The linked chart doesn’t dispute the damage from wind turbines. However, there is also a relatively low penetration of wind turbines compared to the number of power lines, windows and cats. It would follow that a rapid expansion of wind turbines would result in a dramatic increase in bird deaths. Suggesting that turbines don’t kill as much as windows is a straw man: nobody is claiming that turbines are the leading cause of bird deaths, however, they are still significant and, with an increase of turbines, you will absolutely have an increase in bird mortality. Additionally, endangered birds such as bald eagles are rarely getting eaten by housecats or crashing into windows, however, they are being killed by windmills.
The Audubon Society, a group that most assuredly has more experience with all things birds are certainly more credible than a random google image search in terms of the impact of turbines on birds.
They're pretty deadly, and it's not collisions that kill them. It's the pressure differential caused by them. It's too hard on their lungs and makes them rupture. It's less deadly to birds in that way, their respiratory system tends to be sturdier.
That is kind of ironic - even knowing that durability isn't monolithic and based off of different things. Birds known for coal mine canaries have the more durable lungs.
Indeed! Birds in general have infamously sensitive lungs, apparently because their respiratory system is a one-way loop instead of an in-and-out piston. They can exhale one breath at the same time that another is passing through the lungs. It's amazingly efficient, serving the high oxygen and cooling needs of active flight, but it's far more susceptible to airborne pollutants of all kinds.
But, apparently, sensitivity to pollutants is unrelated to sensitivity to pressure.
So one of the major bats being affected by wind energy in the south are Hoary bats. While they aren't currently endangered, they are very elusive and could become endangered if current mortality rates continue.
"The hoary bat population could decline by as much as 90% in the next 50 years if the initial population size is near 2.5 million bats and annual population growth rate is similar to rates estimated for other bat species (λ = 1.01)"
Source: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S00063...
That being said, wind energy is like... maybe #2 or #3 threat to bats right now. The biggest one being a disease called white-nose syndrome that is absolutely devastating hibernating bats.
A third major danger to bats is human persecution. People either are scared of bats, or hunt them for food. In places like Australia, bats are sometimes seen as a nuisance where the congregate in large numbers and poop. Bat Conservation International has a lot of articles and social media messages talking about how bats are threatened
http://www.batcon.org/why-bats/bats-are/bats-are-threatened
wind turbines do kill some birds. they are not a first or even second order bird killer though. and newer wind farms pose less of a threat for various reasons. size, etc.
Of course they aren’t a first order bird killer because there aren’t that many turbines compared to the first order bird killers. Nuclear power is far more “green” than solar and wind, but for some reason, environmentalists are stuck in wind and solar as saviors. In California, they just declared that hydro doesn’t count as “renewable,” despite it being exactly that. The push for wind and solar is political more than practical. We already have an incredibly green, practically limitless energy technology already available, it’s called nuclear, but instead we want to debate sticking windmills on every patch of ground and covering everything with inefficient solar panels.
At least California residents are lucky enough to benefit from vast geothermal resources, which could be used for base load instead of nuclear. Hydropower utilities are mostly peaker plants.
> The push for wind and solar is political more than practical.
It's fascinating how you're accusing others to be emotional instead of rational, while answering a post providing data for one specific question regarding wind power with an unspecific rant.
Per watt, I'm willing to bet (without evidence) that the ratio is quite favorable. Yeah the open pit looks bad, but uranium has a simply stupendous amount of energy. And the damage is well localized (while renewables tend to need a lot of area).
I don't see how that follows - even with lacking care to mix exhaust hot water with cold to make it warm. That would at worst cause localized fish kills and algae blooms as opposed to lasting damage.
Nuclear plants are usually located with abundant water for cooling and contamination is more of a concern than evaporation.
Nuclear has problems which humanity hasn't found an answer yet:
1) what to do with the waste that has to be kept safe for thousands of years, war-, theft- and natural-disaster-proof? Recycling or breeding can be done but nowhere near the volume that is required. For early attempts at long term storage we have problems getting the waste out of there.
2) how to operate nuclear power in a capitalist society safely? Operators will always have the incentive to cut corners and bypass regulations for profit, leading to security issues and accidents. Hell even communism has failed there, e.g. in Chernobyl or that lake (?) where they dumped their old submarines.
3) how to make a reactor disaster-proof? This includes geology (earthquakes like in Japan), water, fire, terrorism, operator negligence, ...
Imagine if nuclear killed a similar number of birds and bats. Would you suddenly say that it wasn't green enough? Of course not, that would be stupid. Wind and solar are green enough. The environmental damage caused by either source is trivially small.
Also, any complex project will be subject to politics. That is just reality. If you want to defeat climate change (a political objective) you have to put forward projects that will be approved by government.
This is a very short article with an absolute dearth of information and an extremely misleading and baiting headline. If someone is willing to do the legwork to locate some real information these projects, this technology, and what Duke is doing I’d really appreciate it, but this article in particular is far too low quality to justify its position on the front of this site as is.
Wind turbines can and do kill bats. We (as an industry) unfortunately learned this in the wrong way initially, when we sited and built wind projects without doing the study and siting work that what we should have done. But now when we site projects and machines now we try to do things right. For projects that pose risk to bats that involves wildlife studies from third party experts that include evaluation of bat habitat, identifying bat hibernacula, performing mist netting and bat habitation studies to identify actual species presence, and where needed incorporating turbine curtailment approaches to reduce bat take. We consult with the US Fish & Wildlife Service as well. The approach for birds of concern is similar, but mitigation approaches vary by species.
Note: I am not a bat or wildlife expert myself. But I work with these firms during project development, and I support the technical side of consultations with FWS, and so on.
Wind farms provide unstable power to the system; therefore from basic electric power systems theory(college level), you need to have a base station(coal or nuclear or gas) to provide stability to the system. Germany has not shut down any coal powered factory but they export any excess energy to nearby countries. Wind farms went up just for the investors sake and because of the "let's save the planet" fad. Look at your bill. If you did not provide subsidy to them through your bloated bill, the "investors" could not build wind farms. It is not economical, plus, you destroy the microclimate on mountain ridges where you put the wind farms. It's just another way to shaft the public
Let's use the word "populism" to denigrate opinions different than ours.
It is not populism to force the public to fund the rich man's endevours, it is part of "saving the environment"
The main fact I get from all of this, is that wind power introduces unstable parameters into the system and nobody denies that. You can not refute science.
But hiking the prices up, destroying the environment, killing birds etc is not pupulism, is the new age life. I really want to know what was the global percentage of wind power generated in relation to other forms of generation. And let's make a study whether customers can afford their bills. And once your have your fact straight and can handle the truth, then go ahead and hit that flag button.
That man just wants to see the world burn. The reality looks different. Maybe renewables will never reach 100% but 70% or 80% is still a worthwhile goal to strive for. Even if the remainder is powered purely by natural gas it still is a net benefit over coal.
Without giving much detail, I was associated with this project in one of the companies involved with recent testing. It was an interesting project, for sure.
Not dismissing the danger to bats in general, as they do provide more good services to nature than bad, but let's not forget, that in numbers, bats comprise more than 1/4 of all mammals. Losing a few, while likely (hopefully) preventable, is not a real dent in their population like it would be with eagles or other birds with smaller populations.
Yeah that's why I'm wondering if perhaps there's a knock-on effect where a reduction in a local bat population causes trees to suffer, shifting a local ecosystem out of balance.
I suppose though, all things considered, this might be preferable to razing the mountain for coal.
Well, Australia has two massive issues: mosquitoes and cane toads (poisonous). Both species are invasive. They developed an agent that should, within a year or so, kill off 80% of the population of mosquitoes, which the cane toad eats. Since they want to get rid of both species, this will affect species far outside those two, as other species eat both of the aforementioned species.
Australia has imported cane toads, foxes, rabbits, domestic cats (now at epic feral proportions), camels, and more, which has upended their indigenous species, which are now dying, some bordering on extinction. I think when humans tinker with nature, we don't look too many chess moves ahead. We see gain in one area, not realizing we will affect ten other areas.
I second this. I have a bat that lives in my roof (yeah, that will eventually be a problem) and eats its body weight in mosquitoes and moths every day. A neighbors bat tested positive for rabies and that is my only real concern. I keep an eye on mine. The species in my neck of the woods lives about 15 years. That's 15 years of free pest control.
Some people have actually gone so far as to have an outside wall taken out, a bat house installed (prevents ingress into the house at large) and then sealed up save the small bat entrance. They enter, hang, sleep, exit. There is a tray that can be slid out, washed, and re-inserted. This is not for the faint of heart, as the potential for exposure to rabies and other toxic goo is high, but some do it nonetheless.
I am actually considering something like that. At some point, I need to strip my home down to the studs regardless. I might just have a box on a lever-pole that allows lowering and cleaning.
Being attached directly to the house means that each time a new pup is born and hits the teenage years, it has to learn it doesn't have dominion and eventually stops complaining when I make noise.
Wow. This thread is full of anti-nuclear fudd. An amazingly powerful two sentence Bloomberg blurb!
Generation 3 nuclear is on the way, with bipartisan support. Dozens of startups are working on generation 4 and on nuclear fusion. Is ycombinator involved in any?
50 comments
[ 4.9 ms ] story [ 112 ms ] threadThe Audubon Society, a group that most assuredly has more experience with all things birds are certainly more credible than a random google image search in terms of the impact of turbines on birds.
https://www.audubon.org/news/will-wind-turbines-ever-be-safe...
>Are birds having similar issues?
>Will it help them too?
To find out, tune in tomorrow.
Same bat time.
Same bat channel.
They're pretty deadly, and it's not collisions that kill them. It's the pressure differential caused by them. It's too hard on their lungs and makes them rupture. It's less deadly to birds in that way, their respiratory system tends to be sturdier.
But, apparently, sensitivity to pollutants is unrelated to sensitivity to pressure.
Biology is fascinating.
"The hoary bat population could decline by as much as 90% in the next 50 years if the initial population size is near 2.5 million bats and annual population growth rate is similar to rates estimated for other bat species (λ = 1.01)" Source: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S00063...
In Hawaii, there is a subspecies of the Hoary bat that is endangered and primarily threatened by wind turbines. There are also studies happening out there on wind turbines (I applied to work for the study like a year ago, I don't think BCI will be publishing anything any time soon). https://dlnr.hawaii.gov/wildlife/files/2018/07/Bat-White-Pap... https://www.nrgsystems.com/news-media/nrg-systems-announces-...
RE this study - I believe this is part of the work being done by Dr. Sara Weaver at Texas State. I don't know that she's published much on it yet, it's been very hush-hush because of the huge implications it could have if successful. The NRG tech being used is mentioned in the Texas State article below. https://psmag.com/environment/jamming-echolocation-could-hel... https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Sara_Weaver4 https://news.txstate.edu/research-and-innovation/2018/bat-de...
That being said, wind energy is like... maybe #2 or #3 threat to bats right now. The biggest one being a disease called white-nose syndrome that is absolutely devastating hibernating bats.
USFS website on WNS: https://www.whitenosesyndrome.org/
A third major danger to bats is human persecution. People either are scared of bats, or hunt them for food. In places like Australia, bats are sometimes seen as a nuisance where the congregate in large numbers and poop. Bat Conservation International has a lot of articles and social media messages talking about how bats are threatened http://www.batcon.org/why-bats/bats-are/bats-are-threatened
https://images.app.goo.gl/SABJs5GkQsGFJC1d7
Can you point out the new hydro plants that we can build?
As a California resident, I'm happy that the state isn't spending extra to buy nuclear.
It's fascinating how you're accusing others to be emotional instead of rational, while answering a post providing data for one specific question regarding wind power with an unspecific rant.
Nuclear plants are usually located with abundant water for cooling and contamination is more of a concern than evaporation.
Me I think we're in the harm reduction phase of industrial civilization. Nothing we do isn't going to have some negative impact.
1) what to do with the waste that has to be kept safe for thousands of years, war-, theft- and natural-disaster-proof? Recycling or breeding can be done but nowhere near the volume that is required. For early attempts at long term storage we have problems getting the waste out of there.
2) how to operate nuclear power in a capitalist society safely? Operators will always have the incentive to cut corners and bypass regulations for profit, leading to security issues and accidents. Hell even communism has failed there, e.g. in Chernobyl or that lake (?) where they dumped their old submarines.
3) how to make a reactor disaster-proof? This includes geology (earthquakes like in Japan), water, fire, terrorism, operator negligence, ...
Also, any complex project will be subject to politics. That is just reality. If you want to defeat climate change (a political objective) you have to put forward projects that will be approved by government.
Wind turbines can and do kill bats. We (as an industry) unfortunately learned this in the wrong way initially, when we sited and built wind projects without doing the study and siting work that what we should have done. But now when we site projects and machines now we try to do things right. For projects that pose risk to bats that involves wildlife studies from third party experts that include evaluation of bat habitat, identifying bat hibernacula, performing mist netting and bat habitation studies to identify actual species presence, and where needed incorporating turbine curtailment approaches to reduce bat take. We consult with the US Fish & Wildlife Service as well. The approach for birds of concern is similar, but mitigation approaches vary by species.
Note: I am not a bat or wildlife expert myself. But I work with these firms during project development, and I support the technical side of consultations with FWS, and so on.
https://news.duke-energy.com/releases/duke-energy-renewables...
Check out these posts:
https://www.energieverite.com/post/lancement-du-collectif-%C...
Are renewables affecting income distribution and increasing the risk of household poverty? https://drive.google.com/file/d/1BF1kms5myPTky4yWopKNGNHDLEQ...
Professor(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans-Werner_Sinn) says that moving to renewables will never work. Period
It is not populism to force the public to fund the rich man's endevours, it is part of "saving the environment"
The main fact I get from all of this, is that wind power introduces unstable parameters into the system and nobody denies that. You can not refute science.
But hiking the prices up, destroying the environment, killing birds etc is not pupulism, is the new age life. I really want to know what was the global percentage of wind power generated in relation to other forms of generation. And let's make a study whether customers can afford their bills. And once your have your fact straight and can handle the truth, then go ahead and hit that flag button.
Your claim is easily refuted because subsidy-free wind farms are being built.
https://english.rvo.nl/news/netherlands-looks-forward-second...
Without giving much detail, I was associated with this project in one of the companies involved with recent testing. It was an interesting project, for sure.
In aggregate, sure, but is there an acute local impact that is more serious?
I suppose though, all things considered, this might be preferable to razing the mountain for coal.
Australia has imported cane toads, foxes, rabbits, domestic cats (now at epic feral proportions), camels, and more, which has upended their indigenous species, which are now dying, some bordering on extinction. I think when humans tinker with nature, we don't look too many chess moves ahead. We see gain in one area, not realizing we will affect ten other areas.
Being attached directly to the house means that each time a new pup is born and hits the teenage years, it has to learn it doesn't have dominion and eventually stops complaining when I make noise.
Generation 3 nuclear is on the way, with bipartisan support. Dozens of startups are working on generation 4 and on nuclear fusion. Is ycombinator involved in any?
Moths can jam Bat "radar"
https://steveblank.com/2009/03/23/if-i-told-you-i%E2%80%99d-...