Hey Dalton, Suzuki, and Al baby...

[GostHacked]

from here... first, we acknowledge your hyper-hyperbole;

we then proceed to show the fallacy of your narrative...

- from the National Academies (National Research Council - 2007):

Environmental Impacts of Wind-Energy Projects

then we close out by challenging you to carry your false narrative further; most particularly, to have you continue to play on it by drawing our a comparison between wind-related bird deaths and the threat of climate change to bird species.

So where do we go from here Waldo? We can talk about the problem all we want, but if CO2 is the threat, we need solutions. In the meantime, I'll go plant some trees.

[Pliny]

from here... first, we acknowledge your hyper-hyperbole;

we then proceed to show the fallacy of your narrative...

- from the National Academies (National Research Council - 2007):

Environmental Impacts of Wind-Energy Projects

then we close out by challenging you to carry your false narrative further; most particularly, to have you continue to play on it by drawing our a comparison between wind-related bird deaths and the threat of climate change to bird species.

Globally there are a few hundred thousand wind turbines in the world and they are already killing 20,000birds/per year. Wow! they supply about 2% of the world's energy today so when they are supplying 50% they will be killing about a million/year and of course that's just adding on to the power grid. Oh wait a second your stats are from 2003. I think there were only about 50,000 wind turbines then and today they are even bigger so we can even bump up the amount another three times to bring it up to date. That's 3 million birds/yr. Oh wait a second your original number 2003 was 20,000 to 37,000 so the number has to go up even higher. Between 3 million and 6 million. Just adding a few million to the already existing numbers isn't that significant I guess.

Thanks for the info.

[Michael Hardner]

1M birds a year doesn't seem so bad when weighed against the bio gains from less fossil fuels.

Does anyone have a link ?

[waldo]

Globally there are a few hundred thousand wind turbines in the world and they are already killing 20,000birds/per year. Wow! they supply about 2% of the world's energy today so when they are supplying 50% they will be killing about a million/year and of course that's just adding on to the power grid. Oh wait a second your stats are from 2003. I think there were only about 50,000 wind turbines then and today they are even bigger so we can even bump up the amount another three times to bring it up to date. That's 3 million birds/yr. Oh wait a second your original number 2003 was 20,000 to 37,000 so the number has to go up even higher. Between 3 million and 6 million. Just adding a few million to the already existing numbers isn't that significant I guess.

Thanks for the info.

I didn't comment on it initially... clearly, your transparent wedge play aligns quite well with your self-avowed, loud & proud, AGW/CC denier position. The paper presented to you offered a seminal body of study from no less than the National Research Council of the National Academies... whether you consider it dated, or not. The intent in presenting the paper was to offer perspective, a relative comparison of avian mortality associated with an assortment of energy sources. If you cared anything whatsoever about avian mortality, other than as a wedge issue, you would have commented on the overwhelming disproportionate statistics/estimates that, most certainly, show bird deaths caused by wind turbines are a minute fraction of the total anthropogenic related bird deaths. Instead... you proceed to double-down with your own unsubstantiated 'projections'... while avoiding any acknowledgment to other forms of avian mortality.

I could offer up a more timely 2009 study - one that calculates the number of birds killed per gigawatt-hour (GWh) generated for wind electricity, fossil fuel, and nuclear power systems... a study that estimates wind farms and nuclear power stations are responsible each for between 0.3 and 0.4 fatalities per gigawatt-hour (GWh) of electricity, while fossil fueled power stations are responsible for about 5.2 fatalities per GWh. Given the studies expressed uncertainties of the data used, it estimates that, "wind farms killed approximately 20,000 birds in the United States in 2009, while nuclear plants killed about 330,000 and fossil fueled power plants killed more than 14 million birds." I could offer up this more timely study... but it certainly doesn't stand up to your unsubstantiated and self-serving projections.

whether you actually step-up and comment on all forms of avian mortality, I trust you will substantiate your projections; while doing so, I expect your substantiation will include actions taken by the 'wind industry' towards alleviating mortality rates. And granted, some of those actions taken and being researched by the wind industry are self-serving... the imagery of a fallen raptor is a powerful motivator. I expect your projections will include, will account for such things as better wind farm site locating that acknowledges migratory patterns or 'raptor corridors', or technological advances like using radar to detect incoming flocks of small birds or individual birds... like large raptors.

[bleeding heart]

I didn't comment on it initially... clearly, your transparent wedge play aligns quite well with your self-avowed, loud & proud, AGW/CC denier position. The paper presented to you offered a seminal body of study from no less than the National Research Council of the National Academies... whether you consider it dated, or not. The intent in presenting the paper was to offer perspective, a relative comparison of avian mortality associated with an assortment of energy sources. If you cared anything whatsoever about avian mortality, other than as a wedge issue, you would have commented on the overwhelming disproportionate statistics/estimates that, most certainly, show bird deaths caused by wind turbines are a minute fraction of the total anthropogenic related bird deaths. Instead... you proceed to double-down with your own unsubstantiated 'projections'... while avoiding any acknowledgment to other forms of avian mortality.

An educational post, but as you allude to, there is exactly zero genuine concern in that post for birds killed by wind farms...or by anything else.

[bush_cheney2004]

An educational post, but as you allude to, there is exactly zero genuine concern in that post for birds killed by wind farms...or by anything else.

Correct....not losing any sleep these days over "avian mortality" due to wind farms. But I'm sure it keeps some wayward scientists employed...somewhwere.