| Pages:
1
2
3 |
John Harper
Super Nomad
Posts: 2289
Registered: 3-9-2017
Location: SoCal
Member Is Offline
|
|
You're losing sight of the forest for the trees. I was simply posting some basic information that wind farms are not the biggest threat to birds. No
one's talking eagles, sparrows, or doves, just birds. Any statistics can be broken down pretty much however one desires, and bias is evident in lots
of sources. Just depends on your POV. I added the dove and duck harvest numbers just to highlight another source of bird mortality.
I'm not here to defend a doctoral dissertation, only to add some rough data to compare relative sources of bird mortality. If you don't trust the
numbers or feel bias present, I have no problem with whatever numbers you wish to present.
John
[Edited on 9-10-2019 by John Harper]
|
|
|
Tioloco
Super Nomad
Posts: 2298
Registered: 7-30-2014
Member Is Offline
|
|
Interestingly, this "clean" energy has a core group of supporters that get warm and fuzzy about cluttering up the desert with soon to be obsolete
equipment. They have no problem driving their gas guzzling vehicles hundreds of miles to hunt dove for sport. But they want to talk about carbon
emissions and "green" alternatives.
Laughable
|
|
|
caj13
Super Nomad
Posts: 1002
Registered: 8-1-2017
Member Is Offline
|
|
Ok so I actually have bit of expertise here. I was on the NREL (National Renewable Energy labs) committe looking at mortaility of turbines. I also
have done numerous surveys using a portable trailer spinning 2 modified marine radars, running images through a computer running proprietary software
( a variant of patent # 5450063 if you are interested, you can also see a photo of the original system in National Geographic, March 2009, PG 59) .
The surveys were done both for new proposed wind turbine locations, or in and around active turbine sites looking at mortality, and rishk of
mortality.
long story short - where you put the turbines is important. painting turbines does not work, nor do "noisemakers" (unless you are jamming bats
hunting sonar, but thats a whole different kettle of fish) Data shows turbines in migratory pathways are usually Ok, depending on elevation of
migration.
Birds can see turbines just fine - they do not get "chopped up". the get impact injuries - because their brains interprit the visual images as
prey running into and out of cover. The problem is exacerbated because birds eyes have 2 different focal lengths.
Smaller birds, and bats are actually taken out by "barotrauma" the difference in pressure between the leading and trailing edges of the blade
actually percuss the body and cause massive internal damage to tissues and organs in small birds and bats.
while it is an ongoing problem - proper siting and some other measures have been fairly sucessfull in reducing the kill rates.
as for those who think their arguement is" a single wind tower kills more birds than cell towers, or tall buildings". Let me give you a math lesson.
You have 10 dollars from selling your tricycle. I have a million dollars from selling 250,000 tricycles. which is more significant? because you
got 2.5X as much for your tricycle, as I got for each of mine - so you win right?
wind turbines are a very small part of the bird kill issue, Cell towers, building, and cats are huge contributors!
Its the total number of kills that matter, not how many per individual tower or turbine or cat!
By the way - the cat kill research was done, its actually pretty good science. If you have a problem with it - show me your data!
[Edited on 9-10-2019 by caj13]
|
|
|
bajaric
Senior Nomad
Posts: 631
Registered: 2-2-2015
Member Is Offline
|
|
Its simple arithmetic, used to be taught in the 4th grade, along with fractions. (Number of x) times (bird kills per x) = total bird kills.
Not sure why I am discussing how many birds are killed by cats on a Baja forum but here we are. My response was anecdotal. I live in a suburban
environment with plenty of trees and lots of birds and I had a fairly aggressive outdoor cat and I observed that there was no way the cat was killing
50 birds a year. So lets dig a little deeper. The number of birds killed each year by cats varies among different sources:
Answers.com, various figures: 3.7 billion, 4.7 billion, 7 billion, 3.5 million
American Bird Conservancy: 500 million
Mother Jones: 500 million
Someone, quoted above, 3 billion
Obviously there is some disagreement as to how many birds are killed each year by crazed gangs of cats running amok.
If, as quoted above, cell towers kill 6 billion, cats 3 billion, and buildings 600 million, plus wind turbines x? million and hunters another hundred
million that would be all the birds in the US* killed each year! Since there are, in fact, plenty of birds remaining alive in the US these are
obviously bogus statistics created out of thin air by people working to forward their agenda, be it green party types or industry-sponsored
researchers, both putting a bad rap on poor little kitty cats to make their wind turbine death machines more palatable to the general public.
*10 billion birds in the US today, per American Bird Conservancy, down from 11.5 billion in 1970.
|
|
|
caj13
Super Nomad
Posts: 1002
Registered: 8-1-2017
Member Is Offline
|
|
Quote: Originally posted by bajaric  | A little fact check; There are 94 million cats in US households. If cats kill 3 billion birds a year that means each cat kills 34 birds a year, on
average. I am not buying it. Since a lot of cats are indoor cats and never kill any birds that would mean many cats are killing about one bird a
week. I had a cat that was quite the huntress, and while she might have got a lizard or a gopher now and then I guarantee she was not killing a bird
a week; the birds around here are too smart for that.
That is the problem with statistics. People do not stop to do the math. I saw a "science journalist" on PBS say with a straight face that it takes
2,000 gallons of water to grow a kilogram of cotton, so people should not buy jeans. That is absurd. It takes about 20 gallons of water to grow a
kilogram of cotton.
I hope those ugly bird killing wind turbines all seize up and get sold for scrap. And yes, they are subsidized by federal and state money, in the
interest of "saving the planet". |
Hey Rick,
here is a source for those numbers - looks to me like the 2000 gallons per KG was an understatement. (you will have to backtrack to WWF to find their
original source, but looking for real documentable facts - thats important enough to spend a few minutes checking to see if your facts are correct -
right? )
According to WWF, it takes more than 20,000 liters (5,283 gallons) of water to produce just one kilogram (2.2 pounds) of cotton, which roughly equals
one T-shirt and a pair of jeans. https://www.worldwildlife.org/industries/cotton
so I'd like to see your source or data please? where are you getting this "20 gallons of water to grow a KG of cotton? (BTW I see 5.5 acre feet of
water per acre for cotton here in the central valley - so that tends to back up the 20,000 liters, so I'm looking for confirmation that the 20 gallons
is actually the correct number) .
and would you mind sourcing your "wind turbines are being subsidized by governments please? i would be very interested in those factual data!
thank you
[Edited on 9-10-2019 by caj13]
[Edited on 9-11-2019 by caj13]
|
|
|
caj13
Super Nomad
Posts: 1002
Registered: 8-1-2017
Member Is Offline
|
|
Ok Rick,
Please tell me where they got their math wrong?
https://abcbirds.org/program/cats-indoors/cats-and-birds/
specifically, this study published in "Nature Communications"
ARTICLE
Received 6 Sep 2012 | Accepted 12 Dec 2012 | Published 29 Jan 2013
The impact of free-ranging domestic cats on wildlife of the United States
Scott R. Loss1 , Tom Will2 & Peter P. Marra1
Abstract:
Anthropogenic threats, such as collisions with man-made structures, vehicles, poisoning and predation by domestic pets, combine to kill billions of
wildlife annually. Free-ranging domestic cats have been introduced globally and have contributed to multiple wildlife extinctions on
islands. The magnitude of mortality they cause in mainland areas remains speculative, with large-scale estimates based on non-systematic analyses and
little consideration of scientific data. Here we conduct a systematic review and quantitatively estimate mortality caused bycats in the United States.
We estimate that free-ranging domestic cats kill 1.3–4.0 billion birds and 6.3–22.3 billion mammals annually. Un-owned cats, as opposed to owned
pets, cause the majority of this mortality. Our findings suggest that free-ranging cats cause substantially greater wildlife mortality than previously
thought and are likely the single greatest source of anthropogenic mortality for US birds and mammals. Scientifically sound conservation and policy
intervention is needed to reduce this impact.
[Edited on 9-10-2019 by caj13]
|
|
|
BajaMama
Super Nomad
Posts: 1107
Registered: 10-4-2015
Location: Pleasanton/Punta Chivato
Member Is Offline
Mood: Got Baja fever!!
|
|
Renewable energy sources are preferable to fossil fuel. Certainly not as ugly and disgusting as the air pollution of the 60s and 70.
|
|
|
David K
Honored Nomad
Posts: 64743
Registered: 8-30-2002
Location: San Diego County
Member Is Offline
Mood: Have Baja Fever
|
|
Yes, but it is the 21st Century and technology has cleaned the air despite more energy being made. I think technology will make these bird killing
eyesores obsolete, as well.
|
|
|
bajabuddha
Banned
Posts: 4024
Registered: 4-12-2013
Location: Baja New Mexico
Member Is Offline
Mood: Always cranky unless medicated
|
|
......and clean, beautiful coal doesn't kill those cute little birdies;
JUST PEOPLE. 
I don't have a BUCKET LIST, but I do have a F***- IT LIST a mile long!
86 - 45*
|
|
|
Alm
Ultra Nomad
Posts: 2725
Registered: 5-10-2011
Member Is Offline
|
|
The keyword here is "new". Meaning - added over the last year.
Currently, renewables in the USA account for mere 12% of total energy production.
In Germany it's 40%.
|
|
|
PaulW
Ultra Nomad
Posts: 3059
Registered: 5-21-2013
Member Is Offline
|
|
Solar
Been watching the facility grow over the last several years as we commute to Baja from up north.
Below is an image of a huge solar facility beside I8. 32 55.3, -112 55.3
This is a system that collect sunlight and converts to heat as the heat into a transfer media then the hot fluid (gas?) goes to tanks where it is
used to make electricity from turbines. Foreign company built with a long term contract with the AZ utility.
Nearby are farms and feedlots and a lot of unused desert.
You cannot see the nearby high voltage power lines.
|
|
|
ehall
Super Nomad
Posts: 1906
Registered: 3-29-2014
Location: Buckeye, Az
Member Is Offline
Mood: It's 5 o'clock somewhere
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by PaulW | Been watching the facility grow over the last several years as we commute to Baja from up north.
Below is an image of a huge solar facility beside I8. 32 55.3, -112 55.3
This is a system that collect sunlight and converts to heat as the heat into a transfer media then the hot fluid (gas?) goes to tanks where it is
used to make electricity from turbines. Foreign company built with a long term contract with the AZ utility.
Nearby are farms and feedlots and a lot of unused desert.
You cannot see the nearby high voltage power lines.
|
That is Solano power plant. The mirrors heat up oil to about 700 degrees. The oil is used to boil water and run a steam turbine. They store the hot
oil in big tanks and are able to make power for 3 or 4 hours after dark. Interesting technology. I got a tour of the place when it was being built.
The company I work for buys the way overpriced power.
[Edited on 9-11-2019 by ehall]
|
|
|
PaulW
Ultra Nomad
Posts: 3059
Registered: 5-21-2013
Member Is Offline
|
|
Ed, Lucky you. The place is locked up so I have never had a way to get access. Should be interesting tour.
|
|
|
Don Pisto
Banned
Posts: 1282
Registered: 8-1-2018
Location: El Pescador
Member Is Offline
Mood: weary like everyone else
|
|
if I was a coyote I'd park myself under one of those windmills and await a tasty gift from above! 
|
|
|
PaulW
Ultra Nomad
Posts: 3059
Registered: 5-21-2013
Member Is Offline
|
|
Don, Trouble is the birds are few and the coyotes would starve before the found even one. That area is not favored by birds.
|
|
|
caj13
Super Nomad
Posts: 1002
Registered: 8-1-2017
Member Is Offline
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by Alm |
The keyword here is "new". Meaning - added over the last year.
Currently, renewables in the USA account for mere 12% of total energy production.
In Germany it's 40%. |
california it is currently 30% and going up - sorry David
|
|
|
SFandH
Elite Nomad
Posts: 7084
Registered: 8-5-2011
Member Is Offline
|
|
According to this source, renewables were at 17.1% in 2018. The 2 largest renewable sources are hydroelectric at 7% and wind at 6.6% of total
renewable generation.
https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=427&t=3
Texas generates the most using wind on state-by-state basis.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power_in_the_United_State...
[Edited on 9-11-2019 by SFandH]
|
|
|
ehall
Super Nomad
Posts: 1906
Registered: 3-29-2014
Location: Buckeye, Az
Member Is Offline
Mood: It's 5 o'clock somewhere
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by PaulW | | Ed, Lucky you. The place is locked up so I have never had a way to get access. Should be interesting tour. |
They are always looking for help. A tour is included with the interview. Lol
|
|
|
bajaric
Senior Nomad
Posts: 631
Registered: 2-2-2015
Member Is Offline
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by caj13 | | Quote: Originally posted by bajaric | A little fact check; There are 94 million cats in US households. If cats kill 3 billion birds a year that means each cat kills 34 birds a year, on
average. I am not buying it. Since a lot of cats are indoor cats and never kill any birds that would mean many cats are killing about one bird a
week. I had a cat that was quite the huntress, and while she might have got a lizard or a gopher now and then I guarantee she was not killing a bird
a week; the birds around here are too smart for that.
That is the problem with statistics. People do not stop to do the math. I saw a "science journalist" on PBS say with a straight face that it takes
2,000 gallons of water to grow a kilogram of cotton, so people should not buy jeans. That is absurd. It takes about 20 gallons of water to grow a
kilogram of cotton.
I hope those ugly bird killing wind turbines all seize up and get sold for scrap. And yes, they are subsidized by federal and state money, in the
interest of "saving the planet". |
Hey Rick,
here is a source for those numbers - looks to me like the 2000 gallons per KG was an understatement. (you will have to backtrack to WWF to find their
original source, but looking for real documentable facts - thats important enough to spend a few minutes checking to see if your facts are correct -
right? )
According to WWF, it takes more than 20,000 liters (5,283 gallons) of water to produce just one kilogram (2.2 pounds) of cotton, which roughly equals
one T-shirt and a pair of jeans. https://www.worldwildlife.org/industries/cotton
so I'd like to see your source or data please? where are you getting this "20 gallons of water to grow a KG of cotton? (BTW I see 5.5 acre feet of
water per acre for cotton here in the central valley - so that tends to back up the 20,000 liters, so I'm looking for confirmation that the 20 gallons
is actually the correct number) .
and would you mind sourcing your "wind turbines are being subsidized by governments please? i would be very interested in those factual data!
thank you
[Edited on 9-10-2019 by caj13]
[Edited on 9-11-2019 by caj13] |
Hi Caj, I was wrong. (first time for everything) I based my estimate of 20 gallons to grow a kg of cotton on the amount of water it takes to grow
broccoli, which is not a fair comparison because broccoli is a dense vegetable and cotton balls are feathery light fibers. As it turns out, cotton is
a thirsty crop indeed. Just how thirsty is hard to say, and I think the estimate of 2000 gallon per kg is a little high, but it is devilishly
complicated. First you have to decide if you are measuring the weight of baled cotton in the field, which includes seeds and stems, or the weight of
"lint", that is the fibers only after they have been ginned. Also, hand picked cotton yields are higher per acre than machine-picked, because human
cotton pickers can harvest the crop over several weeks as each cotton ball opens up and machines take the whole crop on the same day. But, yes, it
takes a lot of water to grow cotton. Ginned cotton yields per acre vary, but in places where it is "dry farmed" or grown without irrigation like the
deep south and west Texas if you take an average 363 kg of "lint" produced per acre in a place that gets 40 inches of rain, over a six month growing
season that means it takes 1.66 acre feet of water or 543,000 gallon to grow 363 kg, or 1495 gallons of water per kilogram of cotton lint. Irrigated
cotton has higher yields because the water can be delivered to the roots more consistently so while I do not think it takes 4000 gallons to make a
pair of jeans the number is probably closer to 1000 gallons which is still a lot of water. Some of the farmers are greedy. They put dams on the
rivers and take every last drop, leaving the wetlands to wither and die (San Joaquin, Colorado river deltas, both bone dry) and then if someone dares
to suggest that they take a few acres of cotton (or almonds, who like almonds anyway?) out of production and leave a few thimbles of water for the
fish and the birds they scream like stuck pigs. That is why on a fishing boat if you call someone a farmer it is a derogatory term.
Moving on. Wind farms get a direct federal subsidy of so much per kilowatt. That is being phased out so soon those bird killing turbines will have
to stand on their own one legs ha ha You see, I really do like birds. The whole thing with the cats, well, enough about the cats. My point, in a
roundabout manner, is that if well meaning people put questionable statistics out there it only makes them less credible and hinders the important
work of trying to save what is left of the planet. Ric
|
|
|
caj13
Super Nomad
Posts: 1002
Registered: 8-1-2017
Member Is Offline
|
|
Ric, I know it gets complicated. thats why I like the acre feet per year number. Thats pretty well known, and provides a good comparative number.
alfalfa is another crop that takes huge amounts of water, in the range of 5 acre feet here in the central valley. Of course that water is heavily
subsidized, farmers / big ag who signed the conracts are getting it for 5 - 8 bucks an acre foot, that same acre foot would cost you 900 bucks in
los Angeles.
If you want to make the connection, cotton and milk are both price supported by the government, so if you grow those things, you know you will
always get the set price, and it could go alot higher.
so subsidized water on 1 hand, set prices on the other - not sure how you could lose as a farmer - assuming you had the contracts.
(thats the difference between agribusiness and mom and pop farms)
|
|
|
| Pages:
1
2
3 |
![[*]](images/xmbforum/default_icon.gif){kind=icon}
