Wind farm bird deaths more than thought (1 Viewer)

New research from the United States indicates that bird deaths from wind farm collisions may have been underestimated by up to 30 per cent - http://www.birdwatch.co.uk/channel/newsitem.asp?c=11&cate=__14606

Really angers me.

It's just made worse by the fact that they are such an inefficient waste of money.

"with permits to allow the killing of Bald and Golden Eagles, Whooping Crane, Piping Plover and California Condor by wind turbines all under review or being granted in some states. "

a quotation from the op's link
this is the sort of hyperbole we could do wthout.. really, permits have been granted to allow killing by wind turbine? The reporter isn't an itzy bitzy bias by any chance?

rockfowl said:

New research from the United States indicates that bird deaths from wind farm collisions may have been underestimated by up to 30 per cent - http://www.birdwatch.co.uk/channel/newsitem.asp?c=11&cate=__14606

Click to expand...

It's certainly a matter of concern, Mark, that losses are higher than thought. Have they compared tower design types, lattice towers being notoriously responsible for high casualty rates? If the towers are any kind of standard cylindrical concrete shapes, and the blades have standard flicker markings at the tips and along their length, then a major rethink is necessary.

Now if there are comparable statistics enumerating bird casualties through traffic (including trains) and impact with illuminated buildings and windows, then we might have a real lever to attempt to reduce casualties in all categories.

I note in the Birdwatch article that the White-throated Needletail was killed by an impact with the small turbine shaft, and not through impact with the blades: that offers the suggestion that it was in poor condition, because it hit a stationary vertical upright. Is the report accurate, or is it a case of a non-technical person airily using technical terms?
MJB

killing permits for Whooping Cranes and other endagered species

Well, it is true. For example, here is what the Whooping Crane Conservation Association wrote recently: http://whoopingcrane.com/first-inci...r-whooping-cranes-at-an-individual-wind-farm/

Here is another document, this from the US Fish & Wildlife Service, the US Federal Agency in charge of enforcing the Endangered Species Act:

rockfowl said:

New research from the United States indicates that bird deaths from wind farm collisions may have been underestimated by up to 30 per cent - http://www.birdwatch.co.uk/channel/newsitem.asp?c=11&cate=__14606

Click to expand...

Quel surprise. Who would guess that a set of giant cuisinard blades the size of a school house whirling in the wind on beaches and hill tops would harm birds? Let them adapt and fly in the day and walk at night, those birds! What is evolution for?

I've just read this http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2013/jun/28/white-throated-needletail-wind-turbines

"Take" of critically endangered birds acceptable ?

dacol said:

Well, it is true. For example, here is what the Whooping Crane Conservation Association wrote recently: http://whoopingcrane.com/first-inci...r-whooping-cranes-at-an-individual-wind-farm/

Here is another document, this from the US Fish & Wildlife Service, the US Federal Agency in charge of enforcing the Endangered Species Act:

Click to expand...

Here is the accompanying "WHOOPING CRANES AND WIND DEVELOPMENT - AN ISSUE PAPER_April 2009_USFWS" referred to:
http://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/okl...pment fws issue paper - final april 2009.pdf

It states that a "take" of just 3% "additional mortality, i.e., less than 8 individuals annually, would cause the species to undergo a decline, and preclude recovery".

It also states that due to the low population and previous loss of genetic diversity, "that mortality of any birds in such a small population also represents a loss of genetic material and a setback for recovery efforts".

Makes you wonder just how big a "take" is deemed acceptable ...... :-C



Chosun :gh:

Chosun Juan said:

Here is the accompanying "WHOOPING CRANES AND WIND DEVELOPMENT - AN ISSUE PAPER_April 2009_USFWS" referred to:
http://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/okl...pment fws issue paper - final april 2009.pdf

It states that a "take" of just 3% "additional mortality, i.e., less than 8 individuals annually, would cause the species to undergo a decline, and preclude recovery".

It also states that due to the low population and previous loss of genetic diversity, "that mortality of any birds in such a small population also represents a loss of genetic material and a setback for recovery efforts".

Makes you wonder just how big a "take" is deemed acceptable ...... :-C



Chosun :gh:

Click to expand...

There is no doubt about, wind turbines can be fatal to birds. But they are a renewable source of energy which does affect GW, and design is improving. Personally I prefer them to nuclear power stations dotted around the Pacific Rim, for example, where we can't forsee future earthquake/tsunami damage. (We just know it will occur) I believe people are looking at design and environmental impact very seriously and hopefully things will improve. No matter what new technologies are tried, there will always be environmental impact. Its finding ways to reduce that and trying to improve efficiency that important. In the case of the Whooping Crane, a failing species anyway, maybe it is an additional factor to its demise but is certainly isn't a major one.

This is very sad.... Shocking that species such as Whooping Cranes and California Condors which were functionally extinct in the wild not so long ago before reintroductions are being killed this way.

chowchilla said:

This is very sad.... Shocking that species such as Whooping Cranes and California Condors which were functionally extinct in the wild not so long ago before reintroductions are being killed this way.

Click to expand...

I don't think that "are being killed this way" is an accurate statement. As far as I know, neither species has been killed by wind turbines. Regular power lines, however, *are* an ongoing source of mortality for both.

I don't support the incidental take permit, though, because I like to hope that the fear of being unlucky enough to whack one of these species will encourage extreme caution in turbine placement. Another thread on this topic talked about how older-style turbines kill many more birds than the new ones (that Guardian article says that individual turbines vary from an average of 0 deaths per day to 60); I would also like to see some effort at decommissioning some of the worst offenders.

It's disheartening that every source of energy has so many downsides, but I really think that wind is, on the whole, less bad than the status quo.

Second hand as I didn't go to it, but the local mammal society group down here did a talk on 'bats and wind-turbines' last week. Apparently, yes, bats are especially badly hit by wind turbines. They are now using sniffer dogs to search out dead bird/bat carcases. Most bird deaths found are Kestrel and Buzzard. They have to turn the blades off once a year to clean the insects off the blades as the accumulation starts to slow the blades down.

Apparently.

Andy Hurley said:

There is no doubt about, wind turbines can be fatal to birds. But they are a renewable source of energy which does affect GW, and design is improving. Personally I prefer them to nuclear power stations dotted around the Pacific Rim, for example, where we can't forsee future earthquake/tsunami damage. (We just know it will occur) I believe people are looking at design and environmental impact very seriously and hopefully things will improve. No matter what new technologies are tried, there will always be environmental impact. Its finding ways to reduce that and trying to improve efficiency that important. In the case of the Whooping Crane, a failing species anyway, maybe it is an additional factor to its demise but is certainly isn't a major one.

Click to expand...

It's not just the collisions with wind turbine blades that are the problem - it's the acquisition and destruction of important viable habitat in the migration corridor (Same old, same old, at the root of most problems ...). It's the associated infrastructure such as power lines (collisions with which are a major source of fatality). More than that, it's the draining of wetlands, and conversion to other land uses (along with persecution) that has seen the cranes arrive at this perilous position in the first place. To say they are "a failing species anyway" is erroneous when it is man alone that is responsible for their predicament. In fact, they have made a many-fold comeback from their man-forced minima. Very good read here: http://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/okl...pment fws issue paper - final april 2009.pdf

While improvements in environmental impact unfold with experience - there's no substitute for good old foresight and scientic precautionary principles - especially with a species on the genetic precipice such as this one .... And the Tasmanian Wedge-tailed Eagle .... And the Philippine Eagle (for different reasons), etc. Some things just aren't worth gambling with.

Where does the investment in renewables, vested corporations, the conflict of interest of governments addicted to growth to cover waste, overspending, and revenue shortfalls, dubious relationships to backers and questions over independence, inequality between financiers and citizens, and looming energy shortages, .... end, and the welfare of endangered species begin?

Not all energy sources need have such great impact - there is plenty of scope for "appropriate wind", solar pv, and solar thermal, biogas (though not from crops, or soil forming waste - I'm thinking p** here), geothermal, and wave power a' la Carnegie http://www.carnegiewave.com/ Seriously, how easy is that? energy from the waves, with no virtually impact to anything ..... As long as there is a moon, and gravity, seems like a bit of a no-brainer ..... imagine how far down that road we'd be if all the quadrillions spent (still being spent right this very second) on war, and fossil fuels had been channelled into that instead?

"Nooklyar" is not even an option with it's intractable waste ..... there's a very good reason indigenous cultures have for 10's of thousands of years - been calling the uranium ore containing lands - "sickness country". Already the vested interests are trying to use the GW debate to foist economically unviable (not to mention dangerously unsustainable) "Nooklyar" down our throats.

Maybe, one day, if the world ever gets its act together - "Fusion" energy may be a viable proposition ..... but "Fission Nuclear" = no way! whether it's sited anywhere - let alone Tsunami alley)


Chosun :gh:

dantheman said:

Second hand as I didn't go to it, but the local mammal society group down here did a talk on 'bats and wind-turbines' last week. Apparently, yes, bats are especially badly hit by wind turbines.

Click to expand...

Apparently their lungs rupture if they get too close to the blades, caused I think by the sudden change in air pressure.