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kerberos (talk • contribs) 21:49, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Spanish and French news have picked up the Taiwanese goats story. --Kerberos (talk) 20:32, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * More than a month has elapsed. Has any reputable scientific organization verified the claim that wind turbines killed the goats? Livestock die all the time for various reasons, and since we aren't hearing of any massive livestock die-off on wind farms around the world, this smells like a deep pockets ploy to me. Farmer notices dead goats, looks up and sees wind turbines - aha! If the wind turbines weren't there, maybe he would blame the trucks on the highway or something. Every time something dies, somebody could blame a wind turbine, but that would be different than proving it. Also note that it doesn't matter how many other news organizations pick up the story. Unless they have something new to add, it's just hearsay to the copycats. The number of copies could speak to perceived notability, but they are irrelevant to the suspicion that wind turbines killed the goats. --Teratornis (talk) 04:51, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Fish

 * In Ireland, construction of a wind farm caused pollution feared to be responsible for wiping out vegetation and fish stocks in Lough Lee.[42] A separate landslide is thought to have been caused by wind farm construction, and has killed thousands of fish by polluting the local rivers with sediment.[43]

This seems a rather strange addition to me, since it references a two instances relating to construction which don't appear to have anything to do with wind powerother then the fact windfarms were the object of construction. Neither of the sources seems to describe this as some sort of recognised problem with wind farms either. I'm sure the construction of some nuclear power plants has also negatively affected wildlife in some way yet there's no mention of this in Environmental effects of nuclear power nor should there be, and for that matter say basically any other environmental issue where something is being constructed, e.g. environmental issues with paper or even something like 'environmental issues with skyscrapers'. There may be some specific concerns about the risks of construction of windfarms since they tend to cover a large area and be located in fairly pristine out of the way places which might otherwise be untouced but this should concentrate and be sourced on that aspect (and any other aspect specific about windfarm construction which makes them a risk) rather then mentioning two instances related to construction issues that don't have anything specific to do with wind power. P.S. I should add that both sources only suggest the construction may have been the cause with investigations ongoing rather then state it conclusively. In both cases it's been long enough that it should be known by now Nil Einne (talk) 11:51, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree that the mention of dead fish due to wind farm construction is a stretch, but we can expect this in an article with the title Environmental effects of wind power, because wind power hardly has any environmental effects. It's like a doctor in a village where nobody has any serious diseases - what will he do with his time? He will treat minor complaints which probably wouldn't get much more than chuckles in a big city "war zone" hospital. Environmental effects of nuclear power doesn't have to mention the trivial effects of nuclear power because there are plenty of major effects to write about. Such as radioactive waste that remains deadly for thousands of years longer than humans have ever safely stored anything. Incidentally, speaking of fish, it's possible that the net impact of wind power on fish will be positive, not only due to ocean acidification avoided, but also due to the artificial reef effect of offshore wind turbine towers. --Teratornis (talk) 05:24, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Bats again
This is an interesting paper: --Teratornis (talk) 20:24, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Health effects
Articles for deletion/Health effects of wind power was today closed as "delete", but much of the material immediately re-appeared in this article at Environmental effects of wind power (see ) so the questionable content hasn't been deleted at all. As I say, the article is to be deleted, not merged, so I am removing the merged content. Johnfos (talk) 21:21, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree, the closing rationale of the deletion discussion was that "While some articles do not need peer reviewed sources, those, that deal with scientific issues, such as health, do. If this is to be a serious article, it needs relevant basis. If those are found, the article should be written again. Until then, no article is better." Hence, the contents of that article should not have been copied by their creator to appear in this article - rst20xx (talk) 23:30, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Coverage of anti-wind groups
One thing I would like to see would be WP articles on any anti-wind groups which meet WP:Notability or Notability (organizations and companies). Such articles could then be wikilinked in the text of other wind-related articles and included in relevant templates. Johnfos (talk) 21:21, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Reliable sources
In removing the physical facts of the Ardrossan wind facility, Johnfos wrote: "not a reliable source, please use reliable, third-party, published sources". Yet he let stand the alleged claim of "a town councillor in Ardrossan, Scotland" that "the overwhelming majority of locals believe that the Ardrossan Wind Farm has enhanced the area, saying that the turbines are impressive looking and bring a calming effect to the town", the reference being an opinion piece in The Guardian.

Furthermore, the rest of the preceding paragraph is completely unreferenced.

I suggest that the entire paragraph be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kerberos (talk • contribs) 21:38, 21 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I've only just seen this for the first time today, and really have no idea what you are on about. Maybe try including a diff or two in the future to support what you are saying. Johnfos (talk) 03:46, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

"Spotted owls block Skamania wind farm expansion"
"Plans for a wind farm on some state land in Skamania County are on hold because it's spotted owl habitat." Source Grundle2600 (talk) 02:54, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Interference to radio/television reception
Article doesnt anything about interference from ghosting/multipath due to reflections from moving turbine blades. How widespread the problem is or measures to mitigate it. 213.40.221.114 (talk) 11:31, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * No, it doesn't. My question to you is: Is there such a "problem"? I live in Denmark, where windmills are located just about everywhere, and i've never heard of it as a problem... And we do (the Danes) receive quite a lot of our TV via DVB-T and radio comes through everywhere. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:04, 15 November 2009 (UTC)