Deadly blades; death toll mounts as wind farms massacre birds of prey

[XemaSab]

The first thing I’d like you to do is to view the slideshow. Look at the pictures. Really look at them.

This is the ugly, dirty secret of the powerful prop-turbine wind industry. It’s the sorry story that you won’t see on the ‘feel-good’ TV commercials or read about in industry-sponsored ads and skewed ‘research’ papers.

The employees at wind farms have been instructed to not talk about the staggering numbers of dismembered bodies accumulating at the bases of these turbines.

There is big money invested here, and big profits. When people have large investments they do what they need to in order to justify and protect that investment.

Even if it’s wrong.

http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=3836

[Warpy]

1. I would like to see a gradual changeover from the large blades

to the barrel type. Those are a lot kinder to wildlife and they're not nearly as noisy.

There's always a way to improve technology.

[kristopher]

8. This is climate denialist propaganda that is full of lies.

The Audubon Society fully supports the development of wind power with today's technology.

[Warpy]

10. Right, I know they do

however, better technology is available and should be favored for new installations and replacement of blade turbines that fail.

Yeah, there are some dead birds, but not in the quantity suggested by this somewhat hysterically toned article.

[kristopher]

13. Seriously, turbine blade failures?

That ISN'T a problem.

Some people will believe anything...

[Warpy]

14. They don't happen frequently but they do happen

and sometimes they happen catastrophically.

I'm beginning to see who the denialist here really is.

[bananas]

41. Deadly windows; death toll mounts as buildings massacre birds of prey

As Al Gore points out, more birds are killed by windows, cats, cars, and pestcides
The OP is propaganda - plain and simple.

http://just-irrelevant.livejournal.com/6154.html
Are windmills more dangerous to birds than cats?
No, it turns out that they're equally dangerous. The average cat in the US kills about as many birds per year as the average windmill.
Source: Al Gore, Our Choice

[amborin]

73. many cities have a "lights out at night" program, including Chicago, which helps some

[joshcryer]

20. The barrel type aren't nearly as efficient. One turbine kills around 5 birds a year at most.

If you want to save birds then call for the extermination of house cats, since they kill hundreds of million of birds every year (and they don't even eat them, just kill, and discard the carcasses, what a waste).

[XemaSab]

25. Under the migratory bird treaty act it's illegal to kill one bird

PS I am opposed to outdoor cats too.

[joshcryer]

27. Then I suggest you take our a warrent on the cats, cars, planes, and skyscrapers...

...not to mention every single person who litters.

Civilization, it's a bitch.

[skids]

61. Actually there's a case to be made for savionius/VAWT

Firstly, they are more efficient when designed with modern software than the ones that are used for the oft-quoted efficiency figures. So it's an apples to oranges comparison -- something somebody bodged together in the 70s versus a modern HAWT that has been highly optimized.

Secondly, they can accommodate a stationary or semi-stationary shroud, where HAWTs cannot because the shroud would have to turn with the nacell. (The company tmawind has patents in this area but as far as I can tell, they are not exactly doing a great job of getting them into production.)

Thirdly, the VAWTS can be packed much, much tighter together and actually improve the efficiency of the ones behind them in an array, unlike HAWTs which need a large spacing between turbines. This means less access roads need to be built.

Fourthy, a minor point, smaller ice-throw radius since any ice is never launched upwards, only sideways.

As far as their effects on birds... well first it's a bullshit FUD argument, as long as the wind industry continues to place the turbines away from nesting grounds and to deal with migrations. That said, I do not know of any study that has been able to compare a modern savonius system of comparable size with a typical giant HAWT, mostly because there just are no giant savonius to compare. The microwind ones are more solid looking than micro-wind HAWT (which spin very fast) so birds avoid them better. But remember, on the large HAWTs the thing that kill the small number of birds that still die isn't hitting the blades, it's getting caught in the low pressure wake. Whether the HAWTs would have the same problem is undetermined.

There are also claims that VAWT would be able to operate at full power in wind so powerful that a HAWT would have to be shut down, but those need to be independently verified.

It is, however, regrettable that the wind sector seems to have abandoned any serious VAWT technology development. Maybe something will come out of the tidal sector to revive it, when we actualy have a tidal power sector, that is.

[kristopher]

62. Those are FAR less important than the 2 main variables.

power = 1/2p A V^3

p is the air density
A is the swept area of the blades or how much surface area of the turbine actually catchs wind
V is the velocity of wind usually measured in mph. Notice that the velocity of wind is raised to the power of 3.


Wind speed increases with height above ground and by building 250-300' towers we get a vast improvement over ground level machines.

Building rotors that have a swept area larger than a football field is not practical with VAWTs.


Do you really think people spending up to $5m per unit on projects running into the billions are as stupid as you suggest?

Your comment about tidal power is a good point, water is much more dense than air.

[skids]

65. To your points:

1) VAWTs do not have to be ground level devices. They are only seen that way more often because they have advantages in turbulent surface winds.

2A) Shrouded VAWTs reduce the required surface area by half or more (the rest being cheaper rigid structure)

2B) VAWTs do not need to rotate as fast, nor endure anywhere near the stress levels required by a HAWT blade. Ergo, the materials for the rotational part need not be as expensive.

I do not think the people who build wind projects are stupid. I do, however, believe that collectively mankind is known to pursue less than optimal technical paths towards their goals.

[kristopher]

66. It is clear where detailed analysis by experts with all the data leads...

And the two reasons I gave are what tilt the table in the direction it has taken.

Your thoughts are reasonable and certainly intuitive; they could perhaps, however, benefit from a bit more information or more development.

I'm not an engineer, but I know that there are a lot of engineers working for competing companies. If VAWTs were even marginally competitive they would be part of the inventory available to wind developers. There are sound reasons that VAWTs are found only in the small turbine market; and that is because *small HAWT* turbines are crippled by the same limitations that afflict VAWTs - lack of altitude and limited swept area. The difference between the technologies is realized when they are scaled up to capture the benefits of stronger winds and large collection areas.

Think about what kind of tower and foundation you need for a shrouded VAWT with a swept area of 46,000 ft^2 (1/2 of the GE 3.6) where the top of the collection area is at up to 500 feet. What does the shroud attach to?

You listed as a benefit that the turbines can function in higher winds - probably true; but, what happens to the shroud during those high winds? If you think the pressures on a blade and rotor are large, just imagine for a moment the torsional forces that would be at work on the base of a tower with an attached shroud serving a 46000sf rotor.

I think any comparison of which is preferable is going to have to weigh the costs of things like this that are needed for each technology to meet the goals of capture more wind (swept area) and ensuring that the wind is of highest possible velocity (altitude). Not fully understanding all the requirements of meeting those goals can lead to false conclusions.

[skids]

70. Where is the this detailed analysis?

...I have never seen a detailed analysis that didn't make several bad assumptions off the top.

If you have links, please do share. Ones that don't use 30-year-old efficiency figures for savonius turbines out of some old textbook that wrongly insists they are entirely "drag based" machines would be a step up from just about everything I have read.

WRT the the altitude/shroud issue, it is quite probable that the shroud could be the supporting structure, not supported on a pole. Rather than a central shaft, you'd have a tripod-ish structure providing support at both the top and bottom of the shaft.

I've never seen that possibility, or in fact much more than the most basic design, analyzed by anyone but a couple VAWT ventures (which is obviously not an unbiased source.)

[kristopher]

71. Just look around you.

As I said, there are lots of very competent and innovative engineers working at COMPETING companies designing wind turbines they HOPE someone will choose over a competitors.

When people invest billions of dollars they aren't operating on bias, they are operating on detailed analysis of the potential solutions to the problem the billions are being spent on.

In this case, the goal is to produce the greatest amount of the highest value energy possible. If you think they have overlooked this vast potential you insist on attributing to VAWTs, you are barking up the wrong tree. You described a small bit of the evidence to me yourself - "it is quite probable that the shroud could be the supporting structure, not supported on a pole. Rather than a central shaft, you'd have a tripod-ish structure providing support at both the top and bottom of the shaft."

Take a moment and read that.

Three towers instead of one.
Really?

Three towers instead of one is a good thing?

How much of the cost of a wind turbine is the single tower? I'm sure it's available.

How big and what shape does the rotor need to be to cover 46,000 sq ft?

Then you have the shroud outside of that, right? Is it inside of the tripod frame/foundation/tower or outside of the frame? How does the shroud orient itself to the prevailing wind?

There really are good reasons for HWATs to be in the market position they are. But hey, if you can show me a fully thought out design that works I'd be happy to agree with you.

For example, when you take that power formula and go underwater you change the density by a HUGE factor. In that environment, I'd have to think the engineering of a vertical axis turbine would be worth revisiting. So far most of the underwater turbines I've heard of are horizontal axis. I'd point out that I've observed a strong tendency in that field to start from where wind turbine state of the art wind turbine design has left off and even so I've have seen a couple of VAT designs.

Like wind, I'm sure that field will also mature pretty fast since it isn't all that complex a of a problem to master.

[skids]

72. I'll take that as a "no" then

We could go off on many tangents about the dominance of inferior technology in many markets. I work in a field where I have to cope with market-dominant technologies that have managed to push provably (sometimes obviously) superior technology to the sidelines. So I do hope you'll forgive me if I do not consider market behavior to be rational. I'm looking for actual research, not appeals to authority.

Nor do I mean to say that VAWTs are necessarily better, just that the case has not been made with any true rigor that HAWTs deserve their position in the marketplace. However, the point may be mute because by the time enough (expensive, tricky) process/industrial engineering was applied to a VAWT design to yield a viable competitor to HAWT vendors, we may very well be rushing to build polywells. HAWTs are entirely adequate technology, and I do enjoy seeing the wind market finally kick in regardless of the details.

Quick answers to your points:

1) surely you are aware that three support columns sharing a load need not be the same durability/cost as a single one. "Look around you" and note high tension lines are not mounted on big thick posts.

2) VAWT shrouds do not need to be aimed, they work in all directions -- well mostly, there's an efficiency penalty at some angles so they should be built optimal to dominant wind vectors in the first place, but they do not need to be dynamically aimed.

3) The rotor would have to have a cross-sectional surface area of of between (guessing here) 1/2 and 1/3rd of the needed swept area. However, the rotor's materials would not need to be as durable/expensive as HAWT blade materials (for the low-speed savonius or cycloturbine variants.)

Without promoting the company, you might find tmawind's white paper interesting -- however as I mentioned before all they have managed to accomplish as far as I can tell is patenting their design process and putting up a few ground-level prototypes. (I don't take any company seriously until they've actually got an established supply chain and sales record.)

http://tmawind.com/technical_papers.pdf

A final word of advice: never buy company stock based on the merits of a technology :-)

[kristopher]

76. Then you "take it" wrong

Whether you have access to those reports or not, to deny their existence is nothing but sheer cussedness and the rejection of the dominance of HAWT technology as proof of the fact that their design has proven superior is simply absurd. I'd be very interested to hear of these inferior technologies that push better technologies out of the picture. While I know of a few cases myself (ie apple vs DOS) I know of none that have succeeded without some major underlying structural impediment - a problem that isn't relevant to wind turbine design and construction. The market for wind turbines and renewable energy devices across the board is wide open; if you can build a better mousetrap, you are going to make money.

VAWT do not scale up successfully and they are therefore inferior to HAWT for meeting the needs of getting the most power out of the least money. The proof is in the tasting of the pudding, and that pudding has been well tasted.

[joshcryer]

101. VWAT are better for low wind situations, and a recent study shows that they can be more tightly...

...packed. Robert Whittlesey will be publishing a paper soon on the concept of "Fish schooling as the basis for wind farm design." It will be interesting to see how much more effectively VAWTs can utilize a given land space.

I personally think there is a big future for VAWTs.



Unfortunately I don't see shrouds in their future. Shrouds are just being used here as a reason to knock on HAWTs. The upkeep alone on shrouds should be enough to preclude them from mass adaptation.

BTW, I found a website you or that other guy might be interested in: http://www.vawts.net

(I love DIY sites like this.)

[kristopher]

104. Wiind rarely makes sense in low wind situations.

It would be a power source of last resort.

Big future?

No.

[joshcryer]

113. The locations for wind turbines doubles if you can exploit wind less than 4 on the scale.

This potentially reduces the need for as much transmission infrastructure because you can exploit wind near populations that isn't ideal for HAWTs.

[kristopher]

118. power =1/2 pAV^3

Correlate that to price of electricity and that determines what is built.

You are howling at the moon.

[joshcryer]

102. The problem with shrouds is that they'd become littered with debris.

Smaller birds would even be able to nest on them (by building the nest on the outside with intricate weaving). You'd have to send people out twice a year or so and clean them off.

I do think that they're good for low wind situations, however.

The aerodynamics of HAWT vs VAWT are clear, VAWT must constantly deal with atmospheric drag, whereas HAWT will adapt to always minimize drag. VAWT will never, therefore, be more efficient than HAWT for a single turbine.

However, we now know that VAWT will be able to be more tightly packed in a given area, whether or not that means we can have more energy per producing area is still in question. It may turn out to be a wash, as these things tend to do. (HAWT, being more efficient, and requiring more spacing, would be equaled out by VAWT being less efficient requiring less spacing.)

edit: a common value I am seeing is that VAWTs are about 50% as efficient as HAWTs, best case. So if more than twice as many VAWTs can be placed in the same producing area, then someone is bound to utilize them in large production wind farms. Especially where wind is less than 4 on the commonly used scale of intensity.

[kristopher]

105. self delete dupe

[kristopher]

106. You aren't factoring in altitude or swept area of the rotor.

VAWTs are a poor choice because they CANNOT scale up like a HAWT can. What you are suggesting is that by building a bunch of small turbines below where the good wind is we might see an improvement. We won't.

The jury isn't out.

It isn't in question.

There are a number of problems with shrouds, for example look at the torsional force they would place on the support structure. You'd have to design each turbine to withstand the force of a hurricane on a building instead of a tube and a feathered propeller. Go upthread and find the power formula and work out what kind of force is involved with 100mph winds on a surface area of 30,000sqft.

[joshcryer]

112. No, you can put VAWTs on 80 meter tubes if you want.

I doubt very seriously Robert Whittlesey's analysis is ground level in any cae, as he is making a direct comparison to HAWTs, which are not on ground level in general.

So I don't know where that comes from. I am not advocating shrouds. I'm saying there is potential there with VAWTs that you are overlooking.

But we don't yet have the data.

[kristopher]

116. I have to ask why you think all the engineers competing for business

I have to ask why you think all the engineers competing for business are "overlooking" this potential? There are no barriers to entry for new technology in the area of turbine design. If industrial scale HWATs were competitive someone would be marketing it.

[joshcryer]

119. I hardly thinkg VAWTs are capable of displacing HAWTs.

But there's certainly some future business opportunity here if the "fish schooling for wind farm design" pans out.

[kristopher]

120. You may be right, but I don't see it. nt

[amborin]

86. can you cite even one source for all your many claims?

[kristopher]

94. Check with the Audubon Society

http://www.currykerlinger.com/windpower.htm

http://www.currykerlinger.com/studies.htm

[tabatha]

2. How tragic.

[bananas]

37. As Al Gore points out, more birds are killed by windows, cats, cars, and pesticides

The OP is propaganda - plain and simple.

http://just-irrelevant.livejournal.com/6154.html
Are windmills more dangerous to birds than cats?
No, it turns out that they're equally dangerous. The average cat in the US kills about as many birds per year as the average windmill.
Source: Al Gore, Our Choice

[randr]

3. There is an alternative within reach

This is an idea that a closer look
http://thoriumenergy.blogspot.com/

[Kelvin Mace]

4. All technologies have their drawbacks

and we have discovered one with wind power.

Though, if someone told me I would be reading posts painting wind farm operators as dark destroyers of nature, I would have laughed.

*sigh*

[postulater]

5. Looks like the alternate design could help with the bird problem.

[joshcryer]

21. The "bird problem" is made up. Cars, skyscrapers, cats, kill hundreds of millions...

...ever year. Planes kill more than wind turbines in the US.

[postulater]

43. Probably true.

If all other things were the same I'd choose the ones that didn't kill the birds.

In our area there was a concern about a big bat colony located near a wind farm.

I don't know how it worked out but the farm got built. About a hundred turbines.

[amborin]

87. provide some cites so you might gain some credibility

[joshcryer]

128. Daniel Klem has done the most research on the issue.

http://www.muhlenberg.edu/depts/biology/faculty/klem/aco/GlassHome.htm

His numbers on window deaths are very accurate.

Sovacool did a preliminary analysis: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V2W-4VVW4W3-3

What we do know is that there is not currently a wind turbine bird death epidemic, as there is with windows, cars, planes, transmission lines, and house cats. If there was an extreme correlation we would have seen it by now.

That does not mean no studies should be done, as we are doing the studies, but more that reactionary commentary isn't useful.

[kristopher]

6. Climate denialist propaganda to tell us big money is hiding the dirty truth about renewables?

From the site at your link, (bold in original):

Are you a Climate Realist...?
Global Warming Realist, Climate Change Realist or even a Climate Rationalist?

You are, then join the movement.

It is safe to assume that many people have started to become sceptical concerning the dynamics of so called man made climate change. In recent years there have been seen to be many inconsistencies in the proposition that we have changed the Earth's climate with our pollution.

The World's Governments' solution to apply green taxation as a cure in the light of an unscientific philosophy of climate change is starting to fall apart, CO2 output has continued to rise and yet global temperatures have started to fall!

One thing that needs to be established, there is no doubt whatsoever there has been a climate change in the last 50-60 years. So just because you are a Climate Realist, that is not on the basis that you are in some sort of denial about this change. The Climate Alarmists and Global Warming Alarmists will point out that this change is due to Man Made CO2 as it fits in with modern day industrialization.

Global climate data clearly shows that there has been an increase in world temperatures in the past few decades. If you look at the Global Temperature Anomaly graph below you will notice that temperatures peaked in 1998, and have been in general decline ever since, unlike the temperature figures you will see that CO2 output is still increasing.

Being a Climate Realist does not mean that you are against being green or that you are ignorant about environmental issues such as recycling or objecting to the burning of fossil fuels that poison and contaminate the atmosphere in which we live and breathe. As far as we are concerned a Climate Realist is someone who believes there is a more logical explanation to the increase in global temperatures that we have experienced in the last few decades.

The AGW Media have named the recent changes to the Earth's climate with Man Made descriptions purely out of ignorance. The real cause of Climate Change can be attributed to Solar Variation and it would be of no surprise to us if terms like Natural Forcing, Solar Climate Change and Solar Climate Forcing are common place phrases to use in the future to correctly describe the changes in the Earth's Climate.

The aims and objectives of this site are to draw attention to the real explanations as to what has made our climate change and also to voice an educated opinion against the unscientific and unsubstantiated reasoning behind green taxation. A Green Tax on pollution is one thing but not in the name of reducing climate change, that is something we have no control over and simply have to learn how to adapt.

Climate Realists will actively promote the proposition that there is no such thing as Man Made Climate Change, until the World's Governments recognize that Climate Change and Man Made Pollution are two separate issues and not part of the same problem as currently promoted by Climate Change Journalists from the AGW Media. Government funded scientists who make up and exaggerate climate research for the sole purpose of obtaining large grants will undoubtedly come unstuck as the world becomes cooler and CO2 continues to rise.

http://climaterealists.com/about.php


Well, at least you are finally out of the closet.

[bananas]

22. Next, she'll be telling us that global warming is good for birds. nt

[NNadir]

35. Um, next someone will tell us that opposing the world's largest, by far, source of climate

change gas free energy is good for climate change.

You are talking to one of the premier birders on this website, clearly not a bird brain.

While our "wind" advocates here have been talking and talking and talking and talking about so called "renewable energy" - which actually consists of stuff with a awful energy/mass density profile, an awful land use profile, a demand for toxic energy storage systems distributed in a haphazard cowboy/libertarian way - will save us, the earth's atmosphere hasn't been moved by the proganda, bad thinking, dogma, and the atmosphere has a, um, an indifferent response.



I note that the renewable energy blow hards here - pun intentional, obvious and accurate - never engage in talking about phasing dangerous fossil fuels, and don't give a rat's ass how many habitats are trashed for biofuels environmental scams.

They are, instead, anti-nukes, the term "anti-nuke" being perjorative whether or not the anti-nukes are bright enough to recognize as much.

[bananas]

36. The world's largest source of climate change gas free energy is hydroelectricity.

You keep posting false and misleading information.
For example, you wrote:

I note that the renewable energy blow hards here - pun intentional, obvious and accurate - never engage in talking about phasing dangerous fossil fuels, and don't give a rat's ass how many habitats are trashed for biofuels environmental scams.

You are wrong, as usual; in my sigline, I've kept a link to the best analysis regarding phasing out fossil fuels:

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/bananas/826

How the world can (and will) stabilize at 350 to 450 ppm: The full global warming solution (updated)

<snip>

I also agree with McKinsey Global Institute’s 2008 Research in Review: Stabilizing at 450 ppm has a net cost near zero.

<snip>

This is what the entire planet must achieve:

* 1 wedge of albedo change through white roofs and pavement (aka “soft geoengineering) — see “Geoengineering, adaptation and mitigation, Part 2: White roofs are the trillion-dollar solution“
* 1 wedge of vehicle efficiency — all cars 60 mpg, with no increase in miles traveled per vehicle.
* 1 of wind for power — one million large (2 MW peak) wind turbines
* 1 of wind for vehicles –another 2000 GW wind. Most cars must be plug-in hybrids or pure electric vehicles.
* 3 of concentrated solar thermal (aka solar baseload)– ~5000 GW peak.
* 3 of efficiency — one each for buildings, industry, and cogeneration/heat-recovery for a total of 15 to 20 million GW-hrs. A key strategy for reducing direct fossil fuel use for heating buildings (while also reducing air conditioning energy) is geothermal heat pumps.
* 1 of solar photovoltaics — 2000 GW peak
* 1/2 wedge of nuclear power– 350 GW
* 2 of forestry — End all tropical deforestation. Plant new trees over an area the size of the continental U.S.
* 1 wedge of WWII-style conservation, post-2030

Here are additional wedges that require some major advances in applied research to be practical and scalable, but are considered plausible by serious analysts, especially post-2030:

* 1 of geothermal plus other ocean-based renewables (i.e. tidal, wave, and/or ocean thermal)
* 1 of coal with biomass cofiring plus carbon capture and storage — 400 GW of coal plus 200 GW biomass with CCS
* 1/2 wedge of next generation nuclear power — 350 GW
* 1/2 wedge of cellulosic biofuels for long-distance transport and what little aviation remains in 2050 — using 8% of the world’s cropland .
* 1 of soils and/or biochar– Apply improved agricultural practices to all existing croplands and/or “charcoal created by pyrolysis of biomass.” Both are controversial today, but may prove scalable strategies.

That should do the trick. And yes, the scale is staggering.

<snip>

Note to all: Do I want to build all those nuclear plants. No. Do I think we could do it without all those nuclear plants. Definitely. Therefore, should I be quoted as saying we “must” build all those nuclear plants, as the Drudge Report has, or even that I propose building all those plants? No. Do I think we will have to swallow a bunch of nuclear plants as part of the grand bargain to make this all possible and that other countries will build most of these? I have no doubt. So it stays in “the solution” for now.

<snip>

You keep attacking the real solutions to global warming, while peddling your delusional fantasies.

[bananas]

38. As Al Gore points out, more birds are killed by windows, cats, cars, and pesticides

The OP is propaganda - plain and simple.

http://just-irrelevant.livejournal.com/6154.html
Are windmills more dangerous to birds than cats?
No, it turns out that they're equally dangerous. The average cat in the US kills about as many birds per year as the average windmill.
Source: Al Gore, Our Choice

[phantom power]

64. How would those stats compare after we build a million turbines?

[joshcryer]

81. 5 million vs 100 million, you decide which is worse.

[kristopher]

82. Best estimates put the general number of avian fatalities at 2.5/turbine/yr.

BTW most turbine related fatalities are a result of the bird hitting the tower, not the blades.

[amborin]

89. so, 3 wrongs make a right, according to you? cats, skyscrapers, windmills==bad for birds, so let's

allow all 3?

that seems to be the crux of your argument

[kristopher]

92. Why does the Audubon Society support wind development?

1) Because there is a much greater threat to wildlife and wind is a major part of the answer.
2) As shown by the comparative statistics, wind isn't that large of a threat to wildlife. http://www.currykerlinger.com/studies.htm

[joshcryer]

96. Transmission expansion infrastructure will lead to more deaths than the turbines themselves.

By how much, I have no freaking clue, since I don't know how much expansion is necessary.

[kristopher]

103. We already have a very robust transmission infrastructure

We already have a very robust transmission infrastructure, so on a percentage basis of how many miles of wire we have I doubt the increase for renewables is going to be all *that* significant. If we increased actual miles of wire by more than 10% I'd be very surprised.
I haven't worked it out even at a back of the envelope level, but this image of the existing 190,000 miles of transmission lines gives a bit of perspective.

[joshcryer]

114. 17 million extra bird deaths is significant.

I think 10% is conservative. Look at how tightly packed Texas is and their transmission infrastructure is more than 50% under capacity for the wind they have.

[kristopher]

117. What does that mean, "50% under capacity"?

[joshcryer]

121. Texas wind produces more power than can be transmitted effectively.

So about 50% of it is not utilized.

[kristopher]

124. Two things

1) do you have a source for that? It is extremely general and I'd like to look at the original to understand the problem better.

2) even not knowing what is meant by 50%, it doesn't mean that the problem requires 50% more transmission infrastructure. One set of properly sited lines *might* be all that is required.

[joshcryer]

126. Fair enough, I should not say it would require 50% more miles of lines.

In fact from what I understand new wind farms must be within I believe 20 miles of transmission lines. But a hundred wind farms 10 miles from lines is a thousand miles of new infrastructure, so it *does* add up.

Anyway, TxRider would probably have better information, they gave me links about this before, but I lost them. I found this one: http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/energy/environment/2008-02-25-wind-power-transmission_N.htm

[TxRider]

131. The problem is mainly lack of grid capacity

To the remote sparseley populated and windy areas.

But we launched a 10 billion dollar investment program into new transmission infrastructure back in 2006 that is being built out.

Pickens is also waiting for grid capacity build out to start building out his wind farms.

All part of why Texas has grown to be so dominant in the wind power industry in the last few years, along with an easier to deal with regulatory structure and a lot less NIMBY attitude.

Simple really, you can build windmills a lot faster than you can transmission lines and grid infrastructure to reach out to them in the middle of nowhere. Transmission infrastructure is playing catch up.

Here's a decent place to start looking if your interested. The Texas state conservation office.

http://www.seco.cpa.state.tx.us/re_wind-transmission.htm

The 50% is a bit old I think, and very seasonal and local as in only in winter I believe when the local demand that the power produced by the wind farm can reach in the current grid's capacity drops below the power production capacity if I remember right. Better interconnection capacity to the wider grid was the issue, and is being solved if it hasn't been already.

[joshcryer]

132. I was going to link that but it hasn't been updated since '07.

I should have just linked Google News for this, as there are a lot of things (including a new announcement by T. Boone that he's apparently abandoning wind; going by headline, only! haven't read it yet, but may post a thread).

[TxRider]

133. You can always just go to the grid

And read the assessments and annual report there.

http://www.ercot.com/news/press_releases/2009/nr-12-21-09

Pickens is cutting his order for turbines in half, and placing them outside Texas mainly because of grid issues getting his project connected up in the panhandle.

[joshcryer]

134. Potentially 5729 miles of extra transmission lines?

:O

[kristopher]

138. No.

The Electric Reliability Council of Texas, grid operator and manager of the electric market for most of the state, is reviewing transmission projects proposed for the next five years totaling $8.2 billion and expected to improve or add 5,729 circuit miles of transmission...

Improve OR add...

Add OR improve...

[joshcryer]

140. Do you know what "potentially" means?

That's 4 million birds dead if they're adding that many lines, btw.

The next sentence is also telling: "Improvements to the grid completed since 2008 include 1,137 circuit miles of transmission and 8,511 MVA of autotransformer capacity with an estimated cost of $1.38 billion."

That's over half a million, almost a million birds.

[kristopher]

142. So you know what IMPROVEMENTS means?

You have no idea from that piece how much transmission has been/will be added and how much has been "improved".

You are starting to talk nonsense.

[joshcryer]

143. Do you know what "potentially" means?

There's a potential for an additional 5k miles of lines. Given the uncertainty in their report I could not, and I did not, say that it is actually 5k lines.

Almost a million birds will die by the lines that they said they *did* most definitely deploy.

[kristopher]

144. More bullshit...

You have no idea how much they DID deploy because it is phrased the same way - improve or add.

And you cannot be seriously asserting that your "potentially" is a fair rendering of what is in the news release. For all you know it could just as easily be 100 miles of NEW transmission and the rest upgrades.

I'm guessing you are very familiar with this document:
http://www.rmi.org/rmi/Library/1975-02_TellTheTruth

[joshcryer]

145. The bullshit here is you lying about me saying something I didn't.

They are going to spend $8 billion dollars to add or improve the infrastructure. I focused on the potential of adding rather than improving because 1k miles of lines costed $1.3 billion dollars.

I did not, however, *say* that they were adding lines, and you fucking know it, I don't know, but what do you think is likely?

[joshcryer]

146. They *added* 1.1k miles of transmission lines since 2008 for $1.3 billion.

[joshcryer]

147. They're *proposing* $8.5 billion to "add or improve" 5,729 circuit miles.

[kristopher]

148. Now, that wasn't so hard, was it?

Just so you know there are already around 200,000 miles of transmission in North America and more than 600,000 miles worldwide - that's just transmission, mind you, not distribution.

We are talking about a relatively minor percentage increase in the total.

[joshcryer]

149. "Minor percentage"? 200k miles of line = 170 million bird deaths. 1137 miles of lines = 966k deaths.

What I said is true. Transmission line infrastructure expansion is more significant than wind turbines themselves.

[kristopher]

151. I understand that perspective.

I don't think it is something you can conclude yet, however. We don't know with ANY specificity how many turbines are going to be built and we don't know how much transmission is going to be built and we don't know what kind of transmission is going to be built (some will be below ground and underwater) and we don't know where exactly ANY of it will be.

You are reading far too much into far too little data.

[joshcryer]

152. I think it's obvious, though, that it's going to be more than 10% expansion.

I am admittedly reading in to the data, but I do think it will be reported that "wind turbines kill Less than 3 birds per year," or some low number like that, without citing the infrastructure necessary to make that wind turbine useful.

You, here, seem to be attempting to avoid it, too.

[kristopher]

154. I think I found a proxy - 4 million plus miles of lines total?

Paved roads nearly always have power lines running along them. We have over 4,000,000 miles of paved roads just in the US (not counting Canada here but the 200K was for all of NA).

[kristopher]

155. Using the 170M number of fatalities

and 1137 miles of new transmission that comes to about 48K additional avian fatalities.

170,000,000 fatalities/4,000,000 miles of lines =
42.5 per mile

Still sounds high to me.

[joshcryer]

157. I dug up the 174 million source.

http://www.west-inc.com/reports/avian_collisions.pdf

It's probably worse than you want to believe, but better than I was coming up with (though I think that more analysis is necessary and it will come out worse again in the end).

[kristopher]

159. I'm familiar with that paper.

The estimate is 10,000 - 170M. I've never considered it to be a strong source for anything other than a general overview.

[joshcryer]

162. Then why are so many wind sites citing that number?

If the number is in question it should not be cited so much.

In the Netherlands, where approximately 2,875 miles (4,600 km) of high-tension lines are present, Koops (1987) estimated that 750,000 to 1 million birds are killed annually by collisions. Extrapolating this estimate to the 500,000 miles (800,000 km) of bulk transmission lines in the United States would lead to a fatality estimate of 130 million to 174 million birds per year. A range using the estimate by Manville (2000) and this extrapolation based on Koops (1987) would yield an annual fatality estimate of >10,000 to 174 million. Given the large number of miles of transmission lines, and the unknown, but very large number of miles of distribution lines, we believe the low end of this range is very conservative (too low).

[kristopher]

165. As I said, as an overview of the relative impact of wind, it has value

As a basis for determining overall environmental impact of building power lines - not so much.

It you read a number of studies about determining avian mortality, and if you have an understanding of research methods and problems related to sampling, you'd quickly recognize that the vast majority of avian mortality studies have limited reliability. They are subject to a host of problems that can push the results both ways. ALmost all of the problems are related to lack of willingness/ability to devote resources to performing studies properly.

These problems are being addressed with technology as far as the wind farms themselves go, but that is just now gaining traction and much more data needs to be accumulated. That is why I like the approach used Desholm and usually post his work as a response to inquiries about avian impact of wind.

He is cited in the paper you found about distribution of birds around upland wind farms:
Chamberlain, D.E., Rehfisch, M.R., Fox, A.D., Desholm, M. & Anthony, S. (2006) The effect of avoidance rates on bird mortality predictions made by wind turbine collision risk models. Ibis, 148, 198–202.

I'd still like to know where you retrieved that quote with the 174M number. The version of the paper I found doesn't contain that number.

[joshcryer]

168. Wind doesn't need distribution lines, it needs transmission lines, which are similar to...

...the Netherlands' high tension lines.

Distribution lines, in this context, are lines which go from high power transmission lines to rural or urban areas to power houses.

The study doesn't address distribution lines and wind cannot be cited as a reason for distribution line expansion.

[kristopher]

156. I found a better number for miles of road - 6.2 million

170000000/6200000 = 27.5 fatalities /mile.

That sounds more realistic.

Add 20,000 miles of transmission and you go from 170,000,000 to 170,550,000.

[joshcryer]

158. The original estimate only addresses bulk transmission lines.

They do not address distribution lines in their calculation.

In the Netherlands, where approximately 2,875 miles (4,600 km) of high-tension lines are present, Koops (1987) estimated that 750,000 to 1 million birds are killed annually by collisions. Extrapolating this estimate to the 500,000 miles (800,000 km) of bulk transmission lines in the United States would lead to a fatality estimate of 130 million to 174 million birds per year.

170,000,000 / 500,000 = 340 per mile.

1137 of expanded power lines = 386,580.

A third of what I was discussing.

Still significant.

[kristopher]

160. What is the source of that information?

[joshcryer]

163. I posted it up thread.

The paper you are 'familiar' with: http://www.west-inc.com/reports/avian_collisions.pdf

[kristopher]

161. That estimate is also weak...

And the quote I found differs from the one you posted:
In the Netherlands, where approximately 2,875 miles
(4,600 km) of high-tension lines are present, Koops
(1987) estimated that approximately 750,000 to 1 mil-
lion birds are killed annually by collisions based on
variation in extrapolation made in three other Nether-
lands studies. Estimates in all three studies were in the
same order of magnitude. The latter study estimated
(unadjusted for scavenging and searcher efficiency)
113 fatalities per km of high tension line in grasslands,
58 fatalities per km of high tension line in agricultural
lands, and 489 fatalities per km of high tension line
near river crossings. We use the mean estimate (ad-
justed for scavenging and searcher efficiency bias) of
750,000/2,875 = 261/mile of high tension line. Extra-
polating the mid-range of this estimate to the 500,000
miles (800,000 km) of bulk transmission lines in the
United States would lead to a fatality estimate of
approximately 130 million birds per year. Given the
large, but unknown number of miles of power and
other high tension lines in the U.S., and the lack of
standardized data in the U.S., this estimate may be off
by an order of magnitude or more.


Where did you get the quote with 174M?
Did you note the range and use of a "mid-range" value?

I'm not trying to minimize the avian impact, but the data in this area is extremely sparse, and what there is has significant limitations.
For example the variation in terrain would not seem to me to support the midrange value they elected to use since that gives equal weight to river crossings and agricultural land; and we know that those are not comparable.

The opening para. in that section states it well:
The U.S. electrical energy system includes more than
500,000 miles (800,000 km) of bulk transmission lines
(Edison Electric Institute 2000). Estimates for the total
length of distribution lines (power lines to residences
and businesses) in the US could not be found in the
literature, but are far greater than for bulk transmission
lines. Estimates of avian fatalities due to collisions with
high-tension lines are lacking due to minimal monitor-
ing efforts on a large-scale basis. As with most other
sources of collision mortality, most monitoring and/or
studies are conducted in response to a known or per-
ceived problem, and few data have been collected at
randomly-chosen sites. Based on the limited studies,
waterfowl including ducks, geese, swans, cranes, and
shorebirds appear to be most susceptible to collisions
when powerlines are located near wetlands. In upland...


At least I think I've come up with a good way to estimate the total amount of power lines.

[joshcryer]

164. It could be a case of wind interests (NWCC) exaggerating numbers.

It isn't a peer reviewed paper that I am aware of. However, the numbers come from Kopp (1987). I don't know how he derives his numbers or how accurate they are. They are apparently accurate enough for the NWCC to cite.

Also, I don't know where you're quoting that from, the pdf file I linked has this as the quote:

In the Netherlands, where approximately 2,875 miles (4,600 km) of high-tension lines are present, Koops (1987) estimated that 750,000 to 1 million birds are killed annually by collisions. Extrapolating this estimate to the 500,000 miles (800,000 km) of bulk transmission lines in the United States would lead to a fatality estimate of 130 million to 174 million birds per year. A range using the estimate by Manville (2000) and this extrapolation based on Koops (1987) would yield an annual fatality estimate of >10,000 to 174 million. Given the large number of miles of transmission lines, and the unknown, but very large number of miles of distribution lines, we believe the low end of this range is very conservative (too low).

It's clearly where the 174 million quote comes from because "Erickson et al" is the main cite from the US Fish and Wildlife Service.

The extrapolation seems to come from the fact that high tension lines kill birds in the Netherlands, and bull transmission lines are effectively high tension lines.

Here's the link again, BTW (just in case you read this reply first and don't realize I keep giving it): http://www.west-inc.com/reports/avian_collisions.pdf

[kristopher]

166. This is the quote from Ericson

A Summary and Comparison of Bird Mortality from
Anthropogenic Causes with an Emphasis on Collisions1
Wallace P. Erickson,2,3 Gregory D. Johnson,2 and David P. Young Jr.2

In the Netherlands, where approximately 2,875 miles (4,600 km) of high-tension lines are present, Koops (1987) estimated that approximately 750,000 to 1 million birds are killed annually by collisions based on variation in extrapolation made in three other Netherlands studies. Estimates in all three studies were in the same order of magnitude. The latter study estimated (unadjusted for scavenging and searcher efficiency) 113 fatalities per km of high tension line in grasslands, 58 fatalities per km of high tension line in agricultural lands, and 489 fatalities per km of high tension line near river crossings. We use the mean estimate (adjusted for scavenging and searcher efficiency bias) of 750,000/2,875 = 261/mile of high tension line. Extrapolating the mid-range of this estimate to the 500,000 miles (800,000 km) of bulk transmission lines in the United States would lead to a fatality estimate of approximately 130 million birds per year. Given the large, but unknown number of miles of power and other high tension lines in the U.S., and the lack of standardized data in the U.S., this estimate may be off by an order of magnitude or more.

USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-191. 2005
pg. 1033

[joshcryer]

167. Well, at least now we know where you are quoting your number from.

That's 260 per mile, or for 295260 bird deaths. Better.

This quote is telling, "may be off by an order of magnitude or more."

I suspect you think the number is lower when they are specifically extrapolating on tension line data.

[kristopher]

153. An example -

You wrote and think: "200k miles of line = 170 million bird deaths. 1137 miles of lines = 966k deaths."

Do you understand the difference between transmission and distribution? If you don't, then learn; if you do, check your sources on avian mortality and see if THEY are talking about REAL transmission lines (230kV and up is the 200K mile figure) or if they are lumping ALL electric lines under the general heading of "transmission".

Here is a sample of the type usage you'll find:
The Price of Power: Understanding the Effects of Power Lines on Birds
Author:
Katherine Hyzy
Road-RIPorter Issue:
Spring Equinox 2004, Volume 9 #1
March 2, 2004


Linear barriers such as power lines, right-of-way clearings, pipelines, seismic lines and even fences and ditches are ubiquitous features across our landscape and can pose significant threats to ecosystem integrity and at-risk species. Of these disturbances, power lines pose the greatest threat to avian populations. Mortalities from collisions with power lines and electrocutions on poles are well-documented (for review see Jalkotzy et al. 1997). Although the total number of these mortalities is relatively low compared to road kill (Janss and Ferrer 1998), even low mortality levels can have a significant effect on at-risk populations. Recent research has shown that bird morphology and behavior can determine which birds are at greatest risk of being killed. Additionally, visibility and type of wires and poles are all factors in bird mortality rates. This article summarizes recent literature on the effects of power lines, poles, and electromagnetic fields, and concludes with a list of proposed mitigation measures.

Review of Literature

Power Lines

Ornithologists studying bird/power line interactions have long hypothesized that bird morphology plays an important role in the likelihood of collision (Jalkotzy et al. 1997). Building on this research, a recent study in west-central Spain attempted to establish a model for determining species' risk of mortality from power lines. Over the course of two years, species abundance was measured in three habitat types, and road surveys were conducted along power lines to determine the relative abundance of raptors, ravens and storks, the three bird species that other studies have identified as being most at risk of electrocution. In addition, several mortality surveys were conducted beneath power poles in the region during roughly the same time period. The results from the two surveys were pooled, documenting a total of 41 species killed by power lines. Overall, species with a greater wing loading value (a greater weight-to-wing ratio; ducks vs. herons, for example) were more likely to die of power line collisions than from electrocutions (Janss and Ferrer 1998).

Several studies have attempted to determine the efficacy of power line modifications designed to make wires more visible to avifauna or to otherwise protect them from power line collisions. During a three- year monitoring study Savereno et al. (1996) compared avian reaction to two transmission lines (with marked and unmarked static/grounding lines) running through saltmarsh along the South Carolina coast. Thirty-five to forty percent of the flocks exhibited behavior change in reaction to both line types. Of the flocks approaching at line height, 98% changed behavior at the marked site, compare to 89% at the unmarked, indicating the markers did have an effect. Flocks also tended to approach the marked line at lower elevations than at the unmarked line. Observed collisions at both sites were primarily with the static line. A similar study compared ptarmigan collisions between three sections of power line over a six-year period (Bevanger and Broseth 2001). On one of the sections, the static line was removed, and a 51% reduction in collisions resulted. In a third study, white wire spirals and black bands crossed to form an "x" reduced overall collision mortality by 75%, although the Great Bustard, an endangered species that suffers significant collision mortalities, did not respond to the markers (Janss and Ferrer 1998).

A study conducted in Spain compared avian mortalities on three different types of power lines: one transmission wire with static wires, and two smaller distribution lines, each with three wires on virtually the same horizontal plane (Janss and Ferrer 1998). Each type of line was at a significantly different height. The lowest of the distribution lines experienced much higher collision frequencies. Because no general bird abundance surveys were conducted, clear conclusions cannot be drawn regarding type of line and collision frequency, except to note that distribution lines, which are less studied than transmission lines, can certainly be as significant a cause of mortalities.

Power Poles

While power lines pose a number of threats to a variety of birds, the poles that support them are most likely to affect raptors and corvids. These birds are most at risk due to their relatively wide wingspans and tendency to use poles as nesting platforms and perches from which they survey for prey (Lehmann 2001). Studies have shown that golden and bald eagles suffer some of the highest mortalities; one study based on ten years of data collected from 13 western states and Canada found that out of 1,450 confirmed raptor electrocutions, 272 were golden eagles. Electrocution deaths occur when a bird's body bridges the gap between two energized components, most likely the wires (Harness and Wilson 2001). Studies generally rely on ground surveys beneath poles and necropsies or visual signs (scorch marks) to confirm electrocution deaths, but this technique may only provide a low estimate of electrocution mortalities (Deng and Frederick 2001). Reporting of raptor electrocutions is not required of utilities, and since raptor deaths are a violation of federal law, there may be a considerable disincentive to reporting.

In some areas raptor and corvid populations may benefit from the presence of power poles. In a study of a 596 km segment of transmission line through southern Idaho and Oregon, researchers found that over the course of nine years, nesting pairs of raptors and corvids on the steel transmission towers increased from three to 133. In the same study, nesting success for golden eagles was ten percent higher for nests on the transmission line than in cliffside nests in the area population (Steenhof et al. 1993)...
http://www.wildlandscpr.org/biblio-notes/price-power-understanding-effects-power-lines-birds

I've never seen a number for the total miles of "power lines" in the US, but you can bet it dwarfs 200,000.

[kristopher]

108. Listen to those crickets...

Cat got your tongue?

[joshcryer]

24. They should be against wind turbines because they cost money!

The stimulus package hurt us because it helped pay for renewable energy!

[murielm99]

7. My husband calls them "bird blenders."

We own farm property. There has been a big push to put wind turbines of this type in the area we farm.

For many reasons, my husband does not want a wind turbine on our property. The bird problem is only one. There have been problems as well with the props breaking off or not working well. People don't hear about this, either. Also, the companies who own the wind farms can expect unreasonable concessions from the property owners. They make strong demands about access roads through the private property. When the wind turbine has outlived its usefulness and is no longer in service, the turbine and the access road can be left there, and the property owner can be left with the expense of maintenance and disposal. I have seen this written into contracts.

New technology, old technology. We are going to have problems and consequences no matter what we do. I hope we can find a reasonable way to use wind technology.

[kristopher]

9. Is your husband a climate denier also?

The source of this type of propaganda is the fossil fuel industry as they try astroturf tactics to generate opposition to renewables.

Unreasonable concessions? Just what kind of "unreasonable concession" can a wind developer "demand" of landowners to be allowed to put turbines on their property? Do they have some secret coercive power over landowners or are you just spreading more of the OP's style of propaganda?

[murielm99]

44. Have you actually read any of the contracts made with

the property owners? Do you own property in an area where wind farms are being proposed? Have you gone to any of the hearings that county boards conduct on the proposals?

I posted something reasonable that showed that we have a ways to go before this technology is perfected. Your answer was to imply that my husband is a right wing idiot because he does not embrace this idea without reservation and question.

I don't know if you own property, but let's say you do. Let's put a wind turbine in your backyard. Let's build an access road across your yard to reach the turbine. Let's make you responsible for the road and the removal of the road when the turbine has outlived its usefulness. Let's say there is damage to your property due to the construction or maintenance of the wind turbine over the course of its life. We will negotiate with you about the payment for those damages. You will get little compensation because we are a big company and you are a little homeowner.

Propaganda? Are you a propagandist for a wind turbine company? Did I accuse you of that? Do you farm? Do you understand how much farm property is being lost to development every day? Do you comprehend that access road and wind turbines will take productive farmland out of use?

Everything is not a conspiracy. People have a right to question all aspects of any proposal, especially if it impacts their livelihood.

[kristopher]

45. It has nothing to do with a conspiracy except as you are portraying it.

Are developers holding a gun to the head of property owners?

Are the terms spelled out in advance with full opportunity for the *interested* landowner to consult with an attorney?

How can that be construed by any reasonable person as "placing unreasonable demands" on the lessor? If the "demands" are "unreasonable" then don't sign the damned contract. Every person I've ever met who hosts wind turbines on agricultural land is tickled to death with the money and LACK of problems. The only complaint I've ever heard is about stipulations where 1) reimbursement is tied exclusively to the power production of specific turbines and 2) the turbine breaks down and the wind company fails to fix it promptly.
In that case the landowner is deprived of earnings they have every right to expect.

I've NEVER heard of a contract that didn't specify the terms for decommissioning/renewal of the wind farm.

I don't doubt there are some shady operators out there, I've met several in my time. But I've never seen one that had any success as a developer. They are almost ALWAYS involved in nickle and dime schemes.

[sharp_stick]

11. Ahh climate "realists" crack me up

funny how the assholes that fund them don't want to talk about wildlife dying in refinery tailing ponds. Perhaps we can do a comparison of the number of dead birds?

[malakai2]

51. Refinery ponds or reserve pits?

Flare pits? Treater stacks? Drip pans? Do you have any idea how much work the one or two people who actually do wildlife take enforcement on oilfields in any given state put into documenting and prosecuting that take?

Would you believe that there are people who don't like the oil wells, who want more regulation and enforcement on existing and future wells, who also don't like the additive mortality turbines and associated structures would bring?

[shraby]

12. If birds can fly in a huge flock and not run into each other

even though the flock seems to undulate, certainly other birds can avoid the blades because they don't seem to be turning very fast.

[kristopher]

17. Radar monotoring of bird flocks and wind farms

Let me state again: Audubon supports the development of wind.

About the technology:

Remote techniques for counting and estimating the
number of bird–wind turbine collisions at sea: a review

M. DESHOLM,1* A. D. FOX,1 P. D. L. BEASLEY2 & J. KAHLERT1
1
Department of Wildlife Ecology and Biodiversity, National Environmental Research Institute,
Grenåvej 12, DK-8410 Rønde, Denmark.
2
QinetiQ Airport Radar, Malvern Technology Centre, St Andrews Road, Malvern, Worcestershire, WR14 3PS, UK

Since the early 1990s, marine wind farms have become a reality, with at least 13 000 offshore
wind turbines currently proposed in European waters. There are public concerns that these
man-made structures will have a significant negative impact on the many bird populations
migrating and wintering at sea. We assess the degree of usefulness and the limitations of
different remote technologies for studying bird behaviour in relation to bird–turbine collisions
at offshore wind farms. Radar is one of the more powerful tools available to describe the
movement of birds in three-dimensional space. Although radar cannot measure bird–turbine
collisions directly, it offers the opportunity to quantify input data for collision models. Ther-
mal Animal Detection System (TADS) is an infra red-based technology developed as a
means of gathering highly specific information about actual collision rates, and also for
parameterizing predictive collision models. TADS can provide information on avoidance
behaviour of birds in close proximity to turbine rotor-blades, flock size and flight altitude.
This review also assesses the potential of other (some as yet undeveloped) techniques for
collecting information on bird flight and behaviour, both pre- and post-construction of the
offshore wind farms. These include the use of ordinary video surveillance equipment, micro-
phone systems, laser range finder, ceilometers and pressure sensors.

The product:

[joshcryer]

23. They'll start mentioning bats, next.

But with bats we can certainly guarantee avoidance by transmitting low level radar.

[kristopher]

30. I don't think that is true.

There are some solution proposed, but I don't think they've been proven yet. The best solution right now is proper evaluation of siting. I'm not a huge fan of wind in the Appalachian Mountains. The resource in that region is not large enough to make a significant contribution to solving our energy problems.

My recommendation would be to delay development at sites that show potential for harm until we work out a fix, if that is possible.

The offshore region and the corridor between Texas and Canada is a different discussion.

[Berry Cool]

56. They DON'T turn very fast.

The term "bird blender" is so absurd. It implies that the blades of a wind turbine spin with the speed of a blender or an electric fan. Even on the windiest day, they don't spin THAT fast. The idea that they shred birds OR bats who fly into their path the same way as if they were sucked into a jet engine is complete nonsense that is not believed by anyone who actually has seen a wind turbine in action--and I have.

[RC]

15. I have seen very dead birds around wind generators.

The blades move slow enough to be readily seen and avoided.
I've seen more dead birds under peoples picture windows.

"This is the ugly, dirty secret of the powerful prop-turbine..." - 'ugly'? 'dirty'? 'powerful'? This is worded like the propaganda it is.
Not one picture shows any birds in the vicinity any of the wind turbines pictured. All the birds shown are in grassy areas. There is always a gravel 'dead' zone around each wind tower. This is where most of any birds would fall if the got hit by a blade.
The dead birds pictured could have been sick, poisoned or attacked by a predator. ...or even set up.
Blade tip speeds may sound impressive unless you know each blade is 60 feet long. It is the low RPM of these blades that should be kept in mind. Birds can easily avoid the blades.
Even the graphic is propaganda. Birds flying around the 'approved' structure and falling like rain around the "...ugly, dirty ... powerful prop-turbine..."

[joshcryer]

16. "I've seen more dead birds under peoples picture windows." Indeed.

What they're doing here is posting a few dead pictures of birds near wind farms and citing the wind farms as the cause.

[XemaSab]

26. O RLY?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9srPoOU6_Z4

[joshcryer]

28. Uh huh.

Cars: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JRwj5CBCfhQ

Plane: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K7L-tSnoLlk

Cats: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P1Ro4kUK2c0

[bananas]

39. As Al Gore points out, more birds are killed by windows, cats, cars, and pesticides

The OP is propaganda - plain and simple.

http://just-irrelevant.livejournal.com/6154.html
Are windmills more dangerous to birds than cats?
No, it turns out that they're equally dangerous. The average cat in the US kills about as many birds per year as the average windmill.
Source: Al Gore, Our Choice

[amborin]

90. so 5 wrongs make a right, according to your illogic

[malakai2]

29. At what number does it become a problem?

Does it matter if turbines disproportionately impact certain families? I don't see a lot of raptors being taken down by farm cats, or whooping cranes crashing into picture windows.

[kristopher]

31. The raptor issue is bull.

They WERE a problem at Altamont Pass in the early days of wind but no longer.

Lessons learned: 1) Be aware of the avian impact when you site a wind farm (now standard), and 2) don't build on lattice towers where raptors will build their nests. That is why you now see virtually nothing but tubular towers for wind turbines.

[XemaSab]

42. They're still a problem at Altamont

n/t

[diane in sf]

47. Altamont is old technology, people aren't building farms like that any more

[malakai2]

49. Yet

The Beech Ridge project in West Virginia was shut down because the company's contractor ignored it's legal obligation to consult on probable take of Indiana bats with the Fish and Wildlife Service. That same contractor and several others are working on several massive projects in the Dakotas, and their question to wildlife agencies regarding ducks, raptors, whooping cranes, and piping plovers (soon to include sage grouse and Sprague's pipit), is "how close can we build to habitat?" That question is soon followed by "do we really have to mark the transmission lines?"

I imagine with the focus on generating more energy, generally far from population centers, and not so much on using less, that we'll see large scale buildout in the plains. With this will come a lot of roads and transmission lines, and attendant wildlife issues, eventually NIMBY issues. I'm surprised the last one isn't a bigger issue in North Dakota yet, what with the state deciding to subdivide property rights further so that in addition to mineral rights and surface rights, there are now wind rights separable from the base property.

[greenbird]

69. Altamont is an old-style wind farm.

Short blades that move fast, with the turbines placed pretty close together. It's my understanding that there are/were bird problems with that installation (correct me if I'm wrong). I live near a large new wind farm and the turbines are very different. Larger blades, slow-moving, placed pretty far apart. My ex-husband's firm consulted on several installations and he tells me that it's not birds, but rather bats, that have suffered the greatest harm. Not because of being "shredded", but because the sudden change in air pressure causes their thin-walled lungs to explode. That's why they are found dead with no external body damage. As a poster noted up thread, that is being dealt with by installing radar emitters. Lots to learn about this new technology . . .

[malakai2]

75. I thought you were referring to siting and density

Longer, slower blades and lack of perching sites on the towers themselves are positive developments. Whether that's enough to alleviate impacts in focal areas, for example the whooping crane migration corridor, remains to be seen. Also, the associated infrastructure, the access roads, the power lines, the line poles and towers, those add to the cumulative impact of the developments. For the larger proposed developments in the plains, that can be a very big deal. The setbacks from wildlife habitat are also not set in stone, and it wouldn't take much for an aggressive developer to site something that has tremendous negative impact on...let's use prairie potholes as an example. Highly valuable waterfowl and whooping crane habitat, in some cases also useful for piping plovers. We don't have any idea what kind of setbacks or densities will have effects on waterfowl production, crane mortality, or plover nesting site selection. If money has been committed and a wind farm is installed, and that farm is then determined to have turned a waterfowl production area into a population sink, just one possible example, you'll have the landowner demanding compensation for lost land value, and you'll have Ducks Unlimited and the hunting lobby opposing future projects in the vicinity of wetlands (i.e., North Dakota).

The problem with radar, as I see it, is that if it's repelling bats from the vicinity of wind developments, and wind developments are going into areas selected by bats as ideal habitat (for example, near hibernacula), that loss of habitat could rapidly reach a point where species face listing under ESA or those species already listed will draw jeopardy decisions from FWS. Even if the radar is simply hazing the bats, decreasing reproductive success, anything like that, if the bat species in question (Indiana bats, for example) is listed as endangered or threatened, it will become a legal issue.

[greenbird]

77. I worry about the bats, too.

They are already suffering from white nose syndrome. I'm always for wildlife considerations first . . . but I think we need to keep level heads about things, and not give in to hysteria. I need to learn more about what kinds of hoops these companies have to jump through to get site approval in the first place. Thanks for your interesting reply.

[malakai2]

80. Legal perspective

Think Tellico Dam. Doesn't matter how much of a good thing a federal project is, if it might cause an extinction, it's a no-go unless a group composed of several federal agency heads votes to finish the project. That's happened...once? Twice? Generally wildlife considerations are subservient to everything else, except when an entire species is involved, in which case ESA takes over as an uber-statute.

[amborin]

110. 22K birds, including 400 Golden Eagles killed at Altamont n/t

[bananas]

40. As Al Gore points out, more birds are killed by windows, cats, cars, and pesticides

The OP is propaganda - plain and simple.

http://just-irrelevant.livejournal.com/6154.html
Are windmills more dangerous to birds than cats?
No, it turns out that they're equally dangerous. The average cat in the US kills about as many birds per year as the average windmill.
Source: Al Gore, Our Choice

[malakai2]

48. And as I point out, that analysis is not very useful

For example, compare the number of golden eagles killed by turbine strikes to the number of golden eagles killed by house cats. Now try the same comparison with purple finches.

Or, compare the number of whooping cranes killed by line strikes to the number of whooping cranes killed by window collisions. Try the same comparison with black-capped chickadees.

The title of the thread specifically says raptors, doesn't it? Do you have anything that documents comparative mortality sources for raptors? Maybe something that breaks down mortality among age classes and season? That might actually be useful.

[bananas]

57. The OP isn't very useful - it's from a junk science website.

Maybe we should all watch Fox News and vote for McCain/Palin.
Some clue-by-fours:
- Every conservation group is in favor of wind and solar energy.
- Every environmental group is in favor of wind and solar energy.
- The IPCC is in favor of wind and solar.
- Al Gore is in favor of wind and solar.

[malakai2]

60. Do you have a pic of an eagle being taken down by a housecat?

I'm still trying to wrap my mind around that idea.

[joshcryer]

63. They tend to kill the babies.

I found some stories about it the other day but it came off as if I was trying to dig up stories from weird sources to prove a point.

I've seen house cats everywhere I have ever lived killing baby birds or smaller birds.

Also, one of my most favorite documentaries ever was about two eagles who attempted to nest twice in one season. The "baby" was quite well grown by the time they started on the second one, but it had not learned to defend itself.

And it was killed by, you guessed it, a cat (albeit a wild one; I think a cougar).

[TxRider]

79. Well start wrapping...

Here's another one sizing up a larger eagle, and taking a swipe.

http://www.maniacworld.com/meeting-between-a-cat-and-eagle.html



http://www.olallame.com/Portals/0/eagle&cat.bmp

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X1baqLbmqaQ

http://www.wbaltv.com/news/2314913/detail.html

[malakai2]

83. That's awesome

I have yet to see a housecat or feral cat kill an eagle. You found a couple pictures and videos of bald eagles NOT pouncing on cats (bald eagles, BTW...let's try that with golden eagles, or ferruginous hawks for that matter), and one story of a bobcat (not the cats the mortality link has in mind) killing a caged, flightless eagle, and invited me to start wrapping.

I'm not impressed. Google "eagle kills cat" and see what you get. Hell, google "owl eats cat" and see what you get.

[TxRider]

88. It's still awesome

Hey the kitties took a few swipes at least.

[amborin]

91. no, they have no links to any credible sources; only false assertions which they keep repeating

[joshcryer]

98. It is being assessed and where there is significant impact we won't build, simple.

http://www.abcbirds.org/newsandreports/releases/090723.html

Give it time and you will certainly have your answer. Wind will remain one of the better renewable sources.

[amborin]

99. well, the study hasn't been conducted yet; so denials of windmills' harm are simply assertions

do you work for the wind industry?

your zeal suggests you have a horse in the race

[joshcryer]

100. Nah, but I try not to be a reactionary.

If I were you I'd be more worried about the fact that we're looking at 2.0-3.0C in our lifetimes if we don't act quickly. This will have catastrophic effects on wildlife, as it is already having.

What we do know is that major studies on bird fatalities are associated with house cats, buildings, cars, and planes.

[kristopher]

107. All major enviromental organizations support wind - do you work for Exxon Mobile?

The Republican energy lobby is the main source of opposition to wind.

[amborin]

109. w/ provisos: *prior* bird impact studies, proper siting, turbines, 22K birds (400 Gld Eags) killed a

t Altamont

[kristopher]

111. And your point is? THEY ALL SUPPORT WIND POWER.

[amborin]

123. not unqualifiedly so, but with conditions, which was my point.

[kristopher]

125. Your point seems to be all over the place.

for example, you rant about unsubstantiated claims, yet never back up anything you say. You attack one poorly sited wind farm and act as if that represents the entirety of the technology.

In short, you sound like a fanatic.

[amborin]

130. not really

your hyperbole is unwarranted, and you sound pretty angry; why?

You accuse me of not backing up anything i say? i did provide evidence of how a poorly sited wind farm is harmful; did i say it represented the entire field? never

the claims you and others made were unsubtantiated, until someone provided links after i asked.....prior to that, there were only claims that windmills were bird-friendly, yet no solid evidence

you sound rather thin-skinned and hostile

[joshcryer]

122. Altamont is not representative of modern turbines, therefore there is no comparison.

Altamont is unfortunate, and we're learning from it, and we will improve. What we do know is that *general bird fatality studies* find the other things listed as the biggest contributor to bird deaths.

Wind will contribute, but it will be extraordinarily insignificant, and likely displaced by the deaths caused by the fossil industry as a whole.

[joshcryer]

18. I hope you do realize that your source is a denialist website that doesn't actually care about...

...the environment.

[amborin]

93. so what! the fact some smarmy org gets hold of valid data does not invalidate the data! your line

of attack is disingenuous

[joshcryer]

97. I'm afraid the link provides no credible data, it is innuendo and disinformation.

[joshcryer]

19. Wikipedia has a wealth of sources for the "bird impact" of turbines:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_effects_of_wind_power#Birds

[Dead_Parrot]

32. Heretic! Witch! Burn her!

[NNadir]

33. She must be made of wood.

[Dead_Parrot]

34. But, how do we tell if she's made of wood?

[NNadir]

53. If she weighs the same as a duck, she'd float in water, and she must be made of wood.

Bien sur.

Bring me an anti-nuke, and I'll explain it in more detail.

[Dead_Parrot]

54. We shall use my larger scales!

[NNadir]

55. You are wise in the ways of science!

[Name removed]

46. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Odin2005]

50. That site is Denialist BS.

[Canuckistanian]

52. Oh, come on, Xemasab

You're supposed to be a bird population specialist. Statistically speaking, are wind turbines that much of a threat to overall bird populations? Honestly?

We've all seen the Youtube vulture killed by a turbine. But is that REALLY the norm? Have you seen the videos about migratory birds collected in NYC killed by skyscrapers? They FAR outweigh any wind turbine bird deaths. And yet I've seen no major outcry about skyscrapers.

Let's face facts, here. ANY tall structures kill birds. Up till now, we haven't called for the banishment of tall buildings. And if we were REALLY honest, we'd next call for the abolition of house cats, who kill more NON-migratory birds than anything.

Where does it end?

[Name removed]

59. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[malakai2]

68. Well, yes

For one thing, turbines are more of a strike hazard for soaring species that are going to be loitering in windy areas. Golden eagles come first to mind, but there are others, ferruginous hawks, red-tailed hawks, turkey vultures, etc. With sustained buildout, turbines and associated structures go into core breeding or migration habitats for those and other species. In the Dakotas, the growing pressure is to build in high wind areas favored by whooping cranes, or sometimes adjacent to wetland complexes favored by waterfowl. On a per turbine basis the risk may not be high, but multiply the risk by thousands of turbines and...we're not sure what will happen. Could be the birds start avoiding the area, could be they don't avoid the area and it becomes a population sink.

It's not "birds" in general, it's particular species. For those species, turbines are a threat, much moreso than skyscrapers which do not exist in those habitats, or cats that aren't about to kill something that would consider them lunch. Nobody seeks a take permit because their picture window may kill a whooping crane, but they do seek take permits because their turbine may kill a whooping crane. Same goes for raptors. Don't bother with a take permit, and each instance of take will be a several thousand dollar fine, a couple hundred thousand per offense if the dead bird happens to be an eagle.

At the same time, the vertical structure avoidance of various grassland species becomes a potential problem. Put turbines too near a grouse lek, or run a powerline too close to the lek, and watch the lek die. Attwater's prairie chicken is already listed, sage grouse is likely to follow it, and that's going to crimp development plans in either species' population centers. That could be an issue for smaller species as well, if powerline poles serve as scouting perches for nest parasites like cowbirds. Sprague's pipit is under review, a couple other grassland sparrows could soon be as well.

[TxRider]

78. Red tail hawks and turkey vultures do not migrate

At least not down here, and they are thick as flies these days.

Got a couple of red tailed hawks that hunt my suburban neighborhood year round as well as some kind of grey kite looking raptor I've watched take birds out in the back yard.

Turkey vultures are out of control, due to the massive deer overpopulation and the thousands of dead deer littering central Texas roadways these days.

Dunno much about the whooping cranes, beside the massive acreage we have set aside down the gulf coast for them. Hundreds of miles to the east of the wind farms. Ducks and geese use the same areas, and generally fly well over the height of the turbines when migrating anyway.

Surely there is some bird that loves the west Texas desert or the panhandle plains though.

[malakai2]

84. They migrate up here

Red tailed hawks migrate in the upper plains, turkey vultures migrate over the majority of their range in the US. Get down to New Mexico and Oklahoma, eastward to Chesapeake Bay, and neither migrates. Wyoming, Montana, and the Dakotas are very high wind potential states and are in those species' migration corridors.

Whoopers, the last truly wild population anyway, winter at Aransas National Wildlife Refuge. They don't even use the entire refuge, they're selective. When they migrate to the nesting grounds at Wood Buffalo National Park in the Northwest Territories, they stick pretty close to a line that runs them to a handful of wildlife refuges in the central plains until they hit the Platte River in central Nebraska, and from there they drift north to the Missouri River in South Dakota, following the river and nearby prairie potholes through northeast Montana to north central North Dakota and into Canada. Much of where they fly from Nebraska northward to southern Canada is high value areas for wind developers.

[amborin]

95. so, what can the general public do to influence where they're located; or the type used?

[XemaSab]

135. Are you high?

Turkey Vultures totally migrate, and hawks do too.

TUVU migration is correlated with ground heating and the production of thermals.

[amborin]

85. there are organized efforts to get lights out at nite in skyscrapers n/t

[joshcryer]

127. Most impacts are daytime due to reflective glass, there are solutions such as patternizing the glass

But I don't know of any big efforts to cover our skyscrapers with glass patterns that stop birds for mistaking them for the reflected environment.

[amborin]

136. migratory birds fly at NIGHT, and are attracted to bldgs' lights

[joshcryer]

139. Yes, but migratory impacts are far smaller than daily daytime impacts.

Did you not read Klem?

5 million for migratory, 100 million for reflection unawareness.

[amborin]

141. 5 million migratory deaths due to night lights; so,do you oppose "lights out at night" programs?

[joshcryer]

150. Not at all, I think it should be done. But I think patternizing windows needs to be done, too.

I am anti-light pollution in general.

[Name removed]

58. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[wtmusic]

67. A relatively insignificant reason to oppose wind

amongst so many valid ones.

"Climate Realists". Ha - no agenda there.

[FedUpWithIt All]

74. You should see the roof of a coal plant. First we have to begin change.

It is necessary. We will, overtime, work out the difficulties but the trend of the changes toward wind energy is a positive one.

[PavePusher]

115. I'd be willing to bet that turbines kill fewer birds than polluting-type energy sources.

But why bother to interupt a good hysterical hand-wringing?

[joshcryer]

129. Sovacool did a prelim analysis, but the response is probably more accurate:

Here's his paper: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2009.02.011

Read the response: "Bats are not birds and other problems with Sovacool’s (2009) analysis of animal fatalities due to electricity generation"

Even more worrisome than mistaking bats for birds, Sovacool’s (2009) estimate of the average number of birds killed per GWh of wind power is incorrect and omits a large body of easily accessible, published data. For five of the six sites listed in his Table 2, Sovacool used fatality estimates that were uncorrected for searcher efficiency and scavenger losses, despite the fact that corrected data are available. Surprisingly, he then points out that failure to correct for searcher efficiency and scavenging is a flaw in published mortality surveys. Using corrected estimates (Barclay et al., 2007 and references therein), and Sovacool’s estimated capacity factor (33%), the actual estimated number of birds killed at those 6 sites is 0.653/GWh, more than double Sovacool’s estimate of 0.269/GWh. Using all 21 sites for which data are presented in Barclay et al. (2007), the average number of birds killed is 1.46/GWh, or over five times Sovacool’s estimate. Sovacool also failed to use the same dataset to estimate the rate of bat mortalities. Using the 6 sites in Sovacool’s paper, the estimated average number of bats killed is 3.25/GWh, although that number is influenced by the high fatality rate at the Mountaineer site in West Virginia. At all 21 sites for which data are available (Barclay et al., 2007), the average number of bats killed is 1.48/GWh. This gives a total fatality rate for birds and bats of 2.94/GWh, or more than 10 times Sovacool’s value.

And before anyone freaks out, that's still several orders of magnitude smaller than other sources.

They conclude:

Although we lack confidence in Sovacool’s mortality estimates, we wholeheartedly agree that use of fossil fuels negatively impacts birds and, despite little published information, almost certainly bats as well. We also recognize that fossil-fuel-generated electricity threatens wildlife and ecosystems in general, and that wind energy has important potential as an alternative. We do, however, argue for the necessity of high-quality information about the species in question when making energy policy decisions related to wildlife conservation. Sovacool claims that ‘‘many ecologists, biologists, ornithologists, and environmentalists at large have spoken out against wind power on the grounds that it presents too great a risk to avian wildlife’’. This statement unnecessarily polarizes the issue and misrepresents the intentions of biologists and other stakeholders interested in seeing that wind energy development, and development for other sources of electricity, can proceed in a way that minimizes direct impacts on wildlife, while also addressing the broader environmental impacts of climate change.

[amborin]

137. Bird Mortality: Lighted Bldgs, Habitat Destruction, Windfarms, etc.:

"In the dark, and especially in foggy or rainy weather, the combination of glass and light becomes deadly. Confused by artificial lights, blinded by weather, and unable to see glass, birds by the hundreds and even thousands can be injured or killed in one night at one building.

Over 140 different species of birds have collided with buildings in Toronto alone. One expert estimates that across North America, up to 100 million birds die in collisions each year. Many species that collide frequently are known to be in long-term decline and some are already designated officially as threatened.....

across North America, more birds die from collisions each year than succumbed to the Exxon Valdez oil spill.....

Birds migrating at night are strongly attracted to, or at least trapped by, sources of artificial light, particularly during periods of inclement weather. Approaching the lights of lighthouses, floodlit obstacles, ceilometers (light beams generally used at airports to determine the altitude of cloud cover), communication towers, or lighted tall buildings, they become vulnerable to collisions with the structures themselves. If collision is avoided, birds are still at risk of death or injury.

Once inside a beam of light, birds are reluctant to fly out of the lighted area into the dark, and often continue to flap around in the beam of light until they drop to the ground with exhaustion. A secondary threat resulting from their aggregation at lighted structures is their increased vulnerability to predation. The difficulty of finding food once trapped in an urban environment may present an additional threat....."

http://www.flap.org/flap_home.htm

http://www.abcbirds.org/conservationissues/threats/buildings.html

"Recent U.S. studies indicate that bird mortality at wind turbine projects varies from less than one bird/turbine/year to as high as 7.5 birds/per turbine/year. This means that between 10,000 and 40,000 birds may be killed each year at wind farms across the country - about 80% of which are songbirds, and 10% may be birds of prey. While not a large figure, local or regional impacts may be significant, and the rate of increase in turbine construction has conservationists concerned that new generators be built to standards that minimize the potential for bird kills. Bats are also subject to high mortality at wind farms frequently at considerably higher rates than birds.

The Solution
The increasing number of proposals for new projects has stimulated discussion on the need for proper siting, operation, and monitoring guidelines or regulations to prevent, or at least keep to a minimum, avian and bat mortality.

Very careful consideration must be given to each site for wind turbine projects. Each state should adopt guidelines or regulations to assure the prevention or minimization of avian impacts from new wind turbine construction and operation (see guidelines for Kansas and Washington). Comprehensive voluntary guidelines for siting, operating, and preventing/minimizing avian and other wildlife impacts have been issued by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

Before construction of new wind farms, detailed studies should be conducted to assess the potential impact on birds, bats, and other wildlife. Sites known to be used by birds and bats listed under the Endangered Species Act should be avoided if the construction and operation of wind plants might adversely affect these species, as should locating turbines in known local bird migration pathways, in areas where birds are highly concentrated, or in areas or landscape features known to attract large numbers of raptors....."

http://www.abcbirds.org/conservationissues/threats/energyproduction/wind.html