sources, 2009. Note: When a range of estimates has been given, the figure presents only data
for the lowest end of that range.
Among the big lies that windbaggers like to spread about wind energy, there are 2 that come up a lot.
One is that wind turbines kill a lot of birds, relative to other human activities.
The other is that windbaggers give a damn about birds.
New York State Energy Research and Development Authority:
There are many ways to classify the impacts of electricity generation on wildlife. Effects can be direct and/or indirect; acute or chronic; individual or cumulative; and local, regional, or global. Each type of effect was explored in this study. Acidic deposition, climate change, and mercury bioaccumulation are identified as the three most significant and widespread stressors to wildlife from electricity generation from fossil fuels combustion in the NY/NE region.
Risks to wildlife vary substantially by life cycle stage. Higher risks are generally associated with the resource extraction and power generation stages, as compared to other life cycle stages. Overall, non-renewable electricity generation sources, such as coal and oil, pose higher risks to wildlife than renewable electricity generation sources, such as hydro and wind. Based on the comparative amounts of SO2, NOx, CO2, and mercury emissions generated from coal, oil, natural gas, and hydro and the associated effects of acidic deposition, climate change, and mercury bioaccumulation, coal as an electricity generation source is by far the largest contributor to risks to wildlife found in the NY/NE region.
Journal of Integrative Environmental Studies:
..wind farms are responsible for roughly 0.27 avian fatalities per gigawatt-hour (GWh) of electricity while nuclear power plants involve 0.6 fatalities per GWh and fossil-fueled power stations are responsible for about 9.4 fatalities per GWh. Within the uncertainties of the data used, the estimate means that wind farm-related avian fatalities equated to approximately 46,000 birds in the United States in 2009, but nuclear power plants killed about 460,000 and fossil-fueled power plants 24 million.
To recap, about 46,000 avian mortalities were associated with wind farms across the United States in 2009 but nuclear plants killed about 458,000 and fossil-fueled power plants almost 24 million, estimates illustrated by Figure 2. Figure 2 also reveals how the number of absolute birds killed by wind energy pales in comparison to other causes such as
windows and cats. Regardless of where the wind turbines are located, by minimizing reliance on fossil fuels and nuclear power, they prevent the death and injury of wildlife that would otherwise occur across the world’s coal mines, uranium tail
ponds, oil refineries, natural gas facilities, uranium acidified forests, polluted lakes, and habitats soon to be threatened by climate change.
Although most evaluations of the beneficial effects of wind-generated electricity, including the present one, have addressed the degree to which they reduce (through displacement) atmospheric emissions, other important effects are potentially displaced as well. For example, obtaining fossil fuel through mining, drilling, and chemical modification of one form to another (e.g., gasification of coal) has a variety of environmental effects including loss of habitat for terrestrial and aquatic species.
Operation of thermal (energy generation units), which generate heat to drive turbines, produces heated water, either from cooling or in the form of steam to drive the turbines, or both. If the energy from the heated water is not recovered, the water is usually discharged into the environment; in closed cooling systems, its heat is discharged. All forms of generation have associated life-cycle emissions and wastes along with other environmental effects that are affected by the design, materials provision (including mining), manufacture, construction, transportation, assembly, operation, maintenance, retrofits, and decommissioning of the generators and their associated infrastructure. Some of these stages of the life cycle—most notably, mining—have adverse effects on human health as well.
I agree, whatever damage is done by wind turbines should properly be compared to the toxic emissions the existing alternatives, coal and gas (and biomass and other sorts of burning stuff like garbage).
However, this comparison side-steps the real issue which was articulated by Timothy Garrett (University of Utah) in his analysis of energy consumption. Simply put, more energy production = more energy use…and the only way to reduce emissions of CO2 and other more poisonous greenhouse gases would be to cut consumption (drastically, especially, obviously, in the developed nations).
Adding wind, solar or other so-called renewable (which they’re not, really) hasn’t decreased the use of dirtier fuels, and won’t. That’s just not the way that industrial civilization (or, if you prefer, the human species) operates.
I recommend this article from a wind opponent who expxlains the distinction:
“At best, industrial wind simply adds more energy to the global supply. And what for? More! More energy than the grid can carry, more idiotic water parks, more snowmaking, more electronic gadgets, more money for corporations.”
“Why should we spend millions of dollars to destroy wildlife habitat, kill bats and eagles, pollute our headwaters, fill valuable wetlands, polarize our communities, make people sick, mine rare earth metals – just to ensure that we can consume as much or more next year than we did this year?”
http://wrongkindofgreen.org/2013/02/16/what-happened-to-bill-mckibben/
“Simply put, more energy production = more energy use…and the only way to reduce emissions of CO2 and other more poisonous greenhouse gases would be to cut consumption (drastically, especially, obviously, in the developed nations).”
Pure nonsense. There is nothing wrong with more energy production, or more energy use, if that energy production is 100% clean.
We don’t need to cut consumption to avoid AGW- we need to stop putting greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. Calling for drastic cuts in consumption is a ham-fisted attempt to stigmatize the green energy movement and is not only counterproductive, but is part and parcel of the climate denial FUD disinformation campaign.
If you are anti wind, you are an asshole.
There’s no such thing as 100% clean energy, and if you think that’s true, then you are uninformed.
All the components of so-called clean energy are mined and manufactured and transported using dirty energy. If you don’t understand that then you haven’t cared to look very closely at the grotesque exploitation of poor nations and indigenous peoples that are necessary to extract the metals and plastics that fuel so-called clean energy, to say nothing of the enslavement of people to produce the electronic toys and cheap sneakers for the developed countries.
You obviously haven’t read any of Garrett’s research if you don’t understand that more energy produced translates into more energy used, and to learn why that is an intractable conundrum.
The problem is that we have achieved overshoot – both in non-renewable resources (say, fish in the ocean and oil and rare minerals) and in the capacity of earth to absorb our pollution (forests all over the world are dying from absorbing tropospheric ozone).
Humans are programed to grow and grow. We don’t really care about whether the next generation inherits a habitable climate – we just want to produce them.
And no I am not an asshole, asshole. Peter since when do you allow personal attacks like that?
Your argument is circular and false. Green energy isn’t green because miners use fossil fuels? Yeah, until they use green electricity, which is the whole point. Of. Constructing. Green. Infrastructure.
Did not mean to insult you personally previously, I meant the universal “you”. But now that I have read more of your assertions, I am finding it difficult to restrain myself.
And, no, I don’t find Tim Garrett to be a sage. I think he is a dangerous nihilistic nut who:
His solution to save humanity is to deliberately destroy the economy or build nuclear power plants as fast as possible. Which is either the talk of a quintessential mad scientist, and/or someone who doesn’t agree with your ideas about not using dirty energy. Brilliant stuff.
Sorry – source of quote:
http://www.deseretnews.com/article/705346695/University-of-Utah-professor-Tim-Garrett-says-conservation-is-futile.html?pg=all
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsieur_Verdoux
“The film ends as Verdoux is being led to the guillotine in the prison courtyard after dismissing his killing of a few as no worse than the highly-praised killing of large numbers in war”
Somehow I can’t imagine you weasel-wording by candlelight to save wildlife.
Please don’t insult weasels by comparing them to that omnimoron.
I see I am not the one who doesn’t care about killing birds.
You seem to be the one who can’t comprehend ratios and degrees of magnitude.
And people who care about birds have known the differences for a long time as there was a US Fish and Wildlife report almost 10 years ago.
Do you think they don’t care about birds?
Almost anything can be implemented badly and some things are more difficult to do safely but that doesn’t mean it shouldn’t or can’t be done at all.
The info above show that fossil fuel plants are 30x more deadly to avians than wind turbines.
Do you care about that? How much so?
Ratios and degrees of magnitudes..exactly Verdoux’s point. And just as absurd.
Nobody justifies themselves from murder by claiming cars kill anyway far more people per day, let alone per year.
So I do not give a (…) about bird killing comparisons between wind and coal. I want to see what the wind industry is doing to reduce the number of killed birds to zero.
Just another of your strawman “arguments”. War, car accidents and murder are not equivalent, under the law.
And, once again, you’re dissembling as I’m sure you are well aware of exactly what the wind industry has been doing to reduce bird kills.
If not, allow me to point you in the right direction – g…o…o…g…l…e
omnologos,
As you’re a GW denier I’ll assume you’re unfarmliar with the concept of “context”. Yes wind energy companies should try and reduce bird deaths….but so too should everyone else. Of course reducing bird deaths/environmental damage from fossil fuels (or nuclear for that matter). More so given that they are clearly responsible for more bird deaths than wind farms.
If you feel so strongly about it, why don’t you go and sound off at some pro-fossil lobby or nuclear lobby blog?
Oh, and btw you’re comment above was a double negative (…not the one who doesn’t….)
😉
“I see I am not the one who doesn’t care about killing birds.”
No, we see you as someone who cares about how he can use the killing of birds as a sophistic argument against wind power.
You should give him credit; he has contributed to important scientific literature a “World Exclusive” no less to The Spectator and Il Foglio. Top denial journals
http://omnologos.com/world-exclusive-cia-1974-document-reveals-emptiness-of-agw-scares-closes-debate-on-global-cooling-consensus-and-more-2/
An exercise in intellectually dishonesty
Omnologos,
You might not be aware that over in the UK the primary bird conservation group the RSPB have long held a position supportive of wind farms although they reserve the right to object to individual windfarm projects that encroach on rare bird habitats.
As the RSPB sees it the biggest threat to birds is Climate Change (which could wipe out entire species of the UK’s birds) and they recognize that any damage wind turbines do has to be put in context.
i.e. if you think that bird deaths from wind farms are a burden too far, then you’re advocating that we board up every tall building, shutdown all coal and nuclear plants, ban pesticides and shoot all the cats!
Tall glass buildings kill an enormous number of birds. Airplanes kill a lot of birds. Pesticides kill an awful lot of birds. Oil spills kill a lot animals including birds.
By the way, some of the folks in Falmouth MA are still at it:
http://www.npr.org/2013/05/17/184700636/cape-cod-community-to-vote-on-status-of-wind-turbines
Neil
To paraphrase the moronic rambling of Maurizio…..
actually I don’t think I can. He has outdone himself this time.
Here an excerpt of one of Peter’s videos:
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HLVC50dIJAE&w=640&h=390]
I should point out that the numbers of birds allegedly killed by nuclear power is grossly exaggerated. This is based on a single study by an author (Sovacool) known for rather shoddy scholarship. In the present case, Sovacool attributes to nuclear over 3000 bird deaths that were actually caused by fossil fuels; he attributes to uranium mining over 300 bird deaths actually caused by copper mining; and worst of all when citing Beiwald 2005, he includes 2 out of 2 cases where cooling towers were seen to have high bird strike deaths, while ignoring — in that very same paragraph — 4 out of 4 cases where bird strike deaths were low. If you correct all of Sevacool’s errors, nuclear power causes at most 4000 bird deaths per year, rather than the ridiculous 460,000 per year of his conclusion.
Why is it that everyone who comes up with figures the nuclear lobby doesn’t like soon earns the “discredited” label? The problem with you guys is you retreat into you’re own little bunker and don’t want to accept anything that contradicts the pro-nuke mantra.
You are aware for example that EDF energy have let slip the true price of nuclear power, they’re looking for between £95-100 per MWh, or about $144-150/MWh?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/energy/9941499/Hinkley-Point-C-deal-or-no-deal-for-UK-nuclear.html
And they were originally looking for £130/MWh ($180)!
http://profeng.com/commentary/debate-is-hotting-up-over-energy-bills-and-support-for-building-nuclear-power-stations
These figures are about 2.5-3 times higher than the nuclear lobby have generally tried to argue as being the cost of nuclear (and it doesn’t include the long term waste disposal costs btw!), but about within the ball park of what the NEF (New Economics Foundation) and Stephen Thomas (two “discredited” sources….if you believe the nuke lobby!) have been saying as long ago as 2003
….oh and btw the overnight costs for windpower is about £60-80 MWh…guess which one you think utilities are going to invest in!
I give the “discredited” label to anyone who deserves it, regardless of politics. And when Sovacool flat-out lies in print, as he has in this study, he deserves the label. I serious wonder why you think that kind of behavior is perfectly fine, as long as the subject being lied about in nuclear power.
Even with the data abuse, Sovacool failed to nail nuclear, since relative to generation, nuclear would still be safer for birds than wind. But you’re correct; Sovacool twisted his data examination without scruple to make his propaganda point.
An analysis , by Paul Lorenzini, of the missteps taken by Sovacool is here: http://theenergycollective.com/rodadams/218576/nukes-kill-more-birds-wind
Sovacool’s analysis tricks would make a climate denier proud.
Is Sovacool known for shoddy scholarship or is it you just don’t like his conclusions? Please be specific and show references, like a scholarly critique or alternative peer reviewed paper. A biased opinion is only worth so much. Regarding some of your objections, they appear to be parroting a common armchair complaint, not scientific debate. One of Sovacool’s references are to a copper mine. You could be overlooking the fact that any open pit mine could be used to estimate avian mortality at open pit mines such as uranium mines, not to imply that a copper mine is a uranium mine. Nuclear apologists like to close their eyes and imagine pristine pictures of clean powerplants like Fukushima, before three buildings exploded. Oh yea, why do nuclear plants have those high smokestacks? They are supposed to exhaust filtered and treated air to keep radioactive emissions low. How are the birds doing at Chernobyl? Oops forgot about that. How about Kyshtym? Dont even know what that is? So yes, there are a lot of bird deaths in uranium mining. And decommissioning. And operation. The hot effluent from cooling towers has an effect on aquatic life and bird habitat and bird mortality. Not to mention the occasional gross nuclear disaster. But dont pay any attention to that.
http://www.sc.edu/news/newsarticle.php?nid=3512#.UZswpZU6kW8
significant problems stemming from the legacy of uranium development still exist today
The Environmental Protection Agency estimates that there are 4000 mines with documented uranium production, and another 15,000 locations with uranium occurrences in 14 western states
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium_mining
Reality would increasingly appear to have a strong anti-nuclear bias!
> “Is Sovacool known for shoddy scholarship or is it you just don’t like his conclusions? Please be specific and show references, like a scholarly critique or alternative peer reviewed paper.”
Beerten, J., Laes, E., Meskens, G., & D’haeseleer, W. (2009). Greenhouse gas emissions in the nuclear life cycle: A balanced appraisal. Energy policy, 37(12), 5056-5068.
“Most recently, Sovacool(2008) calculated a mean value for the overall emissions by averaging the global results of 19 LCA [Life-Cycle Analysis] studies forming a subset of, as stated by the author, ‘the most current, original and transparent studies’ out of 103 studies. However, a critical assessment reveals that a majority of the studies representing the upper part of the spectrum are studies that can be traced back to the same input data and performed by the same author, namely by Jan Willem Storm van Leeuwen. After careful analysis, it must be concluded that the mix of selected LCAs results in a skewed and distorted collection of different results available in the literature. Furthermore, since many studies use different energy mixes and other assumptions, averaging GHG emissions of those studies is no sound method to calculate an overall emission coefficient…”
>”You could be overlooking the fact that any open pit mine could be used to estimate avian mortality at open pit mines such as uranium mines, not to imply that a copper mine is a uranium mine. ”
That single copper mine in question took out a billion tons of ore over its lifetime. That’s about 10,000 times larger than all uranium production in US history — and only a tiny fraction of uranium production was ever done by open pit. An honest broker would have divided those 300 bird deaths by about 50,000 to reflect that. Sovacool didn’t do that. Beyond that, the birds were killed by exposure to copper, cadmium, and arsenic, which are typically found in copper mine pit lakes but not typically found in uranium mine pit lakes.
>”Nuclear apologists like to close their eyes and imagine pristine pictures of clean powerplants like Fukushima, before three buildings exploded.”
… and killed nobody. We can get into human safety issues too if you want, but you will find that nuclear power is as safe or safer than any other energy source.
>”Oh yea, why do nuclear plants have those high smokestacks?”
They don’t. Those are cooling towers that have zero emissions.
“They are supposed to exhaust filtered and treated air to keep radioactive emissions low. ”
They do. Nuclear power plants typically emit ~1% of the radioactivity emitted by a coal fired power plant.
>”So yes, there are a lot of bird deaths in uranium mining.”
And yet somehow you haven’t actually documented even a single bird.