Tag: wind projects

Avian Mortality: Industrial Wind in Ecological Trouble

The U.S. Secretary of the Interior, Doug Burgum, posted a memorandum back in August calling on the agency to ensure compliance with the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act, “to ensure that our national bird is not sacrificed for unreliable wind facilities!”

A woman in a pink beanie gently holds a hawk while standing in front of wind turbines during sunset.

From Master Resource

By Sherri Lange

“Wind projects are known to kill eagles, and climate extremists in the Biden admin still greenlit scores of these projects. @Interior is enforcing the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act to ensure that our national bird is not sacrificed for unreliable wind facilities!” ( – Interior Secretary Doug Burgum, X)

The U.S. Secretary of the Interior, Doug Burgum, posted a memorandum back in August calling on the agency to ensure compliance with the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act, “to ensure that our national bird is not sacrificed for unreliable wind facilities!”

A memorandum from the U.S. Department of the Interior discussing compliance with the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act, dated August 4, 2025, outlining actions related to wind energy projects and eagle protection.

This is a long overdue threat to major wind projects that have been living a lie. After all, it was the Los Angeles director of the Sierra Club who coined the term “Cuisinarts of the Air” to capture the bird-chopping nature of industrial blades to the most treasured/protected birds of prey.

The “avian mortality” problem has a long history. May the new initiative finally (!) get to the bottom of things.

Government Neglect

The Burgum/DOI memorandum is significant given the failure of the Fish and Wildlife Service to act on the documented killing of Golden and Bald Eagles by industrial wind. The dodge of estimating electrocutions from power poles as a “mitigation” strategy in this area (see David Wojick’s analysis, below) is unacceptable.

North American Platform Against Windpower (NA-PAW) keenly awaits the new DOI priority. It is well known that the ability to “mitigate” eagle deaths include a lack of suitable and rigorous testing; incomplete implementation; limited technology; ignored interacting factors; site specific requirements; lack of collaboration.  Add: developer-led counting and methodology; use of less bird occupied testing sites; natural flow of natural processes where scavenging replaces/negates counting; massive level obfuscation including reference points to cats and cars and windows.

The actual numbers of kills are completely unknown. ABC (American Bird Conservancy) estimates some years ago (2021 article), 880 bats and 573,000 birds dead. Actual numbers, again years ago, referencing the Spanish Ornithological Society numbers, a valid coordinate to the USA, is between 13 and 31 million annually. Then add electrocution.

In a 2014 study, researchers estimated that 25.5 million birds are killed each year due to collisions with powerlines, and another 5.6 million are killed by electrocutions. Therefore, powerlines built exclusively to connect new wind facilities to the existing energy grid result in additional bird mortalities that should be factored in to the total toll in birds associated with wind energy development.

David Wojick of CFACT (Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow) has penned several succinct assessments of the problem. “Federal regulators concluded that the golden eagle population cannot survive increased kills from human activity,” he noted, “and also determined that wind turbines substantially increase eagle deaths.”

The feds then offered a solution only a bureaucrat could love: Don’t protect the eagles from turbine strikes, but “offset” their deaths by reducing electrocutions from power poles. Government then underestimated the number of power poles that would need to be made “safe” by a factor of as much as 241 and failed to save any meaningful number of eagles. See link for full report.  See here for executive summary.

Time for Action

NA-PAW expresses the hope that Secretary Burgum’s request to FWS is diligently applied, that no new wind factory permits are allowed; and retroactive closures of non-compliant wind factories are administered post haste.

Non-compliant yardsticks must be rejected. After-the-fact counts of dead birds and bats (in this case protected species, Golden and Bald Eagles) is not nearly enough. The corollary idea that reducing related power pole deaths can in some way “mitigate” wind turbine deaths is not credible.

NOTE: Mr. Wojick has not had a reply from his numerous emails to FWS.

CONTACTS:

Sherri Lange, CEO North American Platform Against Wind Power, Great Lakes Wind Truth; Vice President Canada, Save the Eagles International” Advisory Board Member, All About Energy

www.na-paw.org www.greatlakeswindtruth.org www.allaboutenergy.org

David Wojick dwojick@craigellachie.us

David Wojick, Ph.D. is an independent policy analyst and senior advisor to CFACT. As a civil engineer with a Ph.D. in logic and analytic philosophy of science, he brings a unique perspective to complex policy issues. He specializes in science and technology intensive issues, especially in energy and environment. As a cognitive scientist he also does basic research on the structure and dynamics of complex issues and reasoning. This research informs his policy analyses. He has written hundreds of analytical articles. Many recent examples can be found at https://www.cfact.org/author/dwojick/ Often working as a consultant on understanding complex issues, Dr. Wojick’s numerous clients have included think tanks, trade associations, businesses and government agencies. Examples range from CFACT to the Chief of Naval Research and the Energy Department’s Office of Science. He has served on the faculty of Carnegie Mellon University and the staff of the Naval Research Laboratory. He is available for confidential consulting, research and writing.

FWS is violating its own eagle-kill regulations

Every on-land wind project requires a permit to kill eagles from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). These permits are based on an offset program in which eagle deaths are supposedly offset by saving the lives of other eagles by making power poles safer.

A bald eagle soaring through the air with its wings spread wide, set against a backdrop of green trees.

From CFACT

By David Wojick

A majestic golden eagle soaring through the sky, showcasing its detailed feathers and sharp beak, with a scenic mountainous background illuminated by a warm, golden light.
Eagle bird flying on sunset sky abstract background. Animal and freedom concept. Generative ai

Every on-land wind project requires a permit to kill eagles from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). These permits are based on an offset program in which eagle deaths are supposedly offset by saving the lives of other eagles by making power poles safer.

In a recent study I found that this offset program is not working.

See the report here: 

https://www.cfact.org/2025/06/29/cfact-report-feds-fail-to-offset-wind-turbine-eagle-kills/

It turns out that failure to verify that this offset program is working is a deep violation of FWS’s own regulations. The regulations passed in 2016 clearly contemplate the possibility of offset program failure and require the FWS to track program effectiveness. FWS has done no such thing.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is not in compliance with its own permitting regulations, so permitting should stop until compliance is achieved. Existing permits to kill eagles should also be declared invalid, since they are based upon an offset practice that has not been shown to work and cannot work in its present form.

The offset program is called compensatory mitigation because the wind project owner pays to mitigate the eagle deaths caused by its project. The money is used to make power poles safe from electrocuting eagles, supposedly in numbers of eagles that are equal to or greater than the number killed by the project.

The permitting regulations require FWS monitoring of the effectiveness of compensatory mitigation, which they have not done. It is the law.

Here are the relevant regulatory requirements. The eagle-kill permits specify the required compensatory mitigation actions and measures:

“Section 22.220 Compensatory mitigation

(b) All required compensatory mitigation actions must:

(4) Use the best available science in formulating, crediting, and monitoring the long-term effectiveness of mitigation measures.

(7) Include mechanisms to account for and address uncertainty and risk of failure of a compensatory mitigation measure.”

The Regulation’s Environmental Impact Statement spells it out in more detail:

“Compensatory mitigation must be based on the best available science and must use rigorous compliance and effectiveness monitoring and evaluation to make certain that mitigation measures achieve their intended outcomes, or that necessary changes are implemented to achieve them.”

Even though the Regulations specifically refer to the risk of failure, FWS has done no effectiveness monitoring of the compensatory mitigation measures. Given that approximately 30,000 wind turbines have been permitted to kill eagles, this is noncompliance on an enormous scale.

Moreover, as I explain in my report, it is virtually certain that the compensatory mitigation program is highly ineffective. Here is why:

“The likely cause of this failure is FWS’s use of a wildly inaccurate electrocution death rate. As a result, the number of power poles made “safe” is just a tiny fraction of what would be required to create a legitimate offset. While FWS currently requires about 278 poles to be “made safe” per wind-killed eagle, the correct number, according to the results presented in this report, may be closer to 67,000.”

If FWS wants to use an offset program for wind turbines killing eagles, it must first do the research to establish the effectiveness of the offset measures. The present program is based on a single small 2010 study, with results so extreme as to be questionable.

This research must be done before offsets can be used to permit wind power killing eagles under the Eagle Protection Act. As things stand, FWS is deeply violating its own permitting regulations.

Trump Truth Bombs ‘Green’ Energy (Five EOs)

“Trump’s executive order bomb, followed by Congressional action to limit funds from the IRA and IIJA, promise to gut, or profoundly reshape, the U.S. green energy movement. January 2025 may begin a long decline for green energy and a return to sensible energy policy.”

From Master Resource

By Steve Goreham 

“Trump’s executive order bomb, followed by Congressional action to limit funds from the IRA and IIJA, promise to gut, or profoundly reshape, the U.S. green energy movement. January 2025 may begin a long decline for green energy and a return to sensible energy policy.”

President Trump has long been a supporter of traditional, consumer-driven energy. During his campaign, he spoke negatively about electric vehicles, wind, and other renewable energy sources. But in his first day in office, the new president began a historic shift in US energy policy, away from “green” energy and back to hydrocarbon energy.

On January 20, 2025, President Trump signed five wide-ranging executive orders that radically change United States energy and climate policy. These actions restore efforts to promote coal, natural gas, oil, hydropower, nuclear, and biofuels, while curtailing support for wind and electric vehicles. The Trump executive orders also rescinded orders issued by President Biden and closed federal departments established to promote climate change policies and green energy.

The executive order regarding “offshore wind” and “wind projects” immediately impacted the world wind industry. The US government owns all land from three miles to 200 miles offshore, so wind companies require a federal lease to build offshore systems. The order withdrew “all areas within the Offshore Continental Shelf” from wind leasing. The order also requires that the new Secretary of the Interior, Doug Burgum, “conduct a comprehensive review” to determine the necessity for “terminating or amending any existing wind energy leases” and to submit a report to the President. The order also put a hold on the Lava Ridge Wind Project in Idaho, pending a review by the Secretary of the Interior, a project which was approved by the Biden Administration in December.

Wind energy markets were shocked by Trump’s order. The stock price of Orsted, a Danish wind system supplier, dropped 17% to its lowest price in seven years. Orsted proposed to build Sunrise Wind, the largest planned US offshore wind system, to be located southeast of New York City. The company immediately took a $1.69 billion impairment charge on US wind projects.

Wind suppliers RWE of Germany, Equinor of Norway, Renovaveis of Portugal, and Vestas of Denmark also suffered stock price declines. Italy’s Prysmian announced that it would abandon a plan to build a plant in the US to make cables for offshore wind systems.

Wind energy plans for several states have been crippled. California planned to install 25 gigawatts of offshore wind energy by 2045, with initial projects at Morro Bay and Humbolt Bay, but these plans are on hold for at least the next four years. Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, South Carolina, Rhode Island, and Virginia are constructing or planning east coast offshore systems, but these programs will be reviewed, limited, or halted if not yet started.

The “Unleashing American Energy (UAE)” executive order calls for elimination of the “electric vehicle (EV) mandate” to promote consumer choice and access to gasoline-powered automobiles. It’s true that we have no formal EV mandate, but 22 states have zero-emissions vehicle laws or executive orders prohibiting sales of gasoline cars by a future date, typically 2035. On March 20 of last year, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued updated emissions standards that would force auto manufacturers to sell an increasing number of EVs, rising from about 8% last year to about 56% of new light vehicle purchases by 2032.

The Trump orders also call for termination of state emissions waivers “that function to limit sales of gasoline powered automobiles.” The 1970 Clean Air Act established the federal government as responsible for regulating pollution, except where a waiver is granted by the EPA to a state.  For years, California has set emissions standards, receiving EPA waivers to do so, with other states following California’s lead. The orders seek to terminate these waivers to California and restore emissions control to the EPA. Earlier this month, California withdrew their request for a waiver for regulations to electrify heavy trucks and locomotives because it appeared that Trump’s EPA would not grant that request.

The order also calls for the “elimination of unfair subsidies and other ill-conceived government-imposed market distortions that favor EVs.” This probably refers to coming efforts to eliminate the $7500 tax credit on new EV sales and also efforts to eliminate the Corporate Average Fuel Economy standards issued by the Department of Transportation, which force auto manufacturers to sell a larger share of EVs.

The US economy today includes several green energy industries which probably would not exist without the vast array of federal and state subsidies and tax credits. Wind, solar, EV charging, carbon dioxide (CO2) capture, and green hydrogen receive a limitless stream of subsidies and tax credits from the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) and the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA), both of which were passed during the Biden Presidency. The CATO institute estimates that renewable energy will receive about $80 billion in federal funds during fiscal year 2025.

During his campaign, Mr. Trump vowed to eliminate the money flow from these two acts, and his first-day executive orders reflect this. The UAE order calls for “termination of the Green New Deal,” and a halt to the disbursement of funds from the IRA and IIJA. President Trump will probably need to pass Congressional legislation to permanently reduce the flow of IRA and IIJA funds.

Wind and solar systems are intermittent, use 100 times the land area, and require at least double the transmission infrastructure compared to traditional coal, gas, or nuclear power plants. Few utilities would build wind and solar systems if not for the fear of human-caused global warming. But the new executive orders make it clear that the US will no longer pursue efforts to “mitigate” climate change.

In the executive order titled “Putting America First in International Environmental Agreements,” the President directs the US Ambassador to the United Nations, nominee Elise Stefanik, to notify the UN in writing that the US withdraws from the Paris Climate Agreement, effective immediately. The order also states that the US will immediately cease financial payments under the Framework Convention on Climate Change.

The orders direct executive branch officials to cancel at least five Biden executive orders on climate change, and to disband the Climate Change Support Office, the American Climate Corps, and The Working Group on the Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases. The orders also call for the EPA to review the 2009 Endangerment Finding for “continuing applicability.” That finding concluded that carbon dioxide endangered US citizens and is the basis for regulating CO2 emissions in the US.

The Trump actions also seek to boost the development of hydrocarbon energy in the spirit of “drill, baby, drill.” Key actions include re-opening the licensing of liquified natural gas terminals, opening federal lands for onshore and offshore oil and gas production, reopening Alaska lands for energy production, and reducing efficiency regulations on dishwashers, stoves, and furnaces. The President also declared a national energy emergency to speed the deployment of pipelines and other energy infrastructure. The Trump EPA and Department of Energy will roll back regulations on oil and gas to expand US production.

Trump’s executive order bomb, followed by Congressional action to limit funds from the IRA and IIJA, promise to gut, or profoundly reshape, the U.S. green energy movement. January 2025 may begin a long decline for green energy and a return to sensible energy policy.

——————————-

Steve Goreham is a speaker on energy, the environment, and public policy and author of the bestselling book Green Breakdown: The Coming Renewable Energy Failure. His previous posts at MasterResource can be found here.

Freezing to Fight Global Warming

In mid-January 2024, Alberta’s grid experienced record electricity demand as Artic air sent temperatures plunging. Meanwhile, wind and solar output all but disappeared.
Some things look great on paper until they are tested with the cold, hard reality.

In mid-January 2024, Alberta’s grid experienced record electricity demand as Artic air sent temperatures plunging. Meanwhile, wind and solar output all but disappeared.

Some things look great on paper until they are tested with the cold, hard reality.

Mass Image Compressor Compressed this image. https://sourceforge.net/projects/icompress/ with Quality:50

From Substack

By PENGUINEMPIREREPORTS

For years, the province of Alberta, Canada looked like a decent place to build large scale wind projects. Alberta has wide open, windy spaces. So, in the name of fighting global warming (AKA raking in government subsidies) wind developers built nearly 4,500MWs of wind capacity as of January 2024. Solar’s installed capacity sits at 1650MWs for a combined wind and solar capacity of just over 6100MWs.

In January of 2024, Alberta’ wind turbines faced one of their most serious tests to date: a Polar Vortex pushed artic air down through Canada and into the United States. Temperatures plummeted, sending Alberta’s grid demand sky high.

CBC news reported on Friday January 12th that “Just before sunrise in Edmonton, temperatures hit lows of –37C (-34.6F), breaking a daily record of –32 (-25F) set in 1998.”

And it got colder.

On Friday night going into Saturday (13th) at Edmonton International Airport, temperatures dropped to -45C (-49F) by 10pm (according to weather.gov.ca).

As astute readers may know, a grid consumes electricity as it’s produced. If Alberta needs 12,000MWs of power, it has to produced 12,000MWs of power at the same instant (more or less). If the real-time supply and demand gets out of whack, the ‘pressure’ on the grid drops, forcing grid operators to call on other generators, force customers to reduce demand, or initiated rolling blackouts.

And no grid should run at 100% capacity. A grid should keep some capacity in reserve. If your largest plant suddenly runs into trouble and has to be pulled offline, you want more than enough standby capacity to plug that gap. And, even the best generators might struggle to provide maximum output during extreme weather. So, to safely operate, a grid wants to keep some standby capacity, well in excess of peak demand.

During the polar Vortex, Alberat’s grid demand skyrocket, hitting 10,000, 11,000, and more than 12,000MWs of demand. To supply that demand, Alberta’s gas plants have run hard, and the province had to rely on imports.

Of course, at night, Alberta’s 1650 MWs of solar were completely useless.

And wind output failed too. On the night of Jan 12-13, during the record-breaking cold temperatures, wind output stood at only 14MWs at 2115hrs. That wasn’t the lowest either. Early in the evening, wind output stood at 8-10MWs. But 8MWs would barely show up on the chart. So, we’re going with output at 2115hrs.

No, that’s not an exaggeration. Basically, Alberta’s wind was missing when the grid needed it most.

While the exact wind and solar output varied, it remained extremely low for the past few days, based on data from Alberta’s Electricity System Operator.

With Alberta’s wind and solar output basically not existent, natural gas plants, coal, hydro and imports are keeping the grid operating. Yet even with those dispatchable resources, some suffered issues and had to be pulled offline.

While the cold snap is still ongoing, there are two major issues.

The extreme cold brought with it a wind drought as the cold air stagnated over the region. Here’s a snapshot of Edmonton Airport wind speed Jan 12-13. Yes, Edmonton Airport doesn’t report wind speed at rotor height, but it gives you a fairly decent idea.

As astute readers may know, for a commercial wind turbine to operate, it needs wind speeds to be at least somewhere between 6-11 MPH (~10-17 KM/hr) (depending on turbine type). This is known as the ‘cut-in’ speed when the wind turbine starts to operate.

Plus, wind power is a function of wind speed cubed. If you double the wind speed, you increase the wind power potential by 8x. It goes the other way as well. When wind speed drops to 1/2, you go down to just 1/8th of the potential power.

In addition to reduced wind speed, wind turbines aren’t designed to operate at extremely cold temperatures.

General Electric (one of North America’s major turbine manufacturer) published a 2022 “GE Renewable Energy’s Cold Weather Solutions” document. In it, GE reported that:

GE Renewable Energy wind turbines are available from the factory with either a Standard Weather (STW) or Cold Weather Extreme (CWE) package. Standard Weather turbines have a minimum operating temperature limit of -15ºC (5ºF) while the Cold Weather Extreme turbines have a minimum operating temperature limit of -30ºC (-22ºF).

If you have moderately cold weather (above -22F), wind operators can do things like install heaters and change out lubricants, so they don’t freeze up the rotor. If the blades ice up, operators can apply de-icing agents to the blades to reduce the weight and reduce the hazard of flinging ice shards off as the blades spin.

But there’s only so much you can do for extremely cold temperatures, dropping below -22F.

Why?

Turbines are made up of metals and plastics. And they are designed to rotate with extreme leverages and forces placed where the rotator and blades meet. When temperatures drop extremely low, metals and plastics tend to shrink, become brittle, and loose flexibility, running the risk of creating micro fractures in a turbine’s assembly. Continued operations at extreme temperatures run the risk of permanently damaging the turbine, if not all together leading to catastrophic failure.

But that’s not all. Here is the shocking bit to pay attention to in the context of the extreme weather in Alberta. GE added:

“For CWE (Cold weather extreme turbines), the electrical components, gearbox and generator are designed to survive, not operate, down to -40ºC (-40ºF)” (emphasis added).

And Alberta hit -49F. While we’ll have to see how long the extreme weather lasts and what impact it will have on the provinces’ turbines, it’s fair to say that at least some turbines could potentially see an increased risk of long-term damage if the extreme cold continues.

If our leadership was paying attention, this wind disaster in Alberta should put a serious chill on pushing wind power as a viable solution, not if you want to see a resilient grid that is able to withstand extreme winter temperatures. Cold weather can kill, and it’s when people need a grid to be the most reliable. Yet as we’re watching in real time in Alberta, the only reason the province isn’t literally freezing to death is because the province still has a massive amount of gas power plants, some hydro and coal, and enough transmission connections to keep the lights on.

We’ll leave you with this screen shot from the Alberta Electricity System Operator on 1/12/2024 at 2115hrs. (According to power-technology.com, 900MW of gas at Cascade is finalizing construction. It’s backed out for the following calculations.)

At that time, gas produced at ~84% of its capacity. Coal was running at 99%, hydro at ~35%, solar 0%, and wind…at 0.3% of nameplate capacity.

If Alberta had listened to the greens’ siren song and traded away more of its coal and natural gas plants for wind and solar, then we might be watching Alberta literally freeze to death in the name of fighting global warming.

As always, thanks for reading!

Leah Stokes, PNAS, and Conflicts of Interest

Leah Stokes blames White people for opposing wind projects.

From Watts Up With That?

By Andy May

Leah Stokes is the senior author of a new paper in PNAS, Prevalence and predictors of wind energy opposition in North America, in which she blames White people for opposing wind projects. She goes on to say that “…wealthier, Whiter communities [opposition] leads to continued pollution in poorer communities, and communities of color.”

There is evidence that offshore wind projects, or at least the geophysical site surveys required for building them, harm whales. The fact that these geophysical surveys can harm whales is well known and regulations prohibit the surveys, but numerous authorizations for surveys [waiving the rules] for renewable wind projects have been granted anyway. There is also evidence that wind turbines can harm our health, due to the low frequency sounds they produce. Thus, there are good reasons to protest wind turbine development, whether the protestor is White or not.

Stokes claims in her paper that she has “no competing interest.” This was accepted by the editor of the paper, Michael Mann. Yet her podcast, “A Matter of Degrees,” has received the following donations from organizations that support wind power:

The McKnight Foundation supports wind power and moving away from fossil fuels, the same is true of the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, Bloomberg Philanthropies, and the Schmidt Family Foundation. Stokes is also a policy advisor to Evergreen Action, and a senior policy counsel to Rewiring America, an organization promoting the electrification of the USA.

As I asked Google Bard recently:

“A connection to the renewable industry is OK and not biased, but to the fossil fuel industry it is. This seems to be bias.”

This forced Google Bard to admit that:

“Both the renewable energy industry and the fossil fuel industry have a vested interest in the climate change debate.”

Thus, Stokes appears to have a competing interest, that could lead to bias in her paper. Advocates of wind are financially supporting her podcast. According to the PNAS rules, a financial interest may include:

“…membership on a standing advisory council or committee, service on the board of directors, public association with the company or its products, … compensation as a spokesperson, … or financial support.”

Do I need to ask why she left out her competing interests, or why Michael Mann accepted the paper with the “no conflict of interest” statement?

h/t Willie Soon and Matthew Nisbet.