Wind Energy and Avian Species

In the United States, energy consumption is on the rise. With this surge in energy consumption comes the rising costs of producing such energy and an increase in damage to the environment. As a result, new sources of energy are being researched and put into action. One such source is wind energy. “Wind-powered electricity has emerged in the United States in the last decade as a clean, affordable, renewable, potentially abundant domestic source of energy”, (Bohn et al, 2009). As of 2009, wind energy supplied about one percent of energy consumption in the United States, (Bohn et al, 2009). One may question why wind energy supplies so little of our energy when the proposed benefits are so great? Just like all sources of energy, energy harnessed from the wind has its own environmentally damaging effects. Studies indicate that wind turbines are significantly increasing bird and bat mortality rates due to collisions. Also, and possibly more significant, is the threat to wildlife caused by the placement of turbines that destroys the natural habitats of many bird species.

Scientists and researchers have been studying the effects of wind farms on the mortality rates of avian species and bats over the past few decades. A particular area of interest is the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area (APWRA) in California. This pass is of particular interest due to its high bird populations as well as its abundance of wind turbines. The APWRA has been found to be the cause of numerous bird fatalities, (Smallwood et al, 2009). In a study done by Smallwood et al, scientists observed the correlation of fatality rates of certain species of birds with the utilization rates of wind turbines in the APWRA, (2009). Results of the study included findings such as, “mean monthly fatality rate of red-tailed hawks increased with increasing utilization rate”, (Smallwood et al, 2009). Other species of birds were also found to share the same positive correlation with the red-tailed hawks in this study, suggesting the negative effects of wind energy.



Another study was conducted in the APWRA, which calculated the number of bird deaths caused by wind turbines as noted by the number of bird carcasses found. “Using mortality estimates adjusted for searcher detection and scavenger removal rates, we estimated the annual wind turbine-caused bird fatalities to number 67 golden eagles, 188 red-tailed hawks, 348 American Kestrels, 440 burrowing owls, 1,127 raptors, and 2, 710 birds”, (Smallwood et al, 2008). The results found in many studies performed in the APWRA gave rise to similar studies on wind farms across North America.

Another species at great risk due to wind energy are the lesser prairie-chickens. This species is known to avoid nesting near large structures, such as a wind turbines, which greatly limits their nesting grounds in an already declining prairie land existence in the United States, (Pruett et al, 2009). Even more unfortunate for the lesser prairie-chickens, is the fact that, “lesser prairie-chickens are found in states with some of the highest potential for wind energy development”, (Pruett et al, 2009). Not only are birds at risk of collision with the wind turbines, they are suffering from diminishing natural habitats. “…Results from the Buffalo Ridge Resource Area in Minnesota indicated that fewer birds and fewer species used areas in the vicinity of turbines than in control areas that lacked turnines”, (Kuvlesky Jr et al, 2007). Studies all over the country have found similar effects on avian species due to wind farms.

As the potential for wind to take over as the major supplier of energy in the United States rises, one could assume that so, too, will the harmful effects to avian species. There is, however, another side to this story. Some researchers point out that deaths to avian species are not as significant as we have been lead to believe. According to the American Wind Energy Association, “individual bird deaths due to wind development will never be more than a very small fraction of those caused by other commonly accepted human activities and structures—house casts kill an estimate 1 billion birds annually in the U.S. alone”, (2010). They suggest that one must be very critical in assessing the results of avian deaths on wind farms and be sure not to ignore the base rates. When looking at the bigger picture, the effects of wind farms don’t seem so bad for avian species. Problems with the way studies have been conducted is also brought to our attention, “Experimental designs and data collection protocols were generally inconsistent from study to study, which not only probably contributed to the observed variability between studies but also rendered results for the most part incomparable”, (Kulvesky Jr et al, 2007).

The influence of the media has also played a role in the skepticism of wind energy and its effects on birds. According to the American Wind Energy Association, “Unfortunately, media coverage about Altamont often gives the impression that all wind power projects have a significant effect on birds, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary”, (2010). It comes as no surprise that the media may not tell the completely truthful story.

Wind energy is being promoted as the most environmentally friendly source of energy, and a great alternative to fossil fuels and coal. “Production of one megawatt per hour (MWh) of electricity from coal results in one metric ton of carbon dioxide emissions in the atmosphere. A major benefit from the use of wind energy and hydropower is that each additional MWh that replaces coal generated electricity offsets one metric ton a year of carbon dioxide emissions”, (Hargreaves et al, 2007, pg. 203). With less carbon dioxide emissions, wind energy is clearly the cleaner choice for energy supply.

Regardless of the numbers, both sides of the wind energy/avian battle agree that death to birds result from wind energy farms. Knowing this, there are steps that can be taken by companies in the wind energy business to help limit the number of deaths. Such steps include paint color, size, and height of the turbines, as well as overall placement. If acknowledgement is given to the avian species, I believe that wind energy is the most environmentally friendly source of energy one could utilize in the United States.

RESOURCES:

Bohn, C., & Lant, C. (2009). Welcoming the Wind? Determinants of Wind Power Development Among U.S. States. Professional Geographer, 61(1), 87-100. doi:10.1080/00330120802580271.

Smallwood, K., Rugge, L., & Morrison, M. (2009). Influence of Behavior on Bird Mortality in Wind Energy Developments. Journal of Wildlife Management, 73(7), 1082-1098. doi:10.2193/2008-555.

Pruett, C., Patten, M., & Wolfe, D. (2009). It's Not Easy Being Green: Wind Energy and a Declining Grassland Bird. Bioscience, 59(3), 257-262. doi:10.1525/bio.2009.59.3.10.

Smallwood, K., & Thelander, C. (2008). Bird Mortality in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area, California. Journal of Wildlife Management, 72(1), 215-223. doi:10.2193/2007-032.

Kuvlesky Jr, W., Brennan, L., Morrison, M., Boydston, K., Ballard, B., & Bryant, F. (2007). Wind Energy Development and Wildlife Conservation: Challenges and Opportunities. Journal of Wildlife Management, 71(8), 2487-2498. doi:10.2193/2007-248.

Hargreaves, G., & Zaccaria, D. (2007). Better Management of Renewable Resources Can Avert a World Crisis. Journal of Irrigation & Drainage Engineering, 133(3), 201-205. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9437(2007)133:3(201).

Environmental Advertisement Analysis

GE's Wind Energy Commercial




General Electric (GE) aired a commercial advertising their product, wind energy, on NBC’s television network. The plot of the commercial is a young boy, standing on the edge of a cliff, holding out a jar to collect wind. Upon capping off his jar of wind, he makes the long journey home to what appears to be his grandfather’s birthday celebration. Just as his grandfather is about to blow out the candles on his cake he pauses to open the jar, given to him as a gift from the boy. The gust of wind escaping the jar is so powerful that it blows out the candles and soot out the chimney.
Throughout the commercial the song, “Catch The Wind” by Donovan is played in the background. No other audio or text is featured until the very endwhen there’s a man’s voice saying “capturing the wind and putting it to good use. Wind energy from GE.” There is, however, some slight audio from the actors of the commercial who speak to each other very briefly in Spanish. As the beautiful background images fade away, a white background appears with a few flashing images centered on the screen of a their website (ecomagination.com), a windmill, a green leaf, NBC’s logo, and a wheel’s spokes. I believe the song is a great fit for the commercial. It is lighthearted and the lyrics are about wind. The ratio of images to text/audio (other than music) is quite heavily emphasized on image. The use of more pictorial elements tells us that GE is trying to sell their product through the glamorized images of the natural countryside. GE wants the viewer to associate such images with their company and their wind power in general.
The theme, as it appears, is to promote wind energy and show just how powerful it can be. Other themes represented in this commercial include, romanticism, goodwill, and family. Romanticism is portrayed on the train with the little girl and the little boy. She smiles at him and, typical of a young boy, he makes a scowling face. Goodwill is seen with the young boy being given a ride by a passing stranger on a moped. The boy is walking along a country road, clearly has a long way to go with nothing in sight, and the moped comes up behind him, passes him slightly, then stops to lend a hand. The theme of family comes at the end of the commercial with the birthday celebration. It appears that this is a very large and loving family. The use of all these themes gives the viewer a sense of serenity and peace. It is a very lighthearted and uplifting commercial to watch.
The mood created by this advertisement is happy. It tells a cute little story. However, the story goes on for a majority of the commercial before you realize what the advertisement is selling. I believe this is not necessarily a good thing for GE. The attention of the viewer is limited and best practices say to get your name out there before people lose interest. GE does do a great job, though, of capturing the attention of the reader through its compelling little story. It almost keeps you on the edge of your seat wondering what the boy is going to do next. This may make up for the fact that their brand is not mentioned until the very end. This, again, emphasized GE’s reliance on images to sell their product.
Wind energy could potentially play an important role in American society. It is currently being promoted as a better, alternative source of energy. Every person in the United States uses some form of energy on a daily basis. This product could potentially be apart of our daily lives. This commercial, however, is far from informational about the product. It doesn’t say what it is, how it works, or how you can get the product. Instead, it simply gets the word out there that wind energy exists. I almost feel that GE is getting the consumer on board for the shift toward alternative energy sources.
I believe the main target audience of this commercial is anyone who pays an utility/energy bill. More specifically, because of the emotional appeal deriving from the young boy, I feel it is geared toward parents and families. The boy is so protective of his jar of wind, as seen in the scene on the train where he draws it in close to him when the little girl eyes him up. When he gives it to his grandfather, his whole family gathered around, the look on his face draws a smile to your own. I believe that anyone with a child can relate to such and act, which is why I believe it’s targeting parents.
Images seen throughout the commercial include many ties to the presence of wind. For example, the blowing scarf the young boy is wearing, the crashing waves of the ocean, the laundry blowing on the close line, the birthday candles blowing out, soot shooting out the chimney, and the windblown hair and apparel of the family members at the birthday celebration. I feel these images really tie to the theme of the commercial and product being advertised very well. They remind the viewer of the commercials underlying message. Other images tie to the underlying theme of “ecomagination”: GE’s coined term for their efforts toward more environmentally friendly products. Images which promote such a term, are generally “green” in nature and included in this specific commercial are examples of blue skies, big, blue ocean and river, green pastures, green trees, mountains, animals (cows, goats, chickens, horses), and a beautiful countryside throughout. The houses pictured in this advertisement were not typical American houses, but rather small hut-like houses way out in the isolated country. The use of such images allows the American consumer to fantasize about living in beautiful places with the underlying association to GE and it’s wind energy. They are symbols of nature.
Some figures present in this ad include what appears to be a Spanish family. Every member of this family, including the young boy, has a smile on their face all throughout. The ages range from the young boy to the old grandfather. None of the people are what you would expect in a typical commercial model. Instead, there is a very average country family: overweight, thin, makeup-less, simply dressed, and wrinkled. They look very natural. I believe that the use of models would have taken away from the message GE was trying to get across. They want to come across as a genuine company looking out for the best interest of their consumers.

Environmental News Analysis

The heading of Andrew Kramer’s article in the New York Times on March 19th was “Safety Issues Linger as Nuclear Reactors Shrink in Size”. From this, one can easily distinguish the tone of the article to follow. A story has a greater chance of being reported if it contains negativity; there is a frequent emphasis on bad news (Anderson, 1997). Rather than highlight the progress on becoming more environmentally friendly, Kramer has chosen to emphasize the drawbacks and potential hazards of the new, smaller nuclear reactors.

Taking a look at the lead paragraph and the surrounding context, the drawbacks to the progress made in nuclear reactors seems to be the theme of this article. The first five or so paragraphs highlight the negative components. Kramer uses phrases such as “no one knows how to handle”, “no engineering solution has been devised yet”, and “still years from being realized” to make the reader aware of the long way scientists still have to go before we can reap the benefits from such technologies. While Kramer begins his article with the negatives, he does touch on some of the good possibilities and benefits of smaller nuclear reactors, but then returns to the drawbacks in the last few paragraphs. By concluding his article in such a manor, Kramer leaves the reader with the impression that small nuclear reactors are more bitter than they are sweet. I feel this is typical of today’s environmental stories in the media: rather than highlight the progress made, we point out the flaws.

Surprisingly, the picture contained in the article is one of low entertainment value. Rather than using symbolism to enhance the negative effects of the smaller nuclear reactors, Kramer used a picture of a submarine that uses such a reactor. Often we would expect something like a picture of the pollution caused by these reactors; which could cause harm to animals living in the ocean. I believe the photo in this article is a more neutral enhancement of the story, and a fair choice.

Most environmentally centered stories in the media tend to rely on expert opinion to frame the content. In Kramer’s article, there was little support provided by “experts”. Although very little direct quoting was used, Kramer did use information provided by the director of Akme Engineering to reinforce the potential of smaller nuclear reactors. Following this, Kramer provides the reader with little hope of any benefits in the near future, carrying out the negative tone of the article as a whole. The lack of actual “expert” support leaves the reader to believe that Kramer, himself, may be an expert on the subject. The support provided by “experts” is pretty equally represented on both sides of the argument. However, it appears that Kramer was tactful in his choices of what information from each side to use. From the companies in support of the smaller nuclear reactors, Kramer used little information about the advantages and more about the negatives, whenever possible.

In conclusion, the tone of this article is made obvious right from it’s heading. The negativity is something we can expect in environmental stories in the media today. Perfection is a long way coming, but sometimes it would be nice to reflect on the progress made.

A link to the Kramer’s article:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/19/business/energy-environment/19minireactor.html

Also referenced,
Anderson, Alison. (1997). Media, culture, and the environment. Rutgers Univ Pr.