Slashdot Mirror


Wind Turbines Kill a Few Birds

Guppy06 writes "The Houston Chronicle has an article about how a 7000-turbine windfarm in Altamont Pass, California (the world's largest collection) has killed an estimated 22,000 birds during the past 20 years or so of operation, 'including hundreds of golden eagles, red-tailed hawks, kestrels and other raptors(.)' There are efforts to keep the operators from renewing their permit until they take measures to protect bird populations. To put things in perspective the article goes on to point out that the Exxon Valdez spill is estimated to have killed around 250,000, while the whole story can just about be summed up by one quote by a biologist: 'When you turn on your lights you kill something, no matter what the source of electricity.'" Killing 3-4 birds per day doesn't seem too bad. It's a shame that larger, rarer birds are getting killed, but... How many birds would die from the acid rain that a coal power plant would cause?

26 of 991 comments (clear)

  1. Solution ? by zeux · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Why not put big metal grid around each turbine ?

    My fan here has one so I can't put my fingers in. Maybe we could use grid with larger holes so the flow of wind wouldn't be disturbed too much and so it would prevent bigger birds of going through.

    I think it would cause some extra noise (wind going through the grid), cost some extra money and maybe lower the wind speed a little (and by the way lower efficiency) but that would definitely save the birds.

    But maybe 22000 birds over 20 years (that's a little more than 3 birds a day) are not worth the expense...

    Any solution with magnetic fields? I know that some birds use magnetic fields during their flight to find their destination... It could also help keeping birds out of the highway (60 millions/year in car collision ??? That's a LOT).

    1. Re:Solution ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Just put up a giant scarecrow in the middle of the turbine farm.

    2. Re:Solution ? by Washizu · · Score: 5, Funny

      "Why not put big metal grid around each turbine?"

      Ever see a flock of birds stuck to a giant fan?

      --
      OddManIn: A Game of guns and game theory.
    3. Re:Solution ? by fastidious+edward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      But maybe 22000 birds over 20 years (that's a little more than 3 birds a day) are not worth the expense...

      Exactly, and there are 7000 turbines, so that makes little over 3 birds killed per turbine in 20 years, or 0.157... birds/year/turbine! Compare this to other mechanical devices killing animals, like cars running over hedgehogs, boats knocking fish on the head, animals killed after Chernobyl, or insects on your wind-shield and I'm impressed, 22000 is pretty low.

      --

      karma karma karma karma karma chameleon, you come and go, you come and go.
    4. Re:Solution ? by nehril · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "...choosing to ignore the true impacts of these turbines, which are the equivalent of a terrestrial Exxon Valdez every year." - insane environmentalist in story.

      Lets see: exxon valdez killed 250,000 birds, whole wind farm kills 20,000 *over twenty years*. It's these kinds of crazy enviro-whacko statements that actually do a disservice to ALL pro-environment activists. These statements just make folks want to ignore them all. Some folks won't rest until we are all subsistence-farming vegetarians.

    5. Re:Solution ? by kfg · · Score: 5, Funny

      Nonsense. I know lots of people with cancer and the correlation with living under the influence of earth's magnetic field is remarkably high.

      KFG

    6. Re:Solution ? by Carnildo · · Score: 5, Informative

      Exactly, and there are 7000 turbines, so that makes little over 3 birds killed per turbine in 20 years, or 0.157... birds/year/turbine! Compare this to other mechanical devices killing animals, like cars running over hedgehogs, boats knocking fish on the head, animals killed after Chernobyl, or insects on your wind-shield and I'm impressed, 22000 is pretty low.

      As a quick comparison, in the past year, three birds have died after running into the living-room window in my house. Those turbines are downright safe!

      --
      "They redundantly repeated themselves over and over again incessantly without end ad infinitum" -- ibid.
    7. Re:Solution ? by dasmegabyte · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Some folks won't rest until we are all subsistence-farming vegetarians

      Who, ironically, are against intolerance and fascism in all its forms.

      I have many, many vegetarian and pro-subsistance friends. Hell, I myself have been known to dabble in these causes, because it's true -- the American lifestyle is FAR too damaging to the environment. But some of these cats need to lighten the fuck up. Organizations like PETA and some of the more extreme eco-nazis do a ton of damage to the perception of environmentalism in the public's eye.

      I am an environmentalist who does not believe in recycling (it is a complex, time consuming, inefficient and expensive process generally ignored by those in waste management. It will only become viable when we run so low on resources that it is cheaper to recycle old material than to use new material. In the short term, a much more efficient plan to make resources last as long as possible is to reduce overall waste through reuse, composting, and burning whatever can be burnt for fuel).

      I am an environmentalist who believes in allowing the lumber and oil industries into public lands (while maintaining government management of resources and routing the resulting money from the sale of rights into other conservation programs. See what Canada has done with the Algonquin park, one of the most heavily travelled but CLEANEST parks I've ever been to, whose forestry is far better managed than the privatized areas of the Adirondack park).

      I am an environmentalist who believes in hunting (as legalized, managed hunting makes for strong tourism and gives impetus for the conservation of wild private lands. Push hunters off your land and in come the developers, who strip hillsides, put up strip malls and sprawls to soak up tax breaks for a fewer years, and leave behind blight. In fact, a friend of mine was telling me last week that her park's best friend in the state legislature is the Turkey Hunter's Association).

      I am an environmentalist who isn't sold on organic farming (which results in a slightly more unreliable food source. It also imposes a number of severe restrictions on farmers which, while well meaning, can cause costs to rise as profits rise -- for example, you can't sow an organic field with manure from cows which aren't fed organic feed. Furthermore, organic practices necesitate stricter controls to prevent spoilage, resulting in more plastics, styrofoams and more rotten fruit thrown into dumpsters).

      I am an environmentalist who isn't dead set against nuclear energy (because the potential for widespread damage to the population of the earth is still less than that caused by burning coal and oil).

      I am an environmentalist because I look at the environment and say "Here is something I like. Here is something that is dirty. Here is something that is disappearing, and these are problems we need to solve." I don't pretend they aren't there and don't manipulate data to make others feel better about purchasing an inefficient vehicle. But I know that hyperventilating over every detail isn't going to get the crud out of the Hudson, or slow the exponential growth of the trash mound just west of town. Like these people, I see dead birds and think "we have to stop this." Yeah, we do. Eventually. Right now, we're far better off with a slight birdkill than the massive dangers imposed by our reliance on fossil fuels. And maybe if these cats would pump their resources into getting some good government subsidies for solar shingles and so forth, we wouldn't have to worry so much about either.

      --
      Hey freaks: now you're ju
  2. There's a time and place for everything by bloggins02 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Ya know, at one point I might have cared, but we need to end our reliance on petroleum Real Soon Now(TM), mostly for environmental consequences far greater than 22,000 birds over 20 years, not to mention the socio-political impact of foreign oil dependance.

    Anything we can do to remove ourselves from our current situation is beneficial, so with that I say... ...fuck the birds.

  3. I think it has something to do with location by HerringFlavoredFowl · · Score: 5, Informative

    I remember seeing something about it's location being in a migratory flight path and other wind projects did not have the same problem.

    --
    TastesLikeHerringFlavoredChicken
    1. Re:I think it has something to do with location by cnkeller · · Score: 5, Funny
      I remember seeing something about it's location being in a migratory flight path and other wind projects did not have the same problem.

      Nah, it's probably the guy that hung the birdfeeders behind the turbine....

      --

      there are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots

  4. Eh... Big deal... by iiioxx · · Score: 5, Funny

    Evolution in action. Obviously it only kills the dumb birds, the *smart* birds fly *around* the propellors...

    I wish we could take this tact with the human population. I say, take the warning labels off of everything and let the chips fall where they may.

  5. Three people a day? by FFFish · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If the turbines killed three people a day... ...well, we'd probably accept that, too, just as we do for cars.

    --

    --
    Don't like it? Respond with words, not karma.
  6. This is old and misleading news by Tim2 · · Score: 5, Informative

    The Altamont story about wind farms killing birds is old news. While true, the story is misleading because the vast majority of wind farms are in very different settings with a much lower thread toi birds. A much more reasoned analysis can be found here: http://www.ibiblio.org/pardo/birds/archive/archive 2/msg00468.html

  7. Kill 22,000 birds by Freston+Youseff · · Score: 5, Interesting

    with 7,000 stones. In all seriousness, this number is probably tiny compared to the amount of birds that get shredded in personal, commercial and miliatary aircraft over the last 20 years. It's sort reporting the fact that blueberries are blue.

    --

  8. Easy solution! by Rinikusu · · Score: 5, Funny

    Hunters. Get hunters to stand below the turbines and SHOOT the birds before they can be chopped to pieces.

    Oh wait, we're saving the BIRDS not the TURBINES.. damn damn damn!

    --
    If you were me, you'd be good lookin'. - six string samurai
  9. Nice quote by geekoid · · Score: 5, Informative

    "Researched by Wyoming-based Western EcoSystems Technology, the report contends that many more birds are killed annually in collisions with vehicles (60 million), window panes (98 million) and communication towers (4 million) than die nationwide in wind turbines (10,000 to 40,000).

    Even the common household cat, wind power industry advocates argue, is responsible for more bird deaths than turbines"

    heh, a little persective, there.

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  10. Is this a joke? by macemoneta · · Score: 5, Insightful

    7000 wind turbines kill 22,000 birds in 20 years? That means that a wind turbine will kill a bird (that's "1") every 7 years or so.

    To put that in perspective... I have a greenhouse (glass enclosed room) on my home. On average, one or two birds fly into it and kill themselves each year. So my greenhouse is 7-14 times as deadly to birds as a wind turbine.

    This is just Darwinian selection at work. By the way, the dead birds get eaten by other birds and animals, so some number of them survive from the free meal. I think they forgot to count those.

    Worthless article.

    --

    Can You Say Linux? I Knew That You Could.

  11. Some Perspective by worst_name_ever · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Keep in mind that the wind turbines at the Altamont Pass site are 20 years old and smaller than the current generation of large wind turbines; that means they spin a lot faster, and thus give the birds less time to get out of the way. Modern turbines spin a lot slower and are situated higher off the ground, giving them much less of an impact on the local wildlife population.

    Not to mention the fact that hundreds of millions of birds are killed each year through collisions with glass windows, vehicles, guy wires, and so forth.

    But don't take my word for it, check out this article which goes over the statistics, with references. Or, Google for yourself.

    --

    In Soviet Rush, today's Tom Sawyer gets high on you.
  12. Altamont windfarm photo by GoneGaryT · · Score: 5, Interesting
    ...from a kite (no, not a bird).

    It's a bit Pythonesque, really. "The residents pass along here, through the rotating knives..."

  13. Re:Solution ? Duh.. by cheeseSource · · Score: 5, Funny

    Just encase the fans in glass.

    --
    (Sponsored by cheeseSource for President 2012)
  14. wind turbine fatalities by phiala · · Score: 5, Informative
    Out of curiousity, I checked the literature on the subject (by which I mean actual peer-reviewed biological journals), since most of the web sites a cursory search turned up appeared to be propaganda, either pro or con.

    There isn't a whole lot, but here's some extra information (refs available on request):

    Osborn et al. 2000
    Minnesota, estimate 36 +/- 12 birds per year, less than one per turbine

    Osborn et al. 1998 (same site):
    Observed flight patterns, found that most bird flew above or below the turbine level

    Johnson et al. 2002 (same site):
    "We assessed effects of the wind farm on birds from 1996 to 1999, with 55 documented collision fatalities. Recovered carcasses included 42 passerines, 5 waterbirds, 3 ducks, 3 upland game birds, 1 raptor, and 1 shorebird."

    De Lucas et al. 2004:
    Straits of Gibralter, most birds altered flight path to avoid turbines

    Several of these researchers seem to think that turbines do kill birds, but in very small numbers compared to other structural sources of mortality. (birds hit stuff, especially plate glass windows)

    The problem is that it's easy to count dead birds at the base of turbines, but hard to count birds that died from most other sources of power...

    --
    I prefer to be called Evil Scientist.
  15. Darwinism anyone? by t0qer · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I live in San Jose, very close to altimont pass. I don't watch birds as a hobby, but when I do watch them it's because of my facination with flight.

    As sorry as it sounds (22k birds dead) it's plain old Darwinism. Adapt or die basically.

    Next time you're near an overpass populated with pigeons, take the time to watch them, and I mean REALLY watch them. I've noticed a behavior these birds have on freeway's I call "Car Surfing"

    Lately i've noticed that the pigeons on the highway 17 camden av overpass won't leave thier roost until there are cars passing underneath. I'm guessing the cars going 60mph below them must produce some sort of small air wave, because the birds never seem to smash into them. They swoop down, grab that little updraft of wind from the car below, and get launched another 30-40 feet into the air.

    These birds have adapated to having 1ton+ metal boxes moving around their flight path. Not only have they adapted, but they've learned to use it to their advantage.

    As far as altimont pass is concerned, i'm sure the ratio of Kestral/Eagles to common birds is pretty low. I would bet the majority of the birds dying are blackbirds or doves. Carnivoires are oppertunistic, living or dead if it's meat they're going to go for it. So i'm sure most of these accidents with the exotic preditors have nothing to do with the windmills, and much to do with the altimont pass groundskeepers not cleaning up the dead carrion. Perhaps if they made it a part of their daily job to toss all the dead birds in the back of their pickup and move them to a safer place for the preditorial birds to eat, we would see less deaths.

    Until that happens though, what we will see is a fine example of these birds adapting to their enviroment. The stupid ones will be weeded out of the genepool.

  16. Good point. by Camel+Pilot · · Score: 5, Insightful

    My office has a mirrored window and has provided me with a great opportunity to view and examine a variety of birds (both rare and common) up real close (both dead and stunned). The ground below my window is littered with bird remains. The local feral cat has caught on though.

    I say outlaw mirrored window before outlawing wind turbines.

  17. Oh, great idea by Dirtside · · Score: 5, Funny
    Just put up a giant scarecrow in the middle of the turbine farm.
    Yeah, let's erect an enormous scarecrow amidst a bunch of energy-generating machines. First time there's a lightning storm you just know there's gonna be some Frankenstein action going on, and then we've got a hundred-foot scarecrow rampaging across California, slashing budget programs and repealing taxes left and right... wait, that's the governor.

    On the plus side, we'd have to get Godzilla and Mothra to team up against the scarecrow, so, it wouldn't be a complete loss.

    --
    "Destroy science and religion. Science would re-emerge exactly the same; but not religion." - Penn Jillette, paraphrased
  18. Nuclear Power is dirt cheap by dfenstrate · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I work at a Nuclear Power plant, and the process is very money-efficient.
    For starters, the energy release by a fission event, per atom involved, is at least 2 million times greater than a chemical reaction- ie, burning.

    Now, in the core at my plant, we have 193 fuel assemblies, each of which contains a little more than half a ton of uranium. Skipping over some details, we can basically use this hundred tons of fuel to generate 1.2 GW for 4.5 years.

    The coal powerplant down the road 10 miles burns something on the order of 500 tons of coal a day to make half the electricity we do.

    Each of our fuel assemblies costs us $750,000. For coal to be as cheap as nuclear, coal would have to go for $0.46 per ton. It actually costs more in the neighborhood of $28.00 per ton.

    So even with the added burdens of security and (ridiculous) regulation, nuclear power is still cheaper. My plant is actually a base load plant- we run at 100% capacity 24/7, and other plants (coal, oil, gas, etc) vary their load with demand- because we underbid all of them in the local deregulated market.

    If it wasn't for the ornerous regulation, idiot groups like greenpeace, and widespread misunderstanding about nuclear power, you'd see Nuke plants being built on quite a regular basis.
    THey'd never be the entire source of electricity for the country, because nuclear plants don't change load gracefully over the course of the day. You start them, fully load them, and run them till they need to be refueled, or shit needs service sooner than you expect, because it's not in it's design parameters.

    --
    Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms should be the name of a store, not a government agency.