Increased wind turbine rotor blade visibility to reduce avian fatalities(onlinelibrary.wiley.com)
onlinelibrary.wiley.com
Increased wind turbine rotor blade visibility to reduce avian fatalities
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ece3.6592
244 comments
Most bird protectionists on Germany are of the opinion that instead of barring wind turbines while citing birds as the reason, birds would be better served if for every wind turbine some amount of space would be dedicated to the protection of those birds.
Wind turbines are a (somewhat small) danger to a very specific subset of (bigger) birds, so this is essentially a plea to priorize the good of the bird population over the good of the individual bird.
Wind turbines are a (somewhat small) danger to a very specific subset of (bigger) birds, so this is essentially a plea to priorize the good of the bird population over the good of the individual bird.
Indeed. It's pretty much guaranteed that anyone bringing up wind turbines and birds is doing so to oppose wind turbines, not because they care about birds.
> A bird has a nest of eggs
However, this is the critical bit to bird populations - loss of habitat and nesting sites, as well as food during that time, and chemicals which can interfere with the success of this process (this is why DDT was banned).
> A bird has a nest of eggs
However, this is the critical bit to bird populations - loss of habitat and nesting sites, as well as food during that time, and chemicals which can interfere with the success of this process (this is why DDT was banned).
At some point I saw a report on the actual numbers (was working in a big wind power company and a colleague was heading our research on this topic). One big take-away for me was that the number of bird fatalities due to windows in high-rise buildings was orders of magnitude larger than the number caused by wind turbines.
My school, 20+ years ago had a huge glass side (possibly still does) that at just the right time of day was utterly indistinguishable from the sky to the human eye.
I sat in many an assembly to the huge "thud" of birds flying into it at full speed. The school never did anything about it in the time I was there.
This was one school with some 20-30m wide windows, imagine just a single building with an order of magnitude more glass.
The glass balcony of the flat I used to live in caused issues for birds, I imagine glass is a much, much larger issue than wind turbines given its prevalence.
I sat in many an assembly to the huge "thud" of birds flying into it at full speed. The school never did anything about it in the time I was there.
This was one school with some 20-30m wide windows, imagine just a single building with an order of magnitude more glass.
The glass balcony of the flat I used to live in caused issues for birds, I imagine glass is a much, much larger issue than wind turbines given its prevalence.
The problem is not small birds, it is big birds like eagles that can get 20 years old. For example in northern Germany wind turbines are the most common factor of death for them. Thus if just one blade needs to have a different color ot prevent collision and death then it is a pretty decent solution for a major problem.
That solves (or reduces) one (debatable) problem, but increases another (also debatable) one: anyone who considers wind turbines an eyesore and doesn't want to have them anywhere near will be even more likely to do that if their visibility is increased like proposed here...
I thought about this too, but I'm not sure there is anything you can do to make this group happy, short of removing the turbines. So is it worth even considering their perspective? I know that's a harsh question.
Do you have a source for that? Eagles may not be prey for cats, but they still encounter buildings and masts, from the list in another comment.
“Estimates of up to a million or more birds a year are killed by turbines in the US but that is far exceeded by collisions with communications towers (6.5 million); power lines, (25 million); windows (up to 1 billion); and cats (1.3 to 4.0 billion) and those lost due to habitat loss, pollution and climate change”
The lack of nuance here is troubling and commits the fallacy that birds are a homogeneous population where one bird killed by wind turbines = one bird killed by a domestic cat.
From the paper's abstract: "The treatment had the largest effect on reduction of raptor fatalities; no white-tailed eagle carcasses were recorded after painting. Applying contrast painting to the rotor blades significantly reduced the collision risk for a range of birds."
A cursory Internet search reveals that raptors (and bats) are particularly vulnerable to wind turbines[0], and many raptor populations have been threatened for a long time due to a variety of threats and biology (they take longer to reproduce and recover).
And if one were to describe all the threats to birds listed here, they are basically iterations under the "loss of habitat" super-category.
Yes, power lines are also a big threat to raptor and other threatened avian populations, but wind turbines (and the power lines they use) are still being built, so reducing avian deaths from both sources seems worth researching and implementing. Especially when the parent article notes how little it would cost to paint the blades during manufacture (vs. post-installation).
[0] https://abcbirds.org/wind-energy-threatens-birds/
From the paper's abstract: "The treatment had the largest effect on reduction of raptor fatalities; no white-tailed eagle carcasses were recorded after painting. Applying contrast painting to the rotor blades significantly reduced the collision risk for a range of birds."
A cursory Internet search reveals that raptors (and bats) are particularly vulnerable to wind turbines[0], and many raptor populations have been threatened for a long time due to a variety of threats and biology (they take longer to reproduce and recover).
And if one were to describe all the threats to birds listed here, they are basically iterations under the "loss of habitat" super-category.
Yes, power lines are also a big threat to raptor and other threatened avian populations, but wind turbines (and the power lines they use) are still being built, so reducing avian deaths from both sources seems worth researching and implementing. Especially when the parent article notes how little it would cost to paint the blades during manufacture (vs. post-installation).
[0] https://abcbirds.org/wind-energy-threatens-birds/
Looks like this [1] is where you got that. Has a decent chart, and I think the last part of the paragraph is also interesting:
> Even if there were twenty times more wind turbines, enough to supply the US with electricity, the number of birds killed, assuming no improvement in wind turbine design, would be about 10 million--still far less than most other causes of bird deaths.
[1] https://www.sierraclub.org/michigan/wind-turbines-and-birds-...
> Even if there were twenty times more wind turbines, enough to supply the US with electricity, the number of birds killed, assuming no improvement in wind turbine design, would be about 10 million--still far less than most other causes of bird deaths.
[1] https://www.sierraclub.org/michigan/wind-turbines-and-birds-...
I suggest the link be changed to point directly to the open access paper ( https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ece3.6592 ). The linked article adds nothing and, as Symbiote's comment points out, doesn't even include an image.
Ok, changed from https://www.anthropocenemagazine.org/2020/09/a-simple-paint-.... Thanks!
except that link to the paper doesnt load at all here...glad the old link was conserved
How about these should-be-equivalent links?
* https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ece3.6592
* https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.6592
* https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ece3.6592
* https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.6592
There used to be a bird called the 'Passenger Pigeon'. It "was once the most abundant bird in North America, numbering around 3 billion, and possibly up to 5 billion." It was hunted to extinction by 1901.
Glad to see people more concerned about bird populations. But, of course, that isn't why this wind-turbine meme is kept circulating.
Glad to see people more concerned about bird populations. But, of course, that isn't why this wind-turbine meme is kept circulating.
A story that stood by me is the one of the lyre bird and the hunt to near extinction in the early 1900s for their impressive tail feathers. I cannot find the source on wikipedia anymore nor can I find these conservation efforts in a quick google search, but what stood by me is that 120 years ago people were also concerned about conservation of species.
Given that wind turbines are universally(?) white, I've always assumed it is to minimize heat absorption. If so, painting 1/3 of the blades black would increase heating of the painted blade, especially in lower latitudes (this study was done at high latitude in Norway). What's the side effect?
Also, this strategy will obviously have zero impact on bat deaths, given that a white blade and a black blade are identical to echolocation at night. Curtailment of turbines in low wind condition - which is when bats are able to fly, and when turbines produce the least amount of energy - is the proven way to minimize bat deaths. But wind farms want to maximize energy production (profit), so are not fond of curtailment as a strategy.
Also, this strategy will obviously have zero impact on bat deaths, given that a white blade and a black blade are identical to echolocation at night. Curtailment of turbines in low wind condition - which is when bats are able to fly, and when turbines produce the least amount of energy - is the proven way to minimize bat deaths. But wind farms want to maximize energy production (profit), so are not fond of curtailment as a strategy.
The blades are made of composite materials that involve some sort of epoxy binder. So heat would be important to avoid. Composite aircraft are white for that reason.
Here in Australia, kangaroos colliding with cars are a problem. Wind powered "whistles" are available which claim to ward off the kangaroos (eg https://www.motoquipe.com.au/buy/animal-repeller-black-sonic...).
I wonder if something similar would work for bats (and maybe birds too)?
But then again I'm dubious about their efficacy for kangaroos. It would be worth investigating though.
I wonder if something similar would work for bats (and maybe birds too)?
But then again I'm dubious about their efficacy for kangaroos. It would be worth investigating though.
Ultrasonic deterrents have been experimented with, and have shown reduction in bat kills, but there are many challenges with respect to efficiency and reliability. Technically, ultrasound is attenuated significantly in the atmosphere, so it takes a lot of amplification to broadcast ultrasound significant distances. Not to mention that the bats are often flying with the wind, not against it, which means the ultrasonic transducers are projecting into the wind. Certain signals and sample playbacks might be effective for one bat species, say Hoary Bats, but not deter another species like Red Bats.
Detecting bats' echolocation calls, however, is much easier. A brilliant researcher in Arcata CA has a working system installed in a commercial wind farm which detects the presence of migratory bats, and brakes the wind turbines until no bat calls have been detected for some some period of time. Bats don't fly all night, and migrating bats may travel together.
Detecting bats' echolocation calls, however, is much easier. A brilliant researcher in Arcata CA has a working system installed in a commercial wind farm which detects the presence of migratory bats, and brakes the wind turbines until no bat calls have been detected for some some period of time. Bats don't fly all night, and migrating bats may travel together.
A lot of things are painted white because titanium dioxide is a super cheap, white pigment.
Is carbon black not a super cheap, black pigment?
A lot of things are painted black as well.
Is that going to cause a rotational imbalance, like a radiometer? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiometer
Crookes radiometers only work in a partial vacuum. The effect is way too weak to measure at 1atm.
Echo-reflective surfaces.
Plus I agree bats have worth, but these guys carry crazy amounts of diseases like cough cough Covid-19 cough.
Plus I agree bats have worth, but these guys carry crazy amounts of diseases like cough cough Covid-19 cough.
No, bats do NOT carry Covid-19.
We were actually prevented by the USFWS from performing winter hibernacula counts for fear that we humans might spread Covid to bats, whose immune system practically shuts down during hibernation, until it was determined that this isn't possible.
Besides, the bats which are primarily killed by wind turbines are not cave-roosting bats, but high-flying tree bats. Bats either have a strategy of hibernation or migration, and it is these larger migratory tree bats which fall prey to turbines.
Echo-reflective surfaces wouldn't make a difference. Bats aren't killed by colliding with turbine blades, they are killed by barotrauma when flying NEAR the high-velocity low-pressure turbine blades when they try to investigate the large, moving, novel objects. I repeat, the most effective way to prevent bat deaths at wind farms is to curtail (brake) turbine blades during low-wind conditions; a 25-gram bat doesn't fly in high winds, and turbines are least efficient in low winds.
Source: I perform bat echolocation surveys, including on wind farm sites.
We were actually prevented by the USFWS from performing winter hibernacula counts for fear that we humans might spread Covid to bats, whose immune system practically shuts down during hibernation, until it was determined that this isn't possible.
Besides, the bats which are primarily killed by wind turbines are not cave-roosting bats, but high-flying tree bats. Bats either have a strategy of hibernation or migration, and it is these larger migratory tree bats which fall prey to turbines.
Echo-reflective surfaces wouldn't make a difference. Bats aren't killed by colliding with turbine blades, they are killed by barotrauma when flying NEAR the high-velocity low-pressure turbine blades when they try to investigate the large, moving, novel objects. I repeat, the most effective way to prevent bat deaths at wind farms is to curtail (brake) turbine blades during low-wind conditions; a 25-gram bat doesn't fly in high winds, and turbines are least efficient in low winds.
Source: I perform bat echolocation surveys, including on wind farm sites.
Is there something special about bats that make them immune to covid-19? Why can't they carry it the way that deer, cats, etc. can?
Disclaimer: This is out of my area of expertise.
Bats, in general, are susceptible to coronaviruses, in general, as are all mammals. But not all mammals are susceptible to all coronaviruses.
The disease Covid-19 is caused by the specific coronavirus SARS-CoV-2, and that specific mutated virus only affects certain mammals, notably humans. It is apparently contagious to some other mammals, including deer, cats, minks, but not contagious to some other mammals.
I have read that coronaviruses similar to SARS-CoV-2 have been found in Horseshoe Bats in Asia (note: there are no Horseshoe Bats in North America), but that do not have a binding protein which would allow them to infect humans; I believe the opposite is true of SARS-CoV-2, it binds to a human receptor but not to bats'. It is hypothesized that SARS-CoV-2 may have mutated from a bat-borne coronavirus, but several intermediate links between species must have been involved (Pangolins?), and it is perhaps this chain of binding mutations responsible for this difference in hosts.
Though we no longer handle bats with bare hands these days (to protect bats from us!), this was common practice for decades. Other than rabies (which can be spread by any mammal, and occurs in bats in no higher percentage than in skunks, foxes, etc), I'm not aware of any known disease which can be spread from North American or European microbats to humans. I don't have specific knowledge about megabats (fruit bats) or Asian or African species.
Bats, in general, are susceptible to coronaviruses, in general, as are all mammals. But not all mammals are susceptible to all coronaviruses.
The disease Covid-19 is caused by the specific coronavirus SARS-CoV-2, and that specific mutated virus only affects certain mammals, notably humans. It is apparently contagious to some other mammals, including deer, cats, minks, but not contagious to some other mammals.
I have read that coronaviruses similar to SARS-CoV-2 have been found in Horseshoe Bats in Asia (note: there are no Horseshoe Bats in North America), but that do not have a binding protein which would allow them to infect humans; I believe the opposite is true of SARS-CoV-2, it binds to a human receptor but not to bats'. It is hypothesized that SARS-CoV-2 may have mutated from a bat-borne coronavirus, but several intermediate links between species must have been involved (Pangolins?), and it is perhaps this chain of binding mutations responsible for this difference in hosts.
Though we no longer handle bats with bare hands these days (to protect bats from us!), this was common practice for decades. Other than rabies (which can be spread by any mammal, and occurs in bats in no higher percentage than in skunks, foxes, etc), I'm not aware of any known disease which can be spread from North American or European microbats to humans. I don't have specific knowledge about megabats (fruit bats) or Asian or African species.
Still, thank you for the clear explanation! It may not be your area of expertise, but it still taught me a lot. Thank you.
Not really, and they are great pest control.
In South Texas we have bat colonies under freeway overpasses, and trust me, bats are not a source of disease concern here beyond "don't mess with them even if injured".
In South Texas we have bat colonies under freeway overpasses, and trust me, bats are not a source of disease concern here beyond "don't mess with them even if injured".
Oh i forgot we blamed rats for the plague too, bats definitely caused covid we can't be wrong twice.
A better proposal might be to put solar cells (dark to absorb light) on the towers and blades.
Dual power generation would be nice.
Putting them on the coast could generate power from sun, tide, and wind.
Putting them on the coast could generate power from sun, tide, and wind.
>I want to send kilowatts over slip rings
You’re in for a world of hurt.
You’re in for a world of hurt.
Forming a reliable, low-maintenance electrical connection between the spinning blades and the tower seems difficult.
Solar cells are pretty heavy.
Unfortunately, a paint job may not save vultures from collisions [1]. I learned of this from Ed Yong's new book, "An Immense World".
> Vultures have such large blind spots in their visual field that they cannot see objects directly in front of them when they fly. This discovery explains why vultures frequently collide with conspicuous structures such as wind turbines and power lines, despite having some of the sharpest eyes of any animal.
[1] https://www.nature.com/articles/nature.2012.10214
> Vultures have such large blind spots in their visual field that they cannot see objects directly in front of them when they fly. This discovery explains why vultures frequently collide with conspicuous structures such as wind turbines and power lines, despite having some of the sharpest eyes of any animal.
[1] https://www.nature.com/articles/nature.2012.10214
So do they frequently collide with trees in nature or...?
Windmills are much higher than trees, I believe. Vultures don't expect structures to be that tall when they are looking for food.
That's bad news, vultures are quite ecologically important.
> It was not effective at all for willow ptarmigan, ground birds which tend to run into the turbines’ base rather than its blades.
That certainly says more about ptarmigans than turbines.
That certainly says more about ptarmigans than turbines.
> It was not effective at all for willow ptarmigan, ground birds which tend to run into the turbines’ base rather than its blades
What is wrong with these birds
What is wrong with these birds
Ha!
Ptarmigans are fat ground-dwelling birds related to grouse and chickens. They would probably collide with the broad side of a barn. I can't imagine they spend much time flying, especially not flying high or far, but apparently they're known to migrate up to 100 miles.
Ptarmigans are fat ground-dwelling birds related to grouse and chickens. They would probably collide with the broad side of a barn. I can't imagine they spend much time flying, especially not flying high or far, but apparently they're known to migrate up to 100 miles.
There's a picture in the original paper, Paint it black: Efficacy of increased wind turbine rotor blade visibility to reduce avian fatalities: https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.6592
(And with a name like Jens Åström, he should be researching hydropower.)
(And with a name like Jens Åström, he should be researching hydropower.)
hint: Å is the Swedish word for a stream/small river.
translating ström is left as an exercise for the curious.
translating ström is left as an exercise for the curious.
Spoiler alert!
...
I'd have guessed ström = stream. Seems like I'm right, more or less.
...
I'd have guessed ström = stream. Seems like I'm right, more or less.
You're right, but it also means current, and that meaning is often used (in German too) to refer to electricity, which I imagine is what OP had in mind.
It's indeed a perfect surname for researching / working on hydro power.
It's indeed a perfect surname for researching / working on hydro power.
based on German, yes it is a stream, but not necessarily of water...
Not only stream but current.
There are two rivers (creeks?) called Aa in the Netherlands. We don't have Aa or A in our dictonairy but now I wonder if there's a shared root somewhere.
Wiktionary is usually good with words like this: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Proto-Germanic...
And it thinks "a" is an archaic Dutch word meaning stream: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/a#Dutch
And it thinks "a" is an archaic Dutch word meaning stream: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/a#Dutch
There are far more than two, and according to [1] it is indeed related via the proto-Germanic "ahwō" for stream or river.
[1]: https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aa_(waternaam)
[1]: https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aa_(waternaam)
I was really hoping for a video of what this actually looks like when the turbine is moving.
It would have been helpful to see if painting a stripe, or the leading or trailing edges would suffice or work better.
I had gathered that somebody tried wires sticking out of the trailing edges, to help warn away bats, successfully. It would be good to get a lot more deployment and experimentation out.
I had gathered that somebody tried wires sticking out of the trailing edges, to help warn away bats, successfully. It would be good to get a lot more deployment and experimentation out.
> Willow ptarmigan carcasses were excluded from the analyses as these are known to collide with the tower base (see Stokke et al., 2020[1])
How?! It takes some mental effort to not blame victim in this situation.
The article linked gives only one actual observation of bird managing to kill itself this way:
> it was observed that one individual, part of a group of 10 birds, crashed directly into the tower base at 2.7 m height above ground (25 September 2011, at 07:05 a.m.). The rest of the group passed the tower on both sides.
[1] https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ece3.6307
How?! It takes some mental effort to not blame victim in this situation.
The article linked gives only one actual observation of bird managing to kill itself this way:
> it was observed that one individual, part of a group of 10 birds, crashed directly into the tower base at 2.7 m height above ground (25 September 2011, at 07:05 a.m.). The rest of the group passed the tower on both sides.
[1] https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ece3.6307
Birds may be badly disoriented when seeing the moving blades close by. Not at all surprised. Their sense of perspective, distance and speed may fail them badly when seeing an object bigger than they were instinctively supposed to ever meet, moving faster and on unusual trajectory.
Birds are colliding with skyscrappers and bridges all the time despite no moving parts.
I think they excluded birds colliding with the base as that was suspected to be unrelated to the actual turbine blades. Removing confounding variables is part of statistics and always up for debate but the article/paper did not measure the effects on birds colliding with wind turbine bases, just birds killed by turbine blades.
Then again, a lot of bad research results have come from ignoring the "right" data points.
Then again, a lot of bad research results have come from ignoring the "right" data points.
Do not underestimate how stupid some birds can be. Corvids are intelligent, pigeons not so much.
I'm surprised they didn't try UV-reflective paint. Amazon sells decals [0] that people can stick to their windows to reduce birds flying into them. The Humane Society has other approaches. [1]
UV-reflective paint would hopefully be visible to birds and not to people so a windmill wouldn't be any more distracting than a current one. I could see where 20 or 30 windmills in sight, each with one black blade, might be visually distracting.
[0]https://smile.amazon.com/s?k=bird+window+decals [1]https://www.humanesociety.org/resources/make-your-windows-bi...
UV-reflective paint would hopefully be visible to birds and not to people so a windmill wouldn't be any more distracting than a current one. I could see where 20 or 30 windmills in sight, each with one black blade, might be visually distracting.
[0]https://smile.amazon.com/s?k=bird+window+decals [1]https://www.humanesociety.org/resources/make-your-windows-bi...
What if we went the other direction and made windmills out of transparent materials so the NIMBYs and Kennedys would not bitch about them?
Glass-effect windmills would look pretty cool.
Glass-effect windmills would look pretty cool.
Wow, what does this mean? I mean it for real, what does those sentences mean?
I get the transparency concept but windmills produce flour and are not that common anymore, so why is anyone bothered by them? Also Nimbys sound like critter-like horror animal and Kennedys are ... ex president's family?
I get the transparency concept but windmills produce flour and are not that common anymore, so why is anyone bothered by them? Also Nimbys sound like critter-like horror animal and Kennedys are ... ex president's family?
Windmill and wind turbine are interchangeable in English, and have been for quite some time. You can occasionally make a distinction for a traditional windmill for actual grain, but if its a bunch of blades spun by the wind, windmill works to describe it.
NIMBYs are people who complain about things being built near them.
Ted Kennedy famously opposed wind turbines near his home.
NIMBYs are people who complain about things being built near them.
Ted Kennedy famously opposed wind turbines near his home.
1) Why is this article sabotaging itself by not showing the picture provided in the original paper?
2) Just like many other low effort high impact discoveries, we will never ever see this used on a significant amount of wind turbines, which is very depressing.
2) Just like many other low effort high impact discoveries, we will never ever see this used on a significant amount of wind turbines, which is very depressing.
The Israel Nature and Parks Authority studied bird and bat kill and the effectiveness of mitigations and ended up calling for a moratorium. So did the environment ministry and the Society for the Protection of Nature [1].
That article is worth reading not so much for the absolute numbers of birds and bats killed, as for the mitigation study. The wind company, Enlight, put a Portuguese radar system in to stop the turbines when large birds flew close. (This was a condition of their permit.) The INPA cross-checked this against data from bird tracking tags. The system didn't activate even once when the tracked birds entered the supposed range of the radar.
I've had a bee in my bonnet about bird kill since reading the last graf: "An Enlight spokesperson defended the company’s actions. The company did not respond to requests to comment on the INPA study showing the Portuguese technology to be ineffective." Either the radar really is that bad, which I think is unlikely, or Enlight configured it not to trigger. Either way it's pretty unconscionable for them to play coy.
For all the comments here and elsewhere about no-one really caring about incidental bird take, this seems a clearer case of bad faith to me. It's a company refusing to engage with the public about a proven failure of its systems while seeking additional concessions.
It's OK to be an anti-NIMBY. Saying everyone who cares about birds is arguing in bad faith isn't laudable, but it's besides the point, really. Just bear in mind that wind companies are not operating to save the environment, but to make a profit. They can act in bad faith too. Therefore, if you have any interest in reducing the ecological stress turbines create, you should also be interested in keeping those companies honest.
[1] https://www.timesofisrael.com/environment-minister-seeking-m...
That article is worth reading not so much for the absolute numbers of birds and bats killed, as for the mitigation study. The wind company, Enlight, put a Portuguese radar system in to stop the turbines when large birds flew close. (This was a condition of their permit.) The INPA cross-checked this against data from bird tracking tags. The system didn't activate even once when the tracked birds entered the supposed range of the radar.
I've had a bee in my bonnet about bird kill since reading the last graf: "An Enlight spokesperson defended the company’s actions. The company did not respond to requests to comment on the INPA study showing the Portuguese technology to be ineffective." Either the radar really is that bad, which I think is unlikely, or Enlight configured it not to trigger. Either way it's pretty unconscionable for them to play coy.
For all the comments here and elsewhere about no-one really caring about incidental bird take, this seems a clearer case of bad faith to me. It's a company refusing to engage with the public about a proven failure of its systems while seeking additional concessions.
It's OK to be an anti-NIMBY. Saying everyone who cares about birds is arguing in bad faith isn't laudable, but it's besides the point, really. Just bear in mind that wind companies are not operating to save the environment, but to make a profit. They can act in bad faith too. Therefore, if you have any interest in reducing the ecological stress turbines create, you should also be interested in keeping those companies honest.
[1] https://www.timesofisrael.com/environment-minister-seeking-m...
Just to give an idea of what the actual trade-offs are between the benefits of wind and the immediate ecological impact, I ran some numbers a few months ago and reached an estimate of somewhere between $1700 and $2500 saved in "social cost of carbon" per dead bird, for on-shore wind power in Scotland and the north of England. Social cost of carbon is the estimated value of the benefits of reduced carbon emissions, including benefits to human health. For a non-endangered bird, even $1700 saved is a good deal. Clearly a pigeon's life is not worth $1700 (not that pigeons are particularly at risk from turbines). For a critically endangered bird, it is not a good deal at all (extinctions are very bad). At some point there's a cross-over.
The problem is that as you build out wind power, you kill more birds, which starts putting populations under stress that weren't stressed before. In other words the cross-over point moves. That makes effective mitigations more important the more wind power gets built. Ideally a doubling of capacity should be accompanied by a halving of the kill rate per unit of capacity. A mitigation strategy that could cope with all the planned capacity increases would probably look like: paint jobs on all new build, plus effective radar that can brake the turbines, plus a form of active deterrent (i.e. microwave or sonic repellent). All this while policing the wind companies by tracking tagged birds.
The problem is that as you build out wind power, you kill more birds, which starts putting populations under stress that weren't stressed before. In other words the cross-over point moves. That makes effective mitigations more important the more wind power gets built. Ideally a doubling of capacity should be accompanied by a halving of the kill rate per unit of capacity. A mitigation strategy that could cope with all the planned capacity increases would probably look like: paint jobs on all new build, plus effective radar that can brake the turbines, plus a form of active deterrent (i.e. microwave or sonic repellent). All this while policing the wind companies by tracking tagged birds.
I don't understand why they only painted a single blade black. Why not all of them?
A. 3x the work
B. I imagine part of the benefit is from alternating colors which makes the blades more visible as they spin.
B. I imagine part of the benefit is from alternating colors which makes the blades more visible as they spin.
From the paper, painting a single blade reduces 'visual smear'.
wind turbine bird deaths are vastly underestimated
Number of birds killed annually in the United States by
Wind turbines: 140,000 to 328,000 [0]
Cars: 340 million [1]
Building collisions: 365 to 988 million [2]
Cats: 1.3 to 4.0 billion [3] [4]
[0] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S00063...
[1] https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2014/05/29/bird-deaths-c...
[2] https://bioone.org/journals/the-condor/volume-116/issue-1/CO...
[3] https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms2380
[4] https://www.npr.org/2013/01/29/170588511/killer-kitties-cats...
Wind turbines: 140,000 to 328,000 [0]
Cars: 340 million [1]
Building collisions: 365 to 988 million [2]
Cats: 1.3 to 4.0 billion [3] [4]
[0] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S00063...
[1] https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2014/05/29/bird-deaths-c...
[2] https://bioone.org/journals/the-condor/volume-116/issue-1/CO...
[3] https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms2380
[4] https://www.npr.org/2013/01/29/170588511/killer-kitties-cats...
"It was not effective at all for willow ptarmigan, ground birds which tend to run into the turbines’ base rather than its blades."
I want to see these numbers. They can't be very high.
Actually, I want to see a new horror flick where the blond protagonist is ambushed by ground birds running into her house. I'm guessing it won't have the same affect as the Hitchcock's
I want to see these numbers. They can't be very high.
Actually, I want to see a new horror flick where the blond protagonist is ambushed by ground birds running into her house. I'm guessing it won't have the same affect as the Hitchcock's
Birdemic might give you what you crave.https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ZH1SNmY_1XY
That movie has the most ludicrously poor mix on the audio that I've ever experienced. I saw it in a theater and the levels ranged from threshold of pain to inaudible.
I thoroughly look forward to revisiting it in this alternative presentation. Thank you for sharing.
I thoroughly look forward to revisiting it in this alternative presentation. Thank you for sharing.
I sincerely hope you were hangin' out (hangin' out). Hangin' out with your family in the theater.
A friend of mine has a Birdemic DVD signed by the director as one of his most-prized possessions.
A friend of mine has a Birdemic DVD signed by the director as one of his most-prized possessions.
oh man, I thought this was going to be some 80s style schlock, yet the opening shot has a post-2000 Ford Mustang. i'm so confused!!!
Wow.
> Cats: 1.3 to 4.0 billion [3] [4]
Maybe we should paint the cats…
Maybe we should paint the cats…
You can put a bell around their neck, which apparently reduces their catch by half[1]. The cats usually don't look happy about it though.
[1] https://www.publish.csiro.au/wr/WR09127
[1] https://www.publish.csiro.au/wr/WR09127
You need to be very careful with the string/lace/collar you use to attach the bell, it should be strong enough to resist casual attempts to remove it, but not strong enough to not break when some substantial force is exerted on it (weight of the animal).
Single point anecdata, but I once found a cat with a collar that remained stuck in a fence, the cat - attempting to get it off - managed to insert a leg inside the collar and that - with more attempts to get free - made a really deep cut under the armpit, the poor cat was half choked and it took weeks for the wound to heal. .
Single point anecdata, but I once found a cat with a collar that remained stuck in a fence, the cat - attempting to get it off - managed to insert a leg inside the collar and that - with more attempts to get free - made a really deep cut under the armpit, the poor cat was half choked and it took weeks for the wound to heal. .
Maybe people should not let their house cats out, right? We can call the crazy cat lady "crazy" but she wouldn't let her babies out, let's all be more like crazy cat lady.
Please make sure to use a breakaway collar, or the cat could get stuck and die because of it.
I did that to a cat once. Poor thing didn't like it, and started backing up, fast. We were indoors, but it still took several minutes to catch her to take it off. I've learned my lesson and won't try that again.
We belled or cat, she got used to it, completely stopped her catching birds
If nothing else, it’ll be hilarious.
(I’m kidding, don’t put paint on your cats people. You can dye them safely though! Edit: safely for them, you might get hurt)
(I’m kidding, don’t put paint on your cats people. You can dye them safely though! Edit: safely for them, you might get hurt)
It's hard enough to get them to hold still on a flatbed scanner -- painting would be a team effort.
It consistently blows my mind how our societies focus on the wrong thing (though painting a wind turbine blade seems pretty innocuous (and shocking it wasn’t done before).
It’s like if someone told you we have a problem with Cara speeding, and their solution is to outlaw Ferraris because they go fast…
It’s like if someone told you we have a problem with Cara speeding, and their solution is to outlaw Ferraris because they go fast…
The kind of bird matters.
Wind turbines are often built in areas where raptors hunt, and so the turbines end up killing a lot of raptors. Raptor species have relatively low populations, ranging from a few hundred thousand to a couple million or so.
Most of the species of birds that live in more densely populated areas, which also tend to be where we have more buildings and cars and cats, are much more abundant. Around 80 million house sparrows, for example, around 150 million starlings, and around 200 million house finches.
So even though many more birds die by running into buildings, cars, or cats, in most places in the US those are almost all birds that are so numerous that this has much less impact on their species than the much smaller absolute number of raptors that die running into wind turbines.
Wind turbines are often built in areas where raptors hunt, and so the turbines end up killing a lot of raptors. Raptor species have relatively low populations, ranging from a few hundred thousand to a couple million or so.
Most of the species of birds that live in more densely populated areas, which also tend to be where we have more buildings and cars and cats, are much more abundant. Around 80 million house sparrows, for example, around 150 million starlings, and around 200 million house finches.
So even though many more birds die by running into buildings, cars, or cats, in most places in the US those are almost all birds that are so numerous that this has much less impact on their species than the much smaller absolute number of raptors that die running into wind turbines.
Agreed. Also the "cats" figures mostly come from "unowned" feral cats rather than from pets. Which makes them a tougher problem to deal with. I'm sure spaying and neutering policies help but I don't know how much.
There's no question the problem is more subtle than the raw numbers suggest. There's also no question that some factions within the anti-renewable energy crowd misstate the "bird strike" problem deliberately.
There's no question the problem is more subtle than the raw numbers suggest. There's also no question that some factions within the anti-renewable energy crowd misstate the "bird strike" problem deliberately.
It's because people focusing on birds being killed by wind turbines don't actually care about birds, they just don't like wind turbines.
It's a convenient bullet point in a list of tedious to debunk FUD.
It's a convenient bullet point in a list of tedious to debunk FUD.
> people focusing on birds being killed by wind turbines don't actually care about birds, they just don't like wind turbines.
Are you implying raptor kills in wind turbine farms do not happen and any such criticism is unfounded?
Are you implying raptor kills in wind turbine farms do not happen and any such criticism is unfounded?
I think the main thing is that windmills kill endangered condors and eagles, while cars run over pigeons. Not that cars and cats killing small birds is good...
We live in a countryside and our house has quite large windows which caused a lot of bird deaths in the first year after the house was built. My wife came up with an idea to put plush toys on the window sills to try to scare/warn the birds away. That actually works surprisingly well - I have not seen any dead birds around the house anymore.
A common thing I see used to prevent bird strikes are black - or even better, UV-reflective - predator-shaped window stickers. Or even window protection film (not sure this is the right translation).
Sources about cats doesn't look very scientific to me.
Another interesting fact, North Americans cities now have more birds than the same areas had before urbanization because of the abundance of food and lack of predators (other than cats). Also [3] and [4] is the same.
Maybe, but a lot of those birds belong to a small number of species that won the adaptation lottery, like pigeons.
Pigeons are not the sharpest spoons in the drawer, but another name for them is "rock dove". They evolved to live along cliff faces, and to feed simple carbohydrates to their chicks. They can outcompete just about anything in a land full of steep edifices and discarded chips.
Corvids, like crows and ravens, don't do quite as well in cities. They are very smart, but they are scavengers who like to nest in trees, and they need protein-rich food like meat for their hatchlings.
On the bright side, if you live in a city, you can probably befriend your local crows by tossing them a dollar menu burger every now and then. Seriously, they can recognize faces. Try not to make eye contact until they know you.
Pigeons are not the sharpest spoons in the drawer, but another name for them is "rock dove". They evolved to live along cliff faces, and to feed simple carbohydrates to their chicks. They can outcompete just about anything in a land full of steep edifices and discarded chips.
Corvids, like crows and ravens, don't do quite as well in cities. They are very smart, but they are scavengers who like to nest in trees, and they need protein-rich food like meat for their hatchlings.
On the bright side, if you live in a city, you can probably befriend your local crows by tossing them a dollar menu burger every now and then. Seriously, they can recognize faces. Try not to make eye contact until they know you.
Not true about the corvids. They thrive in cities.
https://www.mdpi.com/2076-2615/12/14/1820
"The majority (72%, a total of 424 articles) of the studies reported positive effects of urbanization on corvids."
https://www.mdpi.com/2076-2615/12/14/1820
"The majority (72%, a total of 424 articles) of the studies reported positive effects of urbanization on corvids."
Re crows/ravens, it depends on the city. In the pacific northwest crows mostly out compete pigeons in urban areas. Ravens have found good homes in semi-rural areas. Hang around Vancouver or Seattle and you will see crows/ravens pushing the eagles around.
The astounding claim that cats kill a zillion birds always seem to derive from highly dubious extrapolations from studies of feral colonies.
Because a bald eagle getting killed by a wind turbine has the same impact on wildlife as a pigeon killed by a cat.
Over here [1] it says "least concern" under the bald eagle's conservation status.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bald_eagle
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bald_eagle
In Juneau, eagles are so numerous that many residents consider them pests because they carry off small pets in one's yard and it's illegal to harass or kill them. They have even entered houses.
Of course they also bring in tourist $$ so the relationship between people and eagles in Juneau is complicated.
Of course they also bring in tourist $$ so the relationship between people and eagles in Juneau is complicated.
Any attitude towards Bald Eagles is about symbolism, not environmental relevance.
I would say the same about attitudes intolerant to any criticism of wind turbines.
Now compare the type of birds.
With wind power killing 20,000 birds a year, and fossil fuel extraction killing 14,000,000 in the same time period... does it matter? I mean, paint the turbines or whatever, but it's hard to care about sweeping the porch when the house is on fire.
The source for those numbers is linked in the article itself: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S09601...
The source for those numbers is linked in the article itself: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S09601...
If you want a proposal to succeed, it is usually better to address concerns from others, rather than to dismiss them. Dismissing concerns not only alienates the people bringing them forward, but also makes bystanders see you (and the proposal) as inflexible and rigid.
I am totally on the same page with you in most cases. Having said that, I've got doubts about the sincerity of people arguing against renewable power for environmental reasons. It's hard to take it seriously.
You can take bird deaths seriously without reducing build-out of renewables. The blades are painted all over, regardless. It doesn't cost appreciably more to put a stripe on.
Perhaps not, but if the stripe makes them more visible to the people living nearby, then they may not want the turbines there at all.
There are lots of things visible from my house that I don't want to look at. Power lines, poles, buildings, cars and roads come to mind. I believe if you own a thousand acres you get to look at what you want, otherwise it's not up to you?
Right, I mean there's some reasonable limits, but especially in the US we've normalized the idea that incumbent homeowners have broad sovereignty to veto nearly anything that happens within sight/driving distance of their homes.
There are lots of people who wish they had veto power, or who insist they have or should have veto power. None of those is the same thing as having veto power.
It really doesn't matter whether if it's "up to them" or not. If enough people object, then it ain't happening. No matter how beneficial the project is otherwise.
That's just the reality of the world we live in.
That's just the reality of the world we live in.
It’s just a tactic those people use to force rational actors to become irrational. We should just ignore those who would throw the baby out with the bath water, when it comes to environmental “concerns” like this.
It reminds me deeply of the various people who will use 'it doesn't have enough affordable housing' to argue against any housing development in general.
Yes but you also must make sure that addressing the concern does not create other larger issues.
The paint job might make the windmills more visible to humans and make people not want them on their land or within eyesight. This could lead to fewer being built and more dependence on fossil fuels which ultimately kill more birds.
The paint job might make the windmills more visible to humans and make people not want them on their land or within eyesight. This could lead to fewer being built and more dependence on fossil fuels which ultimately kill more birds.
I think it also could lead to lower life expectancy of the blades. Darker paint tends to lead to higher temperatures.
And warmer blades might be less stiff, decreasing efficiency, and with it increasing birds killed/GWh (but that’s not even guessing from my side; I don’t know whether stiffness would be affected, and I don’t know whether it would affect efficiency, or in what direction)
And warmer blades might be less stiff, decreasing efficiency, and with it increasing birds killed/GWh (but that’s not even guessing from my side; I don’t know whether stiffness would be affected, and I don’t know whether it would affect efficiency, or in what direction)
Possibly. But if they're moving at a decent rate through the air that should cool them somewhat.
> make people not want them on their land or within eyesight
I think that’s already the case. Better paint one black before someone has the idea to put ads on them, the only thing that could make them even less pleasant to have around
I think that’s already the case. Better paint one black before someone has the idea to put ads on them, the only thing that could make them even less pleasant to have around
Time to patent the idea of putting LEDs on them that light up at specific times in their rotation ...
Do they spin at a high enough rate for that? If not, you could have some kind of person or service that records elapsed footage and speeds it up, although I don't know how that itself could become a viable service.
> the only thing that could make them even less pleasant to have around
Do you actually live near an installation of wind turbines? I don't, but I drive past many wind farms fairly regularly. I just can't wrap my head around this "they're so unpleasant" argument. They are aesthetically neutral at worst.
Seems to be the outcome of existing bias that is entirely unrelated to the aesthetic "pleasantness" of the wind farms. Trotted out by politicians that have a vested interest in subsidising fossil fuels, whose extent of suffering through the unpleasantness of wind farms is looking down at them from 30,000 ft.
Do you actually live near an installation of wind turbines? I don't, but I drive past many wind farms fairly regularly. I just can't wrap my head around this "they're so unpleasant" argument. They are aesthetically neutral at worst.
Seems to be the outcome of existing bias that is entirely unrelated to the aesthetic "pleasantness" of the wind farms. Trotted out by politicians that have a vested interest in subsidising fossil fuels, whose extent of suffering through the unpleasantness of wind farms is looking down at them from 30,000 ft.
If you're within a few hundred meters of one, the noise as well as the constant flickering shadows at certain points of the day can be maddening - but, very, very few people live that close to a wind turbine.
I drove past some rather large fields of them- perhaps it was the angle of approach, but seeing many large rotating blades just over the horizon while driving actually made me a bit nauseous. Similar to seasickness / motion sickness, I suppose.
I also have a strong dislike for the aesthetic, though my wife doesn't mind it much, so I guess it's a purely subjective take. Assuming that everyone who disagrees with you is blindly shilling for politicians and oil companies is a bit extreme, though.
I also have a strong dislike for the aesthetic, though my wife doesn't mind it much, so I guess it's a purely subjective take. Assuming that everyone who disagrees with you is blindly shilling for politicians and oil companies is a bit extreme, though.
Of course. The blades should have LEDs mounted on them, programmed to flicker so they can play short video ads. Maybe ads about how various ecologically-conscious companies sponsored construction of the turbines so you should buy their jeans with the leaf logo. Or their hydrating bottle, which comes in a tastefully uncolored recycled cardboard box.
Serious question: what do you find so “unpleasant” about wind turbines?
I find them extremely unnatural and spoiling any natural landscape. I live in a beautiful place on earth with very little human activities (nearly no agriculture or buildings) and would never accept if some were installed there.
Are you living off the power grid? If not, someone is seeing the infrastructure that powers your stuff. Even if you are, someone is seeing the infrastructure that makes your off-grid stuff.
Especially in white it has the aesthetics of a stackable plastic garden chair, it just makes the surrounding nature look like a trashy trailer park back yard.
> it is usually better to address concerns from others, rather than to dismiss them
It is often better....
Many ideas are designed to be refuted. The refutation spreads the ideas. It is part of the strategy. A "mind worm" (to coin a phrase) only needs to be repeated and it will do its job. Refuting it is repeating it.
So dismiss the speaker, attack the speaker's credentials and motivations ignoring the ideas. argumentum ad hominem, whilst rhetorically invalid, is the best tactic in those circumstances.
It is often better....
Many ideas are designed to be refuted. The refutation spreads the ideas. It is part of the strategy. A "mind worm" (to coin a phrase) only needs to be repeated and it will do its job. Refuting it is repeating it.
So dismiss the speaker, attack the speaker's credentials and motivations ignoring the ideas. argumentum ad hominem, whilst rhetorically invalid, is the best tactic in those circumstances.
> A "mind worm" (to coin a phrase)
It's called a "meme" (in its original definition by Richard Dawkins). And this kind of forcing a rebuttal is "trolling". Dismissing this trolling is phrased as "Don't feed the troll!".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meme
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll
It's called a "meme" (in its original definition by Richard Dawkins). And this kind of forcing a rebuttal is "trolling". Dismissing this trolling is phrased as "Don't feed the troll!".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meme
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll
And this particular example of trolling, is "concern trolling".
I'm imagining two conversations
A: We should use more windmills.
B: No, those kill too many birds.
A: You don't know what you're talking about, you have no credentials, and you are just motivated to stop renewables!
A': We can paint the rotors to avoid killing birds.
A' seems like a much better response even if A is accurate. Maybe you need to be A if you can't be A', but if you can...
A: We should use more windmills.
B: No, those kill too many birds.
A: You don't know what you're talking about, you have no credentials, and you are just motivated to stop renewables!
A': We can paint the rotors to avoid killing birds.
A' seems like a much better response even if A is accurate. Maybe you need to be A if you can't be A', but if you can...
"Wind turbines with a painted blade would still kill 1 million birds a year"
Doesn't help any. The number is already vastly smaller than cars or regular buildings or a single coal plant so making it even smaller willdo nothing if it'snot zero.
Doesn't help any. The number is already vastly smaller than cars or regular buildings or a single coal plant so making it even smaller willdo nothing if it'snot zero.
On the other hand, all too often the thinking goes:
- Something must be done
- This is something
- Therefore this must be done
Some ideas are just bad.
- Something must be done
- This is something
- Therefore this must be done
Some ideas are just bad.
And, some ideas are good, and very, very cheap. There is no reason to avoid implementing those.
Building out wind saves birds from petroleum pollution. A bit of paint saves more. Why not?
Building out wind saves birds from petroleum pollution. A bit of paint saves more. Why not?
Next you get people who don't like the patterns or think there are better patterns. It's not a bit of paint for existing blades. It's appreciable weight added to the blades, to repaint.
Everyone in the US can easily identify the wind turbines, because of the uniformity. The uniformity and simplicity has inherent value in large projects (including large volume). White to dissipate heat or black to save birds (let the bats die either way?). It's not surprising that prolonging the state of the current environment may require short-term sacrifices.
This is Parkinson's Law (bikeshedding) in action, imo.
Everyone in the US can easily identify the wind turbines, because of the uniformity. The uniformity and simplicity has inherent value in large projects (including large volume). White to dissipate heat or black to save birds (let the bats die either way?). It's not surprising that prolonging the state of the current environment may require short-term sacrifices.
This is Parkinson's Law (bikeshedding) in action, imo.
> This is Parkinson's Law (bikeshedding) in action, imo.
Common mistake, bikeshedding is the Law of Triviality[1], which is distinct from but often confused with Parkinson's Law,[2] likely because bikeshedding is also known as Parkinson's Law of Triviality.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_triviality
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parkinson%27s_law
Common mistake, bikeshedding is the Law of Triviality[1], which is distinct from but often confused with Parkinson's Law,[2] likely because bikeshedding is also known as Parkinson's Law of Triviality.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_triviality
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parkinson%27s_law
Something about wind power brings concern trolls just swarming out of the woodwork.
See, people will make up any kind of shit just to make shit up.
There is absolutely no value at all in uniformity of wind turbines. And they are not, in fact, uniform. Those erected earlier are smaller than those erected later.
The overwhelming majority of wind turbines that will be put up haven't been put up yet. So painting some blades black (or blue, or what have you) is no burden -- the blades have to be painted, regardless. Probably it will end up needing only a little bit of paint, like just the leading edge, so the thermal signature is moot.
There is absolutely no value at all in uniformity of wind turbines. And they are not, in fact, uniform. Those erected earlier are smaller than those erected later.
The overwhelming majority of wind turbines that will be put up haven't been put up yet. So painting some blades black (or blue, or what have you) is no burden -- the blades have to be painted, regardless. Probably it will end up needing only a little bit of paint, like just the leading edge, so the thermal signature is moot.
> See, people will make up any kind of shit just to make shit up.
> The overwhelming majority of wind turbines that will be put up haven't been put up yet.
All the cars to be made haven't been made yet, so why rely on current cars for analysis? The cognitive dissonance is staggering.
> There is absolutely no value at all in uniformity of wind turbines.
Saying there is not, is incorrect. In the very least, HAWTs are the same, which is what most people are think of, when talking about this topic.
> And they are not, in fact, uniform.
HAWT are, as they have no patterns, in the US.
> The overwhelming majority of wind turbines that will be put up haven't been put up yet.
All the cars to be made haven't been made yet, so why rely on current cars for analysis? The cognitive dissonance is staggering.
> There is absolutely no value at all in uniformity of wind turbines.
Saying there is not, is incorrect. In the very least, HAWTs are the same, which is what most people are think of, when talking about this topic.
> And they are not, in fact, uniform.
HAWT are, as they have no patterns, in the US.
Conversely, the thinking can go:
- You're proposing to change something
- That change might cause some harm
- Therefore this must not be done
It's a trolley problem, where you could do something, and might kill a few birds, or do nothing and stand by while nearly a thousand times more perish.
- You're proposing to change something
- That change might cause some harm
- Therefore this must not be done
It's a trolley problem, where you could do something, and might kill a few birds, or do nothing and stand by while nearly a thousand times more perish.
The concern wasn't dismissed. It was put into contrast with a much greater concern that is often overlooked.
Cats kill 2,400,000,000 birds per year in the United States alone. [1]
Wind power is 0.008% of that total.
I strongly suspect that there are better ways to spend the time and money to reduce avian mortality like neutering a few thousand cats.
[1] https://abcbirds.org/program/cats-indoors/cats-and-birds/
Wind power is 0.008% of that total.
I strongly suspect that there are better ways to spend the time and money to reduce avian mortality like neutering a few thousand cats.
[1] https://abcbirds.org/program/cats-indoors/cats-and-birds/
I think the solution is clear: we should start painting the cats
They already come in a variety of colours...
We need to fund some studies then.
Such as:
Are birds more likely to avoid black, white, orange, or polkadotted cats?
Is neon better than bright pastel?
Such as:
Are birds more likely to avoid black, white, orange, or polkadotted cats?
Is neon better than bright pastel?
Cats don't kill bald eagles (the opposite actually). That's why there is a fuss. The wind folks will probably take the easy win and skip the what-about.
I hope they do! A win is a win.
Not if they are merely being obstructionist and have no intention of engaging in rational and constructive dialog for a better outcome :)
At some point you are just playing into the filibuster games.
Sure, until the naysayers come up with a list of bullshit concerns so long that nobody would have the resources to deal with all of them.
At some point you have to acknowledge that certain people are acting in bad faith and just ignore them if you want to get anything done.
(Although in this case if the fix is just painting the turbines differently... you may as well do it)
At some point you have to acknowledge that certain people are acting in bad faith and just ignore them if you want to get anything done.
(Although in this case if the fix is just painting the turbines differently... you may as well do it)
Only when those concerns are brought forward in good faith.
Nobody legitimately thinks bird strike is a reason to stop a wind farm. It's just a convenient thing to bring up if you don't care about the environment but know your opponent does.
Nobody legitimately thinks bird strike is a reason to stop a wind farm. It's just a convenient thing to bring up if you don't care about the environment but know your opponent does.
the concerns on wind energy are blown up artificially.
specific example from Germany is "the dangers of infrasound", which led to a highly restrictive anti wind energy "protective distance requirement" of 10 x height ("10H rule") in Bavaria.
And then someone figured the underlying study was off by three orders of magnitude, i.e. 1000x off.
yet the disinformation has sunk into the heads and wind energy now has an irrational and steep uphill battle.
specific example from Germany is "the dangers of infrasound", which led to a highly restrictive anti wind energy "protective distance requirement" of 10 x height ("10H rule") in Bavaria.
And then someone figured the underlying study was off by three orders of magnitude, i.e. 1000x off.
yet the disinformation has sunk into the heads and wind energy now has an irrational and steep uphill battle.
Some might see such dismissals (of "useless" proposals) as a marker of a focus and honesty, and thus give the author of the competing proposal more attention.
I think that dismissals may improve one's standing within an 'in-group', at the cost of further hardening the opposition (by an 'out-group'). I generally see dismissals as indicators of arrogance, and signs that the author may not have thought through all the implications of their proposal.
If we could separate their entanglements, we would find that the cost of this or that sort of energy is nothing compared to the cost of systematically despising out-groupers.
It doesn't matter. Both are orders of magnitude less than cats.
"We estimate that free-ranging domestic cats kill 1.3–4.0 billion birds and 6.3–22.3 billion mammals annually" from "The impact of free-ranging domestic cats on wildlife of the United States" (2013)
"We estimate that free-ranging domestic cats kill 1.3–4.0 billion birds and 6.3–22.3 billion mammals annually" from "The impact of free-ranging domestic cats on wildlife of the United States" (2013)
Cats tend to kill small garden birds though, which are very common. Wind turbines take out eagles. I don't think a domestic cat could kill an Eagle. Although one of my cats thinks he could, and might be tempted to have a go.
Since you didn’t name the species, it’s hard to say whether they’re common or not, or verify that their populations remain stable while an ever increasing number of cats are given an unrestricted license to kill anything that moves if it happens to be small enough.
Relevant: “Cat owners failed to perceive the magnitude of their cats' impacts on wildlife and were not influenced by ecological information“
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/ece3.1553
Relevant: “Cat owners failed to perceive the magnitude of their cats' impacts on wildlife and were not influenced by ecological information“
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/ece3.1553
so statistically speaking, yes - because many domestic cats live near small gardens.
But there are lots of ground-nesting birds that have been decimated by cats.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Introduced_mammals_on_seabird_...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cat_predation_on_wildlife
I found the cognitive dissonance comment interesting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cat_predation_on_wildlife#Cat_...
But there are lots of ground-nesting birds that have been decimated by cats.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Introduced_mammals_on_seabird_...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cat_predation_on_wildlife
I found the cognitive dissonance comment interesting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cat_predation_on_wildlife#Cat_...
They do not just kill "common" birds, they have led to the extinction of several bird species. Keep your cats indoors.
> Keep your cats indoors
Are cats not naturally supposed to be outside?
Are cats not naturally supposed to be outside?
There’s nothing natural about a domesticated species being spread around the world and allowed to roam free while simultaneously receiving care and protection from humans.
Cats can live happy lives inside, they just need a bit of attention.
Ours get a couple of hours supervised outside time whilst on long leads. They can and do carry out hunting behaviours, but being on a tether and being supervised allows us to dramatically reduce their impact on wildlife to almost nothing.
Considering what they do attempt to catch whilst we are standing their, I'd imagine they would take a dramatic toll if we just let them roam free.
Ours get a couple of hours supervised outside time whilst on long leads. They can and do carry out hunting behaviours, but being on a tether and being supervised allows us to dramatically reduce their impact on wildlife to almost nothing.
Considering what they do attempt to catch whilst we are standing their, I'd imagine they would take a dramatic toll if we just let them roam free.
And only implied in your comment: they should not be alone. Not an excuse to go full catlady as 2 are plenty.
They are (in nearly every country) a foreign invasive species, so “naturally” they shouldn’t be there at all.
Not in North America!
Apex predators are surprisingly important, far out of proportion to their numbers.
Efforts to protect them have similarly outsized effect.
Efforts to protect them have similarly outsized effect.
It's not just that small garden birds are very common, in general they've co-evolved with predators similar to cats and have adapted to deal with that (for example by nesting at height, having large broods, etc). There's some exceptions, mostly when cats get introduced to islands with few similar natural predators, but as a general rule it's probably not the most pressing problem. Large birds like eagles reproduce slowly and don't have the instincts to avoid wind turbines which in theory makes wind farms a serious threat to those species.
Raptors are more likely to take the houscat than the other way around.
Mammals such as rats and mice... which can carry many diseases including hantavirus, leptospirosis, lymphocytic choriomeningitis (LCMV), Tularemia and Salmonella...
It sounds like the implication here is that it's acceptable to use an invasive species to deal with pest problems. There are alternatives to dealing with pests that don't involve decimating bird populations.
In many many places domestic cats aren’t much of an invasive species. In north and South America, Europe, Asia, and Africa there are similar cat species of similar size that take up a similar niche which were recently extinct (at least locally) many of which are closely enough related to housecats that they can interbreed.
One of the reasons to worry about domestic cats in some areas of the British isles is not to protect birds and the like, but to protect the closely related extant cat species that is getting its genetics replaced too much with housecat genetics. This wild cat used to have very broad ranges which disappeared.
Islands with no cat species don’t have this consideration of course.
Bird populations in places that should have and used to have catlike predators are and should be fine for the most part. Predators tend to help the population dynamics and health of prey species. Some people are just really uncomfortable with predation.
One of the reasons to worry about domestic cats in some areas of the British isles is not to protect birds and the like, but to protect the closely related extant cat species that is getting its genetics replaced too much with housecat genetics. This wild cat used to have very broad ranges which disappeared.
Islands with no cat species don’t have this consideration of course.
Bird populations in places that should have and used to have catlike predators are and should be fine for the most part. Predators tend to help the population dynamics and health of prey species. Some people are just really uncomfortable with predation.
I don't know the specific numbers, and I've only just seen one or two studies (would appreciate an alternative numbers) - but if a three 3 billion bird reduction is almost a third of the total population in birds in North America since 1970s, and cats are killing at least 1.3 billion per year... I guess that's "fine for the most part"?
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aaw1313
The predation of cats is also unnaturally controlled as they are domesticated; people view them as pets primarily and thus prevent them from being killed (their predators are also heavily controlled - wolves, coyotes, etc). I don't see how you could compare that niche to previously extinct, naturally local species.
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aaw1313
The predation of cats is also unnaturally controlled as they are domesticated; people view them as pets primarily and thus prevent them from being killed (their predators are also heavily controlled - wolves, coyotes, etc). I don't see how you could compare that niche to previously extinct, naturally local species.
> I don't know the specific numbers, and I've only just seen one or two studies
You might as well cut you comment at this point.
You might as well cut you comment at this point.
One or two studies is more than the “zero” amount of data that’s been provided by anyone else at this point. I look forward to you sharing more specific numbers that counter the numbers I’ve provided.
The other way around: the domestication of the cat helped deal with pest problems.
Here's a question: suppose next year we mandate all cats are indoors unless they work on farms, and all cats allowed outdoors are sterilized. What happens to the small bird and mammal populations ten years later?
Here's a question: suppose next year we mandate all cats are indoors unless they work on farms, and all cats allowed outdoors are sterilized. What happens to the small bird and mammal populations ten years later?
It’s even more the other way around, the native cat species basically domesticated itself finding hanging around humans for our density of vermin to prey on to be more advantageous than living in the wild. We didn’t go stealing cute kitties from the wild because they looked nice, we started taking care of the vermin eaters that migrated into our cities, especially the ones that had adapted themselves to be cuter and nicer to us.
We are not separate from the evolutionary process and several species have effectively domesticated us in order to survive better. Our civilization has created new habitats and we don’t need to pretend that it doesn’t exist.
You want to help your local bird populations? Plant oak trees.
We are not separate from the evolutionary process and several species have effectively domesticated us in order to survive better. Our civilization has created new habitats and we don’t need to pretend that it doesn’t exist.
You want to help your local bird populations? Plant oak trees.
Why oak, and/or what region does this advice apply to?
Advice applies to anywhere which has native oak species.
Oak trees serve as host to a particularly large number of species, many of them feed on the tree and serve as food for others year round along with acorns as food and species that feed on acorns as food. Oaks are keystone species as they have a particularly large positive impact on the local ecosystem.
Lots of birds eat mostly insects and only sometimes seeds, oak trees provide year round supplies of insects for birds to eat, in a wider variety and number than most other trees.
Oak trees serve as host to a particularly large number of species, many of them feed on the tree and serve as food for others year round along with acorns as food and species that feed on acorns as food. Oaks are keystone species as they have a particularly large positive impact on the local ecosystem.
Lots of birds eat mostly insects and only sometimes seeds, oak trees provide year round supplies of insects for birds to eat, in a wider variety and number than most other trees.
Absolute fatalities are not a useful comparison, in fact they are meaningless without the context of the proportion of each source of power. The same study provides adjusted numbers per GWh in the abstract:
0.3 to 0.4 fatalities per GWh for Wind farms and nuclear power
5.2 fatalities per GWh for fossil fueled power stations
i.e Wind and Nuclear cause between 5.8% and 7.7% fatalities per GWh compared that of fossil fuels.
0.3 to 0.4 fatalities per GWh for Wind farms and nuclear power
5.2 fatalities per GWh for fossil fueled power stations
i.e Wind and Nuclear cause between 5.8% and 7.7% fatalities per GWh compared that of fossil fuels.
Yes, numbers that mean something, and may be compared with other meaningful numbers, is a necessity for useful reporting.
There was a very dumb Two Bit da Vinci vid recently on YouTube about a big advance in dehumidifier tech. It had lots of numbers, but none of the meaningful numbers. The meaningful numbers they did not say were that it captured moisture 2.4x cheaper than current methods, but still 60x more expensive (in kWh/L) than desalination.
There is a hell of a lot of basement dehumidification going on, so switching to the new method will be very valuable. But it won't supply drinking water.
In other news, desalination is astonishingly cheap nowadays. It just needs cheap, opportunistic power, and could be built out everywhere. Inland, aquifers that are a little too salty for irrigation could be put into use.
There was a very dumb Two Bit da Vinci vid recently on YouTube about a big advance in dehumidifier tech. It had lots of numbers, but none of the meaningful numbers. The meaningful numbers they did not say were that it captured moisture 2.4x cheaper than current methods, but still 60x more expensive (in kWh/L) than desalination.
There is a hell of a lot of basement dehumidification going on, so switching to the new method will be very valuable. But it won't supply drinking water.
In other news, desalination is astonishingly cheap nowadays. It just needs cheap, opportunistic power, and could be built out everywhere. Inland, aquifers that are a little too salty for irrigation could be put into use.
That 20,000 number is off by at least an order of magnitude just for US bird wind turbine deaths.
Turbine construction has been accelerating, so the 2013 numbers cited below are low.
https://abcbirds.org/blog21/wind-turbine-mortality/
https://abcbirds.org/blog21/wind-turbine-mortality/
Even off by an order of magnitude, it's still 2 OOM below GP's rate for fossil fuels.
> With wind power killing 20,000 birds a year, and fossil fuel extraction killing 14,000,000 in the same time period... does it matter?
That depends. Do we need to increase wind power production 1000x to replace fossil fuels? Or 100x?
That depends. Do we need to increase wind power production 1000x to replace fossil fuels? Or 100x?
It doesn't matter, but it looks bad to have piles of dead birds below the turbines, and it makes the employees sad.
If you can fix much of it with some paint, most people would do it.
If you can fix much of it with some paint, most people would do it.
Ask anyone deep in the wind or RE development industry! It does matter, because policymakers (at least in the US) have decided it matters though law, regulation, and treaty. It doesn't ultimately matter (practically) if policy doesn't conform to your moral calculus. *even if it is a sensible calculus
It does, because we could apparently reduce that 20k down to 6k, which lets us scale wind power up even more while looking after the planet even better.
We need to reduce our negative impact on the earth as much as possible. So a simple action which results in a 70% harm reduction is a huge win!
We need to reduce our negative impact on the earth as much as possible. So a simple action which results in a 70% harm reduction is a huge win!
We could, but it might drive up prices of wind turbines a little bit. It's only a little you would say, but there are also other proposals to e.g. do away with forever chemicals in some components of wind turbines. If you follow all of them, eventually wind turbines cease to be cheaper than conventional energy.
[deleted]
The ultimate metric would be "killings per megawatt hour".
> Within the uncertainties of the data used, the estimate means that wind farms killed approximately 20,000 birds in the United States in 2009 but nuclear plants killed about 330,000 and fossil fueled power plants more than 14 million.
This falls along the lines of planting trees for CO2. Sure I could do it and feel good but maybe there's a more effective way to go about it. I wouldn't tell anyone not to plant trees though.
This falls along the lines of planting trees for CO2. Sure I could do it and feel good but maybe there's a more effective way to go about it. I wouldn't tell anyone not to plant trees though.
Air pollution supposedly kills 2,000,000 people a year. Nuclear energy has killed far less than that in its entire history. Debates around this topic tend to have no basis in rationality at all, and many of the most vocal “environmentalists” are really just extreme anti-consumerist or anti-capitalist.
Talk to somebody from the anti-wind lobby of environmentalists and you’ll likely discover their preferred solution is that we simply stop using energy for things like heating, or watching tv, or using our computers…
Talk to somebody from the anti-wind lobby of environmentalists and you’ll likely discover their preferred solution is that we simply stop using energy for things like heating, or watching tv, or using our computers…
Not all birds are equal. I believe the turbines are making a sizable dent in birds of prey, whereas the 14m is probably a variety of birds.
Since the inevitable result is 14,000,000 killed by fossil fuel extraction + another 20,000 from wind turbines, it seems silly to just hand wave these things away.
We currently need fossil fuels. We don't currently need wind turbines. There's plenty of other energy sources that are better and don't directly kill birds.
We currently need fossil fuels. We don't currently need wind turbines. There's plenty of other energy sources that are better and don't directly kill birds.
That's nice. Can anything be done to not make them look like a monstrous eyesore?
Honestly I think natural selection will take care of this problem. Just let the birds kill themselves, eventually they will learn to stay away from the giant whirling death blades.
Most birds are afraid of humans and other animals because of this exact mechanism.
We should just worry about making these things as aesthetically appealing to humans and as efficient as possible.
Most birds are afraid of humans and other animals because of this exact mechanism.
We should just worry about making these things as aesthetically appealing to humans and as efficient as possible.
Natural selection works on a timescale that is longer than you are imagining. It is entirely possible for an ecosystem to be radically altered before there is a chance for adaptation by existing species.
There is no reason not to take ecology into the consideration of any project. Just another trade off.
There is no reason not to take ecology into the consideration of any project. Just another trade off.
As if windmills weren't enough of an eyesore already.
The value of windmills (yes I know they're wind turbines but I don't care, I'm calling them windmills) is very limited. Most of the places I've seen with lots of windmills really should be nuclear powered instead, but politicians get a lot of brownie points for windmills. They can be a good thing for rural areas or places with limited infrastructure, but the whole windmill thing is beating around the bush when it comes to a practical solution that also doesn't engage the carbon cycle.
The value of windmills (yes I know they're wind turbines but I don't care, I'm calling them windmills) is very limited. Most of the places I've seen with lots of windmills really should be nuclear powered instead, but politicians get a lot of brownie points for windmills. They can be a good thing for rural areas or places with limited infrastructure, but the whole windmill thing is beating around the bush when it comes to a practical solution that also doesn't engage the carbon cycle.
You're going to need to provide a source for claiming that the value of wind power is "very limited".
Land-based utility-scale wind is one of the lowest-priced energy sources available today, costing 1–2 cents per kilowatt-hour after the production tax credit[0]. Please note that governments still spend more subsidizing fossil fuel extraction and production than wind power generation. About double[1][2].
0. https://www.energy.gov/eere/wind/advantages-and-challenges-w...
1. https://news.climate.columbia.edu/2018/03/16/how-much-do-ren...
2. https://www.iea.org/topics/energy-subsidies
Land-based utility-scale wind is one of the lowest-priced energy sources available today, costing 1–2 cents per kilowatt-hour after the production tax credit[0]. Please note that governments still spend more subsidizing fossil fuel extraction and production than wind power generation. About double[1][2].
0. https://www.energy.gov/eere/wind/advantages-and-challenges-w...
1. https://news.climate.columbia.edu/2018/03/16/how-much-do-ren...
2. https://www.iea.org/topics/energy-subsidies
Please delineate in your comment that this is for the world. Not for the United States or other western countries. Those governments listed in the report have to quell their population to avoid an uprising.
Wind power’s limits: 1. Not a base load provider 2. Requires an energy ready base load provider 3. Is dependent on an energy source that is not providing steady inputs 4. Has larger footprints than nuclear plants 5. Blot the natural landscape
Wind power’s limits: 1. Not a base load provider 2. Requires an energy ready base load provider 3. Is dependent on an energy source that is not providing steady inputs 4. Has larger footprints than nuclear plants 5. Blot the natural landscape
> Not for the United States or other western countries.
Incorrect - An obvious counterexample is the UK.
Wind power contributed 24.8% of UK electricity supplied in 2020, having surpassed coal in 2016 and nuclear in 2018.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power_in_the_United_Kin...
Incorrect - An obvious counterexample is the UK.
Wind power contributed 24.8% of UK electricity supplied in 2020, having surpassed coal in 2016 and nuclear in 2018.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power_in_the_United_Kin...
Right now, the Texas power grid is generating more than 9GW from wind power alone.
Now, do I think we should have nuclear in the mix? Sure. Do I ignore the ERCOT dashboard because it doesn't fit my narrative? No.
And trust me, there is plenty of land still to look at that doesn't have windmills on them. I'm not offended when I drive through west Texas.
Now, do I think we should have nuclear in the mix? Sure. Do I ignore the ERCOT dashboard because it doesn't fit my narrative? No.
And trust me, there is plenty of land still to look at that doesn't have windmills on them. I'm not offended when I drive through west Texas.
In my opinion, they aren't an eyesore. I quite like them. I appreciate the engineering. But that's a matter of personal preference.
I agree: Nuclear is better. Had we ignored the hippies and NIMBYs 40 years ago and just gotten on with it, we would have a whole lot less problems. Had we done the same 20, 10, 5 years ago things would be a lot better. If we got them to shut up and listen now we would have a long term solution.
Unfortunately, with the way our governments are setup, large scale nuclear that is able to lower costs is simply not viable. Politicians look out for themselves, not long term national interest. The people have a visceral negative reaction that we aren't changing any time soon. Also, we can only really trust nuclear with certain countries. How many "civilian nuclear programs" have actually been for enrichment?
In an ideal world, we would run everything on nuclear. But our world is messy and imperfect. Wind turbines are a improvement in coal/gas, at least until a certain point where the instability is no longer worth it.
Those of us who care about energy security, climate change, and practicality need to advocate for nuclear. But its unlikely the pro-nuclear side will succeed. It has a fossil fuel lobby, renewable lobby, and an easily-scared, highly-emotional electorate to overcome.
Renewable energy - wind, solar, etc - are imperfect, but they're also a lot easier to get built. There's no need to push against wind and solar when we should be advocating for nuclear.
I agree: Nuclear is better. Had we ignored the hippies and NIMBYs 40 years ago and just gotten on with it, we would have a whole lot less problems. Had we done the same 20, 10, 5 years ago things would be a lot better. If we got them to shut up and listen now we would have a long term solution.
Unfortunately, with the way our governments are setup, large scale nuclear that is able to lower costs is simply not viable. Politicians look out for themselves, not long term national interest. The people have a visceral negative reaction that we aren't changing any time soon. Also, we can only really trust nuclear with certain countries. How many "civilian nuclear programs" have actually been for enrichment?
In an ideal world, we would run everything on nuclear. But our world is messy and imperfect. Wind turbines are a improvement in coal/gas, at least until a certain point where the instability is no longer worth it.
Those of us who care about energy security, climate change, and practicality need to advocate for nuclear. But its unlikely the pro-nuclear side will succeed. It has a fossil fuel lobby, renewable lobby, and an easily-scared, highly-emotional electorate to overcome.
Renewable energy - wind, solar, etc - are imperfect, but they're also a lot easier to get built. There's no need to push against wind and solar when we should be advocating for nuclear.
Nuclear is, in fact, not better.
Nukes cost way more to operate, and phenomenally more to build, and take forever to build. I do not want to pay extra for somebody's nuke fetish. I want my carbon-neutral power cheap and plentiful, not dear and niggardly. So, give me wind, solar, tidal, geo. And, tear down dams to restore fisheries after enough of those are running. Maybe turn off remaining dams during smolting season.
Nukes cost way more to operate, and phenomenally more to build, and take forever to build. I do not want to pay extra for somebody's nuke fetish. I want my carbon-neutral power cheap and plentiful, not dear and niggardly. So, give me wind, solar, tidal, geo. And, tear down dams to restore fisheries after enough of those are running. Maybe turn off remaining dams during smolting season.
It's not a matter of personal preference. They put these thing away from most people for a reason. If they put them in cities or suburbs, a lot of people would complain and put an end to them.
Siting them in rural areas - who cares if some people in flyover country complain about the incessent noise or the ruined landscapes?
Don't believe me about the noise? Get a tent and try camping under one for a few days.
For someone living in the mountains, putting windmills atop all the mountains makes the views strictly worse. For someone visiting the mountains, it looks novel and sci-fi.
Siting them in rural areas - who cares if some people in flyover country complain about the incessent noise or the ruined landscapes?
Don't believe me about the noise? Get a tent and try camping under one for a few days.
For someone living in the mountains, putting windmills atop all the mountains makes the views strictly worse. For someone visiting the mountains, it looks novel and sci-fi.
why on earth would you camp under a wind turbine? And how? Most are on private land with access control.
Besides, once you're more than a few hundred meters away, you can barely hear them. Don't believe me - please look up the sound power numbers of modern wind turbines and see how close you need to be to hear them.
Besides, once you're more than a few hundred meters away, you can barely hear them. Don't believe me - please look up the sound power numbers of modern wind turbines and see how close you need to be to hear them.
A few hundred feet away you can hear them very clearly. They emit a lot of sound on low frequencies that travels right through walls. The sound is very disturbing to animals.
You know what else are eyesores? Vast expanses of monoculture crops, vast expanses of asphalt and urban sprawl, and vast fields of oil derricks.
And those all come with additionally extremely harmful impacts. While turbines are unquestionably a net good they are a new and thus unfamiliar thing.
yeah I understand with most new things or any change it makes a lot of people uncomfortable despite completely overlooking similar or worse offenders that are more familiar. A reactionary antipathy to change is fairly common.
And those all come with additionally extremely harmful impacts. While turbines are unquestionably a net good they are a new and thus unfamiliar thing.
yeah I understand with most new things or any change it makes a lot of people uncomfortable despite completely overlooking similar or worse offenders that are more familiar. A reactionary antipathy to change is fairly common.
Being highly visible is an advantage (politically): they give a strong impression of "look, we're doing something!". Plastic straw bans are a more extreme example, but the same effect.
I live in a country that hasn't got a lot of radioactive ores suitable for processing into fuel, but has got a lot of wind.
Americans freak out about "hurricane season". You know what we call it in Scotland when we get four weeks of 140mph winds? We call that "January".
Wind turbines work just great here, and they look amazing, especially the offshore ones.
Americans freak out about "hurricane season". You know what we call it in Scotland when we get four weeks of 140mph winds? We call that "January".
Wind turbines work just great here, and they look amazing, especially the offshore ones.
>Americans freak out about "hurricane season".
Maybe because if you live in the southeast it can be an absolutely devastating natural disaster? Which has already happened many times in the past and is guaranteed to happen in the future?
>You know what we call it in Scotland when we get four weeks of 140mph winds? We call that "January".
Well good for you. I don't know anything about the weather in Scotland but obviously if it's normal to get high wind for a few weeks in some places it's not anything like an actual hurricane. So perhaps you should stop being a smug dumbass comparing normal high winds in parts of your country to hurricanes which obliterate people and cities.
Maybe because if you live in the southeast it can be an absolutely devastating natural disaster? Which has already happened many times in the past and is guaranteed to happen in the future?
>You know what we call it in Scotland when we get four weeks of 140mph winds? We call that "January".
Well good for you. I don't know anything about the weather in Scotland but obviously if it's normal to get high wind for a few weeks in some places it's not anything like an actual hurricane. So perhaps you should stop being a smug dumbass comparing normal high winds in parts of your country to hurricanes which obliterate people and cities.
The difference is that Europeans build houses from stone, since we heard the story of the 3 piglets when we were children.
/yawn
Try harder next time
Try harder next time
> Maybe because if you live in the southeast it can be an absolutely devastating natural disaster?
Given that you know it happens, maybe you could try building houses and infrastructure that can cope with it?
Given that you know it happens, maybe you could try building houses and infrastructure that can cope with it?
You are comparing the highest gust speeds of Scottish storms to the sustained wind speeds of a Caribbean hurricane.
A huge storm in Scotland might see sustained wind speeds of 80mph.
A category 5 hurricane in the USA has sustained wind speeds of 160mph.
A huge storm in Scotland might see sustained wind speeds of 80mph.
A category 5 hurricane in the USA has sustained wind speeds of 160mph.
This year was mild and we were seeing sustained winds of around 100mph. Most years it's closer to 120, with gusts considerably north of 140mph.
Your "sustained 160mph" is "sustained for a minute" in a category of storm that happens every few years.
Maybe don't build your houses the way most people would build a packing crate.
Your "sustained 160mph" is "sustained for a minute" in a category of storm that happens every few years.
Maybe don't build your houses the way most people would build a packing crate.
[deleted]
The truth is, birds are born to die. A bird has a nest of eggs - but the bird population is normally quite stable. So on average, nearly all new birds die by the end of the year. Cold, hunger, natural predation, disease.
This is a solution looking for a problem.