One of the few things I agree with the Trump administration on.

The problem with wind farms is that they are very hazardous to avian wildlife. Birds and Bats..

Both of which are keystone species for pest control, pollenation, and seed spreading.

It is not the enviromentally friendly energy source we have been lead to believe.

Rug Rat (Brent Hendricks)
Blog and Forums - www.catracing.org
IMAGE BBS! 3.0 - bbs.catracing.org 6400
C-Net Amiga BBS - bbs.catracing.org 6840

Ham's Over IP - 104196
--- CNet/5
* Origin: The Rat's Den BBS (1:135/250)

The problem with wind farms is that they are very hazardous to avian

>wildlife. Birds and Bats..

It is not the enviromentally friendly energy source we have been

>lead to believe.

And generally not nearly as productive as expected. A very few areas
are quite good for them but many countries that built hundreds or
thousands of turbines at great cost are just waiting for them to
wear out so the can get rid of them. Often the actual output ends up
being less than half the original estimate due to them not working
in low or too high winds..

---
* SLMR Rob * I'm from Quebec... What country are you from?
* Origin: Capitol City Online (1:2320/107)

Hello Rob!

** On Thursday 07.05.26 - 08:34, Rob Mccart wrote to RUG RAT:

The problem with wind farms is that they are very hazardous to avian

wildlife. Birds and Bats..

It is not the enviromentally friendly energy source we have been

lead to believe.

And generally not nearly as productive as expected. A very few areas
are quite good for them but many countries that built hundreds or thousands of turbines at great cost are just waiting for them to
wear out so the can get rid of them. Often the actual output ends up
being less than half the original estimate due to them not working
in low or too high winds..

I thought Spain and the Netherlands seemed to be doing well with them.
--
../|ug

--- OpenXP 5.0.64
* Origin: My Westcoast Point (1:153/757.21)

It is not the enviromentally friendly energy source we have been

lead to believe.

And generally not nearly as productive as expected. A very few areas
are quite good for them but many countries that built hundreds or
thousands of turbines at great cost are just waiting for them to
wear out so the can get rid of them. Often the actual output ends up
being less than half the original estimate due to them not working
in low or too high winds..

I thought Spain and the Netherlands seemed to be doing well with them.

I just remembered reading about a country that had built hundreds
of them along the coast and the expense of operation was so high
and the output so low that they were cursing the idea..

We'd have to look up the current situation but the notes that I
took at the time (about 2006) talked a lot about how harmful
they were to people or animals living near them and how the
power output was 'dirty' with high frequency spikes that damage
the power systems and they bleed bleed power into the ground
affecting humans and animals..

Also, as I mentioned about ouput, a number of countries built
enough turbines to supply 30% of their power (at full output)
but in use found they virtually never even got close to that.

Using that 30% as 100% full output Germany got only 14.7% output,
Denmark got 20%, at times their 6000 turbines putting out Zero,
and they had to keep their conventional power plants running at
full power due to the unreliability of wind power.

The UK got 24.1% and areas in the USA got between 20% and 23% but
said that percentage output is declining every year.

To get close to maximun output you need sustained winds at 30 mph,
anything much lower or higher than that dramatically lowers output.

A buildup of bugs can reduce output by 25% and salt build up near
the ocean can reduce output by 20% to 30%..

As I said, this information is not right up to date, much of
it coming from an article called A Problem with Wind Power
written by Science editor Eric Rosenbloom (Vermont) in 2006..
So maybe they have found ways to improve things since then.

---
* SLMR Rob * "Milhouse, we live in the age of cooties" - Bart Simpson
* Origin: Capitol City Online (1:2320/107)

Hello Rob!

** On Sunday 10.05.26 - 15:16, you wrote to me:

I thought Spain and the Netherlands seemed to be doing well with them.

I just remembered reading about a country that had built hundreds
of them along the coast and the expense of operation was so high
and the output so low that they were cursing the idea..

I asked chatgpt about that:

"

There isn't a single country that broadly "built hundreds of wind turbines along the coast and now regrets it." That claim usually comes from political debate or local backlash rather than a national reversal.

A few countries are often cited:

* Denmark pioneered offshore wind and still strongly supports it overall, even though some older projects were retired or criticized over cost and maintenance. ([Wikipedia][1])
* Germany and the United Kingdom have faced complaints about visual impact, wildlife concerns, costs, and grid issues, but both continue expanding offshore wind rather than abandoning it. ([arXiv][2])
* Australia has seen growing local opposition to proposed offshore projects in places like Victoria and New South Wales, with some projects delayed or canceled. ([ABC News][3])
* Sweden rejected several offshore wind proposals partly over military radar concerns, not because existing turbines failed. ([Business Insider][4])

So the more accurate picture is:

* some coastal wind projects have faced backlash, delays, or cancellations,
* but no major country has generally concluded "offshore wind was a mistake" and dismantled hundreds of turbines because of regret.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Vindeby_Offshore_Wind_Farm?utm_source=chatgpt.com "Vindeby Offshore Wind Farm"
[2]: https://arxiv.org/abs/2202.00945?utm_source=chatgpt.com "Getting more with less? Why repowering onshore wind farms does not always lead to more wind power generation -- a German case study"
[3]: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2026-02-03/seaspray-against-offshore-wind- blue-mackerel-turbines/106123752?utm_source=chatgpt.com "Seaspray beach residents push back on wind farm turbines 10km from shore - ABC News"
[4]: https://www.businessinsider.com/sweden-rejects-wind-farms-slow-response- missile-attacks-russia-war-2024-11?utm_source=chatgpt.com "A NATO country rejected offshore wind farms it said could slow its response to a Russian missile attack"

"

We'd have to look up the current situation but the notes that I
took at the time (about 2006) talked a lot about how harmful
they were to people or animals living near them and how the
power output was 'dirty' with high frequency spikes that damage
the power systems and they bleed bleed power into the ground
affecting humans and animals..

Also, some truth to all that, but there are mixed ideas/evidence:

"

Claims like that circulated heavily in the 2000s, especially around 2005- 2010, but most of the more dramatic allegations were either unproven, exaggerated, or based on misunderstandings of electrical engineering.

There *were* several categories of concern around wind turbines:

### Health complaints ("wind turbine syndrome")

Some residents near turbines reported:

* sleep disturbance
* headaches
* stress/anxiety
* annoyance from noise or shadow flicker

The controversial idea called "wind turbine syndrome" was promoted by physician Nina Pierpont. However, major public health reviews in countries like Canada, Australia, and United States generally concluded there was insufficient evidence for a unique physiological disease caused directly by turbine emissions or infrasound.

That said, noise annoyance and stress effects are considered real for some nearby residents, especially when turbines are placed too close to homes.

### Animal impacts

These concerns are much more grounded:

* birds and bats can be killed by turbine blades
* offshore wind can affect marine ecosystems during construction
* habitat fragmentation can occur

Modern turbine siting tries to reduce this:

* radar shutdown systems for bird migrations
* avoiding major flyways
* slower blade speeds in high bat activity periods

### "Dirty power" and high-frequency spikes

This part mixes some real engineering issues with exaggerated claims.

Wind turbines use:

* power electronics
* inverters
* switching systems

Those can generate:

* harmonics
* electromagnetic interference
* transient voltage spikes

These are real electrical phenomena, but utilities routinely deal with them using:

* filters
* grounding systems
* grid synchronization equipment
* harmonic correction

The claim that turbines broadly "bleed power into the ground" causing widespread illness in humans or livestock is not supported by mainstream electrical engineering evidence.

There *have* been isolated grounding faults or stray voltage problems around specific installations - similar to problems that can occur near substations, farms, rail systems, or industrial equipment - but not evidence of a universal turbine effect harming nearby populations.

### Why the stories became widespread

Around 2006-2012 there was a large backlash movement against wind farms in several countries:

* United Kingdom
* Canada
* Australia
* United States

The debate mixed:

* legitimate local concerns
* early-generation turbine problems
* anti-renewable political campaigns
* internet amplification
* misunderstanding of electrical terminology

Early wind installations were also noisier and less refined than modern designs, which added to the controversy.

"

So.. early turbines designs were not so great (noisy). It's not so good news that the turbines mess with bat sonar.

Also, as I mentioned about ouput, a number of countries built
enough turbines to supply 30% of their power (at full output)
but in use found they virtually never even got close to that.

[...]

As I said, this information is not right up to date, much of
it coming from an article called A Problem with Wind Power
written by Science editor Eric Rosenbloom (Vermont) in 2006..
So maybe they have found ways to improve things since then.

Yep.. still not a very efficient system.

--
../|ug

--- OpenXP 5.0.64
* Origin: (1:396/45.29)

Around 2006-2012 there was a large backlash movement against wind farms in several countries:

* United Kingdom
* Canada
* Australia
* United States

Interesting that they are all English-speaking countries.


* SLMR 2.1a * Monday is a hard way to spend 1/7 of your life.
--- SBBSecho 3.28-Linux
* Origin: Capitol City Online (1:2320/107)

On Tue 26-May-2026 11:05a, Mike Powell@1:2320/107.0 said to August Abolins:

Interesting that they are all English-speaking countries.

Why is that interesting? English speaking countries tend to be less collective, more individual, lower communication context countries.

Using South Korea as an example, sociaty usually follows the leader, and if they don't they are forcefully removed and shunned from the group. So what the government touts as "Good" is not recognized as being "Bad" until much later.

A prime example of this was South Korea was touted for DECADES for their "superior" manditory trash seperation and recycling, even "food trash" was to be seperated for composting. I was revelaed about 5 years ago that the trash that was supposedly recycled was in fact being sold to China and the Philippines to be disposed of in their landfills. It was only exposed after both countries told South Korea they would not take their tash any more.

Rug Rat (Brent Hendricks)
Blog and Forums - www.catracing.org
IMAGE BBS! 3.0 - bbs.catracing.org 6400
C-Net Amiga BBS - bbs.catracing.org 6840

Ham's Over IP - 104196
--- CNet/5
* Origin: The Rat's Den BBS (1:135/250)

I just remembered reading about a country that had built hundreds
of them along the coast and the expense of operation was so high
and the output so low that they were cursing the idea..

I asked chatgpt about that:

There isn't a single country that broadly "built hundreds of wind turbines

>along the coast and now regrets it." That claim usually comes from political
>debate or local backlash rather than a national reversal.

In general, there were probably some exaggerations and the info I
had was 20 years old so even some legitimate concerns have probably
been addressed by now..

That said, I've never run into anyone generating their own solar or
wind power that ended up getting anything near the output they were
told to expect, and I think you'll find Countries found the same
thing. Whether it was still practical or not may vary..

---
* SLMR Rob * ......................................... - Group Photo
* Origin: Capitol City Online (1:2320/107)