We don't know how many birds die in structural collisions | Hacker News Reader

We don't know how many birds die in structural collisions

robertvanwey.substack.com

25 pointschmaynard64 comments

This author has no idea what they are talking about- we have extremely high quality data on bird kills from wind farms. Teams of wildlife biologists literally walk the farms everyday identifying kills, and they have other teams that plant fake kills as experimental controls, to accurately quantify exactly the rate that kills are missed, and correct for that. This whole process is required by law, and there are a lot of wildlife biologists that do this work. You cannot operate a wind farm without quantifying its impact on protected species.

But it seems that the principal objection to these counts is that birds don't necessarily die on impact but may travel quite far before succumbing to their injuries, so the counts necessarily result in an underestimate of the true effect. Are you saying the area that's surveyed is large enough that this isn't true?

I’m certain these studies are able to estimate those other deaths and consider factors beyond just carcasses on the ground, because I am personally close to a biologist that works on this, but I don’t know exactly how they do it. The author here seems to be incorrectly extrapolating research statements on static buildings to windmills, when the latter is much more researched.

That seems like something very far from a certainty. Imagine if you were to cite this in a scientific paper: "a close friend of mine does this but I have no idea how they do it". What about this [1]:

> We show that the use of the ORNIS 1%, the 5% mortality criterion, and potential biological removal criteria are inadequate for providing safe thresholds with respect to the impact of wind turbine collisions on populations.

From a paper entitled "Mortality limits used in wind energy impact assessment underestimate impacts of wind farms on bird populations".

1. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/ece3.6360

Indeed, I am not qualified to answer that question and don’t have the answer, I am not planning on publishing research in this particular field anytime soon.

I am personally satisfied that this is being done by people that do deeply understand the limitations and capabilities of their work, but I cannot transfer that to you.

I do not doubt that people deeply understand the current state of the art, and that they understand those limitaitons. I am 100% in agreement.

But the fact that they understand the limitations and capabilities in their work has no bearing on the effectiveness of their work when it comes to the specific goal of protecting bird populations. (One does not logically imply the other.)

You misunderstood what I was trying to say. I closely know people that do this work with the specific personal goal of protecting bird populations. They are confident they are able to do so, and I have faith in their level of competence based on knowing them well, and also being a scientific researcher in a different but related field. I expect this to carry zero weight as an argument, I’m just explaining where I am coming from.

I am curious enough that I will ask these details and follow up if I can…

> They are confident they are able to do so

I am certain they are confident they are able to effect change within the limitations that the economic system provides, which is also another difference.

So I asked- and they said (1) when the facility is large enough, which many are, you can randomly sample locations and if they died from injuries elsewhere these will still end up in the sample; (2) they do a lot of separate experiments to measure things like the rate of carcass removal by scavengers which go into the calculations; (3) depending on the type of bird and turbine, in most cases injuries are immediately fatal, and they can quantify this for each case with direct observation.

I’ll myself add that presumably the data collected on larger farms can be used as a prior to make accurate inferences on smaller farms.

I agree there is a disconnect in pure logic, but I think it is observable that science is often conducted with a goal in mind (and is not then logically pure as a pursuit).

When the goal is the preservation of a species through the understanding of survival pressures caused by human activity, I think that understanding of the limitations of the state of the art does in fact translate into progress towards actionable understanding of the “ground truth”. This becomes manifest once you factor in the motivations of the researchers, who will use that knowledge to press further study, make new hypothesis, and couch the conclusions of their studies with this knowledge in mind.

Every advancement in understanding is built upon the knowledge of the shortcomings of previous investigations.

Thanks- most people that are researching this are doing so because they care about birds and/or alternative energy- in most cases both.

After a couple years of data collection, is it still necessary? If we scale up wind farms into thousands, I can’t imagine how many people we’d pay to look for dead birds. Or eventually this will be a drone company

It is because they are permitted to operate with a total upper limit of kills for certain protected species. They have to continually monitor, and if they hit the limit they need to seek further approval to keep operating.

It's annoying that there's interest in these stats mainly as an argument against renewable energy, not from perspective of wildlife preservation. Just those particular birds are precious, not the others killed by other man-made structures, pollution, and habitats destroyed by expansion of agriculture.

I'd like to see not just more precise numbers of birds lost to wind energy, but the environmental and societal costs of not having the wind energy. Fuel extraction and processing has its environmental impact too. Lack of affordable energy (fuel poverty) costs human lives too. How many human lives are harmed to save a bird from a windmill?

Yeah, it's kinda weird, the kind of people who are suddenly pretending to be into wildlife preservation. If they were honest about it, they'd also look into bigger bird killers like high rise buildings, powerlines, cars, domestic cats. Also, climate change disrupting ecosystems is unlikely to be good.

But it's probably a good idea to build wind farms outside major migratory routes.

We simply put up post it stickers where birds usually crashed in our windows. There's way less crashes and dead birds after that.

Think how many birds crash during a year, and how many houses and buildings with windows there are.

You can also buy bird stickers to put up.

Harder to do with one of those glassy skyscrapers. the ugliest and probably the deadliest for birds kind

What is hard about it? They rope themselves everywhere around it to clean it up. Even a basic robot can put stickers. An even easier and cheaper way is to require it for new constructions.

For folks at home thinking about their windows: Apparently one issue is that windows may mirror the outside environment to birds, appearing as portals to more open-space and trees, especially if you include ultraviolet light which humans can't see and which the glass wasn't designed to pass-through.

So there are a variety of products advertised for home usage that stick to the outside of the window to make it appear more like a barrier, often semi-transparent to us but more-opaque in ultraviolet to birds.

Simpler solution.

Simply not cleaning them.

No more birdie bam then, because they see immediately what's ahead.

No more dread about smashed beaks, brains and broken wings.

Birdie sings, joy it brings!

With apologies to Roald Dahl (The Twits):

  That evening, the Roly-Poly Bird flew round and round The Big Red House singing out,

  "There's sticky dirt stuff all over the pane!

  If you fly at the surface, you'll damage your brain!

  So fly away! Fly away! Do not crash!

  Or you'll finish up tomorrow in a cold Bird Mash!"

I have to leave my windows dirty so the damn birds stop smacking into it.

Furrows the brow of my wife up quite a bit.

you can also put (bird) stickers on them, so they see the window and they avoid it

The window has too nice a view to ruin unfortunately.

Bird stickers unfortunately don't work, birds don't recognize them. Something like "anti collision dot stickers" will work though if the spacing between the dots is not larger than recommended.

Bird eyes are more sensitive to UV light than humans right? Better UV reflective coating would help them?

Or a transparent film with a pattern of absorbed and reflected UV?

I used to work in an upper floor of a suburban office park "mirrored-window" building.

Every day, we'd have bloody smears on the glass.

Earth at Night in Colour S01E05 touches on this.

The subtitle is revealing:

[We don't know how much birds kill the windmills so] "This makes it a weak argument against windmills"

"We don't know how much, so it may not happen, or is not so relevant as we think, but is repeated by ideology", is a nasty trick. Nice smoke curtain. Specially when is joined later with:

"it is true that all humanmade structures are technically bird killers, but..."

Either it happens, or it does not happen.

We aren't talking here about a sparrow crashing against a window. What we do know is that carcasses of big raptors, vultures, storks, other birds, and even bats can be found near the windmills basis often, in a distribution that is not aleatory.

Even if we never achieve to calculate an exact value (before the corpses are quietly removed by foxes or companies) we can identify that there is a problem here. As predators are scarce (by definition) and some are endangered, the impact on populations is not negligible.

Killing endangered species is illegal. It does not matter If is "just one" or "just a few" eagles.

> Killing endangered species is illegal. It does not matter If is "just one" or "just a few" eagles.

Great logic! Let's ban skyscrapers and any windows that do not pass through UV. Use one in your house? Illegal.

But the biggest fallacy in this PR stunt is that outrageous "we don't know, nothing to see here":

Windmill company ESI Energy LLC, guilty of killing 150 bald and golden eagles in 8 USA states [1][2]

[1] https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/wind-energy-company-ple...

[2] https://www.justice.gov/usao-edca/pr/esi-energy-llc-wholly-o...

> Use one in your house? Illegal

I'm curious, how much bald eagles crashed against your house windows lately?

Have you looked at the Highways?

And we are talking about skyscrapers not simply houses.

We have them around here. In fact, there’s even a Facebook page for a local nesting pair. They mostly eat eels, so water pollution is their worst enemy.

The thing that often gets raptors, is rat poison. It also kills cats. Rats seem to thrive, no matter what we throw at them.

It’s generally a good idea to keep cats indoors. I read a statistic that outdoor cats live dramatically shorter lives than indoor ones.

> we don't know, nothing to see here

> ESI Energy LLC, guilty of killing 150 eagles

> how much bald eagles crashed against your house?

We dont know the statistical extend but we can measure very accurately in smaller areas especially large and endangered birds.

This is why (in my country) you have to study the local bird population before you get your permission to build your windmills. Something ESI should have done, even if we perfectly knew the statistics of all birds killed by windmills globally.

But what about migrating birds?

> Windmill company ESI Energy LLC, guilty of killing 150 bald and golden eagles in 8 USA states [1][2]

Read the case. They were guilty of basically not getting a permit. If they got a permit their incidental kills can be thousand+ per project. They are a "least concern" category.

> But the biggest fallacy in this PR stunt is that outrageous "we don't know, nothing to see here"

The fallacy is saying this is a concern while not having measurements showing it is a bigger concern than other things like illegal shooting or lead poison or rat poison or power lines or skyscraper windows. If the windmill fighters actually care about birds maybe they could fund these studies. Do they fund these bird studies or just don't want wind energy for whatever reason (like investing into fossil fuels)? If they fund those bird studies why don't we have the measurements.

Meanwhile there are no permits for killing eagles with rat poison (every death is illegal but who's counting?). Meanwhile every power line operator is given unlimited permit for incidental bald eagle kills. But yes wind turbines, the big enemy of bird lovers.

> Read the case, They were guilty of basically not getting a permit.

ESI pleaded guilty to three counts of violating the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, (because their facilities killed, at least, 150 endangered eagles). The court sentenced ESI to a fine of $1,861,600, restitution in the amount of $6,210,991, and a five-year period of probation

So yep, basically, a little tiny, 8 millions worth, paperwork problem.

> Meanwhile there are no permits for killing eagles with rat poison

Wow, that is super-unfair!. If you think that the US government should grant permits to people craving to kill endangered eagles with rat poison, write your local governor about your concern. This must be a traditional local sport somewhere.

> The fallacy is saying this is a concern

Is a concern

> while not having measurements showing it is a bigger concern than <whatabout that>, <whatabout this?> (read this with the music of Dragostea Din Tei in your mind)

Is still a concern

> So yep, basically, a little tiny, 8 millions worth, paperwork problem.

Lol. Paperwork problems can be very costly my friend, welcome to life

> Is a concern

So you agree with me, since as I wrote it is a concern. A low one. If you want to measure it against other concerns, the avid bird lover that you are, we are all waiting for your numbers;)

And bald eagles specifically least concern by US law

> Paperwork problems can be very costly my friend, welcome to life

They should say that to the investors: "Our repeated incompetence only cost the company, huh, 35 millions [1], but all is fine and... look, a squirrel!".

"Of course that will be fixed with the 007 permit to kill unlimited eagles at the magical price of $29,623 of your money for each bald or golden eagle killed... wow, that squirrel over there has a super cute unibrow!. Looks exactly like Walter, from contability, when is biting his nails"

[1] 8 millions fine, plus investment of 27 millions required to pass the probatory period.

> Killing endangered species is illegal. It does not matter If is "just one" or "just a few" eagles.

Well, yes it actually does, legally at least.

Also, if a bird kills itself, that isn’t illegal. Even if members of it’s species consistently does it on your particular window.

It could be illegal actually. Even if you install some obstacle near eagle's nest I heard you can be criminally charged. But if you install power lines and eagles kill themselves or you poison some animals and eagles die from eating them you are in the clear

Only if you do it with the intent (or prior knowledge) that will happen.

If they just like suiciding against a specific window of yours for no apparent reason, then you’re fine.

Not really. If you build this window or whatever close enough to eagle base and eagle dies on it incidentally or it is found to be simply disturbed by it you are still criminally liable

https://www.fws.gov/program/eagle-management/eagle-incidenta... I hope you didn't disturb any eagles lately;)

(Unless you have a permit. If you are powerline company you are allowed unlimited incidental kills for example. Or if you are wind power company you can apply for a permit for thousand incidental kills or something)

Having read through that, there is zero chance you could actually violate that doing any sort of reasonable or normal construction.

Or do you have an example where someone built a house in a reasonable fashion, an eagle ran into it, and the owner or construction company was charged?

You’d have to build right next to an active nest, or intentionally design the building to be a hazard in an area they were nesting/living. Which goes to my comment.

If you unintentionally violate a law it does not mean you're not guilty. Which goes to my comment. "if a bird kills itself, that isn’t illegal" is simply false per this law.

Even if the bird doesn't kill itself but simply judged to "can't reproduce" due to your intentional or unintentional action you are guilty.

If you think this is illogical and unenforceable welcome to the club;)

You literally did not address any of my points. The law does not say what you seem to think it says either.

I addressed all of them. Ignorance of the law is not an alibi. Even removal of potential eagle habitat which building a house in the wrong place could be is a violation. Even without causing any incidental kills or disturbance. Read it! It's fun.

And do you have any examples of that ever actually happening? Like I asked, and you completely ignored?

You can make your own conclusions how often it happens. Add poisoning eagle through poisoning their prey which also falls under this law and guess how often that happens. Then guess how often it is prosecuted.

So ‘trust me bro, it happens’?

Does the pope shit in the woods? I don't monitor 24/7 to check but my logic probably says yes. What's your logic about this law? But don't mistake absence of evidence for evidence of absence.

(Also you can find interesting stuff like https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/study-finds-rat-po.... Is this illegal? By law totally yes in at least 4% cases of those dead eagles are illegal incidental kills without permit and others are at least disturbance. How many people prosecuted? I count grand total of zero.)

So we ban cars?

So top 3 killers are cats, windows and cars and it doesn’t help if cats only kill small birds and mammals because they basically kill the food of the larger birds.

Don’t forget tire wear and all the other sources of pollution that endangers any living being.

And add climate change.

So why are wind turbines singled out?

What makes you think turbines are singled out?!

There’s no point to ban them altogether neither the cats or cars. Consider a range if options between total ban and total unregulation. Thing about traffic code.

The biologists that took of look at it probably already have propositions like putting them outside of the narrowest migratory corridors or ways to be visible to birds as stickers does on German windows.

Because we are building wind turbines when there are far better alternatives such as nuclear. We’re also being sold that “wind is better for the environment” when it’s not.

You will notice that the same people who are against wind turbines are frequently also oppose to nuclear power (and cell tower, highways, factories, farms, forests, high rise building, schools, railroads, new neighbourhoods, pretty much any change that is not to their immediate benefit.

In many cases nuclear is a better option, but if you want to stand up a few gigawatts of power in two - five years, turbines will let you do that. There's no chance of getting a nuclear power plant operating in a country with no history of nuclear power in less than ten year, and that's perhaps being fairly optimistic. Wind is better than running coal 24/7, which is what you competing against in most cases.

We‘re also being sold nuclear is better.

Nuclear power plants take a long to build and are expensive in power production and maintenance. Just look at France in the hot summers.

And that doesn’t include the danger of sabotage and terrorism.

Didn’t read anything about the fear of russian rockets hitting Ukrainian wind turbines.

Nuclear power plants are also a SPF. In insecure times decentralization is better.

> So why are wind turbines singled out?

Because some people hate the looks of wind turbines, they believe it lowers their property value. To pretend that this is about the birds is absurd, because if it was these same people would target cats as well and they are not doing that and never did.

People can be amazingly stupid. Some people in my area wanted to prevent the construction of wind turbines as it would destroy the view of the nearby fjord. They strategically forgot to mention that the turbines would be replacing a coal fired power plant (and the open air coal storage). The view is already destroyed, if anything the turbines will actually let you see the fjord and make room for a huge nature area around them.

There might also be a group of people working in the fossil fuel industry who fear that wind turbines are taking their jobs.

> So why are wind turbines singled out?

Because the oil lobby only objects to windmills, and not to buildings, powerlines, domestic cats, and certainly not to cars. And the oil industry has the funds to control the narrative, and this is a narrative that may get some environmentalists to work for them.

The counter is of course to widen the discussion to all manmade structures that kill birds, especially glassy high-rises.

Counting the carcasses is a very flawed analysis. In cities you rarely find far less carcasses of raptors, vultures and storks. In your analysis this would lead you to making a larger built environment is a good measure to save endangered species. It would even be illegal not to do so.

Is true that we should keep in mind that there is an implicit "at least" 150 eagles killed by just one company. Plus all the other bird species. This value is a minimum estimation.

Several scientific studies calculate than between 234,000 and 573,093 birds on average are killed by year in USA by windmills. Big and small species. Data points that bats suffer even more than birds. (See Smallwood. 2010. The Journal of the wildlife management 71, issue 8 for example).

I do not understand why you would reply this to my comment. It seems that you are single minded about windmills like a fictional character.

Without context these numbers mean nothing. Species are displaced by human existence, acting like windmills are the biggest danger and supporting the fossil fuel industry, like you are doing, is not going to help birds or other animals.

> Is true that we should keep in mind that there is an implicit "at least" 150 eagles killed by just one company

Wind company permit allows killing 1000+ eagles. This company just did not get it. 150 is basically nothing.

Deep learning to the rescue ...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com