Renewable Energy's Effects on Bird Populations

[Irbis]

You know, video like these are why I consider most of renewable energy plus recreational/'pest shooting' hunting to be abominable. There are more species than just humans that should be considered in land usage.

Split from "New Crow Overlords" thread due to massive sidetrack

[Esquire]

Can you say what that has to do with renewable energy? Surely the crows will mind a wind farm less than than the earth getting cooked by solar radiation.

[StarSword]

Can you say what that has to do with renewable energy? Surely the crows will mind a wind farm less than than the earth getting cooked by solar radiation.

I think what he's getting at is that solar in particular requires a lot of land area, which means habitat loss.

Wind's not so much an issue: There's a small town in Texas where cattle ranchers have basically rented out their pastures to a power company. I vividly remember a clip I saw on PBS of a beef cow grazing next to a wind turbine.

[Irbis]

Can you say what that has to do with renewable energy? Surely the crows will mind a wind farm less than than the earth getting cooked by solar radiation.

Look at that. What you see relatively small solar plant, providing energy to maybe hundred homes, yet sterilizing environment from wildlife on huge area. In my home province, bird population fell quite a lot in 90s, and that was just from consolidation of small farming plots into medium and large ones (as thin grass strips between plots provided shelter and food for birds, especially in harvesting season). If that tiny change caused big, noticeable drop in population, I don't want to think what glass deserts covering more and more are will do.

Brutally speaking, birds cope with more heat better than with eating glass or getting killed by windmill blade.

I think what he's getting at is that solar in particular requires a lot of land area, which means habitat loss.

Wind's not so much an issue: There's a small town in Texas where cattle ranchers have basically rented out their pastures to a power company. I vividly remember a clip I saw on PBS of a beef cow grazing next to a wind turbine.

Yeah, this. Renewables provide so little energy and so big of a habitat loss (though, in case of hydro, at least substitute habitat emerges, but hydro energy is more dangerous than nukes) it's just not worth it, IMHO.

As for wind farms, I'd be more comfortable if it was finally proven ones we use today don't kill/deafen birds like quite a lot of sources suggests.

[Esquire]

Look at that. What you see relatively small solar plant, providing energy to maybe hundred homes, yet sterilizing environment from wildlife on huge area. In my home province, bird population fell quite a lot in 90s, and that was just from consolidation of small farming plots into medium and large ones (as thin grass strips between plots provided shelter and food for birds, especially in harvesting season). If that tiny change caused big, noticeable drop in population, I don't want to think what glass deserts covering more and more are will do.

Brutally speaking, birds cope with more heat better than with eating glass or getting killed by windmill blade.

So... what, we should stop looking into alternative energy sources because they take up habitat area? Personally, I think we should just build as many nuclear plants as it takes to entirely replace the gas/coal/whatever ones and solve the problem that way, but give that that solution isn't politically feasible and that current energy production methods are going to ruin the planet (birds may be able to tolerate higher temperatures, to a point, but other parts of the ecosystem don't and natural disasters are no good for anybody), alternative energies seem to be the only plan left.

[StarSword]

Look at that. What you see relatively small solar plant, providing energy to maybe hundred homes, yet sterilizing environment from wildlife on huge area. In my home province, bird population fell quite a lot in 90s, and that was just from consolidation of small farming plots into medium and large ones (as thin grass strips between plots provided shelter and food for birds, especially in harvesting season). If that tiny change caused big, noticeable drop in population, I don't want to think what glass deserts covering more and more are will do.

Brutally speaking, birds cope with more heat better than with eating glass or getting killed by windmill blade.

What they need to do is require all commercial buildings with flat roofs (like your typical strip mall) to carry a few solar panels on the roof. Build up, not out. I can think of a good dozen spots for them in my town and the city limits are maybe three miles across. That would go a long way to solving the problem of space in your typical American sprawl.

Also saves money: You don't have to budget to clear and grade land because it's already been done when they built the place, and you spend less money on transmission lines.

[Esquire]

How efficient are cheapish solar panels now? I'm honestly surprised more businesses don't do that; you see a lot of them at schools and government buildings, but I don't think they're particularly common commercially.

[StarSword]

How efficient are cheapish solar panels now? I'm honestly surprised more businesses don't do that; you see a lot of them at schools and government buildings, but I don't think they're particularly common commercially.

I'm doing homework right now so I didn't exactly do a detailed search, but I think the biggest issue is the start-up cost rather than the efficiency, honestly. Right now Home Depot has 4-packs of 250-watters (mainly for residential applications) for about $1350. Add to that the cost of cabling, installation, batteries for when the sun isn't out, and the cost rises pretty fast. Now, you'll make it up down the road, just like with switching to CFLs over incandescents, but in the short term, without money incentives (subsidies or tax credits, take your pick) I don't really see it happening on a large scale.

But once you get them in, you get stories like this guy I read about in Popular Science who stuck a bunch of photovoltaics on his factory roof and cheers himself up by going out back and watching the electric meter run backwards. Article didn't say how many he had, but he had enough that he was a net producer of electricity.

[Esquire]

That's some food for thought right there. Plus, as you said, solar panels on roofs aren't exactly taking up valuable habitat space, so there's that. I get the feeling that most of humanity's problems could be solved by efficient planning.

[Darmalus]

The start up prices are the big limiter. I remember a presentation by a company where they covered the cost of the solar cells and installation, but they took a cut of all electricity you produced. Slightly more complicated than that, but that was the basic idea.

[InsaneTD]

Any building with a roof facing the right direction can have solar panels. How big is a the average city? Lots of space for panels.

[Darmalus]

Any building with a roof facing the right direction can have solar panels. How big is a the average city? Lots of space for panels.

Average sunlight is also very important. Washington would be a terrible place for solar panels, since from what I understand the sun is still a theoretical concept in that state. The direction and shape of your roof faces is also important.

Trying to drag up a few tidbits from that presentation, a really good location will pay back the cost of the panels in about 5 years, where a bad one will take more than 20, the lifespan of the panels.

[InsaneTD]

All true. A modern city is going to need a combination or solar, wind and other, either fusion or fission. A storage system for what's generated in excess to be used over night or such would also be good.

[LaCroix]

You could jsut as well install vertical rotating wind power masts on roofs - easier to make and less mechanical stress than a fan-style one that needs to turn into the wind, and less likely for a bird to fly into (as you can make a protective cage of mesh around it without too much hassle). Also, it can produce electricity at night and on cloudy days, which puts it at a higher efficiency than solar, already. To be frank, there are few regions with regular periods of no wind, and small versions aren't bound to the wind levels needed for a industrial wind energy park.

[madd0ct0r]

oh god LaCroix, there is so much wrong with that statement.

You are comparing small VAWT (vertical axis wind turbines) with small solar panels, both on a roof.

Claims
1) easier to make then a HAWT
2) less mechanical stress then a HAWT
3) Less likely for a bird to fly into it
4) More effecient then solar
5) Operates in low wind

Given that both HAWT and VAWT models are available in my local superstore, let alone on the web, I'm going to say that 1) idebatable but more imporntaly is only relevant if you want to build it yourself. You probably could, but that's not the mass market we're talking about. PV solar, of course, is not a build it yourself option.

Less mechanical stress - bollocks. Sorry, but bollocks. For a fair comparison, we're talking turbines with the equivalent capacity, which means the same swept area. This means the two turbines need to be about the same height, and since the VAWT I've seen keep their blades closer to the axis to avoid turbulence wobble, the VAWT would probably need to be taller. From the wind's point of view, both of them are cantilever towers sticking up into the wind. Max bending stress occurs at the base. That's not good for the VAWT, since that's where the turbine and bearings are. Generally speaking, it's a hell of a lot easier to design a fixed metal pole to resist bending then a freely rotating joint. There are VAWT designs that 'hang' the blades from the top of the mast, with the turbine just below, but that still puts the turbine in same position as the HAWT equivalent.
If we're talking about mechanical stress imparted onto the structure they're being fitted to, solar panels are going to win by a huge margin.

Birdkill.

Proponents and inventors claim that VAWTs will kill fewer birds than HAWTs. As HAWT bird mortality rates are typically vastly overstated and are much less than fossil fuel generation, lighted windows, cats, transmission lines, cars and many other sources of avian mortality, this is a straw man argument. As VAWTs scaled up the utility generation capacity have not been built or compared for avian mortality, it’s a straw man argument without merit, similar to the noise problem.

from http://barnardonwind.com/2013/02/23/why ... e-popular/ - one of the best comparison sites for wind turbine design I've come across.

4) More efficient then solar. That kinda depends on your climate doesn't it? Like when I was living in Vietnam, sure there were breezes, but the amount of solar energy about was pretty extreme. I built a hot water system just by sandwiching a hosepipe between two sheets of corrugated steel. We're probably talking an efficiency of less then a 1%. The hosepipe melted Since you talked about at night and foggy days vs constant breezes, I'm going to guess you meant the word 'consistent'. Even that is interesting though, since electricity demand isn't consistent. another thread perhaps?

5) VAWT Operate in low wind - TRUE, and desperately needed since we're looking at turbines on structures here. This means very turbulent air, the worst kind for generating off, since a lot of the turbulent eddies cancel each other out in terms of moving the turbine. It's a crippling effceiny loss that is making it very hard for microturbines to be a sensible choice for retrofitting at this point.

[LadyTevar]

Continue your discussion here, please.

[Grumman]

5) VAWT Operate in low wind - TRUE, and desperately needed since we're looking at turbines on structures here. This means very turbulent air, the worst kind for generating off, since a lot of the turbulent eddies cancel each other out in terms of moving the turbine. It's a crippling effceiny loss that is making it very hard for microturbines to be a sensible choice for retrofitting at this point.

And on that point, it's going to be a lot easier to tell if new construction is going to screw with the efficiency of your solar panels than your wind turbine. If anything gets between you and the sun you'll know about it, while the effect of another building on how air flows through the city might not be as easy to determine.

[Darth Tanner]

I can't reccomend attaching a wind turbine to your home, the vibrations are going to do serious damage toyour buildings structure unless you spend a fortune on retrofitting and reincofrment.

Wind has no place in the home, if you really want to spend money on home generation then do it with solar but as mentioned you must have a south facing roof of the right angle. Lots of poeple are enjoying the huge subsidies in Europe, I'd imaigne countries with actual sun shine would more than copensate for the lost subsidy in actual increased generation.

Back to the op there is very little evidence wind turbines have a large impact on bird populations or other wild life, apparently birds quite quickly adapt to not flying into the spinning blades. There are of course some studies saying otherwise but I don't think any of them are credible but rather products of NIMBY campaigns.

[madd0ct0r]

Lady Tev misssed a couple fo posts, so I'll just quote them here:

Please remember that we are talking about wide-spread small scale operation. As in rooftop/backyard.

Well, for one, the VAWT doesn't have to turn into the wind, which removes one point of failure.
Second, because of the lack of the rotation mentioned above, it doesn't need slider contacts (or whatever) to transfer the generator energy to a static line.
Third, VAWT are operated with much lower masts than VAWT's, thus your claim of same height is wrong.
Generally, VAWT generators need much less maintennance than HAWT due to these differences.

At this small scale, I'm not sure a HAWT actually needs slider contacts, just a loose bit of cable and a spring mount to stop it rotating in one direction too many times. But either way, I'm not convinced that VAWT have a maintenance advantage, or that the difference is significant in usage. We can point at different parts, but so many different designs have slightly different configurations it's going to get a bit messy.

3) VAWT's are operated with much lower masts - for the same power output? are you sure?

[madd0ct0r]

At this small scale, I'm not sure a HAWT actually needs slider contacts, just a loose bit of cable and a spring mount to stop it rotating in one direction too many times. But either way, I'm not convinced that VAWT have a maintenance advantage, or that the difference is significant in usage. We can point at different parts, but so many different designs have slightly different configurations it's going to get a bit messy.

3) VAWT's are operated with much lower masts - for the same power output? are you sure?

About maintenance - In general, most experts do cite an advantage in maintenance. Most are gearless drive, and many do have the actual generator at the bottom of the mast. Also, since their construction is self-limiting their maximum rotations, they usually fare better in high winds, which results in less repair needed after storms.

As you wrote above, VA designs suffer from having a high mast, so while HAWT are usually mounted with masts of ~12 to 18 m, VAWTs are usually mounted at "ground" level or a bit above (6 meter is deemed to be the optimum offset to ground to escape turbulence). Usually, they are mounted on hills or rooftops in order to have the "higher altitude" advantage, too. Still, a HA design of same nominal output will produce about 20% more energy if the conditions are optimal (steady winds with little turbulence).

General conclusion as far as I know is that VA are the optimum solution for rooftop placement, since they are quieter, do well with turbulence, and do not stand out that sorely(popular opinion does matter in such projects), while HA are the best thing to do if you are doing a wind park in a 'remote' location, as they are much more efficient and much easier to build in big scale.

[Darth Tanner]

I did a cost study at work on VAWTS as we were looking at fitting HAWTS but didn’t like the returns. VAWTS are much easier to fit to a building for the size but they still need massive retrofitting to counter vibrations, they are also significantly more expensive for the same export as they are relatively underdeveloped compared to HAWTS as that is what was rolled out for industrial scale use. Most of the returns I discovered made them vanity projects for companies wanting to look green but unable to fit regular wind turbines - there was a council office in Newport I believe that fitted six of them around their carpark with a negative return! The UK planning process is also significantly easier for them compared to HAWTS.

There are two VAWTS on the multstory parking by Birmingham airport if anyone ever drives past, one of them is usually broke but the other spins rapidly and makes a strangely eerie sound.

I've never seen a VAWT covered in a cage and imagine there is a good reason for that.

[StarSword]

Back to the op there is very little evidence wind turbines have a large impact on bird populations or other wild life, apparently birds quite quickly adapt to not flying into the spinning blades. There are of course some studies saying otherwise but I don't think any of them are credible but rather products of NIMBY campaigns.

Hell, we lose about a songbird a month at my house just because the dumbass decided to attack the bird inside the house (translation: its own reflection in the window).



Something that's painted is a lot easier to see. I notice they never run into the walls.

[His Divine Shadow]

How efficient are cheapish solar panels now? I'm honestly surprised more businesses don't do that; you see a lot of them at schools and government buildings, but I don't think they're particularly common commercially.

Solar power is already feasible at northern latitudes in terms of ground heat exchange pumps. The sun heats the earth, which keeps the groundwater at a constant temp of 4-6C all year round, this heat can be extracted via borehole and heat pump and is currently used to provide the majority of heating and hot water for lots of homes here. It's how my new house will be heated for instance.

The expensive cost of the borehole clocks the whole thing in at 14-16,000 euros on average, so the milder your climate is, the less you gain, and if you have a badly insulated home you're just wasting most of that heat anyway. So this is mostly something that's been gaining ground in the scandinavian countries, particularly the northern parts.