As you'd expect with all the environmental stirrings around the world, there have been several big wind projects either announced, deliberated upon, or contended over of late. For the moment Texas holds the wind world heavyweight title (generating around 735 megawatts), although if plans to build the recently announced 'London Array' come to fruition, as they are expected to, the forecasted 1,000 megawatt site (enough to supply 750,000 homes) will transfer the title belt across the Atlantic to the United Kingdom. Compared to solar, proposals over wind get more than their share of empassioned responses. The title-holder mentioned above, the Horse Hollow Wind Farm in Texas, recently won a nervously watched court battle that threatened its existence, and almost every other large emplacement around the world has seen the light of day only after a pained birth for one reason or another.

Commonly, whenever a proposal for a wind farm is raised, there quickly follows concerns over wildlife conservation - with the perception that the massive turbines are 'bird blenders'. A few famous examples have given some legitimacy to the complaints of nature lovers - the White-Tailed Eagles of Smola, Norway, and several species of birds, notably raptors, in Altamont Pass in California, being among the most notable. Contentions over bird conservation have had many facets. It has been put forth that the newest turbine designs, featuring larger dimensions, make for a slower, more avoidable, rotation of blades, while others counter that although the speed of rotation may be slower at the hub, the blurred tips of the blades are still moving up to or over 200mph, and that the increased size of the turbine, with correspondingly larger spacing between blades, makes not only a larger obstacle but one that is inherently more confusing for birds to avoid. Although in no way wanting to detract from enthusiasm for wind power, I do find some of the statements from a few eager green sites to be a little... um... inappropriate. For example, the most common justification used in favour of wind is that birds are destroyed in far greater numbers from such human interventions as cars, power lines, cats, glass windows in buildings, etc. I don't argue with those facts, and these people are obviously trying to put bird culls from wind farms into perspective percentage-wise, a worthy ambition, but the argument on its own merits is worthless, as it's essentially saying "We kill lots of birds already, so... um... that's our justification for killing more." A second complaint would be the titles for some of these articles - emphatic statements like "Wind Turbines Do Not Kill Birds!" Although typed with the best of intentions - endeavouring to counter-balance exaggerated and overly negative statements about wind farms - this is still a misleading statement. You only need one documented death-by-turbine to prove it a lie. Of course, the above sentiments need to be kept in context of the destructive nature of the oil, coal, and nuclear industries, as, theoretically at least, if we increase clean energy sources we should be able to reduce our reliance on these traditional energy sources. Comparatively, a nominal increase in bird deaths by wind power will be more than compensated by the reduction from the far more deadly fossil fuel and nuclear industries. Aside from typical industry death head-counts, the Exxon Valdez disaster for example, on its own, killed an estimated 500,000 birds. I say 'theoretically' only because our western infatuation with economic growth could mean the continued simultaneous development of BOTH the fossil fuel AND wind industries if we don't learn to rein in our energy intensive lifestyles. In other words, wind power may merely supplement the more damaging industries, rather than be a net subtraction from them. Not least because of the escalating sense of urgency in tackling global warming, wind farm projects are meeting with less and less resistance. Even these historical, often emotional, criticisms about bird strike are starting to fade. This is partly because, as attention has been drawn to the subject, more rigorously monitored bird cull surveys are replacing haphazard private reporting, and, perhaps more significantly, respected organisations like the UK's Royal Society for the Protection of Birds and the U.S. Audubon Society are voicing their support for wind power - acknowledging that climate change poses a greater threat to birds, and all other wildlife, than rotating blades ever will - a far-sighted and objective observation if ever there was one.

The RSPB views climate change as the most serious long-term threat to wildlife in the UK and globally and, therefore, we support the Government's target to source 15% of electricity from renewables by 2015.... The available evidence suggests that appropriately positioned wind farms do not pose a significant hazard for birds. However, evidence from the US and Spain confirms that poorly sited wind farms can cause severe problems for birds, through disturbance, habitat loss/damage or collision with turbines. - RSPB "At Audubon, we believe wind power is a great, non-polluting alternative to fossil fuels. We have only one reservation: wind generation plants must be located away from habitats for endangered birds, especially raptors, which have a higher chance of impacting with wind turbines. With the proper EIS work, wind plants should be a great benefit to people and the environment." This positive attitude is mostly based on the understanding that wind power does not cause any air or soil pollution (acid rain), which affects birds directly and severely. Indeed, once the number of birds whose lives are saved by wind turbines is entered into the calculation, the results are incredibly positive. A recent study for a new wind farm in Ontario, Canada estimates that the power from coal-fired plants that wind power would replace would reduce pollution so much that 1710 birds per turbine would be saved annually. Take away the 2.2 birds killed by the rotors, and the balance for wind energy, +1707.8 birds per turbine a year, is not bad. - Alternet

Improved technology and methods are also helping to earn the respect of these organisations - as they've progressed a great deal over the last twenty years or so:

These are the first wind turbines on Altamont Pass at the beginning of the 80s. Today, a single modern wind turbine would produce several times more power than all of the turbines shown above. The first wind turbines there were often less than 10 yards apart; today, turbines are several hundred meters apart. Also, notice the "open" towers, where birds are able to land or even build nests. - Alternet

With our improved technology, and the wisdom of experience, we should, you would hope, now have enough history with wind farms to make good decisions. Correct placement is is the big issue, and, for the sake of the wind industry itself - to ensure future acceptance of wind farms by local communities - making successful placements over the next few years may be critical. Placement considerations go beyond just wildlife concerns of course. There are issues with noise, and light pollution (for bird and aircraft safety, LED lighting is utilised). The visual aspect makes enormous turbines a contentious issue for communities that wish to attract tourists, or that plain wish to enjoy their own surroundings. For some localities, the CO2 cost of installation can be large enough that it will take years to offset - the proposed Isle of Lewis wind farm, with it's CO2 absorbing peat environment being a case in point. Finally, last but not least - what about its actual energy producing viability?! Although wind-tech has met with great results in many places around the world, recent studies should temper our enthusiasm and help shape future plans.

RESEARCH BRINGS CLARITY TO UK RENEWABLES SECTOR: "Two significant pieces of research published today by the Renewable Energy Foundation (REF), a charity sponsoring research into the adoption of renewable technologies, for the first time clearly shows the successes and failures of the UK renewables sector.... ...in the wind sector, far and away the most active of all the technologies at present, results vary enormously due to location. - Renewable Energy Foundation

The study shows that few of the wind farms established in the UK performed to their proposed capacity. While the figures are not super-encouraging, the important thing for us to note is the study provides details on each site's output, emphasising the importance of location, and enabling better future placements.

The first independent study to rate farms according to how much electricity they produce shows that wind farms south of the Scottish border are not generating as much as the Government assumed when it set the target of producing a tenth of Britain's energy from renewables by 2010 and 15 per cent by 2015. Despite millions being spent on wind turbines, the study by the Renewable Energy Foundation shows that England and Wales are not windy enough to allow large turbines to work at the rates claimed for them. The foundation, a charity that aims to evaluate wind and other forms of renewable energy on an equal basis, based its study of more than 500 turbines now in operation on data supplied by companies to Ofgem, the energy regulator.The study shows that even wind farms in Cornwall on west-facing coasts, which might be expected to be the most efficient, operated at only 24·1 per cent of capacity on average. Turbines in mid-Wales ran on average at only 23·8 per cent. Those in the Yorkshire Dales ran at 24·9 per cent and Cumbria 25·9 of capacity. The only regions with turbines operating at or above 30 per cent of capacity were in southern Scotland, which averaged 31·5 per cent, Caithness, Orkney and Shetland at 32·9 per cent and offshore (North Hoyle and Scroby Sands on opposite sides of the country), which came in at 32·6 per cent. The report concludes that the most effective place to site the turbines is at sea near major cities where they can harness the greater power of off-shore winds without losing much of the electricity generated in transmission through the National Grid from remote areas such as the north of Scotland. - Telegraph

Location is one issue - and power storage and transmission another. Storage of generated energy has long been the Holy Grail across the whole spectrum of energy industries. You can't just lock flowing electrons into a cupboard! Combine this with the fact that wind flows, like other facets of weather, can be impossible to reliably predict, and you have issues of energy demands and energy supplies not conveniently coinciding. Our modern lifestyle isn't moulded around the cycles of nature as in pre-industrial times. A century ago one might start work early and then rest in the shade during the hottest part of the day, but the Joe Citizen of today will keep his air-conditioner pumping according to the dictates of his electrically powered clock. Our power demands are thus built around a schedule we've set for ourselves, and no longer take weather, seasons, and energy conservation into account. Although we try to harness wind, we can't produce it - so it follows that sometimes wind just isn't there when we need it. Being less rigid in our working schedules, and reverting to more sustainable localised methods of working could help here a great deal.

The new 'Stormblade' Smaller, more efficient & nature friendly

A lot of green-articles like to end on the following positive note - that a new technology is about to burst onto the scene and cause our problems to dissipate and be quickly forgotten. Not wanting to break from established tradition, here goes: on the horizon there are even greater technological advances that promise improved efficiency in power generation, combined with reduced detrimental enviro-impacts. The lastest news is the Stormblade turbine (good luck spotting the blades, as they're internal). I have no tangible news on development or production dates to hand, but it sure looks interesting. But, in addition to looking into the future, let's not forget past history. Rather than continue waiting for our problems to magically disappear at the hands of inventors and scientists - how about we tinker with our lifestyles a little, reduce consumption, and make it a whole lot easier for wind, and other clean technologies, to actually meet our demands. In other words, let's be a little less demanding! As well as encouraging clean technologies, governments would do well to spend a little more money on educating the public about energy consumption - i.e. get to the root of the problem. That metaphorical little band of agitated pitchfork-waving farmers and villagers has a right to be heard. When you arrive to erect turbines in their back yard, they might be a little easier convinced if they know concerted preventative efforts have been made. That would truly be getting wiser with wind, wouldn't it? Postscript: I'd be keen for those that have made experiences with wind to showcase them here via the comments form below. Let's hear a few practical examples of wind in action! Further Reading:

• Wind Turbines a Breeze for Migrating Birds - New Scientist
• Get the Facts About Wind - Greenpeace