A Climate Conundrum: The Wind Farm Vs. The Eagle’s Nest

As discussed at some length in Gretchen Bakke’s “The Grid:...”, wind energy is not without significant shortcomings in as much as wind is not a reliable provider. It stops blowing at times for long periods of time and requires fossil fuel generated energy as a backup. But the worst of it is that the wind turbine industry is a big business driven by profits only in an unregulated environment. The converse problem is that wind blows too strongly at times which can literally overload power grids and cause blackouts. The industry’s traditional response to requests to shut down during wind storms/hurricanes has been blanket refusal without exorbitant compensation. These companies should be as tightly regulated as public utilities are.

We need wind energy ASAP, as well as solar PV. Apex has built many such farms responsibly and I support all their efforts at Galloo and other places in New York State. That said, Apex shot themselves in both feet in two ways by not reporting the eagles' nest, and secondly, by checking on the nest using a helicopter which may scare off the eagles -- if flown at too low an altitude. Apex could respond to the latter criticism by releasing for public inspection the helicopter's GPS flight data which records latitude, longitude, ALTITUDE, and time information. I'm worried they have not done so already.

It seems that one person's "mostly deserted" area is another's (and an eagle's) blissful natural spot, few of which are improved with the addition of a few dozen 600-foot tall turbines. Maybe the best place for wind turbines is in proximity to the urban areas that demand power. Why can't they line New York Harbor?

Is it so difficult to read about eagles and easily understand they mate for life and return to the same nest each year?

Everyone concerned about how to promote wind farms, safely, should read this Wall Street Journal article: https://www.wsj.com/articles/building-the-wind-turbines-was-easy-the-hard-part-was-plugging-them-in-11561176010?fbclid=IwAR1zS79QXcvKQgT34sHiddvJfXWYkKwrmQgnzdmmtNoMPj6FgKC6S4YEtn0 It shows, clearer than anything I have ever read, that the politics of creating a new and efficient national grid are at the heart of our problems. This is a story of fabulous wind farm territory, no bald eagles, lots of winds, but state and local rules and regulations which as of today make it impossible to connect these winds farms to the national grid. An absolute horror story.

These wind projects are a travesty. Beautiful untouched natural resources, including our near shore waters, forever despoiled by these large mechanical devices. And to think these abominations are supported by environmentalists!

Many of the issues raised in these comments were never discussed or argued because Apex withdrew their application. Any discussion of potential environmental impacts between regulatory authorities, the public and energy developers has to take place knowing that all parties are truthful and forthcoming. That is a given before step one and that is where Apex failed with Galloo. It wasn't about eagles, it was about trust.

I love eagles (we have them here too). But wind turbines are a very minor threat to them and there needs to be a rational approach to approving these projects. I am proud to live in Tennessee where progress really happens because we do not have an obstructive culture to progress. What hypocrites are you who live in the dystopian concrete environment of New York City! Tsk, tsk.

The point that places like NYC gobble energy without having to deal with the environmental impacts of generating it is valid. At least until recently there was a nuclear generator near NY. Now it is being replaced by a gigantic natural gas plant. A step in the wrong direction. Cities should have nuclear plants near them — it is the only low carbon way to power cities. If operated with the safety record of America’s Navy’s nuclear subs, we would make actual inroads into the climate problem.

Get out the report by the Corps of Engineers that discusses the huge amount of electricity that can be generated by fitting existing dams (no new environmental impacts) with hydroelectric generators.

I wonder what tons of burnt coal does for the eagles and other wild life. The sulfur, the mercury, the other heavy metals. Well, we've been doing it for decades, so the effects must be zero.

An admirable goal for NY, but really meaningful if it does it in isolation--no cheating by sourcing power from elsewhere, if that out of state source shuffles around some allocations of energy that comes from a mix of sources, including fossil fuels.

Almost like the renewable energy paradise has environmental impacts.

Who knew repeated low passes from helicopters may spook nesting eagles?

Wind energy may help us transition to renewables in the short run, but it’s not without its problems. My hope is that we’re headed for a decentralized solar powered world where building surfaces (roofs, siding, windows) all act as solar panels. The new Tesla roofs are a good example of this. Decentralized solar power collection along with a grid system of batteries to store it (unfortunate, large scale battery tech is developing slowly), may be our best bet for an unobtrusive clean energy future.

The concern about wildlife should never be about a particular individual or pair of animals (the latter is animal rights, not conservation). We have to focus on the welfare of entire species, not individuals. In many cases, the concern over wind turbines does not take a population approach, but rather is based on the number of birds or bats killed by a turbine. The question of whether wind energy has a negative effect on the population trajectory of any species is rarely, if ever, determined. We MUST HAVE wind energy to help lessen the coming catastrophe of global warming ("climate change" is a bad term because it is vague and not scary- please stop using it journalists!). Many species are likely to go extinct (not to mention the horror of mass human migration) if we fret about this or that eagle's nest and grind wind-energy development to a crawl. Every energy source has negative effects on something or somebody, but the impacts of renewable sources must be measured against that of fossil fuels, not in a vacuum. It is not a case of wind turbines versus an eagle's nest. It is a case of slowing the coming horrors of global warming or sitting on our hands.

Energy is essential to progress and maintaining what we have that is good for our culture. I grew up in a city that was full of steel mills burning coal 24 hours every day - the quality of the air was limited at best. The development of clean electric power from the wind is one of the best directions we can take at this time. It is sooo much better for us than generating energy by burning carbon, one way or another. We may need to offer better plans of what we will do to replace the open ground we are taking for the wind power plant. But to not take advantage of one of the cleanest ways to generate energy would be a big mistake.