Wind Energy - "green energy" scam?

[JEEP]

Just saw this and it appears that people in New York will pay around 4 times more for wind energy

And then, there's this:

“Clean” energy wind turbine DISASTER in Iowa leaves town on hook for MILLIONS in damages

Excerpt:

It is bad enough when one "clean" energy wind turbine fails and destroys the nearby terrain, but one Iowa farm recently learned what happens when three wind turbines collapse in less than a year and a half.

The farm, located in Mechanicsville, incurred massive destruction after the three wind turbines were all struck by lightning at different intervals. Literal tons of debris, including wires and fiberglass, were strewn about in the disaster site, affecting both crops and soil.

The crop, in this case corn, is now unsellable due to the disaster, as are the corn stalks that would normally be used to create animal bedding. The farmland itself is also severely compromised and may not be usable for quite some time. Farming equipment was also damaged.

"At least 1,000 acres of farmland," reports indicate, were destroyed by the wind turbine disasters. The amount of damage incurred is estimated to be in the millions.

Yep, the citizens are left with the pollution and the extreme cost to clean it up. And let's not forget taxpayers are subsidizing these turbines in the first place - they are not economically viable without this subsidizing (try not to act surprised). Just another "clean" energy scam with the public on the hook for not only its initiation, but when it goes south as well!

The public simply cannot be expected to pay for cleanup when the only people benefiting from wind turbines are their owners and the farmers and landowners who lease space for their installation.

The father of Sally Freeman, the farm's owner, commented that wind turbine leasing income has always been a "good" deal. In that case, those reaping the benefits need to pay for cleanup, not taxpayers.

"I didn't see any of that income though, so why would I foot the bill for disastrous consequences when it all goes south?" asked Olivia Murray, writing for American Thinker. "If Freeman and her family choose to cash-in on handouts, then they're assuming the risk, right? I mean, that's what more 'legislation' means."

"I hate to be insensitive, but they're the ones who leased out their land, trying to make a buck on a faulty product – information on the limitations of turbines isn't exactly a secret – so why should I as a taxpayer be on the hook?" It's tragic, and I absolutely regret all the damage done, but again, why does that warrant using the government to compel me, or any other uninvolved party, to pay for the fallout? Because of course that's who always pays when there's new 'legislation,' in one way or another."

But Olivia - that's the American Way, better known as Capitalism! Or as more accurately characterized by Naomi Klein, Disaster Capitalism! Cue the waving flags!

 

[Cristal]

We talked about the damage of the wind turbines at the begining of our EE workshop last night. I rembered reading in the news about a rabbit farm that suffered from the turbines installed very close and the effect it had on the animals. The piece of news is in Spanish. What it says is that after the instalation of the turbines very close to the farm ,it produced such stress to the animals that there were many cases of canibalism,infertility,early death. @Breo

La lucha de una granja de conejos contra un parque eólico: “Estamos en la ruina”

La empresa Potosí, en Valverde de Campos, y con una inversión de dos millones de euros, se encuentra en preconcurso de acreedores debido a los daños causados en los animales por los aerogeneradores mintras que Naturgy asegura que cumple con todas las normativas

www.elespanol.com

 

[Cosmos]

I would bring ALL those ridiculously ugly and stupidly inefficient Wind turbines down and charge those POLITICAL and affiliated people and organizations with the costs of it (not the manufacturers or any ordinary people/businesses) + an extra fee for the damage that it has caused. Further, I would make sure that none of those people responsible in those organizations and political fields can have anything to say in regards to something like that in the future.

 

[Breo]

I would bring ALL those ridiculously ugly and stupidly inefficient Wind turbines down and charge those POLITICAL and affiliated people and organizations with the costs of it (not the manufacturers or any ordinary people/businesses) + an extra fee for the damage that it has caused. Further, I would make sure that none of those people responsible in those organizations and political fields can have anything to say in regards to something like that in the future.

I would vote for you! Thanks for expressing it that clearly. I have been living close to wind turbines and it damages physical and mental health in nefarious ways.

it produced such stress to the animals that there were many cases of canibalism,infertility,early death.

Finally a magazine confirms the extreme effect wind turbines have on animals too. Horrible.

The general public still underestimates the damage. It affects ALL life in those areas: humans, animals and nature.

 

[Cristal]

Finally a magazine confirms the extreme effect wind turbines have on animals too. Horrible.

It's a very small piece of news and it does not confirm it,really. It's what the owners complained about. It seems that there is a study done by the Universidad Politécnica de Valencia that confirms that there could be this kind of effects from the wind turbines. (That's what the article says).The article is from 2 years ago. I don't think that anything was done after the owners denounced it.I coulnd't find anything about it. The closest wind turbine was 179 m from the farm.
The problem is that the electric companies that install them are very powerful and they can silence anybody. I was surprised that there was any talk about it.

 

[Breo]

The problem is that the electric companies that install them are very powerful and they can silence anybody. I was surprised that there was any talk about it.

Yes, that probably is the main drive why there is ongoing public silence and hardly any studies done. I am too very surprised that such a drastic case was published at all. Even, if it is a small article in a magazine with no citations of studies - nevertheless a study of a University is mentioned, I think much more articles like these and scientific studies are needed to raise awareness.

Below is the deepl translation of the article you posted. The last two paragraphs are a statement of the windturbine company beating around the bush in the typical way to deviate from the critical situation that 20 years of farm work are ruined. Overall, I think, the article gives another relevant insight into wind turbine catastrophy.

The fight of a rabbit farm against a wind farm: “We are in ruins”

May 9, 2023
The company Potosí, in Valverde de Campos, and with an investment of two million euros, is in prepetition of creditors due to the damage caused to the animals by the wind turbines mintras that Naturgy ensures that it complies with all regulations.

J.I. Fernández

The eternal struggle of Don Quixote against the windmills is one of the most famous chapters of Miguel de Cervantes' book. A confrontation that centuries later is still being experienced in the fields of Castile, specifically in the fields of Valverde de Campos in Valladolid. There, the Potosí rabbit farm is seriously affected by the wind turbines of a wind farm. The farm, one of the best in Spain and with an investment of two million euros, is in prepetition of creditors due to the damage caused to the animals by the motors. To the point of having infertility problems, behavior modification of the rabbits that have become carnivorous or a disproportionate increase in mortality rates. All this is caused by the wind farm, according to the owners, Angela Gómez and her son Nacho del Campo.

With more than 20 years in the sector, this farm has become a reference and has won several awards for its work capacity and investment. However, a few years ago they began to notice that their production was no longer the same. Fewer offspring, worse meat and uncontrolled animal behavior. Thus, doubts about Naturgy's wind farm began as a result of a “coincidence”. Finally, a report by the Polytechnic University of Valencia has confirmed that all the problems are compatible with the ultrasound generated by the generators. This is what the owners of this farm in the small town of just over 120 inhabitants are clinging to.

The wind turbines are 179 and 336 meters from the farm. The 2022 regulations say that they must be installed more than 500 meters away, but since they were installed before that date, nothing can be done.

As far as I know, some studies say that the damaging effect of wind turbine ultrasound reaches as far as 10-20km.

[Continuation of article]
“Out of 800 such farms in Spain, we are the only ones who have it so close,” Del Campo laments.

The data are tremendous. In recent years they have produced 50% less, this past year they have taken out 166,000 rabbits and in 2023 they do not know the figure because “we will have to close”, he warns. In addition, of the nine jobs that were there, there will be zero. And all this with an investment of two million euros that “they have made me lose”. This is the form of “understanding” sought by the owner of the farm, who, as it is clear to him that Naturgy will not eliminate the center, wants to be compensated. “That they give me that money or that they set up another farm somewhere else,” he asks.

Angelita Gómez's face says it all. More than two decades of hard work that is doomed to closure. She is at a loss for words. “We are being massacred. It's ruin. We're going to close. I feel helpless,” he laments. At the same time he criticizes the fact that nobody has contacted them to grant the licenses to this company.

“The owners have contacted both the company and the administration. Those responsible for Naturgy have told us to take it to court, while the Board has assured us that it is not up to them and that we will have to take it to court,” he said. But they are clear that prolonging it over time “is a triumph for them” because “they will be forced to close and when the trial comes out, the factory will no longer be there”.

Also present at the press conference was Jesús Manuel González Palacín, coordinator of UCCL, who showed his full support for the rabbit producers. “It is clear that there is a cause and effect relationship between the farm and the wind farm, their productivity has been modified and this wind farm is going to ruin its owners. It is a fight against a giant”, he has denounced and has put the finger on both the company and the Board.

Naturgy: “The regulations are complied with in all aspects”.

The company Naturgy wanted to offer this newspaper its version of the situation that is being experienced at the farm in Valverde de Campos. First of all, it stresses that “the wind farm has all the administrative and environmental authorizations required by the Junta de Castilla y León”. It also has “all wind developments include environmental impact studies to protect the biodiversity of the area and take into account the different uses of the environment to ensure the compatibility of all of them, as ratified by the granting of the positive Environmental Impact Statement”.

With regard to the applicable regulations on noise levels during the day and night and does not exceed the limits established by the regulation, it also complies with everything. In any case, despite strictly complying with all the regulations in force and within the spirit of good coexistence and neighborliness that it promotes in relation to the environment in the territories in which it operates, Naturgy points out that it has recently carried out proactive measures “to reduce the noise of its wind turbines by installing noise emission reduction systems”.

 

[Ricardo]

Hopefully the issues with wind farms won't go away same as with cell towers /5g , eh....

 

[Aeneas]

The green energy transition is meeting some more headwind. The biggest player on the German market has pulled out of the US market for off shore wind farms.

Germany's RWE just pulled the plug on its U.S. offshore wind business. Quietly. No fireworks, no headlines about thousands of turbines scrapped—just a dry admission that it's "halting activities" in American waters. For one of Europe’s biggest green energy giants to walk away from a market as large as the U.S., in the middle of an energy transition no less, is not just a business decision.

It’s a red flag.

The exit—confirmed by a speech manuscript published ahead of a yet-to-be-delivered speech by the company’s CEO—comes as RWE rethinks where and how it deploys capital. In March, the company slashed $11 billion off its low-carbon investment plan, citing rising costs, hostile regulatory environments, and a spike in its required return on investment from 8% to 8.5%. In other words: too risky, too expensive, too slow.


RWE's CEO, Markus Krebber, had already warned last fall that Trump’s return to power could delay or derail projects on the U.S. East Coast. Now, the company is making that pivot official. All U.S. offshore wind operations are paused—indefinitely—and RWE will instead chase safer, more lucrative projects in places like Germany, where it just broke ground on a new 22.8-MW onshore wind farm.
[...]

In France the wind is also changing:

The recent shutdown of the Bernagues wind farm in Hérault, France, marks a long-overdue reckoning with the lethal impacts of wind energy on wildlife—particularly raptors like the golden eagle. On April 9, 2025, a French court ordered the entire site to cease operations for one year following the confirmed death of a golden eagle, a protected species, that collided with one of the farm’s turbine blades in January 2023. The decision also slapped Energie Renouvelable du Languedoc (ERL), the farm’s operator, with a €200,000 fine, half of which was suspended, and imposed an additional €40,000 fine on the company’s director.

https://www.ouest-france.fr/environ...lherault-ba605342-153e-11f0-9759-9654df6b878b
This isn’t just a one-off judicial reaction. It represents a seismic shift in how the French legal system—and perhaps the broader public—are beginning to confront the uncomfortable truth about wind energy’s collateral damage. Despite the Green orthodoxy that surrounds renewables, wind turbines kill birds. And not just any birds. In this case, the victim was the breeding male of a golden eagle pair that had nested just three kilometers from the turbine site, a distance well beyond typical disturbance buffers used in wildlife protection.

Environmental groups hailed the court’s decision as a victory, but the implications go much deeper. For years, bird deaths caused by wind turbines have been ignored, downplayed, or dismissed as unfortunate but tolerable trade-offs in the race toward “net zero.” But the Bernagues case shatters that illusion. Here, a single incident carried enough legal weight to halt energy production for a year—an implicit admission that the risks to protected species may outweigh the supposed benefits of wind energy.

And this isn’t happening in isolation. Another French wind farm in Aumelas was also ordered to suspend operations just two days earlier, along with a €5 million fine against EDF Renewables. Add to this the December 2023 ruling from the Nîmes Court of Appeal ordering the demolition of the Bernagues wind farm for lacking a valid building permit, and a pattern begins to emerge: the renewable energy sector, long shielded from scrutiny, is now being subjected to long-overdue consequences.

What’s changing? In part, a growing recognition—backed by research—that wind farms are not as benign as their PR teams suggest. Two recent studies underline the broader threat to golden eagles. One, in Ecological Applications, shows that annual mortality already exceeds the threshold that eagle populations can sustain. Another, in Biological Conservation, tracks a rise in turbine-related eagle deaths in the western U.S., from 110 in 2013 to 270 in 2024. These are not rounding errors. They are statistical red flags.

And yet, the political and ideological machinery behind wind power continues to roll forward, impervious to facts. The push for “green” energy is not driven by data but by dogma. It’s a crusade rooted in carbon hysteria and the romanticization of renewable energy, regardless of ecological consequences or economic efficiency. Wind power has become the cathedral of the climate faithful, and turbines their spires—never mind the feathered corpses accumulating at their base.

This is not rational policymaking; it’s ideological fixation dressed up as science. If the goal were genuinely to balance human needs with environmental stewardship, the conversation would look very different. We’d be assessing energy sources on their real-world merits—reliability, cost, land use, ecological impact—not blindly throwing subsidies at whichever technology aligns with green slogans.

France’s court system has done what most governments have failed to do: impose real accountability on an industry that’s been operating with impunity. The Bernagues decision should serve as a precedent, not an anomaly. It’s a milestone in holding the wind industry to the same environmental standards it pretends to uphold. And it invites a critical question: if even the eagle—the emblem of nature’s majesty—isn’t safe from the blades of climate dogma, what exactly are we saving?

 

[Aeneas]

Scottie mentioned the huge problem with rare earths in one Scottie Tech video and mentioned that windmills use 350kg of rare earths for just one windmill turbine. Knowing that there is a very big difference in the size of turbines, I looked to find out. In the process, I found a study from 2020 which said that production of rare earth minerals have to be scaled up by a factor 11 to 26 times in order to meet the demands to year 2050. That is a HUGE amount and it would require a lot of energy and investment. Something which is unlikely to happen but as mentioned in the last post, the demand is suddenly dropping so there is that. Here is the study:

Critical Rare-Earth Elements Mismatch Global Wind-Power Ambitions​

Highlights​

• •
  11- to 26-fold expansion of RE supply is needed for meeting global wind-power targets
• •
  The global RE requirement is estimated at 460–902 Gg in 2021–2050
• •
  European wind-power development faces the highest risk of RE shortage
• •
  Governance of the RE supply chain is critical for guaranteeing wind-power deployment

Regarding what Scottie mentioned about cars, then I found that the average cars uses 2-5 kg of rare earth minerals costing about $300 per car.

The average hybrid or EV uses between 2 kg and 5 kg of permanent magnets, depending on its design(Onstad, 2021).5 The permanent magnets in the motors cost more than USD 300 per vehicle, or up to half thecost of the entire motor (Onstad, 2021).

Regarding windmills, I asked Grok and it came with data, but take it with a grain of salt though it sounds reasonable. There is a table summary at the end which is useful. Large off shore windmills which is what they tend to set up uses up to 1500-2000kg for 10MW windmills (GROK didn't mention the bigger ones).

Here is GROK:

1. 2 MW Wind Turbine

• REE Content: Approximately 340–400 kg of rare earth elements.
  • Neodymium: ~280–340 kg (based on 752–800 lbs total REEs, with neodymium being the majority).
  • Dysprosium: ~50–60 kg (based on 130 lbs for a 2 MW turbine).
  • Praseodymium and Terbium: Smaller amounts, often less than 10–20 kg combined, as they are used sparingly.
• Source Data:
  • The Bulletin of Atomic Scientists estimates a 2 MW turbine contains ~800 lbs (363 kg) of REEs, with 800 lbs neodymium and 130 lbs dysprosium.
  • MIT estimates ~752 lbs (341 kg) of REEs for a 2 MW turbine.
• Notes:
  • These figures assume a direct-drive PMSG turbine, common in onshore applications.
  • Geared turbines may use 10 times less REEs (e.g., ~30–40 kg total).

2. 3 MW Wind Turbine

• REE Content: Approximately 500–600 kg of rare earth elements.
  • Neodymium: ~400–450 kg (based on ~560 kg for a 3 MW turbine’s magnet, with ~72% iron).
  • Dysprosium: ~50–100 kg (scaled from 2 MW estimates and material efficiency trends).
  • Praseodymium and Terbium: ~20–50 kg combined, depending on magnet composition.
• Source Data:
  • A 60 MW wind farm with 20 turbines (3 MW each) uses ~560 kg neodymium per turbine (magnet weight ~2000 kg, with ~28% REEs).
  • The Northwest Mining Association estimates 2 tons (1814 kg) of REEs for a 3 MW turbine, but this seems high compared to other sources and may include non-REE materials like iron in magnets.
• Notes:
  • Direct-drive turbines are assumed. Geared turbines could reduce REEs to ~50–60 kg.
  • PBS Newshour reports ~2 tons of REEs for a 3 MW turbine’s magnets, but this likely includes the full magnet weight (iron, boron, etc.), not just REEs.

3. 5 MW Wind Turbine

• REE Content: Approximately 1000 kg (1 ton) of rare earth elements.
  • Neodymium: ~800 kg.
  • Dysprosium: ~200 kg.
  • Praseodymium and Terbium: Minor amounts, likely ~20–50 kg total.
• Source Data:
  • A post on X cites a 5 MW turbine requiring 800 kg neodymium and 200 kg dysprosium, totaling 1 ton of REEs.
  • Wind Systems Magazine suggests ~1 ton of REEs (neodymium, praseodymium, dysprosium, terbium) for an “industrial-size” turbine, likely in the 3–5 MW range.
• Notes:
  • Typically used offshore, where direct-drive PMSGs are prevalent due to lower maintenance needs.
  • Offshore turbines may use up to 220 tonnes of neodymium-praseodymium oxide per GW, translating to ~44 kg/MW of REEs, but this is a conservative estimate and varies by design.

4. 10 MW Wind Turbine (Large Offshore)

• REE Content: Approximately 1500–2000 kg of rare earth elements.
  • Neodymium: ~1200–1500 kg (based on ~300–400 kg/MW for direct-drive offshore turbines).
  • Dysprosium: ~200–400 kg.
  • Praseodymium and Terbium: ~50–100 kg combined.
• Source Data:
  • Large offshore turbines (e.g., 10 MW) can contain up to 5 tons of magnets, with ~30% REEs (1500 kg).
  • Estimates suggest ~300–400 kg of neodymium per MW for direct-drive offshore turbines, scaling to 1500–2000 kg for 10 MW.
• Notes:
  • These are direct-drive turbines, common in offshore settings for efficiency and reduced maintenance.
  • Geared drivetrains could reduce REEs to ~150–200 kg, but they are less common offshore.

Factors Affecting REE Content

1. Turbine Design:
   • Direct-Drive vs. Geared: Direct-drive turbines use 10x more REEs than geared turbines. Vestas notes geared drivetrains in their EnVentus platform use significantly less REEs and eliminate heavy REEs like dysprosium.
   • PMSG vs. Non-PMSG: Only ~2% of U.S. turbines use REE-based PMSGs; most use copper/steel electromagnets.
2. Turbine Size:
   • Larger turbines (higher MW) require more REEs due to larger magnets, especially in offshore applications.
3. Material Efficiency:
   • Manufacturers like Siemens Gamesa have reduced dysprosium content to <1% of magnets, lowering overall REE use.
   • Innovations in magnet-free designs or REE substitutes (e.g., cerium, cobalt) could further reduce reliance.
4. Recycling and Substitution:
   • Recycling REEs from end-of-life turbines is challenging but could supply ~10% of demand in 10 years.
   • Rare earth-free turbines exist and could reduce dependency if adopted.

Summary Table

Turbine Size (MW)	Total REEs (kg)	Neodymium (kg)	Dysprosium (kg)	Praseodymium/Terbium (kg)	Notes
2 MW	340–400	280–340	50–60	10–20	Direct-drive, onshore
3 MW	500–600	400–450	50–100	20–50	Direct-drive, onshore/offshore
5 MW	~1000	~800	~200	20–50	Direct-drive, offshore
10 MW	1500–2000	1200–1500	200–400

That is a lot of rare earth metals. From my understanding of windmills, then the geared turbines are getting less and less especially with the off shore windmills. One key reason is the great wear of these moving parts and the high maintenance costs involved. The forces at play at sea are huge and it wears down the windmills thus making them less efficient and in need of repairs and maintenance. Wind turbines off shore are today sitting at 150 meters above the water surface and thus requires helicopters to service.

If one thinks that 10MW is big, then that is not quite so. There are already 14,7MW in commercial use and a number of bigger ones up to 21,5MW in prototypes as can be seen on this list from wikipedia.

 

[Voyageur]

The green energy transition is meeting some more headwind. The biggest player on the German market has pulled out of the US market for off shore wind farms.

A tag along article from the US, looks to:

Wind power is buying eagle-kill indulgences​

Wind power is buying eagle-kill indulgences

Compensatory mitigation looks like a legal loophole designed to help the wind power industry avoid the Eagle Protection Act. The wind power facilities are just buying the indulgence of killing eagl…

wattsupwiththat.com

It was interesting to read how inserted formulas work, because they do a comparison (not really as it turns out) between bird electrocutions (traditional wired grids) to wind power grids in what is called “compensatory mitigation” within the offset. The offset comes with the provision that the data on one side is secret.

“When authorized take (killing) exceeds EMU (Eagle Management Unit) take limits, Service policy is that take must be effectively offset by compensatory mitigation such that there is no net increase in mortality. Currently, the only offsetting mitigation measure the Service has enough information to confidently apply in this manner is retrofitting of power lines to reduce eagle electrocutions….”

and

“Offsetting mitigation is mostly an issue affecting take authorization for golden eagles, as EMU take limits are set at zero requiring all authorized take to be offset.”

Wind power, through the environment EPA, seems to have a built in method e.g., mitigation, to limit negative effects and hide it in a EMU metrics utilizing electrical power grids to offset :

In short the number of golden eagles saved has to at least equal the number killed. We do not know what that number is because while the FWS gets eagle kill reports from all wind facilities that data is held secret to keep the industry from public scrutiny. There are published third party estimates placing the number in the hundreds per year but it could be higher.

How the FWS has determined the dollar amount of compensatory mitigation also looks to be a secret as I can find nothing on it. The method is called Resource Equivalency Analysis but searching the FWS site for that just yields a calculation spreadsheet.

How the FWS gets from these dollars to the actual saving of the required number of eagle’s lives is a mystery. I do not see how such an analysis is even possible let alone verifiable. Where is the derivation and justification for this preposterous program with 160,000 MW of secret wind killing supposedly offset annually and 230,000 MW more in line.

That retrofitting some power poles can effectively offset the ongoing and increasing wind turbine slaughter of eagles seems completely unrealistic. Compensatory mitigation looks like a legal loophole designed to help the wind power industry avoid the Eagle Protection Act. The wind power facilities are just buying the indulgence of killing eagles year after year, more every year.

cont...

Regarding windmills, I asked Grok and it came with data, but take it with a grain of salt though it sounds reasonable. There is a table summary at the end which is useful. Large off shore windmills which is what they tend to set up uses up to 1500-2000kg for 10MW windmills (GROK didn't mention the bigger ones).

That if so is a lot of rare earth and other things not mentioned, such as the very large amount of hydrocarbons (oil/grease) used between maintenance cycles.

I don't know the answer to the following, however, started looking after discussing with a friend who knows a great deal concerning underwater works. The conversation started off on the subject of bubble curtains and what happens when you you don't use them.

There seems to be some data that speaks to it in different ways, and for offshore wind power, the Fact Checkers have come out with battling Headlines (Euro News) such as this:

Fact check: Are wind turbines killing whales and making them 'batty' as Trump says?​

What caught my attention are two things that may say otherwise. 1. When installing infrastructure in the water (oil platforms et cetera, and wind farms), one of the the methods used is to do so, is as said, with bubble curtains, which are critical for protecting marine life from acoustic propagated underwater sound. Sound like this can really mess up porpoises and whales (each require unpolluted sound environments for hunting, communicating and of course, navigating). When their environment becomes sound polluted, they can get lost within, becoming disorientated and trapped, driving them probably crazy.

Here is a sample article on wind farms sound protection, and yet it is for wind farm construction. I have not found that it is a continuation into post wind farm online use, which would not be realist anyway, thus leaving continued exposure for a long time to come:

How bubble curtains protect porpoises from wind farm noise

The quirky gadget, also known as a big bubble veil, was pioneered in Germany to help protect the endangered harbour porpoise, the only cetacean species living in its North Sea and Baltic Sea. The bubble curtain was designed around the porpoise's specific needs and traits, lowering wind farm...

www.thayermahan.com

2. The military is already clear that their use of sonar can outright kill whales etc.

US Navy’s New Sonar Rules May Be Worse for Dolphins and Whales | Hakai Magazine

Lawsuits prompted the navy to restrict their use of sonar, but now some biologists say the changes may be making things worse.

hakaimagazine.com

3. Propeller cavitation and speed (and other) - this is ongoing, and part of the reason that ships are slowed for a certain distance. There are many military studies that look to underwater propagated acoustic noise travel that have resulted in changes (enough changes?):

First from Wiki:

Output of a computer model of underwater acoustic propagation in a simplified ocean environment.​

UBC engineers want to save whales from drowning…in noise - UBC News

Chronic ship noise can lead to stress, hearing loss and feeding problems for marine mammals like whales, dolphins and porpoises. UBC researchers are diving in to help address the issue.

news.ubc.ca

Vessel Speed Biggest Factor in Noise Affecting Killer Whales

The speed of vessels operating near endangered killer whales in Washington is the most influential factor — more so than vessel size — in how much noise from the boats reaches the whales.

www.fisheries.noaa.gov

This now comes back to offshore wind farms (worth the read, and note what a wind turbine sounds like underwater (the link has an array of different sounds) "Audio Gallery > Wind Turbines"):

Wind Turbine

Offshore wind turbines at Barrow Offshore Wind off Walney Island in the Irish Sea. Image credit: Andy Dingley Wind power is one of the fastest growing energy sectors and is the focus of development in many countries around the world, especially in Europe. In 2007, European leaders

dosits.org

Underwater sounds of varying intensity and duration, are generated during the four stages of a wind farm’s life cycle:

1. Pre-construction, which often includes geophysical/seismic surveys to assess site condition and increased vessel traffic to and from the site;
2. Construction, which may include pile driving, drilling, excavation with explosives, dredging, cable laying, and continued ship and barge operations;
3. Operation, including long-duration noise associated with mechanical vibrations when the blades are spinning and maintenance vessel traffic, continuing over the 20 to 25-year lifetime of the facility; and
4. Decommissioning, which may include mechanical cutting and explosives as well as increased vessel traffic to and from the site.

During the operational stage of a wind farm, low frequency sound is produced when the blades are spinning. As a turbine operates, vibrations inside the nacelle (the housing that contains the generator, gearbox, and other parts) are transmitted down the main shaft of the wind turbine and into its foundation. These vibrations then propagate into the water column and seafloor. The sound is primarily below 1 kHz (generally below 700 Hz), with a source level of 80-150 dBre 1 µPa @ 1 m. Aerodynamic noise produced by the rotor blades may also enter the water through an airborne path. Sound level increase slightly as wind speed increases. The type of wind turbine foundation will also affect the transmission of underwater sound.
[...]
There are limited data on long term effects associated with the continual operational noise of offshore wind turbines. The size of the turbines, overall size of the wind farm array, and where it is positioned, all have implications for environmental impact. In addition, cumulative effects associated with multiple wind farms in close proximity to each other, and increased human activities, such as shipping, in the area of the wind farms, are also poorly understood. Additional data are also necessary to understand effects due to long term shifts in prey availability around offshore wind installations.

Huston, it appears there are are multifaceted problems with on or offshore wind farms (all stop).

 

[Voyageur]

Self-explanatory: