I find it ironic that that the Environmental Protection Agency has found that wind turbines are in violation of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and the Endangered Species Act

It is kind of weird that the agency still touts wind farms as a good source of clean energy, while at the same time declaring them illegal.

From HERE

WASHINGTON — For the first time, the Obama administration is taking action against wind farms for killing eagles.

In a settlement announced Friday, Duke Energy will pay $1 million for killing 14 golden eagles over the past three years at two Wyoming wind farms.

The company says it pleaded guilty to misdemeanor charges under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act.

The case is a first to be prosecuted under that law for a wind company by the Obama administration, which has been a champion for pollution-free wind power.

Eagles act like texting drivers when they search for prey and slam into massive turbines. A study by federal biologists this year found that wind energy facilities in 10 states had killed at least 67 golden and bald eagles since 2008.

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/duke-energy-pay-1-million-killing-eagles-article-1.1526284#ixzz2lfn9FUSa

Interesting fact - in order for the US to produce all it's electricity needs using Wind Power, they will have to cover over 25% of the land mass with over 27,000,000 wind turbines.

There are plenty of variations on wind turbines that don't require massive spinning blades of death...

For example, the various airborne variants.

67 eagles is nothing.

... Well, it is something, but it is a low number.

Bats have a hard time with the sound. There were an estimated 600,000 - 900,000 bat deaths from wind farms last year in the US alone.

Eagles act like texting drivers when they search for prey and slam into massive turbines.

If an eagle slammed into a building or mountain or pole, would those be illegal too? Also, in the case of a texting driver that slams into another person, do we sue that person for standing in the way?

Our priorities are strange.

If an eagle slammed into a building or mountain or pole, would those be illegal too?

Last I checked, buildings don't have sharp edges and spin rapidly.

If an eagle slammed into a building or mountain or pole, would those be illegal too?

Last I checked, buildings don't have sharp edges and spin rapidly.

And when birds manage to slam into them and fall to their deaths anyway? More birds are killed flying into skyscrapers than wind farms every year from the last I heard from friends who were bio majors.

Much better link: http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2013/11/22/wind-energy-company-pleads-guilty-to-eagle-deaths/3681687/

The company is being fined because the government proved that the company ignored the danger to wildlife when they sited the turbines, not that all turbines everywhere in the US are illegal. Seriously, reading comprehension + two seconds of Googling = less rage.

+ 1 for the link to actual knowledge.

Thanks!

The company is being fined because the government proved that the company ignored the danger to wildlife when they sited the turbines, not that all turbines everywhere in the US are illegal.

That's not terribly clear to me from the link you provided. Yes, it states that the Duke Energy knew there were likely to be avian casualties, but it doesn't say that was specific to the site.

Any wind turbine of the 'spinning blades of death' variety is likely to result in avian casualties, no matter where it is situated. Perhaps the proximity to endangered species habitat is at issue, but again, the article doesn't actually say that.

The company is being fined because the government proved that the company ignored the danger to wildlife when they sited the turbines, not that all turbines everywhere in the US are illegal.

That's not terribly clear to me from the link you provided. Yes, it states that the Duke Energy knew there were likely to be avian casualties, but it doesn't say that was specific to the site.

Any wind turbine of the 'spinning blades of death' variety is likely to result in avian casualties, no matter where it is situated. Perhaps the proximity to endangered species habitat is at issue, but again, the article doesn't actually say that.

From the AP article I linked:

"In this plea agreement, Duke Energy Renewables acknowledges that it constructed these wind projects in a manner it knew beforehand would likely result in avian deaths," Robert G. Dreher, acting assistant attorney general for the Justice Department's Environment and Natural Resources Division, said in a statement Friday.

The Endangered Species Act apparently has nothing to do with this case. EDIT: It doesn't seem the EPA is involved either!

The gist of the case as I understand it is that companies will have to do more to prevent bird mortality by both taking better preventative measures on existing turbines and avoiding constructing turbines in high-risk areas or face very expensive government action:

While the settlement with Duke is a first, there could be more enforcement. The Fish and Wildlife Service is investigating 18 bird-death cases involving wind-power facilities, and about a half dozen have been referred to the Justice Department.

Regardless of my interpretation, the initial post is flat-out inaccurate in addition to being sensationalistic. As for new types of turbine, they're probably a good idea.