Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Earth Power

A New Study Shows Seabirds Avoid Offshore Turbines (electrek.co) 110

Matt_Bennett (Slashdot reader #79,107) writes: Swedish power company Vattenfall released a study on the interactions of seabirds and offshore wind turbines. They used cameras and radar to record the tracks of the birds during daylight hours at Aberdeen Offshore Wind Farm over peak periods of bird activity in 2020 and 2021.

The study observed no collisions or even narrow escapes between birds and rotor blades. In 97.7% of the recordings, the birds avoided the RSZ (rotor swept zone).

The company (owned by the Swedish government) spent €3 million on the two-year study, according to Electrek, and now has ten thousand videos of birds flying...nowhere near the wind turbines. Herring gulls avoided the rotor blades by a full 90-110 meters (295-361 feet) while kittiwakes flew even further from the blades — 140-160 meters (459-525 feet).

"By way of comparison, each of these human-related sources kill millions or even billions of birds per year: fossil fuels, deforestation, pesticides, windows, and the common housecat."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

A New Study Shows Seabirds Avoid Offshore Turbines

Comments Filter:
  • by slazzy ( 864185 )
    Who funded the study? Oh, never mind
    • by shanen ( 462549 )

      Funded by Big Bird. Obviously. Perhaps you thought it was Big Pharma?

      Anyway, the story has potential for Funny, though that FP seems limited.

      • Funded by Big Bird.

        Why weren't Elmo and the Cookie Monster also consulted?

      • Funded by Big Wind, you mean. Who want us to do away with cats. NEVER!
        • by shanen ( 462549 )

          Took me a while to see the linkage, but you're right. See, I wouldn't recognize a good Funny joke if it bit me in the nether regions.

          I was thinking I should have said "Big Bird, not to be confused with Big Oil, Big Pharma, or Big ."

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by gweihir ( 88907 )

      The Swedish government did. And they would get (figuratively) eviscerated if they were lying. You are obviously an idiot.

      • by Anonymous Coward

        Vattenfall is state owned but make no mistake, it is a for-profit business that generates revenue throughout Europe. It's a "green electricity" company and so has a vested interest in wind turbines.

        I'm not saying the study is wrong but it's definitely a conflict of interest and as such should be taken with a grain of salt.

        • Does not mean the data is inaccurate. Just because an industry funds a study to see if something others are claiming that is bad is true or false, does not mean the study is actually wrong. I am as skeptical as the next asshat, but either they are lying, or the birds really don't interact at all.
          • by hey! ( 33014 )

            Conflict of interest isn't quite the "aha gotcha" people think, because everybody has conflicts of interest. It isn't just "this paper will make me money", it could be "this paper will improve my scientific reputation", or even "this will show that upstart". Plenty of misconduct has been motivated by that kind of petty egotism, and you pretty much take it for granted it affects any research project's agenda.

            Science isn't predicated on scientists being inhumanly objective. It's predicated on transparency

            • by gweihir ( 88907 )

              Conflict of interest isn't quite the "aha gotcha" people think,

              In fact, it is not a "gotcha" at all. Most research has conflict of interest and all researchers do. Scientific practice has reliable ways around that, even if they are not always used. One is that the data gets published so others can verify the findings. Another is to have studies conducted by somebody else with minimal conflict of interest, but a lot of reputation at stake. Another one is peer review. And yet another one is checking reproducibility for important things. Also note that bad scientific misc

          • by gweihir ( 88907 )

            Vattenfall is not the most moral company. They also run pretty questionable nuclear, for example. But this study is widely published and will be controversial, so there is very high risk in any inaccuracies or lies. My take is the study is scrupulously honest because they really cannot afford anything else.

      • I don't doubt the validity of the research. By this point the seagulls with a propensity for behavior not conducive to reproductive success have been selected against and the offspring of the previous generations largely share whatever genetic factor led to their forbearers proclivity towards that behavior.

        Evolution is a harsh mistress.
    • The Department For Looking Only At Money Rather Than Commenting On The Substance Of A Study.

      Now do you have anything else to comment on or are you a ad hominem one trick pony?

  • by Anonymous Coward

    nft

  • And we have the usual, "other bad things happen and are much worse so this lesser bad thing happening on top of the worse bad things is ok" argument.

    Just because one person committed murder doesn't make someone else's assault and battery ok.

    • by Halo1 ( 136547 ) on Saturday March 04, 2023 @12:05PM (#63342167)

      From TFS:

      The study observed no collisions or even narrow escapes between birds and rotor blades.

      So it's 0% birds splattered. The 2.3% you're referencing merely did not evade the "rotor swept zone", but they were not splattered as a result.

      • I figure that birds likely have a fairly developed kinetic sense. Most sensible birds, IE the adults, probably avoid the zones just as a matter of practical safety. But they're probably also very capable of determining when they can pass through the zone with a comfortable margin from the rotors themselves, so if they want to they can dip through it.

        • by Calydor ( 739835 ) on Saturday March 04, 2023 @01:27PM (#63342415)

          Just look at birds sitting at the edge of a road waiting for cars to pass so they can go back to eating road kill. Those bastards know EXACTLY where the cars will and won't go.

          • Yes, but they also seem to play games with cars, perhaps riding their wakes or something, and it gets them killed. I've hit several small birds which were doing this. My father had a '62 Chevy that had a habit of eating them, they went right into the grill.

            • by Calydor ( 739835 )

              Blackbirds in particular seem to either show off to potential mates by diving in front of moving cars, or practicing to lose a hawk who'd either smack against the car or have to break away to avoid such a fate.

              I'm talking more about magpies, crows, and the like. They'll sit a single step from the asphalt, close enough their feathers get ruffled from the wind as cars pass, but they very clearly know that the cars won't leave the asphalt.

              • Well, Crows, magpies, and such are Corvidae, commonly known to be among the smartest birds.

                And yes, I've seen them not even bother to fly when getting out of the way of traffic. They see me coming, just turn and give a hop or two up onto the curb and wait for me to go past.

                When eating roadkill, I've also seen them drag the kill off the pavement so they can eat uninterrupted.

              • Crows also know about traffic lights. They drop nuts etc. on the road to get them crushed/broken by cars. When the lights are about to get green they run to the side or lift off and let the cars pass.

                I mean: they drop the stuff directly at the traffic lights, e.g. pedestrian crossings.

              • I've had to hit the brakes to avoid smacking both ravens and crows, so they're either not as smart as you think, or smart enough to know I'll brake for them

            • There are basically two kinds of birds - except from birds of prey ofc.
              a) seeds and plant eaters - they like to fly low, and their escape tactics is to fly close to the ground ,and that includes crossing roads or fly in "car height" along the road.
              b) insect eaters, most famous are swallows and similar birds that fly high, and the escape tactics is to stay high and fly zig zag if needed

              Crows and related might actually do/try wake surfing - never heard about it, but they do pretty odd stuff for fun, e.g. ridi

          • Just look at birds sitting at the edge of a road waiting for cars to pass so they can go back to eating road kill. Those bastards know EXACTLY where the cars will and won't go.

            Yeah look at the live ones, not the dead ones they are eating. When you see me standing on the side of the road not j-walking and waiting to cross the road when it's clear, don't assume humans are immortal / magically avoid cars, instead question your observer bias.

            • by Calydor ( 739835 )

              That is not at all what I said. I said they understand where cars will and will not go (within really high probability, anyway). I didn't say they were perfect.

      • What about the hours of nighttime? Were the stats any different?

      • by ugen ( 93902 )

        In other news - 2.3% of the seabirds are mavericks and show offs. And they are sure to get it when their mom finds out.

      • Nice way to cut short the quote.

        "The study observed no collisions or even narrow escapes between birds and rotor blades. In 97.7% of the recordings, the birds avoided the RSZ (rotor swept zone)."

        So in 2.3% of recordings the birds did not avoid the RSZ. Splat. As stated.

        • by ceoyoyo ( 59147 )

          Slashdot has a lot of selective reading, but you really seem to be the master of it. From your own quote:

          "The study observed no collisions or even narrow escapes between birds and rotor blades."

        • Stated is: no splat. You quoted it yourself: The study observed no collisions or even narrow escapes between birds and rotor blades.

        • I think the "splat" is your hand on your face after you realise your mistake and have a a "doh" moment
    • by Some Guy ( 21271 )

      Only 2.3% of birds splattered

      Huh? It says right in the summary:

      The study observed no collisions or even narrow escapes between birds and rotor blades.

    • by vadim_t ( 324782 ) on Saturday March 04, 2023 @12:09PM (#63342181) Homepage

      There's no perfectly green power generation method yet. None.

      Just building something so far requires diesel powered machinery, which definitely kills or poisons something during the production of the fuel. We might approach perfection some day if we get to the point where trucks, cranes and industrial equipment all switch off from fossil fuels, and the factories that make them are renewable powered, and the machines that extract lithium and such are also all renewable powered, and we take care not to kill anything as we mine, and we take care not to poison anything as we do processing.

      That's not a complete impossibility, but that day is very far off in the future. For now the only choice is in the amount of damage that is caused. There's certainly much better and much worse things to pick from, but right now nothing is perfect.

      So yeah, some birds are going to die. That's likely to be far better than the available alternatives.

    • by dfghjk ( 711126 )

      "And we have the usual, "other bad things happen and are much worse so this lesser bad thing happening on top of the worse bad things is ok" argument."

      Do we? The article is literally about no "lesser bad thing" happening.

      "Just because one person committed murder doesn't make someone else's assault and battery ok."

      Even though there was no assault and battery.

      Right-wingers are so predictable. And definitely not "SmarterThanYou". They even choose handles that tell you have dumb they are, but then "SuperKend

    • by gweihir ( 88907 )

      And if you could fucking _read_ you would not claim such bullshit!

      • Can you?

        Full quote, fourth time for the blind and illiterate, "The study observed no collisions or even narrow escapes between birds and rotor blades. In 97.7% of the recordings, the birds avoided the RSZ (rotor swept zone)."

        2.3% in the splat zone.

        • The study observed no collisions or even narrow escapes between birds and rotor blades.
          So? You can read it or not?

          2.3% in the splat zone.
          And they escaped all with a significant distance from the actual blades, as: no as in noneor even narrow escapes where recorded.

          Seriously annoying that dumbasses like you are allowed to vote.

          • by gweihir ( 88907 )

            Seriously annoying that dumbasses like you are allowed to vote.

            Indeed. Dunning-Kruger far-left side, i.e. moron with delusions of being super smart.

        • by gweihir ( 88907 )

          I can read. _You_ cannot. And you are stupid in addition, because "2.3% in the splat zone" does in obviously in no way mean "2.3% killed or hurt".

          In fact "The study observed no collisions or even narrow escapes between birds and rotor blades.", which just proves you cannot read and you cannot think successfully. And you cannot even do so when your gross mistake is pointed out to you. Pathetic. Arrogance is not a valid replacement for actual mental abilities.

    • by ceoyoyo ( 59147 )

      Ah, so you're avoiding the use of any electricity made in any way that might harm a bird?

      So how did you post anyway?

    • RIF
  • A much bigger concern for wind turbines is bats. Turbines kill an enormous amount of bats. And bats are really important for insect control.
    • by shanen ( 462549 )

      Seems like it would be easy to add some kind of sonic warning to keep the bats away.

      But I keep thinking that if this was a real problem, they could just put screens around the rotors. Not going to bother the wind.

      • But I keep thinking that if this was a real problem, they could just put screens around the rotors. Not going to bother the wind.

        They keep trying, but Home Depot still says the giant screens are backordered until at least 2024.

        • by shanen ( 462549 )

          The better joke and I hope it gets the Funny mod, but maybe my own fault for being a poor straight man... Maybe it could have been funnier as a reference to big computer screens? Best Buy rather than Home Depot?

          Looking at the story again, I wonder how many birds (and bats) learned from a close call and how many learned just by watching the flock. Seems birds ought to have evolved to learn about hazards from each other...

      • by Dixie_Flatline ( 5077 ) <vincent@jan@goh.gmail@com> on Saturday March 04, 2023 @01:13PM (#63342369) Homepage

        The problem is that the pressure near the turbine is very low, and basically it bursts their lungs. They're not actually HITTING anything, they're dying from being NEAR them.

        There are fairly simple mitigations, most of which involve lowering the speed of the turbines at night during migration season. Turbine operators aren't always amenable to the prospect of losing money by turning down the turbines, though. I dated a bat researcher whose area of expertise was just this, and wind power operators don't want to talk to her anymore. She acknowledges that wind power is an important energy source and we should definitely do it, but they should be moved away from migration routes, or they should be required to perform these mitigations when possible.

        • by shanen ( 462549 )

          Thanks for the additional information.

        • The problem is that the pressure near the turbine is very low, and basically it bursts their lungs
          Just lol.

          • Just lol.

            What are you laughing at? Your own ignorance? https://www.scientificamerican... [scientificamerican.com]

            Instead, 90 percent of the 75 bats the researchers ultimately dissected had been killed by burst blood vessels in their lungs, according to results presented in Current Biology—suggesting that the air pressure difference created by the spinning windmills had terminated them, not contact with the blades.

        • The problem is that the pressure near the turbine is very low, and basically it bursts their lungs. They're not actually HITTING anything, they're dying from being NEAR them.

          WTF? Can you point me to any material that discusses this? That sounds untrue to me.

      • Considering the colour of the blades, the sky and the water, it is conceivable that a bird might "not see" the rotor. That a bat neither "sees" nor "hears" it, is impossible.

        • by shanen ( 462549 )

          The other branch went into some detail, but maybe it's impossible for the bats to recognize the threat? Not a lot of brainpower there. The closest match might be to the wall of a cave, but cave walls aren't moving at speed.

          But the original story was about offshore turbines and now I'm wondering how many bats want to fly over water.

    • I'm pretty sure you get a Nobel Prize in Botanics, if you make a convincing video about Bats eating Insects dozens of kilometers offshore around wind plants ...erm, plants are botanic, or not?

  • Sea birds flying over open water probably want to... fly over open water. With the turbines it becomes a radically different local environment, and not their place.

    Land birds expect to see trees and other objects sticking up out of the ground. Many tend to stick near trees as cover.

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by gweihir ( 88907 )

      Indeed. The whole thing is absolutely plausible. Well the "green energy baaaad" cave-men will just find some new lie to push.

  • ...get sliced ?!?
    • by gweihir ( 88907 )

      Over land. Maybe. There are several ways to warn them away in testing. Over water, these are obviously not needed.

  • by couchslug ( 175151 ) on Saturday March 04, 2023 @12:34PM (#63342247)

    Military aircraft have had propeller tips painted for a very long time.

    Tip color vs. fuselage color is a long-known consideration:
    http://www.clubhyper.com/refer... [clubhyper.com]

    Every few years some asshat walks into one anyway but the markings do make a difference.

    LED lights along the leading edge would give a disk effect at night, optimal colors TBD.

    • LED lights along the leading edge would give a disk effect at night, optimal colors TBD.

      We just need more blades or blades that spin much faster then wind turbines can function as a ginormous billboard and pump ads to us at night. It’s well known that birds shy away from buying an extended car warranty, and the added revenue streams should make electric power even cheaper. That should make everyone happy!

    • LED lights along the leading edge would give a disk effect at night,

      And with multi-colored LED lights, you'd also get a disco effect!

  • Seriously. You assholes just need to stop making untrue claims. All you do is harm _everybody_.

  • nuclear power? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by CrimsonAvenger ( 580665 ) on Saturday March 04, 2023 @01:10PM (#63342361)

    I see they didn't include that one in their comparison of deaths by various power-related means. I assume they ignored nukes because the deaths from nuclear power to humans is less than five per year so far even with Chernobyl, TMI, and Fukushima....

  • Just had to be said (because some guy said windmills cause cancer, just by hearing them).
  • Oh the cancer-causing windmills! LOL!
  • ... of the common house cat swimming out there around the turbines and catching birds?

    Thought so ...

  • New study shows exactly what we wanted it to.

If all else fails, lower your standards.

Working...