Intresting study on the birds killed by various electrical power sources

[pikergolf]

It estimates that 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 fossilfueled
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.

http://poseidon01.ssrn.com/delivery....105085&EXT=pdf

[Sundancefisher]

Sovacool is a well known anti nuclear activist/researcher

He list deaths caused by mining for uranium and coal and oil...however does not count mining of steal for turbines.

He has also been charged with failing to live up to fair research methodology.

Oil and Gas reports all deaths. His study does not account for scavanger loss and search efficiency for wind farms.

He also uses lots of assumptions in his "research"

http://atomicinsights.com/nukes-kill...rds-than-wind/

There are a lot more oil and gas facilities than wind. I see birds nesting on platforms created by the oil and gas industry. Birds don't fly into pump jacks and die. They don't fly into pipelines and die. They do fly into turbines and die.

Unfortunately the study you posted is very outdated in this field. Lots of studies have been done since 2012 to highlight bird deaths in windfarms.

[stubblejumper01]

Too bad they didn't compare their stats to the amount of birds killed by flying into windows on high-rises in the cities. Or the amount killed by house cats

[Sundancefisher]

Originally Posted by stubblejumper01

Too bad they didn't compare their stats to the amount of birds killed by flying into windows on high-rises in the cities. Or the amount killed by house cats

There are tons of birds killed from building. Leaving lights on is terrible. If you look in the morning at dawn I see all kinds of birds

[stubblejumper01]

There have been a couple fly into my house windows in the last few weeks. On the west side after the sun moves farther west. That is what made me think of it. Saw a news report a few years back. The numbers are surprising.

[Purple Farmer]

I'd like to see a study on how many are killed eating out of McDonald's dumpsters.

[Bushrat]

And depending on whose numbers a billion or so birds killed by automobiles. in north America.

[Sundancefisher]

Ottawa killing birds. More than one thinks.

http://bc.ctvnews.ca/mobile/video?playlistId=1.2845207

Much out cry compared to Fort Mac ducks?

[histyle]

Originally Posted by Sundancefisher

Ottawa killing birds. More than one thinks.

http://bc.ctvnews.ca/mobile/video?playlistId=1.2845207

Much out cry compared to Fort Mac ducks?

Maybe the Migratory Birds Act should apply to 'green' sources of energy, not just major pipelines. If pipeline companies can't build a right of way during migration & nesting periods, why should wind turbines be allowed to spin? I mean... if it saves just 1 duck....

[KegRiver]

Originally Posted by stubblejumper01

Too bad they didn't compare their stats to the amount of birds killed by flying into windows on high-rises in the cities. Or the amount killed by house cats

Agreed.

Cornell Lab of Ornithology estimates that at least 100 million birds per year die in window collisions.

wildlifemanagementinstitute.org says this about birds and cats.

The finding that cats are only bringing back less than one quarter of their kills to their residence counters previous studies that tried to gauge the impacts of domestic cats on wildlife. Those earlier estimates of a billion birds and animals per year were based on mortality counts from animals that the cats brought home with them.

Makes wind turbines look pretty bird friendly in comparison.

[Sundancefisher]

Originally Posted by KegRiver

Agreed.

Cornell Lab of Ornithology estimates that at least 100 million birds per year die in window collisions.

wildlifemanagementinstitute.org says this about birds and cats.



Makes wind turbines look pretty bird friendly in comparison.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/1...b.260/abstract

Likely more than 600,000 birds a year and 800,000 bats killed by farms. More turbines installed since the 2013 study.

[KegRiver]

Originally Posted by Sundancefisher

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/1...b.260/abstract

Likely more than 600,000 birds a year and 800,000 bats killed by farms. More turbines installed since the 2013 study.

It will do little good to eliminate the source of 600,000 preventable deaths per year if we ignore the sources of an additional 1.1 billion or more preventable deaths per year.

Not that nothing should be done, but that we need the whole truth if there is to be any hope of an effective strategy being developed.

We all ready have far too many conservation laws that focus on one species to the detriment of all others.
For example, the fire prevention strategy to enhance lumber production potential.

A healthy environment encompasses all species and many many natural factors that often do not fit well with human consumption goals.

Fire, insects, and disease evolved as part of a healthy ecosystem.
We suppress them at our peril.

I remember a time when no one sprayed weeds anywhere. Farm production was much lower then, then it is today but so were cancer rates and wildlife populations on those farms was much much higher then it is today.

I see the same thing with tick populations. They were always there but as antlercarver says, there seems to be a serious increase in the frequency and severity of tick outbreaks since fire suppression became common practice.

Something else to consider. Who is studying the disappearance of Grayling from the Peace River watershed ?
It seems to me that there is major cause for concern there, yet no one seems to care. Why?
Is it because no one fished for them? Is it because they played no role in the ecosystem? Or is it that there is no money to be made in conserving them?

Let us be honest here folks. It is rare that our interests or the interests of the world around us is the motivation behind any conservation plan.
Salmon populations were not a concern when only anglers were effected.
No effort was made to enhance Moose and Elk populations until outfitting became big business. Forest fires were not suppressed until the lumber industry called for it.

Someone has reason to want to shut down wind farms. I ask myself why. Is it really about the bird kills. If so, why isn't window strikes and domestic cats part of the argument against them?

I get really suspicious when the whole truth is not presented. I smell money, a lot of money. And in my experience, when big money is involved, conservation is never a consideration. Nor is what is in the best interest of the public.

[KegRiver]

Some samples of the whole picture.

From the best known bird watching quide publishers, sibleyguides.com

Wind turbines may kill 33,000 birds per year, and, as in the case of electrocutions, these birds tend to be large and scarce (e.g. raptors). The recent surge of interest in wind power has heightened concerns about their effect on birds, and has led to at least the discussion of efforts by the wind power industry to design more benign windmills and to choose locations that are less “birdy”. It’s difficult for an environmentalist to come out against renewable energy like wind turbines, but as long as the electricity generated is considered a “supplement” to satisfy increasing demand, wind power will not really help the fight against global warming. Establishment of wind farms should go hand-in-hand with drastic cuts in electricity use, and there is a real need for more study of the relationship between birds and wind farms.

From a CBC report;

An Environment Canada study released Tuesday shows that more than 270 million birds are killed in Canada every year from human-related activity, which includes deaths caused by cats owned, or not controlled well, by humans.
Richard Elliot, director of wildlife research for Environment Canada, said in an interview the estimated figure of 270 million is out of a total of 10 billion birds. "We've got a lot of birds, and that's probably a good thing because we're killing a lot."
The report looked at wild birds and not the millions of chickens, turkeys and other birds that are raised to be slaughtered for the food industry.


After cats, both domestic and feral, the biggest bird-killers are collisions with tall structures and road deaths. Combined, these three causes are responsible for 95 per cent of deaths.

Avian Conservation & Ecology has this to say on the subject.

Many human activities in Canada kill wild birds, yet the relative magnitude of mortality from different sources and the consequent effects on bird populations have not been systematically evaluated. We synthesize recent estimates of avian mortality in Canada from a range of industrial and other human activities, to provide context for the estimates from individual sources presented in this special feature. We assessed the geographic, seasonal, and taxonomic variation in the magnitude of national-scale mortality and in population-level effects on species or groups across Canada, by combining these estimates into a stochastic model of stage-specific mortality. The range of estimates of avian mortality from each source covers several orders of magnitude, and, numerically, landbirds were the most affected group. In total, we estimate that approximately 269 million birds and 2 million nests are destroyed annually in Canada, the equivalent of over 186 million breeding individuals. Combined, cat predation and collisions with windows, vehicles, and transmission lines caused > 95% of all mortality; the highest industrial causes of mortality were the electrical power and agriculture sectors. Other mortality sources such as fisheries bycatch can have important local or species-specific impacts, but are relatively small at a national scale. Mortality rates differed across species and families within major bird groups, highlighting that mortality is not simply proportional to abundance. We also found that mortality is not evenly spread across the country; the largest mortality sources are coincident with human population distribution, while industrial sources are concentrated in southern Ontario, Alberta, and southwestern British Columbia. Many species are therefore likely to be vulnerable to cumulative effects of multiple human-related impacts. This assessment also confirms the high uncertainty in estimating human-related avian mortality in terms of species involved, potential for population-level effects, and the cumulative effects of mortality across the landscape. Effort is still required to improve these estimates, and to guide conservation efforts to minimize direct mortality caused by human activities on Canada’s wild bird populations. As avian mortality represents only a portion of the overall impact to avifauna, indirect effects such as habitat fragmentation and alteration, site avoidance, disturbance, and related issues must also be carefully considered.

Rocky Point Bird Observatory


Studies show that bird populations in Canada have declined significantly. Research over the past 40 years has shown an overall decrease of 12%. Some species have been affected to a much greater extent with their numbers dropping by a staggering 95%.
While habitat loss is the most significant factor facing birds there are a number of other factors to consider. In a 2013 study scientists at Environment Canada identified cats and collisions with human structures as the two greatest killers of birds in Canada. They estimated that these sources account for 95% of all human related bird deaths.

[KegRiver]

Originally Posted by Purple Farmer

I'd like to see a study on how many are killed eating out of McDonald's dumpsters.

Fortunatly only Ravins, Magpies Gulls and Yuppies feed out of Mcdonald's dumpsters.

[Sundancefisher]

Originally Posted by KegRiver

It will do little good to eliminate the source of 600,000 preventable deaths per year if we ignore the sources of an additional 1.1 billion or more preventable deaths per year.

Not that nothing should be done, but that we need the whole truth if there is to be any hope of an effective strategy being developed.

We all ready have far too many conservation laws that focus on one species to the detriment of all others.
For example, the fire prevention strategy to enhance lumber production potential.

A healthy environment encompasses all species and many many natural factors that often do not fit well with human consumption goals.

Fire, insects, and disease evolved as part of a healthy ecosystem.
We suppress them at our peril.

I remember a time when no one sprayed weeds anywhere. Farm production was much lower then, then it is today but so were cancer rates and wildlife populations on those farms was much much higher then it is today.

I see the same thing with tick populations. They were always there but as antlercarver says, there seems to be a serious increase in the frequency and severity of tick outbreaks since fire suppression became common practice.

Something else to consider. Who is studying the disappearance of Grayling from the Peace River watershed ?
It seems to me that there is major cause for concern there, yet no one seems to care. Why?
Is it because no one fished for them? Is it because they played no role in the ecosystem? Or is it that there is no money to be made in conserving them?

Let us be honest here folks. It is rare that our interests or the interests of the world around us is the motivation behind any conservation plan.
Salmon populations were not a concern when only anglers were effected.
No effort was made to enhance Moose and Elk populations until outfitting became big business. Forest fires were not suppressed until the lumber industry called for it.

Someone has reason to want to shut down wind farms. I ask myself why. Is it really about the bird kills. If so, why isn't window strikes and domestic cats part of the argument against them?

I get really suspicious when the whole truth is not presented. I smell money, a lot of money. And in my experience, when big money is involved, conservation is never a consideration. Nor is what is in the best interest of the public.

I think it is a cop out to say you shouldn't care about 600K or more birds a year. That is a significant number to save.

As for Windows. How to stop that? Offices need to turn off lights at night after work closes.

[KegRiver]

Originally Posted by Sundancefisher

I think it is a cop out to say you shouldn't care about 600K or more birds a year. That is a significant number to save.

As for Windows. How to stop that? Offices need to turn off lights at night after work closes.

Who is saying we shouldn't care ?

[Sundancefisher]

Originally Posted by KegRiver

Who is saying we shouldn't care ?

Your statement above indicated we shouldn't worry about the 600,000. Question is can we prevent any? Is society turning a blind eye to wind farm deaths because they can't stop it and punish the far fewer deaths in the oil industry because they think it should have zero tolerance. Are building caused deaths an apathetic and regulatory nightmare that is ignored.

[KegRiver]

My statement above indicates that we are being lead to focus on the lesser part of the problem to the exclusion of the greater concern.

How you read it any other way is puzzling, unless you knew full well what I was saying and wished to mislead others.

And where do you get the idea that the oil industry is a greater concern when it comes to bird deaths !
What data do you have that supports that assertion ?

BTW, there is ongoing research into how to prevent window strikes and wind turbine strikes.
I have even implemented some strategies to reduce window strikes on my properties.
There's a lot being done and a lot more to do.
To suggest that anyone is turning a blind eye to anything is misleading and does a disservice to those working hard to reduce and if possible eliminate all sources of unintended human caused bird deaths.

[MK2750]

What is the life expectancy of the average bird? I'm guessing 1-3 years. The vast majority of birds are low on the food chain and considering their breeding habits they were no doubt designed for a high mortality rate annually.

[Sundancefisher]

Originally Posted by KegRiver

My statement above indicates that we are being lead to focus on the lesser part of the problem to the exclusion of the greater concern.

How you read it any other way is puzzling, unless you knew full well what I was saying and wished to mislead others.

And where do you get the idea that the oil industry is a greater concern when it comes to bird deaths !
What data do you have that supports that assertion ?

BTW, there is ongoing research into how to prevent window strikes and wind turbine strikes.
I have even implemented some strategies to reduce window strikes on my properties.
There's a lot being done and a lot more to do.
To suggest that anyone is turning a blind eye to anything is misleading and does a disservice to those working hard to reduce and if possible eliminate all sources of unintended human caused bird deaths.

Point I was making is some jump on the oil industry for a tiny impact compared to other impacts. The building impacts you mention are huge...yet totally ignored by the environmentists.

[Sundancefisher]

Originally Posted by MK2750

What is the life expectancy of the average bird? I'm guessing 1-3 years. The vast majority of birds are low on the food chain and considering their breeding habits they were no doubt designed for a high mortality rate annually.

While a robin can live 14 years they average 2 because most die in their first year. Survive that they do well.

Nature builds that into species survival fecundity rates. Artificially remove large portions of a population it can crash and go extinct.

Nature is not breeding faster to make up the shortfall by buildings and now wind turbines.

[Bushrat]

They are leaving out natural causes such as hypothermia when chicks are in the nest and get rained on when young. Squirrels, crows, magpies, ravens and birds of prey destroy and eat far more birds than cats, buildings, cars, etc, why are these major causes of bird mortality left out of these studies? Loss of habitat is the largest contributor of population decline.

[KegRiver]

Originally Posted by Bushrat

They are leaving out natural causes such as hypothermia when chicks are in the nest and get rained on when young. Squirrels, crows, magpies, ravens and birds of prey destroy and eat far more birds than cats, buildings, cars, etc, why are these major causes of bird mortality left out of these studies? Loss of habitat is the largest contributor of population decline.

Loss of habitat is huge, and as you say, largely ignored, except where it applies to game birds.

That is the ugly truth to wildlife management. The little effort that is put out is mostly private effort or government looking out for corporate or profitable interests. Read tax revenues.

Government seeks to enhance Deer populations because they sell a lot of hunting licenses. Meanwhile they are doing little to help the few remaining Bison because they don't generate many license sales.

Government takes steps to protect and enhance wetlands for Ducks because they generate demand for migratory bird permits. Meanwhile, the forests that Pileated Woodpeckers depend upon are being cut at an alarming rate.

My problem is how does one get government to manage for all species, including humans.
Up till today they have always managed for special interest groups, hunters, loggers, oilmen, animal rights groups. And it's not working well for anyone or anything.

One species gets protection, another gets enhanced habitat. We get painted as animal haters and meanwhile billions of creatures die needlessly every year because of human activity, and rot away in the sun because no one notices.

So much waste, so much mismanagement. And we are painted as villains.

Sustainable harvest is healthy for the ecosystem. Rampant uncontrolled deaths and unbalanced enhancement, intentional of accidental is not.

[propliner]

I'm trying to figure out how fossil fuel extraction supposedly kills all those birds and I can't think of anything. Someone help and explain.

[Mountain Guy]

Originally Posted by pikergolf

It estimates that 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 fossilfueled
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.

http://poseidon01.ssrn.com/delivery....105085&EXT=pdf

So let me guess... you live off the grid?
What you getting at?

[KegRiver]

Originally Posted by propliner

I'm trying to figure out how fossil fuel extraction supposedly kills all those birds and I can't think of anything. Someone help and explain.

My guess would be losses from oil spills and tailings ponds.