Oct 27 2016
Do Wind Mills “Kill All the Birds?”
No energy source is perfect, but if we are going to make rational decisions about where to invest in our energy infrastructure, we have to consider all the features of each option. We need precise information that is placed into a proper context.
That, of course, requires thoroughness, diligence, a willingness to listen to actual experts, and the ability to think somewhere above a third grade level (my apologies to all third graders).
Donald Trump apparently lacks all of those qualities.
In a recent interview Trump said:
“[Wind power] kills all the birds. Thousands of birds are lying on the ground. And the eagle. You know, certain parts of California — they’ve killed so many eagles. You know, they put you in jail if you kill an eagle. And yet these windmills [kill] them by the hundreds.”
This is a claim he has repeated in numerous speeches and, of course, late night tweets.
I know that many people consider Trump’s typical speech pattern to just be hyperbole. While it is certainly that, I am not as generous in my interpretation. His speech is undeniably scattered, imprecise, absolute, and simplistic. The most parsimonious interpretation of this fact is that his thoughts are scattered, imprecise, absolute, and simplistic.
Let’s take his claim that wind power “kills all the birds.” Of course, he doesn’t mean that wind turbines literally kill every single bird. He doesn’t mean that, but he doesn’t mean anything precise or accurate. He is satisfied with a simplistic and emotional phrase. Then he starts throwing around big numbers for emphasis, big numbers that he just makes up.
Let’s compare this to reality.
A recent review of the literature on bird deaths from wind turbines concludes that the annual death of birds in the US from wind turbines is 140,000 and 328,000. If we extrapolate this out, then if the US increases its wind energy production to 20% of total energy, that would result in 1.4 million bird deaths per year.
Before we go on, I want to point out that I am an avid birder. I love birds, and would prefer that we take all reasonable measures to preserve our native bird species. I am concerned about the adoption of a new technology that will increase the annual death of native birds. So don’t think I am taking the issue lightly.
I should add that wind mills are perhaps an even greater hazard to bats, of which I am also a fan.
But here is where knowing the precise numbers, and being able to think through an issue, is necessary to have a meaningful opinion. Let’s compare bird deaths from wind turbines to bird deaths from other sources.
Cell towers kill an estimated 6.8 million birds annually. That is 20 times the current death rate from wind turbines, and about five times greater than even a fully deployed wind energy infrastructure.
High tension wires kill about 200 million – that is about 1,000 times as many birds as wind turbines.
But we’re just getting started. Windows are the big technological killer of birds. Between 365 and 988 million birds are killed each year from collisions with windows. I wonder how many birds Trump’s hotels and other buildings kill.
We haven’t even mentioned the biggest bird killer of them all – cats. A 2012 meta-analysis concluded:
We estimate that free-ranging domestic cats kill 1.3–4.0 billion birds and 6.3–22.3 billion mammals annually.
Of course, no study is final, and this study has come under some criticism, but let’s assume their estimate is not off by more than an order of magnitude.
Even if we take the lower end of the estimate ranges for each of these other sources of bird deaths, they add up to 1,872 million bird deaths a year in the US. If we compare this to the upper range of the estimate for wind turbines, 1.4 million per year after full deployment, we can see that what Trump referred to as “killing all the birds” amounts to little more than a round off error in estimates of bird deaths.
The chart at the top of this post comes from Sibley Guides. As you can see graphically, wind power deaths barely register as a blip on this chart.
What about those bald eagles? Even a small total number of bald eagle deaths are a concern. Estimates are very lose at this point, but the present estimate is that 100 golden eagles (not bald eagles) are killed per year in the US by wind farms. There have been only 6 confirmed bald eagle deaths due to wind turbines in the last 20 years. That is certainly an underestimate because these were incidental findings, not systematic searches.
Of course we should also consider the effects of climate change on bird species, although that will be a thorny and controversial issue. It is not unreasonable to conclude, however, that it is possible wind power may save more birds than they kill to the extent that they mitigate climate change. I will only say “possible” because that will be very difficult to estimate.
What about other sources of power? What is the effect of pollution from coal burning plants on bird populations?
Even if we set aside the unknowns, bird deaths from wind turbines is minuscule compared to other sources. If we truly care about the birds, we would promote technologies to mitigate deaths from collisions with windows and bury our power lines. You should also keep your cats indoors, and help control feral cat populations.
I also favor exploring technologies to reduce bird and bat deaths from wind turbines. One study, for example, found that if wind turbines turned on at higher wind speeds that would reduce energy production by only 1% but slash bat deaths (and possibly bird deaths). We need to consider where we put them, and explore technologies to repel birds and bats from the blades.
None of these technologies will save more birds than putting stickers on windows, but we should do them also.
This is the kind of thorough and nuanced discussion that we need from our elected leaders. They need to make practical decisions that consider all outcomes and alternatives, that are well-informed by experts, and are reasonably evidence-based. I don’t expect a nuanced discussion during a campaign speech, but a minimally accurate one would be nice.
Unlike some of his defenders, I don’t think Trump is dumbing it down for his campaign speeches or tweets. All of the evidence points to the conclusion that we are seeing the extent of his thought processes, and the nonsensical conclusions to which they lead.
13 Responses to “Do Wind Mills “Kill All the Birds?””
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Delete this after it is changed:
Can you upload a higher resolution graph? I can’t quite make out the words, working on a little bit of guess-work.
also:
” He doesn’t mean that, but he doesn’t many anything precise or accurate”
-many -> mean
Good post!
You can now click the picture to embiggen.
Do birds impacting with airplanes, helicopters, or drones figure into this menagerie? How often does military attacks impact the flying flocks?
I don’t know but cars are about 80 million per year.
This source says 17 bald eagle deaths in one year from plane strikes: http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-eagle-air-strikes-20160531-snap-story.html
Do you have any further information on high tension wire deaths? I assumed that those would be electrocutions but then noted those as a separate line item below. Are the high tension wire deaths (and communication towers) more of a subgroup that has been pulled from the larger ‘electrocution’ group? Also, I would assume that a vast majority of other electrocutions would be a result of standard power lines? Offhand I can’t think of any other scenarios that would cause birds to be exposed to uninsulated electric wires on a regular basis. I wasn’t able to find any additional information in the Sibley Guides link you provided.
As part of the comparison of fossil fuels vs wind turbines, I wonder how many birds are killed by the infrastructure which must be built and constantly operated to feed fossil fuel plants? Coal has to be the worse with all the ripping up of the environment associated with the mining. Then it must be transported, mostly by railroads. I bet trains kill a few birds and mess with their habitats. Oil and natural gas are a bit less intrusive at the well heads, but there’s a huge amount of truck traffic associated with fracking waste water. Wind turbines don’t have to be fed anything, just maintained.
If a wind turbine fails, the worst that happens is the turbine totally destroys itself. Mining, pipeline and other transport disasters can take out huge chunks of habitat, killing many birds and render their environment uninhabitable. Deepwater Horizon anyone?
Off-topic, but I find it interesting that I’ve been (loosely) following Steven’s output for a number of years now, and I only learned now that he’s an avid birder. (I am also an avid birder.)
I also very much loved this paragraph:
“I know that many people consider Trump’s typical speech pattern to just be hyperbole. While it is certainly that, I am not as generous in my interpretation. His speech is undeniably scattered, imprecise, absolute, and simplistic. The most parsimonious interpretation of this fact is that his thoughts are scattered, imprecise, absolute, and simplistic.”
I had never heard of window decals to prevent birds from flying into them. Thanks for the info, I’ll be buying some and applying them promptly!
jbc – He has mentioned it on occasion in the skeptics guide podcast a couple times. The most interesting to me were the venomous snake in his backyard attracted by the rodents eating the seed spillage and the controversy around whether bird feeders are detrimental to bird populations due to the impact it has on their feeding habits.
“You should also keep your cats indoors, and help control feral cat populations.”
Good luck with that. I don’t believe I’ve ever left the house without encountering cats at large. Looks like Rhode Island has strict laws but incongruently permits a farmland exemption. Farm cats also kill birds.
Yes, solar and wind do cause bird deaths. Pointing out that airplanes and helicopters also cause them is a red herring. Whether or not the bird deaths is an argument against those is separate argument, and whether it’s worth it is along the lines of whether the occasional spill occurring with fracking is worth it. We hear about incidental harms and causation when it comes to fossil fuels, but trying to bring up incidental harms and causations from so-called “renewable energy” is all but taboo.
The narrative on the subject of energy is woefully one-sided. Sorry, but it is, and it’s decidedly on the left. That is because most of MSM is on the left. Denying that is a form of denialism, but that is the state of modern media – it is not objective or unbiased.
Virtually any human interaction with the world has some sort of consequence, and whether it’s considered harmful or not does have a subjective element to it. That’s just how it is.
The deal with the subject of energy is that there are so many misdirects and so much misinformation, it’s difficult to know what to make of it, so one can hardly blame the average consumer. Most media is dead set against fossil fuels, and yes, it has it’s issues, but our economy at present time is absolutely dependent on it. Furthermore, the popular narrative is against nuclear which is one that opposes the actual science, and yes, it’s again leftist.
Having an actual sensical and reasonable discussion about energy is about as likely as having one about GMOs. Right now, it’s the left that drives the narrative about GMOs, and it’s the left hat drives the narrative about energy.
One may think that I oppose the left from this post, but that’s not the case. I oppose any bad ideas and faulty thinking no matter where it comes from. It just so happens that the left currently owns the narrative. Sorry, but things like climate change denial and abortion don’t come up unless it’s against the right, by and large. And no, reality isn’t leftist like I’ve seen some here claim.
Steven,
What a load of leftist, tree hugging, hippy propaganda. Everyone knows that wind turbines kill all the birds! What do you think happened to the passenger pigeon? The dodo? The giant moa? That’s right. Wind turbines killed them all!!!1! If it were’nt for environmentalists like you, they’d still be around.
I really like what I see/read at ORNILUX dot COM and have to hope that use of same/similar technology will SOON be made mandatory for new building construction and existing window replacement, and possibly encouraging or mandating retrofitting in buildings identified as high-risk, such as some of the monstrous office buildings that are 5, 10, 20+ floors of excruciatingly reflective glass – making the building itself appear to be sky. There are also UV reflective paints available that are much easier and cheaper than window replacement, and building owners could easily have those applied at an affordable cost: Such paints dry and appear clear to humans, but are visible and deterrent to birds.