Help needed re Mifflin wind turbines

On Sat, 29 Mar 2014 08:14:05 -0700, Sean Fidler wrote:

WIth due respect, where did you get these data on the oil industry
killing more birds than green energy wind turbines? Please share this
data with us so we can study it.

Oddly, enough data on ONE large spill appeared in this week's New
Scientist.

Spill: Exxon Valdez, a 40 million litre crude oil spill. That is
approximately 10 million gallons.

Damage: 2100 km of coastline contaminated. Estimated that 250,000
seabirds, 2000 sea otters, 300 harbour seals, 250 bald eagles were
killed. Fisheries were closed during the cleanup, so a big impact on
fishermen.

Source: http://www.newscientist.com/article/...on-valdez-oil-
still-a-threat-25-years-on.html

Other: Infoplease http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0001451.html
lists 28 other major spills between 1967 and 2010. These are all on land
or within 10 miles of a coast, so probably have a similar effect on
wildlife, fisheries, etc to the Exxon Valdez.

The total spill is 1112 million gallons during 43 years.

OK, wildlife death toll. Lets assume the damage from these spills is half
that of Exxon Valdez per 1000 gals spilt because the Exxon Valdez spill
was at least half in an inlet while the others were mostly on more
exposed coasts. This gives a guestimated total kill that is 55.5 times
that of Exxon Valdez, so we get:

14,000,000 seabirds killed
16,500 seals killed (seals lived on most of those coasts)

There's too little data on coastline contamination to work from and most
other places don't have bald eagles or sea otters, so I've ignored these
factors.

Right: your turn, Sean. Lets see some actual numbers for wind turbine
bird kills and don't forget to quote your sources.

Please note:
============
I'm not just sticking an oar in and stirring for the sake of stirring.

I've also heard comments about birds being killed by wind turbines but,
with the exception of the video posted earlier on this thread, I've not
seen any hard, evidence with attributed data sources to back up the
assertions about bird kill. I'd like to see some, especially because the
UK might have more turbines per head of population than you guys have. I
can't go flying from GRL without seeing at least two wind farms.


--
martin@ | Martin Gregorie
gregorie. | Essex, UK
org |

I think oil spills are terrible things. But liberal sponsored wind turbines methodically kill birds each and every day, week by week, year by year. I thought liberals wanted to protect our wildlife?

Oil spills are rare.

Let's stay focused on liberal windmills killing innocent birds. This is the key to keeping turbines off Karl's ridge. ;-)

Sean

On Sat, 29 Mar 2014 12:46:07 -0700, Sean Fidler wrote:

I think oil spills are terrible things. But liberal sponsored wind
turbines methodically kill birds each and every day, week by week, year
by year. I thought liberals wanted to protect our wildlife?

Oil spills are rare.

Let's stay focused on liberal windmills killing innocent birds. This is
the key to keeping turbines off Karl's ridge. ;-)

Forget liberals. You need hard numbers and the ability to say where they
come from if you're going to play the dead bird card, but so far there
are apparently no numbers and no reputable source for them.

Besides, if you look at that video really carefully, the blade doesn't
appear to hit the bird: it looks more like a very compact area of strong
turbulence broke its wing, which is odd because the bird seems to be
upwind of the turbine disk. Unless, of course, somebody shot it.


--
martin@ | Martin Gregorie
gregorie. | Essex, UK
org |

You'll have to cut and pate as my ability to drop in a link seems to be lacking today...

Smithsonian article: http://www.smithsonianmag.com/ist/?n...ill-180948154/

Biological Conservation report: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...06320713003522

This article has links to 2 studies, one lists the results of the 2009 US Fish and Wildlife report, the other is a by someone else, but more recent : http://www.birdwatchingdaily.com/blo...rms-last-year/

Here is the link to the Abstract by K. Shawn Smallwood, MAR 2013, full article requires membership: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/1...b.260/abstract

Why is everyone so lazy that they need to be spoon fed this? Is your Google-Fu that weak?

I'm not posting for one side or the other, just to show if one wants data, it is out there. I guess whomever reads any of this will need to determine if they are "reliable" sources or not.

Ooo... it has the links for me! Yay!

On Sat, 29 Mar 2014 14:37:49 -0700, Two Shoes (Judson Knowles) wrote:

Why is everyone so lazy that they need to be spoon fed this? Is your
Google-Fu that weak?

Speaking entirely for myself, my search skills are fine: took me about
two searches to find the stuff on birds killed by oil spills.

I considered looking for the US turbine stuff myself but decided not to:
since those quoting very large bird kill numbers sounded so sure they
knew the facts I thought it would be better to ask them what they based
their assertions on, which is what I did. Besides, UK figures are more
interesting to me.

T'was interesting to see just how little peer-reviewed literature there
is on the subject *and* that the best the Smithsonian could do was to
quote somebody else: I thought they were the sort of outfit that would do
their own research.

It was also interesting to compare annual kill rate estimates for the
entire US installed turbine collection with the estimates for the overall
Exxon Valdez spill's figure, so thanks for the links you've provided.
I'll be interested to see what data some others have.

Doing a similar search for the UK is on my todo list.

I'm not posting for one side or the other, just to show if one wants
data, it is out there. I guess whomever reads any of this will need to
determine if they are "reliable" sources or not.

Indeed, but at least we know who made the estimates and what methods they
used.


--
martin@ | Martin Gregorie
gregorie. | Essex, UK
org |

Great post Judson.