I have copied this comment by Bob McDonald from my blog post of 7th April titled ‘MInister Blocks Wind Farm for Orange Bellied Parrots’:
Wind power as generated by turbines with large blades has only recently been discovered to have a significant and avoidable impact on birds and bats. Better siting will provide most of the solution to this problem.
The difficulty is that it is very hard to count birds and bats killed by wind turbines. Predators remove kills quickly and given the size of the turbines and given the maximum blade tip speeds of around 300kph bats and birds killed can end up a considerable distance from the turbines.
Surprisingly birds like white throated needle tails, a large swallow-like bird that migrates annually to Australia feeding and sleeping on the wing, have been among the kills recorded. These birds are not only supreme ‘flyers’ but also use a form of echo location to catch their prey.
Similarly with bats it is surprising they get killed by turbines. In West Virginia the bat mortality generated by turbines only came to light when students camped below turbines and used dogs to find more than 300 dead and injured bats from a couple of dozen turbines over a few moths. This was in 2004.
These problems were not predicted, though it has been known for some time that birds have been struck by blades – but monitoring has been by turbines owners and those paid to host turbines – neither with the incentive report kills.
Companies that build wind turbines seek the most prominent locations to remind potential customers to ‘tick’ the green energy box on their power bill.
The Victorian State Government simply provided a wind atlas to these companies showing where the most reliable winds were as a guide to siting. The same reliable winds may also be used by migrating birds and bats.
Bird migration routes and travelling heights are also poorly understood. The most common known migrations are of species that arrive in flocks in the Australian Summer and depart in the autumn, also in flocks and most often at night.
The conditions at the time of departure and arrival determine what height and to an extent what route these flocks travel at.
To the bird in question, the Orange Bellied Parrot, it is the rarest of 17 species of national and international significance found likely to be killed by turbines if constructed at Bald Hills wetland.
No-one could be reasonably expected to predict the extent and nature of this problem. Now that it has been identified far more care must be taken with the siting of wind turbines and State Governments have a responsibility to decide where wind turbines should not be located.
Some basic rules for siting turbines could be –
1. Not within 30 kilometres of the coast, wetland or lakes. This safety margin is to allow for the full range of weather conditions that may bring migratory birds and bats within the range of spinning blades.
2. Not on ridges frequented by birds of prey from a given region, (not all ridge lines are used as ‘lofting areas’.)
3. That alternative energy consumers and property owners, who are paid for having turbines on their land, pay for and allow monitoring of existing turbines for birds and bat kills.
4. That turbines that are found to cause kills (by monitoring) are shutdown for the high risk periods and that alternative energy consumers cover these costs.
5. The available infra -red monitoring technology by used extensively for monitoring of sites for proposed wind farms before agreements with land owners to site turbines are reached and monitoring of existing turbine sites.
The very low numbers of Orange Bellied Parrots, less than 200, makes them vulnerable to even normal predation. The spend winter on the increasingly rare Victorian saltmarsh fringes scattered along the coast, as small and hard to identify. The estimate of the blades of the proposed Bald Hills windfarm being likely to kill one Orange Bellied Parrot per year are better understood as there is a good chance in 30 years that a flock of 30 will be killed.
There are a wide range of issues regarding wind turbines, but the impact on birds and bats is new and unpredicted as may be amplified by the area of turbulence around blade tips that could be equally fatal to small birds and bats aa blade strike.
Better siting will avoid most of the bird/bat interaction issues. Barrel shaped turbines currently be developed may solve this problem completely.
Bob McDonald, Naturalist
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
I think that this is also a very good code for mobile phone towers, high rise buildings made of glass and the like.
So now do we remove all large buildings that are less that 30 km from the coast?
Wind Turbines Kill Humans Too.
Wind generation is not with out its human toll. A list giving the accident rate and fatalities year by year has been compiled by the Caithness Wind farm Information Forum. Their data may not be complete. They point out the difficulties in obtain this information. However, it can be regarded as “the tip of the iceberg.”
http://www.caithnesswindfarms.co.uk/pages/accidentData.htm
Since the 1970’s there have been 273 accidents and 34 fatalities. The increased numbers of accidents and fatalities since the year 2000 may be due to more readily assessable data, or to an increase in the numbers of wind turbines.
Blade failure accounted for 91 accidents, Fire the second most common cause, is important because:
c) The turbine height make it difficult if not impossible for fire brigades
d) Flying embers can cause secondary grass and forest fires.
Other accidents with wind farms, include ice throws (20 recorded and 1 example of human injury), structural failure, lightening strikes, collusion of a parachutist with a turbine and road traffic accidents attributed to drivers being distracted by the windmills.
Ivor Surveyor [isurveyor@vianet.net.au]
I am not sure if I am reading the same report, as the ‘Modelled cumulative impacts on the Orange-bellied Parrot of wind farms across the species’ range in south-eastern Australia’ December 2005 available at the DEH web site states that for Bald Hills a survivor ship rate of 0.9999392 for the modelled 15 birds a year passing the site at a 99% avoidance rate.
This means the probability of an OBP death is about 0.000912 per year or about 1 in a thousand years. The report models one bird fatality for all 23 wind farms built or proposed in the birds range covering Tasmania, Victoria and SA. Although the report fails to acknowledged that for two of these farms, the developers have publically withdrawn the projects.
Earlier scientific reports on the Bald Hills orange bellied parrot population concluded that “generating a meaningful and agreed estimate of the number of birds migrating across the site for collision risk modeling is problematic and would not provide a meaningful or particularly defensible modeled collision rate”. The latest report has modeled a population of 15 birds despite this valid conclusion and a detailed survey that failed to record any of the birds at the site.
Of more concern than the impact of the Bald Hills wind farm should be the fact that the report implies that of the 200 birds that leave the breeding grounds each year only 100 return. These means that 99 are dying for other reasons than wind farms. Recent approvals of wind farms have include finance for actual programs to decrease this rate. Perhaps the focus should be on the other causes.
Ivor Surveyor – Perhaps we should rid ourselves of these killers as well.
“Historically, coal mining has been a very dangerous activity. Open cut hazards are principally slope failure, underground mining roof collapse and gas explosions. Most of these risks can be greatly reduced in modern mines, and multiple fatality incidents are now rare in the developed world.
Improvements in mining methods (i.e. longwall mining), gas drainage, safety-lamps, and ventilation have reduced many of these risks.
However, in lesser developed countries, thousands continue to die annually in coal mines. China in particular has the highest number of coal mining related deaths in the world, with official estimates of around 6,000 fatalities in 2004. Unofficial estimates place the figure much higher, at around 20,000 deaths. China also leads the world in the production and consumption of coal.”
also deaths from burning coal:
http://www.earth-policy.org/Updates/Update42.htm
“The largest source of mercury pollution is coal-fired power plants.
Airborne mercury emitted by these facilities is deposited anywhere from within a few hundred kilometers of the smokestacks to across continents, far from its source. Biological processes change much of the deposited mercury into methylmercury, a potent neurotoxin that humans and other organisms readily absorb. Methylmercury easily travels up the aquatic food chain, accumulating at higher concentrations at each level. Larger predator species contain the most mercury, which is then passed on to those who eat them.”
Perhaps wind turbines are not so bad after all. Anyone done a bird survey of the Latrobe Valley or the Hunter Valley?
Ender
I am not an advocat for the coal industry. I would however, make the strong point that the safety record of the nuclear power generation industry has been exemplary. According to data on the UIC Web site the fatality rate per GWy of generation is 8 for nuclear and 342 for coal.
http://www.uic.com.au/nip14.htm
Ivor – I am sure it is. How about weapons proliferation and waste disposal. Deaths from a breached waste dump 1000 years in the future will not register on today’s people.
The point is that no-one is suggesting that we reduce our energy use by the amount that is not being built from the wind farm. No-one cares about the birds that have been killed by eating fish contaminated with mercury or displaced by coal mining or development. No-one cares about the millions of birds that are killed by mobile phone towers, power lines, tall buildings with windows, and habitat destruction. No-one could give a shit about that.
But build a wind turbine in my backyard and suddenly everyone becomes bird minded despite mindless years spent killing birds without realing it.
That was:
But build a wind turbine in my backyard and suddenly everyone becomes bird minded despite mindless years spent killing birds without realising it.
And I apologise for swearing however it fits in the context and mood of the sentence so please forgive me.
TWO INTERESTING QUESTIONS:
Control of nuclear weapons proliferation is the subject of international treaty. Clearly, the non proliferation treaty is not working well and is apparently unenforceable by the UN. This situation is worrying. However I am powerless to correct the problems with either the General Assembly or Security Council of the UN. No letter or internet posting from me will cause Russia, USA, China etc to reduce their weapons inventory. Of this I am certain a kilo ton more or less of Australian uranium will make no difference whatsoever to any potential weapons state. You are drawing a very long bow to imagine North Korea or Iran are dependant on Australian uranium. Iran may even have its own uranium supply. Civil nuclear energy in Australia will neither help nor hinder rogue states.
The management of radioactive waste has been discussed in great detail in the technical literature. The UIC has a briefing paper on the subject. You must decide to either accept expert opinion (as I do) or reject it. This is a personal decision. In my view, the problem of finding an Australian site for a waste repository is a political and emotional issue.
Anyway, whatever, looks like ecoterrorists WWF, Bob Carr and Flannery are now going down the nuclear path. Once Bob Brown signs up it will be all over Red Rover. Sort of sucks the oxygen out the energy debate eh? – I can just see a cloudy windless day when Ender will be left staring at his collection of flacid whiz bang you beaut toys whilst his family give him grief as the telly wont work.
rog – “Once Bob Brown signs up it will be all over Red Rover. Sort of sucks the oxygen out the energy debate eh? – I can just see a cloudy windless day when Ender will be left staring at his collection of flacid whiz bang you beaut toys whilst his family give him grief as the telly wont work.”
For about 50 or 60 years until the uranium runs out and/or you get nuked over oil supplies.
On the cloudy windless day I will be happily running on batteries or a biodiesel generator if it lasts too long.
http://www.utterpower.com/listeroi.htm
Yeah but, all paid for by the sale of your piece of coastal real estate (with pool) which has enjoyed huge increases in capital value thank you very much to the resources boom in WA.
Come on Ender, stop all this sanctimonious holier-than-thou clap trap, you are dining off exactly the same table that we all put our feet under.
You could join the church, it would give the preaching a reason.
rog – “Come on Ender, stop all this sanctimonious holier-than-thou clap trap, you are dining off exactly the same table that we all put our feet under.”
What, taking advantage of the free market – are you repressing me brother?
Tell you what I will stop all the “sanctimonious holier-than-thou clap trap” when you stop all the right wing free crap you go on with – Deal?
“you are dining off exactly the same table that we all put our feet under”
Yes however unlike you I can see the wrong in it and I am taking steps to change. Good luck with the energy dependant mansion and 3 fuel guzzling cars that your side of the fence would have as buy.
Cardinal George Pell has come out with both barrels blazing, should keep the weekend chatterers busy;
“Pell challenges Islam – o ye, of little tolerant faith
By Linda Morris, Religious Affairs Reporter
May 5, 2006
AUSTRALIA’S most influential Catholic has said the Koran is riddled with “invocations to violence” and the central challenge of Islam lies in the struggle between moderate and extremist forces as the faith spreads into a “childless Europe”.
The Archbishop of Sydney, Cardinal George Pell, said reading the Koran, the sacred text of Islam, was vital “because the challenge of Islam will be with us for the remainder of our lives – at least”.
But in a speech to US Catholic business leaders, Dr Pell said Western democracy was also suffering a crisis of confidence as evidenced by the decline in fertility rates. “Pagan emptiness” and Western fears of the uncontrollable forces of nature had contributed to “hysteric and extreme claims” about global warming.
“In the past, pagans sacrificed animals and even humans in vain attempts to placate capricious and cruel gods. Today they demand a reduction in carbon dioxide emissions….”
http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/pell-challenges-islam–o-ye-of-little-tolerant-faith/2006/05/04/1146335872951.html
I refer to the letter from Rob Hulls Minister for Planning in the Australian on 22 April regarding the Bald Hills wind farm being rejected by Federal Minister Senator Ian Campbell. Before commenting on Mr Hulls claims I would like to point out that the Victorian Government failed to act to protect threatened and migratory wildlife recorded in the Bald Hills area. This includes seventeen species requiring protection under the State’s Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act, eight listed under the China Australia Migratory Bird Agreement and eight listed under the Japan Australia Migratory Bird Agreement as well as the national endangered Swift and Orange-bellied Parrots.
Anyone who has done computer modelling, and as an engineer I have done quite a bit, would know that a predictive model requires information from actual events so that it can be calibrated. Wedge-tailed Eagle kills can be forecast using a predictive model because information on eagle kills at wind farms is available to calibrate the model. At this stage no such information exists for parrots. It is not possible to calibrate a model to predict precise numbers and frequencies of Orange-bellied Parrots kills to the level that Mr Hulls suggests. Any assumptions about behavioural response such as Orange-bellied Parrots avoiding turbines because they have good eyesight is simply wrong. Raptors have outstanding eyesight and yet are killed in large numbers throughout USA and Europe. So good eyesight is not part of the equation.
Senator Campbell asked consultants to assess the cumulative impact of wind farms on a range of species, including the Orange-bellied Parrot, which resulted in mapping ranges and highlighting the locations where wind turbines presented risk. This had not previously been done by any Government let alone the State Government. The broad scale model can only be applied in a precautionary manner which is what the Federal Minister has done. It is simply not possible to determine risk to the levels suggested by Mr Hulls.
I have appealed to Rob Hulls in his role as Attorney General on a number of occasions to apply the wildlife protection laws so frequently cited by his Government, however he continues to ignore my requests and in doing so is putting threatened and migratory species at risk. Senator Ian Campbell is acting to protect migratory and endangered species in accordance with the law only because Mr Hulls, in either of his roles, refuses to do so.
Regards
Andrew Chapman
2 Beach Avenue
Inverloch 3996
Ph: 03 56741266
Fax: 03 56743732
Mob: 0438567412
PS the following comment is a god description of the limitations of predictive modelling.
—————————————————————————————————————————————-
The following is from the book, ‘Consilience’, by the biologist and philosopher E. O. Wilson:
Biologists, it is said, suffer from physics envy. They build physics-like models that lead from the microscopic to the macroscopic, but find it difficult to match them with the messy systems they experience in the real world. Theoretical biologists are nevertheless easily seduced. (I confess to being one, and having been responsible for more than my share of failures.) Armed with sophisticated mathematical concepts and high-speed computers, they can generate unlimited numbers of predictions about proteins, rain forests, and other complex systems. With the passage to each higher level of organisation, they need to contrive new algorithms, which are sets of exactly defined mathematical operations pointed to the solution of given problems. And so with artfully chosen procedures they can create virtual worlds that evolve into more highly organised systems. Wandering through the Cretan labyrinth of cyberspace they inevitably encounter emergence, the appearance of complex phenomena not predictable from the basic elements and processes alone, and not initially conceived from the algorithms. And behold! Some of the productions actually look like emergent phenomena found in the real world.
Their hopes soar. They report the result at conferences of like-minded theoreticians. After a bit of questioning and probing, heads nod in approval: ‘Yes, original, and exciting, and important – if true.’ If true . . . if true. Folie de grandeur is their foible, the big picture their illusion. They are on the edge of a breakthrough! But how do they know that nature’s algorithms are the same as their own, or even close? Many procedures can be false and yet produce an approximately correct answer. The biologists are at special risk of committing the fallacy of affirming the consequent: it is wrong to assume that because a correct was result was obtained by means of theory, the steps used to obtain it are necessarily the same as those that exist in the real world.
Andrew – “I have appealed to Rob Hulls in his role as Attorney General on a number of occasions to apply the wildlife protection laws so frequently cited by his Government, however he continues to ignore my requests and in doing so is putting threatened and migratory species at risk. Senator Ian Campbell is acting to protect migratory and endangered species in accordance with the law only because Mr Hulls, in either of his roles, refuses to do so.”
So if I object to a mobile phone tower or development that you want to build (hypothetically) would you accept the decision of the Federal minister or do only wind turbines kill birds?
Recently development threatening Ningaloo Reef here in WA was stopped to an outcry from pro-development people. I find if funny the people who have probably destroyed the local environment, including birds, by moving to a rural or coastal area and then developing it like a city suburb then have the hide to object to wind farm being built that might ruin their property values. That is what the issue here is. Nobody cares about birds least of all the Minister. It is all about property values.
Maybe Bob McDonald gets his information about birds from the same source as Ian Campbell. Aerial roosting isn’t known for White-throated Needletails in Australia. Radio-tracking of one showed regular return to a tree roost. There observations suggestive of aerial roosting by Fork-tailed Swifts in Australia and they have congeners where this behaviour is well-known. WT Needletails don’t echolocate either – thats various Swiflet species. Snide remarks aside, Sean Dooley’s piece in the Age is good summary of why this isn’t about OBPs. For the general issue of turbines versus birds this is a good read:
http://www.energy.ca.gov/pier/final_project_reports/500-04-052.html
Hi Andrew,
pleased to know that white throated needle tails may have been found to roost in Australia. My information regarding echo location used by White Throated Needle tails came from Dr Charlie Meredith in his presentation _for_ the proponent wind farm development for Dollar in South Gippsland.
As a naturalist, rather than a scientist, being wrong is part of the process of learning in a dynamic field and I am happy to defer to _good_ research – (a reference would be good).
You appear however to have become confused with what is actually the substantive issue – how do we detect, measure and better predict the impact of wind turbines on birds and bats?
I find it disturbing (don’t you?) that white throated needle tails, formerly better known as spine-tailed swifts, are killed at all by turbine blades which they should be able to avoid – perhaps indicating that turbulence generated by the blades may be a significant factor yet to be studied.
As far as I know the only ongoing monitoring of bat and bird mortality in Australia from wind turbines is at Woolnorth in Tasmania. It is limited and funded by the proponent, the Hydro Electric Commission.
Better site selection for wind turbines generally would be of greatest financial benefit to the wind industry and radically improve it viability.
It is the Victorian Government that has failed to provide adequate guidelines for siting and a process that sees companies developing wind power having to invest heavily in a given site _before_ undertaking environmental assessment.
What Australia lacks are scientists that are prepared to independently undertake consistent monitoring of mortality existing wind turbines and map the variable low level migratory pathways utilised by migratory and local bird species.
Perhaps this is a gap you could help fill.