Meh about [2] - house cats and glass&steel skyscrapers kill an awful lot more birds than that. There is absolutely no outcry against either; that's how we know the outrage against windmills killing birds is planted and artificially kept alive.

And I was reading that most "capped" underwater oil wells are actually leaking oil - and there are many thousands. So oil is silently killing incredible amounts of sea life. So, while I regret the loss of animal life to wind turbines it is much better than the loss of life to oil. (And new wind turbines in the ocean are being placed at heights which almost eliminate bird impacts and also being designed with structures which won't attract birds as a place to perch, unlike prior generations of wind turbines.)

Oil leaks naturally out of the sea floor also.

Transport too. I suspect that's the biggest bird killer.

Which really just goes to show how good wind is. The worst complaints aren't actually a big deal in the grand scheme of things.

People who complain about a statistic without mentioning its severity in context are often only using it as rhetorical currency rather than actually caring about the issue itself. If they're accepting of the same outcome in other contexts you can safely ignore them.

When there's no wind there's no power. Or really, when there's no wind we just turn on the gas.

Also, it + solar will not meet needs.

Wind complements solar well in terms of peak generation. In some markets, wind + solar + hydro + existing demand pricing could already manage current consumption requirements. Hydro is perfect for base load and for peaking.

As a bridge fuel natural gas is also perfectly capable for base load and peaking, and due to pricing has already been rapidly supplanting coal and oil. Longer term, pumped hydro where available, or even technologies like syngas could be used to store peak wind/solar capacity to generate when the resource does not meet need. Along with a better long-distance grid, it takes no stretch of the imagination for renewables to meet virtually all current demand, without even accounting for huge advances in new technologies.

Peak population is coming, and with increasing energy efficiency/conservation, we can very well expect peak energy usage to precede peak population.

Solar and wind cannot meet demand. Neither is there enough hydro storage.

The population will peak. What causes the peak? Lifting from poverty. What results? Much higher energy demand.

Regardless, current demand cannot be sustained by wind and solar. Not even speaking about future demand.

Gas is fossil. I prefer nuclear to meet demand for the foreseeable future.

Apples and oranges, really. Wind/solar/gas are best suited for peak production. Nuclear is best suited for base load production. While technology can change down the road, they currently aren't directly in competition with each other.

> and the documented bird deaths are awful[2].

Stop quoting this bullshit "fact." It is a meme made up by conservative think tanks to discredit wind farms. As other posters have already pointed out, other human-related factors such as domestic cats, buildings and towers, and most importantly pollution and loss of habitat are far more significant dangers to birds. If you actually care about birds, take your cats to the vet and put them down (this will also help save the oceans: a large part of fish in cat food comes from massive and illegal trawling in South-east Asia often done with slave labor), and donate any rural/suburban property you own to a land trust, to be given back to natural habitat.

'Conservative think tanks' like the Audobon Society?

It's not necessarily the raw numbers of birds killed, it's the type and the impact on their population. If your cat kills 1000 pigeons, the pigeon population won't notice. A handful of golden eagles every year or two though, and we get closer to losing another species.

[1]http://www.audubon.org/news/will-wind-turbines-ever-be-safe-...

And yet the Audubon society, after considering all the various risks to birds, is pro-wind turbines, as you can tell from the angry commenters attacking them for this stance in the article you linked.

As is the original commenter, who nevertheless got attacked for quoting a "bullshit fact".

It is a bullshit fact, just like "80% fat free" is a bullshit fact that plays on human bias. Just because one side is talking about bird deaths doesn't mean it has the moral high ground on that issue. It is in fact a standard political move to attack your opponent on your weak point. And the less motivated listener just says "well they're both bad", even if one is clearly better.

It's not a bullshit fact. Admittedly it can be used to bullshit by blowing it out of proportion, but it is something that happens. Calling actual issues "bullshit" and demanding they are not talked about is not a very good way of getting people on your side.

At least over here in Germany the organisations working to get more renewables deployed and studying these things massively overlap (e.g. nature clubs lobbying/advertising for renewables, and at the same time providing the boots on the ground counting dead birds). It has been recognized as a problem and is now managed, just as other environmental influences of new construction projects are (e.g. evaluating a new location includes a comparison with known migratory patterns/populations and restrictions and monitoring requirements can be set accordingly)

I mean outdoor cats kill 1.4-3.7 billion per year [1] so 10-600k is not really in the same ballpark.

> Some say just 10,000 birds a year meet their end at the hands (blades) of the wind industry. Others ramp that number up to 600,000

1. https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/outdo...

How many birds do coal plants poison and kill? I bet you never thought about that simply because those deaths aren't violent and sudden.

This is an important point. Birds die orders of magnitudes faster from respiratory failures caused by coal's pollution.

I doubt that's true. Birds probably live away from coal plants like humans.

Bird deaths from coal are 40 times higher than those from wind: https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/800/0*FlgPzNwGlNYMtFSy.j...

source: https://thinkprogress.org/chart-how-many-birds-are-killed-by...

Would be best to give birds killed per MWh, for each country

> "But, I'll take them over coal any day...."

But the economic alternative is not coal but natural gas. What is you opinion in this context?