WindFail

[maryjane48]

http://www.flap.org/

[I Think]

In 2013, while the Associated Press ran stories about the Duke case and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) was conducting investigations of 17 other wind energy facilities, three bird fatality estimates were published for the U.S. and Canada. However, only one captured media attention.

The two that did not appear in the news appear to be the most credible analyses to date.

This is, in part, because of the immense database and large number of studies the authors relied on, and the fact that the authors were from respected wildlife agencies and scientific institutions.

Scott Loss, Peter Marra (both from the Smithsonian Institution) and Tom Will (FWS) reported in the journal Biological Conservation that about 234,000 birds are killed per year at the 44,000 wind turbines operating in the U.S.

Their analysis was based on information from 68 U.S. studies and included the numbers of carcasses found, an adjustment for carcass persistence (scavenging), searcher efficiency and carcasses that fell beyond search areas. Their comprehensive analysis translated to an average of about 5 to 6 fatalities per turbine per year.

In the other study, biologists from Environment Canada (Ryan Zimmerling, Charles Francis) and two consulting firms (Stantec [Andrea Pomeroy] and LGL [Marc d'Entremont]) reported that 23,300 birds were killed annually by 2,955 turbines in Canada. Their results were published in Conservation and Ecology.

Their fatality estimate was based on data from studies at 50 wind projects across Canada. Their estimate also relied on the numbers of carcasses found and adjustments for carcass persistence, searcher efficiency, and carcasses that may have fallen beyond the 50 m search areas around turbines. Their data showed that wind turbines in Canada kill about 8.2 birds per turbine per year.

Although there was a difference of about 2 to 3 birds per turbine per year between the U.S. and Canadian estimates, this difference is quite small in absolute terms and may be explained, in part, by the different statistical methods each research group used to calculate their fatality estimates.

Overall, the estimates were in the same ballpark, and the two research groups arrived at similar estimates despite different methodological approaches.

The estimate that captured media attention was considerably higher. Shawn Smallwood, a consultant from California, estimates in the Wildlife Society Bulletin that about 573,000 birds were killed per year in the U.S. That is equivalent to roughly 20 birds killed per turbine per year, or 2.4 to nearly four times greater than the above estimates.

This is surprising because the maximum fatality rates for a given wind plant from the more than 100 fatality studies that informed the analyses of Loss et al. and Zimmerling et al. were roughly 15 birds per turbine per year, which is much lower than the mean of about 20 per turbine that Smallwood calculated.

A closer examination of Smallwood's analysis is a real eye-opener. At the Noble Ellenburg project in upstate New York, my firm concluded that the fatality rate was about two to 5.7 birds per turbine per year, which, using Smallwood's methodology, would be re-calculated at 41.8 per turbine - an enormous difference that makes you wonder.

There are additional discrepancies between the original researchers' estimates at different wind projects across the continent and Smallwood's new estimates for those facilities.

What Smallwood appears to be saying is that the research of dozens of respected university professors, state and federal wildlife agency biologists, and consulting biologists is flawed. This seems doubtful, given the consistency of fatality estimates and their replication by different research groups, not to mention the high level of scrutiny of those results by academic and agency scientists. The groups also used somewhat different methodologies to arrive at their estimates, which makes their overall results even more robust and reliable. If any estimate merits further scrutiny, it is Smallwood's.

Using the results of Loss et al. and Zimmerling et al., we can now make reliable comparisons of wind turbine fatalities to other anthropogenically-caused fatalities.
http://www.nawindpower.com/e107_plugins ... tent.13342

[Hurtlander]

Wind farms suck.

That depends on who you ask, apparently somebody high up in our government, not mentioning any names, and her brother are spending your tax dollars to make another wind farm happen.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/bri ... e27654979/

[Donald G]

To Hurtlander ...

It seems that your collective posts make it clear that in your opinion it depends on who is initiating the wind generators rather than the use they are to be put that is the all important factor.

WADR personal animosity has no place in determining the feasibility of wind turbines for the purpose locally intended.

[Hurtlander]

To Hurtlander ...

It seems that your collective posts make it clear that in your opinion it depends on who is initiating the wind generators rather than the use they are to be put that is the all important factor.

To Donald....
WADR, what the hell are you talking about ? That was my very first post ever about wind turbines. I most certainly have never been in favour of those inefficient, tax payer funded bird chopping machines.

To Hurtlander ...
WADR personal animosity has no place in determining the feasibility of wind turbines for the purpose locally intended.

WADR, you have mentioned in many posts that wind turbines are inefficient, tax payer subsidized money pits that don't have any place in BC. But now that Bruce Clark wants to cash in on the subsidized wind energy scheme with the help of his sister the premier you seem to be back peddling, you suddenly feel that yes indeed, there just might be locally intended purpose for wind turbines........Apparently the environmental impact and grinding up of the majestic eagles of Haida Gwaii isn't a concern to our green premier freshly back from Paris because somebody in her family is about to get rich off the backs of the tax payer..

[Donald G]

To Hurtlander ...

YOU said that I had " mentioned in many posts that wind turbines are inefficient, tax payer subsidized money pits that don't have any place in BC ". At no time have I made such an idiotic statement.

I expect that it is not possible to have hydro electric available on any number of the offshore islands and that wind or solar energy, although limited by the lack of wind and sunshine, would be better than no electricity at all.

The islands of the west coast of Canada are some of the windiest areas in Canada.

Wind and solar production of electricity are the next best in areas where 24/7/365 hydro electricity is not feasible.

[Omnitheo]

Wind turbines kill some birds. This is true. We build lots of things that kill birds. To say that we shouldn't care about birds killed by wind turbines because more birds are killed by windows is false.

This is why researchers and engineers are continually looking to find ways to mitigate these unintended consequences, by finding new designs that are less harmful and by identifying flight paths to better position turbines out of their way.

What is deflection though, is when the bird argument is continually brought up by detractors of wind turbines, yet we rarely hear a peep about birds when it comes to construction of other structures.

[Donald G]

To Omnitheo ...

I have said several times that hydro dams INCREASE the population of birds, animals, plants and fish in the area in which it is located. Plus decrease destructive flooding and equally destructive widely fluctuating water levels.

Ootsa lake is a classic example of a hydro dam lake that has benefited numerous communities along the length of the dam. The only mistake made there was not logging the area first and having to contend with dead water logged trees, both on the bottom of the lake.

[Omnitheo]

Hydro power is certainly a good option where it is available, however it is not without its flaws. The dams often harm the existing ecosystem, both in the creation of the reservoir flooding habitats, and the dam itself restricting movement in some extreme cases driving species to extinction. While new ecosystems arise where the dam is created, it is not always the same or diverse as the existing one. There are a large number of different studies on ecological impacts of dams.

Dams have also been one of the deadliest forms of power generation we've used, being responsible for hundreds of thousands of deaths, and the displacement of millions. Here is a reference to the deadliest such incident https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banqiao_Dam

Then of course there is the issue of the water source, which is not always permanent or can run out due to severe droughts


Here's a good article on the effects of the drought and lake Folsom. http://gizmodo.com/the-reservoir-that-m ... 1742917839

[Donald G]

The dams in China that failed were built of clay and the construction was FAR BELOW the minimum requirements for a similar type dam in Canada.

WADR it is not a fair comparison.

[Omnitheo]

How is it not a fair comparison? You provided an example of hydro power that benefited the environment, and I provided examples of where it hasn't.

We have experimented with all sorts of power generation methods, and we have continued to improve on them all. Was the fact that a steel reinforced structure that was determined to be unbreakable by soviet engineers failed an excuse to stop making dams period? Was the fact that a steel ocean liner determined to be unsinkable by western engineers that failed a reason to stop building ships?

We learn from mistakes and we work to fix them. There have been nuclear power plant failures as well, and we have learned from them to be able to build safer reactors.

The fact that some wind turbines were improperly placed in bird flight paths and lead to a number of bird deaths doesn't mean we scrap wind power. We learn from mistakes, and we develop better technology, and we put the technology and education into practice.

My argument was that hydro power is not perfect or without its flaws. While Canadian standards may be better than Soviet standards, that doesn't make them infallible, nor does it prevent money from coming into play and undermining them.

[Donald G]

As far as the dam on the "boom and bust" American River goes, that is what can happen when a dam is constructed in a desert area that relies in local water from the Sierra Madres to provide continual water.

When you don't have water you can't produce hydro electricity. In the same way that if you do not have wind or sun you do not have electricity from solar or wind turbine sources. That does not leave much but nuclear or thermal and thermal is miles away from the scale that nuclear has proven itself capable of.

[Donald G]

To Omnithio ...

I agree with your last comment that each system of producing electricity has its strengths and weaknesses within the context that you identified in your last post.

I was comparing the construction and placement of the dams in the US and China to the water capacity and construction standards of the hydro electric dams built in B.C.

[Omnitheo]

And that is one consideration to take into account when constructing dams. The Folsom lake dam was built in an area which is suffering from an entirely natural drought. Unfortunately the electricity demands on the dam have forced it to continue to release more water than is coming in.

But as we speak so pompously of the fools for living in a desert region and expecting water, we fail to take into account that Kelowna itself is a desert region, and susceptible to the same water shortages.

Is hydro power bad? No. Would Sacramento be better served by Coal power? Certainly not without contributing further to the air pollution in the region. Should we not still look at other options which would cleanly generate power in California' environment to keep up with demand? Most certainly..

[I Think]

Back to the shredded tweet argument, there have been 3 studies of wind turbine bird kills, one is off the wall, the other two which use realistic figures put bird kills at between 2 and 5 per turbine per year as posted above.
Virtually all the raptor kills have happened in the coachella valley. Valleys are not a usual place to put wind farms, usual practice is to place them on ridges.