Bird kill by wind turbines myth busting

Treehugger is right, cats, cars and windows certainly pose more risk to birds but maybe it's simply because of the prevalence of these compared with that of wind turbines. The more prevalent turbines become, the higher the associated bird mortality rate will become. Since wind energy is (hopefully) in it's infancy, let's work out the consequences of the design and placement now instead of using known high hazard causes as an acceptable baseline.

Treehugger mentions nothing about bat mortality rate and this has proven to be a problem. They are still researching whether the bat mortality rate is due to the bats being attracted to the turbines.

 

Wind power - kills a few birds.

Coal power - how many birds are killed by acid rain, destruction of habitat by mining, and climate change effects?

 

Yes, I think this is why the US Audubon Society has endorsed wind power. See:
Audubon Society "Strongly Supports Wind Power" : TreeHugger

I've had this conversation with my brother, who is both a Prius owner and an avid birder. He still opposes wind power on the basis of the associated bird kills. I think it was based more on the types of birds killed, not the quantity, but I didn't know enough about the subject to follow his objection.

 

Can't be very much. The only time I see birds is from late april too late october. And in that time period I see them in the road after getting hit by vehicles. But they don't just fall out of the sky, LOL

 

You forgot to mention my WINCHESTER

j/k I don't kill birds with my Winchester it costs to much to waste on a bird, I usually use the Daisy 10 pump with 3 loaded in the snout.

But for reals, if you're going to look at bird fatality, why not include the sporting side of life? How many birds were killed in the name of sport?

 

I'm sure it's minuscule compared to cell towers and office buildings... and household cats. And those birds are usually eaten (at least they better be) so they're offsetting some industrial chicken or turkey demand.

The whole wind turbine/bird thing is a load of bollocks. Altamont pass wind farm is where people get their ideas about birds and turbines. That site is like fire and petrol. Modern installation are loads better for many reasons. It's important to site the farms properly, we shouldn't just blow this off, but it's not the problem that the blue bloods on martha's vineyard make it out to be.

 

There's a beach in MS that is roped off as an aviary sanctuary. Apearently the birds migrate to this beach to get giggy with it.

Come to find out the beach was MAN MADE. The birds didn't start showing up till a couple years after the beach was built. To top it of it wasn't even built for them, IT WAS BUILT FOR US. Then the nature freaks got involved and kicked all the peeps out.

Point being: Are we sure the birds aren't "attracted" by the turbines and therefore flock to them? In turn smashing their little brains into the blades to show their love and devotion? If we take that away from them what will they have left?

Remember the Fraggle Rock episode when the Fraggles stopped eating the Doozer's structures? They lost their will to build. Do we really want to take that away from birds? You really don't know what I'm talking about do you?

JUST :behindsofa: ASKING

 

You really cannot compare wind turbine fatality to the deaths incurred in the name of sporting. The majority of sporting deaths are to game birds and a large sum of money is generated by sportsmen/sportswomen in the form of taxes on equipment and many sporting clubs do a lot of work to restore habitat or educate the public on the importance of ecosystems. At least they do in my area.

Of course some animals and birds will utilize man-made infrastructure but many more will not if man is present. There are plenty of studies that show how some birds will not nest or even live in an area where humans frequent (live near) and there is also evidence that some species actually prosper when living close to humans. Did you ever think of why some flocks of birds end up utilizing human infrastructure? Maybe it is because we continue to destroy their natural habitat with our swamp filling, clear-cutting, subdivision and supermall building antics.

 

In the case of the Altamont wind farm that was actually part of the problem. The turbines' bases were not closed cylinders like moderen tubines, but rather ones that looked a lot like the old oil derrick (I forget the name for this type of tower). Those towers provided places for nesting, and the birds did just that. Furthermore, because the turbines were small, there were many of them packed into the area. Also, small turbines rotors rotate at much higher RPMs than modern turbine rotors do. Couple all of those problems with the fact that the farm was located smack in the middle of a migration route and voila...

 

That doesn't surprise me. There has been a massive lose of wetlands because of the Corps of Engineers work on the Mississippi river. The birds don't have a lot of choices I'd wager.

 

these "bird lovers" trained at the GM school of disillusion...

 

Funny how a person with no interest in anything to do with nature suddenly loves all of gods feathered creations when a wind farm is proposed.
I had one fool argue that wind farms would cause car accidents!

Another thing that bugs me, why do these environmentalists only care about the harm a wind farm within sight of their property will cause but never protest the one 100 miles away which will kill as many or more birds?

 

That's why it's a good idea to make like the Danes and place the wind turbines off shore. No more "I don't want my ocean view disrupted" arguments. Personally I think a sea of wind turbines can be kinda ugly. Solar is better cause you can stick them in deserts where few people live anyway.