Isle of Man, UK Bird Population Plummets John Shanahan and Jason Endfield January 23, 2020 Jon Boone and John Droz are experts on the negative environmental impact of wind farms and the absurdity of them as a source of electrical energy. For Jon Boone, it is doubly sad. He is a dedicated observer and painter of birds as well as an expert on the technical disadvantages of wind power. Here's the story about birds and offshore wind turbines in the UK. The birds are safer at their nests on the wind swept cliffs but are killed when they go to sea to hunt for food. A very sad story of nature versus wind farm special interest groups. The most import energy aspect of wind energy is that it brings clouds carrying rain and snow to all land areas of the world. This requires a tremendous amount of energy that all solar panels, wind turbines even fossil fuel and nuclear plants could never provide. We need wind energy to bring the rain and snow. Otherwise, the more frequent gentle breezes are best for lifting our spirits, cooling us off and enabling us to enjoy a day in a sailboat. Tony Judd is the British engineering manager of the UK's successful fast breeder reactor. It was built on the wind-swept northern coast where there were many sea birds. Nuclear power didn't kill one bird. When I visited Tony and his wife at their home in the UK in 2015 to make a video interview of his nuclear power career, there was a statue of a sea bird on the shelf just behind his left shoulder "watching his entire interview." Birds, bats, crocodiles, alligators, deer, sheep, panthers, tigers, zebras, manatees, fish, and turtles live near nuclear plants around the world. Wind turbines are killers. Comment by Jon Boone It’s hard to be upbeat these days, given the latest long extension of the renewables tax subsidies. Informed people in the USA have been predicting the end of federal wind subsidies (the only reason the technology exists) since the summer of 2004. Over these last 17 years, the subsidies did end twice—but were quickly reinstated (and enhanced) and made retroactive. A decade has passed since then. It's now standard practice to make each subsidy’s term span four or five years (as just happened), thereby cutting off any debate during that time, allowing AWEA to lay low while reinforcing public perception that wind doesn’t really require subsidies anymore because its costs are coming down. All complete nonsense. As has been the case for the last two budget cycles, as the subsidies are about to expire, the wind industry stridently boasts it doesn’t need any more subsidies while working behind the scenes to make sure they’re wrapped up in a huge omnibus spending bill that places pork in all the right troughs.
1
Given how the political system works as it is manipulated by relatively handfuls of people (Senate and House leaders, committee chairs of the majority party), the wind subsidy game is now easy to play—and win. Subsidies for wind have become the only significant bipartisan initiative in American politics. And are simply impervious to attempts to eradicate them. A major enabler of all this is your friendly do-gooding but epistemically dim environmental group (pick any), combined with wind opponents who embrace the technology—in someone else’s backyard. I have utter contempt for these horribles. Avocets by Jon Boone
Comment by a German citizen Nature is destroyed by wind parks in Friesland, where many people vacation in the summer. It's the same problem in Germany as in the UK. Wind is the form of energy production that is preferred. Coal power plants and nuclear power stations will be abolished byl 2038 (coal) and 2022 (nuclear power). At the moment the rated renewable energy is 38 % in Germany. The actual output is less and varies all the time. What will happen in two years? 2