Profile Network Activity Comments Articles Blog Bookmarks Contact

Birds and Wind: Bad News Leads, Good News in Weeds

By Lauren Glickman
August 29, 2011 | 22 Comments

Do you like this blog post?

Bookmark

The Washington Post carried a bad news/good news story on birds and wind power yesterday. That's always the order of things – as the old newspaper saw puts it succinctly: "If it bleeds, it leads."

The headline was a downer, and so were the first six or seven paragraphs. On the plus side, the story was accompanied by a very well-done graphic showing just how small wind power is in the overall picture of human-related avian mortality.

Studies show that half the people who read the newspaper only see the headline on any given article, and there's a further sharp drop in readership after the first paragraph. With that in mind, here are a few items from the later paragraphs that deserve more emphasis:

" ... [F]ederal officials, other wildlife groups and a wind-farm industry representative said the conservancy’s views [that would be the American Bird Conservancy, which has staked out a very anti-wind position in recent months] are extreme. Wind farms currently kill far fewer birds than the estimated 100 million that fly into glass buildings, or up to 500 million killed yearly by cats. Power lines kill an estimated 10 million, and nearly 11 million are hit by automobiles, according to studies." I might add that except for cats, those are all low-end numbers – the range for buildings is 100 million to 1 billion annually. (For further information on wind power's impact on birds, see pp. 7-16 of AWEA's recent comments on draft U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service guidelines for wind power.)
Wind industry representatives spent 2-1/2 years working with representatives of wildlife groups and state and federal wildlife officials to come up with consensus recommendations on reducing the threat to birds still further. In the process, the wind industry voluntarily agreed to hold itself to a higher standard of wildlife protection than any other industry.
NextEra Energy, which operates many wind turbines in California's Altamont Pass, agreed last December with then-state attorney general Jerry Brown to "repower" its wind projects, replacing old, small, high-RPM machines with new, larger turbines spaced farther apart, a move expected to substantially lower bird fatalities. See this San Jose Mercury-News article, published yesterday, for more.

This post was written by Tom Gray and cross-posted from AWEA's Into the Wind Blog

Wind Power

The information and views expressed in this blog post are solely those of the author and not necessarily those of RenewableEnergyWorld.com or the companies that advertise on this Web site and other publications. This blog was posted directly by the author and was not reviewed for accuracy, spelling or grammar.

22 Reader Comments

Comment
1 of 22

plindsey

August 29, 2011

Classic misdirection by using the total numbers of birds killed each year, except we're not talking about "all birds", only raptors and migratory birds (plus bats). How many raptors (such as Golden Eagles) fly into glass buildings or are killed by cats each year? (Eagle vs Cat, I'll bet on the Eagle.) This argument is analogous to saying that tigers don't need protection, because of all the feral housecats that are killed each year.

These numbers mix raptors with grackles, pigeons, chickadees, quail, etc. BTW, only 1-2 Golden Eagle chicks survive to leave the nest.

Unlike wedgewire screens for cooling water intakes, there is no screen that can be wrapped around a wind turbine to keep the birds out.

Cross-posted from the Washington Post comments, and written by me.

Comment
2 of 22

Anumakonda

August 30, 2011

As a Clean Energy promoter(Wind Energy) I am much concerned about the Washington Report on BIRDS AND WIND.

Here are interesting statistics:

To most experts, though, there's a problem with the bird-mortality argument: The vast majority of research shows that wind turbines kill relatively few birds, at least compared with other man-made structures. The statistics are shocking if you consider just how many people are crying out against wind power for the birds' sake:
Man-made structure/technology Associated bird deaths per year (U.S.)
Feral and domestic cats Hundreds of millions [source: AWEA]

Power lines 130 million -- 174 million [source: AWEA]

Windows (residential and commercial) 100 million -- 1 billion [source: TreeHugger]

Pesticides 70 million [source: AWEA]

Automobiles 60 million -- 80 million [source: AWEA]

Lighted communication towers 40 million -- 50 million [source: AWEA]

Wind turbines 10,000 -- 40,000 [source: ABC]

Collisions with wind turbines account for about one-tenth of a percent of all "unnatural" bird deaths in the United States each year. And of all bird deaths, 30 percent are due to natural causes, like baby birds falling from nests [source: AWEA]. So why the widespread misconception that labels wind turbines "bird-o-matics"? It all starts with California, raptors and the thousands of old turbines that make up the Altamont Pass wind farm. (Source: Do wind turbines kill birds? Julia Layton, howstuffworks,A Discovery Company).
When we are so much concerned about bird deaths by Wind Turbines let those oppose wind turbines on this score, adopt vegetarianism?
Dr.A.Jagadeesh Nellore (AP), India
Wind Energy Expert
E-mail: Anumakonda.jagadeesh@gmail.com

Comment
3 of 22

trawson

August 30, 2011

I have a strong suspicion that the bird mortality hype is being pushed by the fossil and nuclear energy lobbies as a effective means of turning people against a clean, renewable energy source like wind.

Many environmental movements and organizations have been hijacked over the years by corporate interests as a means of greenwashing many a dirty project.

I think what we are now seeing is a reverse kind of process, where exaggerated enviromental concerns are used as a means of hobbling renewable energy sources.

Considering the frequent posts I read where people worry that wind or tidal projects are going to negatively impact global wind or water patterns, its probally only a matter of time before we see a real green bashing campaign along the lines of this onion parody.

http://www.theonion.com/video/in-the-know-coal-lobby-warns-wind-farms-may-blow-e,20876/

Comment
4 of 22

plindsey

August 30, 2011

"The vast majority of research shows that wind turbines kill relatively few birds, at least compared with other man-made structures. "

The analogous fishing statement: purse-seine nets kill relatively few dolphins in compared to all the aquatic creatures killed by all other man-made means.

Just how far does that argument fly? It is not just a matter of how many birds are killed, but which types. I used to live in Autin, TX. Many people there, myself included, wished that there were a lot less grackles. I'm sure New Yorkers could use a lot less pigeons.

For the first time in our combined 104 years, my wife and I experienced a bird hitting our windshield this summer. It was some sort of small swallow-type insect-eating bird which was getting its meal "on the wing" over an interstate through farm country. It was one bird of several hundred visible in the same area. How many Golden Eagles are killed by vehicles each year? I'll bet they are all killed on the ground near carrion, or trying to get airborne and out of the way of a car/truck, not flying into windshields.

Comment
5 of 22

trawson

August 30, 2011

One time when I was a kid I literally saw a bald eagle get zapped to death by some power lines.

One of my first jobs I got after college was in one of those beautiful looking, all glass office buildings that was tightly situated in a wooded area. It sickened me to see how many birds each day would be seriously injured or killed by flying full speed into the windows. One of the building maintenance men told me that on some days they would literally have to pick up dozens of dead birds just around our building.

So I'm familiar with and realize unless we go back to our pre-industrial ways our presence is killing many more birds than would die without us around. Picking on wind power in particular on this subject is just a case playing favorites or having an axe to grind.

Comment
6 of 22

Cliff_Goudey

August 31, 2011

plindsey, you wrote, 'The analogous fishing statement: purse-seine nets kill relatively few dolphins in compared to all the aquatic creatures killed by all other man-made means.'

That is not analogous at all. The fact you are challenging is about birds, not all airborne critters. There are few other direct human-induced mortality on dolphins besides fishing industry bycatch. Activists raising the issue have their concerns well placed.

You, on the other hand seem preoccupied with a very small part of the bird-mortality issue. Do you campaign against feral and domestic cats, power lines, windows, pesticides, automobiles, and communication towers with equal fervor?

The main point you are missing is the indirect mortality on birds, dolphins, and all living things by the emissions spewed by fossil energy plants. Wind power and numerous other forms of renewable energy are the solution to these problems and really do not deserve your wrath. These other serious causes of bird mortality have no up-side for wildlife and represent deserving targets for your activism.

Comment
7 of 22

Anonymous

August 31, 2011

The 'research' on birds and valuable insects destroyed by wind turbines doesn't, to my knowledge, account for the role scavengers play in removing the 'evidence' from the base of the turbine.

This makes actual counts hard to achieve; and now, with green groups setting up cams to record bird kills and environmental damage true counts can be achieved.

Irene's rain fall ravaged one wind turbine covered mountain side, and coincidentally, shut down turbines in its path; further loading the grid and perhaps accounting for the massive loss of power in the Northeast. Clear-cuts, access roads, and power line corridors exacerbated runoff damage; once mitigated by long lost dams.

I wonder how many migrating fish were washed out to sea in the floods; and how many salt water species lost their lives in the deluge of fresh water laden with raw sewerage?

Comment
8 of 22

Anonymous

August 31, 2011

Seems disingenuous to make snide references to the coal lobby affecting 'clean energy', when we have 'big wind' paying off groups like the NRC and NPR so that they get favorable support for their aggressive and predatory wind farming.

A turning point for me was when the NRC 'gave up' a portion of protected prairie in the Dakota's to wind farms; and coincidentally, there was a major donation by the wind industry.

Comment
9 of 22

trawson

August 31, 2011

Predatory wind farming? LOL

Oh noes, the hurricane TEMPORARILY shut down a few windmills as it passed through the area, what horror. But where are your concerns for the several nuke plants that had to shut down for an extended time due to the threat to their own operations?

The anonymous concern trolling is strong here today.

Comment
10 of 22

GeraldR

August 31, 2011

It's very much about the overnight sensation: drug dealer shoots 13 year old - big news / drug dealer deals heroin to dozens of 13 year olds - not even the back page.

Raptor populations were nearly totaled well before the build-out of wind power and still remain challenged by many pressures. Just a few things that have a much greater impact on raptor populations than wind power:
- mercury pollution - primarily from coal fired power plants
- clearcutting of habitat and related destruction of nesting sites
- overfishing (decimation of food sources)
- acidification of lakes and rivers
- industrial pollution
- automobile collisions
- electrocution by high voltage power transmission
- entrapment in fishing nets
- shooting and poisoning
- collision with buildings
- legalized destruction of territory (e.g. so-called relocation)
- oil spills
- collisions with wire support structures (e.g. cell-phone and meteorlogical towers)
- communicable diseases derived from livestock
- lead poisoning
- collisions with aircraft
- landfill poisoning
- euthanized deadstock

The Audobon Society tries to tread the middle ground but even they can't avoid using inflamatory language; however, they do recognize that the environmental effects of fossil fuel generated power including pollution, acidification and global warming (which appears to be their primary focus) has a very much larger effect on bird populations.

plindsey likes to take the sarc e.g. "How many raptors (such as Golden Eagles) fly into glass buildings": actually, quite a few (frequently while chasing avian prey). "we're not talking about "all birds", only raptors and migratory birds (plus bats)" == a 'classic misdirection' courtesy plindsey. Cats versus eagles: how big is the eagle and the cat? Can a 14 pound tom cat kill a 1.5 pound eaglet? Victories for both sides have been reported.

Comment
11 of 22

aligatorhardt

August 31, 2011

The New York Times has become another Fox News, in that it is totally a mouthpiece for it's owners in fossil fuel and nuclear power, and not concerned with news. It uses some news to allow it to spread propaganda, and renewable energy of various forms are the targets. The headlines should read, "fossil fuel and nuclear power frightened by the rise of obviously superior, safe, clean, and infinitely renewable energy systems."

On the subject of bird deaths, wind turbines are one of the smallest sources of bird deaths, as repeatedly shown in studies. Why do we cater to liars and loons? Are we so cowardly that we back down from even childish and false challenges? Why are we afraid to call out liars? When you allow lies to go unchallenged, you empower the liar, and become their accomplice.

Comment
12 of 22

frank-gallagher-73867

August 31, 2011

The data behind the Raptor kills is this:
Less raptors = more rodents!
Can you say plague!!!!!!!
So it doesn't matter what we humans do, we will always affect nature.
We can clean the air with clean energy, but we will be enriching the Pest control industry and or other industries.
Corporations depend on this type of thinking...can you say Capitalism....
Being green is a balance, but at what cost?
Gia will decide:)

Comment
13 of 22

mgreczyn

August 31, 2011

@plindsey You bring up a good point that the high level stats don't take into account the mortality causes of individual species such as the Golden Eagle. Yes, there won't be many housecat-on-eagle takes. Point taken. So what are the causes of GOE deaths? Although data are sparse, "Impacts with vehicles, power lines and other structures" at 27% is the leading cause cited here http://www.nwhc.usgs.gov/publications/documents/95JCF.OLR01.pdf
followed by electrocution (25%), gunshot (15%) and poisoning (6%). Apparently powerlines electrocute far more GOEs than die by colliding with wind turbines (which would only be one part of that 27%), and it turns out the preferred USFWS mitigation strategy for wind farms is to have wind operators pay to have powerlines retrofitted, which would be roughly analogous to your wedgewire screen.

The correct strategy to protect golden eagles would be to allow an ESA-style incidental take permit that allows take as a side effect of an otherwise legal activity (such as operating a wind farm) while using fees from those permits to mitigate against causes of incidental take and pursuing enforcement actions against non-incidental (i.e. intentional) takes.

Eagle take numbers outside of the altamont pass area seem to be very low (a total of 6 known takes thus far for all the wind farms in the northwest, for example).

It's worth noting that GOEs are NOT endangered, though they are protected. Not even the USFWS can tell you with any degree of certainty how many golden eagles there are, whether their population is increasing/decreasing or how much mortality the population could sustain.

Comment
14 of 22

Anonymous

August 31, 2011

I missed the date when the NYTIMES became 'FOX news'.

I live in an area where improving water quality has resulted in more fish; and that in turn has resulted in more eagles, seals, and ospreys who prey on them.

Many of my friends have long supported efforts to restore these birds, and now have organized AGAINST the well-heeled wind industry and their 'rape' of former wilderness areas.

Hurricane IRENE 'turned off' the turbines in some areas for more than 24 hours; and the runoff from wind farms contributed to flooding. This will factor into upcoming siting decisions and could become the tipping point on some major initiatives.

...and then you have insect, bat, and bird kills.

btw...we now have so many ospreys and eagles, you can go to a stretch of an estuary and watch bald eagles fight with ospreys over fishing grounds; one local osprey nest on a high voltage power pole withstood the hurricane winds!

Comment
15 of 22

trawson

August 31, 2011

Corporate news is corporate news, propagandizing for the domination of the have nots for the sake of the haves.

Wind farm runoff? LOL. Do you actually have something besides your own opinion to back up your claim that wind farms use deforestation or other means of destroying ground cover or runoff areas that would result in such effects?

Comment
16 of 22

ron-peterson-82973

August 31, 2011

A falcon hit my first floor window pursuing a smaller bird. I believe the falcon survived, but I think that he got the smaller bird.

Comment
17 of 22

Buck

September 1, 2011

I like the comment on 'balance.'

I've never met a person who said they bought his or her car for its 'Carbon Footprint'. Its always what the MPG is...
I always try to ask myself before commenting, and It doesn't always work, being human and all. 'What would a reasonable man do in this situation.' Placing the emphasis on Reasonable.
By the way. How much does a "Carbon Footprint" weight. See what I mean. "Reason" is part of Reasonable.
Buck....

Comment
18 of 22

powerON

September 7, 2011

AWEA numbers are kind of like listening tobacco industry about cancer numbers. They could be true but I do not buy it.

I also do not think we should say larger wind mills are the answer, I think we should be looking at technology that is safer for birds like the windspireenergy.com or the vortexwindfunnel.com. These units would tend to look like a solid object to a bird.

Comment
19 of 22

Sen-Sei-93

September 8, 2011

The most effective and safe combined turbine which does not kill birds at all - is submitted under the link:

http://contest.techbriefs.com/sustainable-technologies-2011/1283-the-combined-aero-hydro-turbine-and-propeller

or on a site

www.technogeo.ucoz.com

It is interesting to me to learn as you estimate this project

Comment
20 of 22

powerON

September 8, 2011

Sen-Sei-93 very cool but I can not seem to find a picture of an actual unit. This looks like a very early stage of development.
However here a few companies that already produce "bird safer" turbines.
http://www.helixwind.com
http://www.vortexwindfunel.com
http://www.cntimar.com/en/newproductshow/?proid_115.html

These turbines look solid so birds are less likely to hit them.

Comment
21 of 22

Sen-Sei-93

September 8, 2011

powerON

I am very grateful for an estimation and links.. My turbine is meanwhile at a level of idea.
Battelle has become interested in this project. But they have demanded financial support from any solid organization.

Comment
22 of 22

Cliff_Goudey

September 8, 2011

powerON, you wrote, "These turbines look solid so birds are less likely to hit them."

I am curious if there are enough if these types of solid-looking turbines deployed at a sufficient scale to support your statement.

Add Your Comment

Registered users, please make sure to Sign-In. We and others want to know your ideas and opinions. If you are not yet Registered -- it's quick and easy. Just click below.
Thanks!