🚀 go-pugleaf

Malcolm wrote:

> Where in that report, which is a sober, scientific study of the subject, 
> does it say that "millions of birds are killed by wind farms" as you 
> stated in your original post?

I quoted their estimates of kills per turbine, I calculated an estimated 
number of turbines by multiplying the stated total capacity by the 
capacity of a typical turbine as located on the GE turbine 
manufacturer's website. I stated that this was just an estimate. If it 
is out by even 10%, it is up to you to tell us why a simple 
multiplication gives such a wrong number. Then I multiplied that turbine 
estimate by the kills per turbine.

> You used highly selective figures from the report, concentrating on the 
> quoted examples of the very few windfarms that are so badly sited that 
> they do indeed kill birds. You then use a figure of 20 bird+bat 
> deaths/turbine/year (which you appear to have plucked out of the air) 
> and then do some calculations based on that and extrapolate to the total 
> 52,000 turbines that you calculate exist in the EU.
> 
> This is as spurious as the calculations by Duchamp that you quote later on.
> 
> You have quoted the sentence about the few, appallingly sited, windfarms 
> in Germany that have killed up to 50 birds/turbine/year, and ignored the 
> preceding sentence which reads: "A compilation of existing evidence for 
> the German Federal Ministry of Environment (H�tker et al., 2004) showed 
> that at almost half of the wind farms studied, the number of fatalities 
> was less than one bird per turbine per year."
> 
> So why did you use 20?

Read what I said. They estimate 50, so I divided it by 5 to be 
conservative. They said more bats than birds are killed, so I assumed 
that bat kills equalled bird kills (again, to be conservative). You are 
welcome to disagree with my reasoning, but don't go off making out that 
I have written anything without explaining where I got the figures from.

> Also, you should note this comment in the report: "The majority of 
> studies of collisions caused by wind turbines have recorded relatively 
> low levels of mortality, perhaps reflecting the fact that many of the 
> studied wind farms are located away from large concentrations of birds."

They also say that the figures they have are very likely underestimates.

> So why did you use 20?

Stop being boring. We've all seen this trick before and it fools no one.

> Even the very high number of deaths at Altamont in California, which is 
> mentioned in the report, of 35-100,000 deaths, is spread over 20 years 
> and caused by a maximum of 7,300 turbines. The number of turbines has 
> fluctuated but has rarely been less than 4,000 except in the initial 
> construction phase. So, taking the worst case figures of 100,000 deaths 
> over 20 years by 4000 turbines gives a death rate of 1.25 
> birds/turbine/year.
> 
> So why did you use 20?

P 75: "Using correction factors for search efficiency and scavenger 
removal, Brinkmann & Schauer-Weisshahn (2006) estimated a mean of 16.4 
bat fatalities per turbine per year at 16 study sites in south-west 
Germany." That is 60% more than my figure of 10 bats per turbine, and it 
is an average, not a high figure, and they also state: "The number of 
fatalities is probably underestimated as dead bats are even harder to 
find than birds."

So bats alone ON AVERAGE (the mean - the Report's words) account for 
almost all of my 20 per turbine estimate. I think I am way, way 
conservative. I gave the original references precisely because that's 
how you do things honestly, so others may go and check.

Your boring repetition of the same question three times, however, is an 
old trick for influencing minds subliminally. We know all about it, so 
give it a rest and argue openly an honestly in future.

-- 
Ron House
Building Peace: http://peacelegacy.org
Australian Birds: http://wingedhearts.org
Principle of Goodness academic site: http://principleofgoodness.net