[HN Gopher] A simple paint job can save birds from wind turbines ___________________________________________________________________ A simple paint job can save birds from wind turbines Author : CharlesW Score : 114 points Date : 2022-08-30 17:54 UTC (5 hours ago) (HTM) web link (www.anthropocenemagazine.org) (TXT) w3m dump (www.anthropocenemagazine.org) | sohkamyung wrote: | Unfortunately, a paint job may not save vultures from collisions | [1]. I learned of this from Ed Yong's new book, "An Immense | World". | | > Vultures have such large blind spots in their visual field that | they cannot see objects directly in front of them when they fly. | This discovery explains why vultures frequently collide with | conspicuous structures such as wind turbines and power lines, | despite having some of the sharpest eyes of any animal. | | [1] https://www.nature.com/articles/nature.2012.10214 | tonymet wrote: | wind turbine bird deaths are vastly underestimated | ravenstine wrote: | As if windmills weren't enough of an eyesore already. | | The value of windmills (yes I know they're wind turbines but I | don't care, I'm calling them windmills) is very limited. Most of | the places I've seen with lots of windmills really should be | nuclear powered instead, but politicians get a lot of brownie | points for windmills. They can be a good thing for rural areas or | places with limited infrastructure, but the whole windmill thing | is beating around the bush when it comes to a practical solution | that also doesn't engage the carbon cycle. | AlexAndScripts wrote: | In my opinion, they aren't an eyesore. I quite like them. I | appreciate the engineering. But that's a matter of personal | preference. | | I agree: Nuclear is better. Had we ignored the hippies and | NIMBYs 40 years ago and just gotten on with it, we would have a | whole lot less problems. Had we done the same 20, 10, 5 years | ago things would be a lot better. If we got them to shut up and | listen now we would have a long term solution. | | Unfortunately, with the way our governments are setup, large | scale nuclear that is able to lower costs is simply not viable. | Politicians look out for themselves, not long term national | interest. The people have a visceral negative reaction that we | aren't changing any time soon. Also, we can only really trust | nuclear with certain countries. How many "civilian nuclear | programs" have actually been for enrichment? | | In an ideal world, we would run everything on nuclear. But our | world is messy and imperfect. Wind turbines are a improvement | in coal/gas, at least until a certain point where the | instability is no longer worth it. | | Those of us who care about energy security, climate change, and | practicality need to advocate for nuclear. But its unlikely the | pro-nuclear side will succeed. It has a fossil fuel lobby, | renewable lobby, and an easily-scared, highly-emotional | electorate to overcome. | | Renewable energy - wind, solar, etc - are imperfect, but | they're also a lot easier to get built. There's no need to push | against wind and solar when we should be advocating for | nuclear. | tomohawk wrote: | It's not a matter of personal preference. They put these | thing away from most people for a reason. If they put them in | cities or suburbs, a lot of people would complain and put an | end to them. | | Siting them in rural areas - who cares if some people in | flyover country complain about the incessent noise or the | ruined landscapes? | | Don't believe me about the noise? Get a tent and try camping | under one for a few days. | | For someone living in the mountains, putting windmills atop | all the mountains makes the views strictly worse. For someone | visiting the mountains, it looks novel and sci-fi. | eldaisfish wrote: | why on earth would you camp under a wind turbine? And how? | Most are on private land with access control. | | Besides, once you're more than a few hundred meters away, | you can barely hear them. Don't believe me - please look up | the sound power numbers of modern wind turbines and see how | close you need to be to hear them. | tomohawk wrote: | A few hundred feet away you can hear them very clearly. | They emit a lot of sound on low frequencies that travels | right through walls. The sound is very disturbing to | animals. | ncmncm wrote: | Nuclear is, in fact, not better. | | Nukes cost way more to operate, and phenomenally more to | build, and take forever to build. I do not want to pay extra | for somebody's nuke fetish. I want my carbon-neutral power | cheap and plentiful, not dear and niggardly. So, give me | wind, solar, tidal, geo. And, tear down dams to restore | fisheries after enough of those are running. Maybe turn off | remaining dams during smolting season. | Gordonjcp wrote: | I live in a country that hasn't got a lot of radioactive ores | suitable for processing into fuel, but has got a lot of wind. | | Americans freak out about "hurricane season". You know what we | call it in Scotland when we get four weeks of 140mph winds? We | call that "January". | | Wind turbines work just great here, and they look amazing, | especially the offshore ones. | Symbiote wrote: | You are comparing the highest gust speeds of Scottish storms | to the sustained wind speeds of a Caribbean hurricane. | | A huge storm in Scotland might see sustained wind speeds of | 80mph. | | A category 5 hurricane in the USA has sustained wind speeds | of 160mph. | eatsyourtacos wrote: | >Americans freak out about "hurricane season". | | Maybe because if you live in the southeast it can be an | absolutely devastating natural disaster? Which has already | happened many times in the past and is guaranteed to happen | in the future? | | >You know what we call it in Scotland when we get four weeks | of 140mph winds? We call that "January". | | Well good for you. I don't know anything about the weather in | Scotland but obviously if it's normal to get high wind for a | few weeks in some places it's not anything like an actual | hurricane. So perhaps you should stop being a smug dumbass | comparing normal high winds in parts of your country to | hurricanes which obliterate people and cities. | oefnak wrote: | The difference is that Europeans build houses from stone, | since we heard the story of the 3 piglets when we were | children. | HPsquared wrote: | Being highly visible is an advantage (politically): they give a | strong impression of "look, we're doing something!". Plastic | straw bans are a more extreme example, but the same effect. | wmeredith wrote: | You're going to need to provide a source for claiming that the | value of wind power is "very limited". | | Land-based utility-scale wind is one of the lowest-priced | energy sources available today, costing 1-2 cents per kilowatt- | hour after the production tax credit[0]. Please note that | governments still spend more subsidizing fossil fuel extraction | and production than wind power generation. About double[1][2]. | | 0. https://www.energy.gov/eere/wind/advantages-and- | challenges-w... | | 1. https://news.climate.columbia.edu/2018/03/16/how-much-do- | ren... | | 2. https://www.iea.org/topics/energy-subsidies | HonestOp001 wrote: | Please delineate in your comment that this is for the world. | Not for the United States or other western countries. Those | governments listed in the report have to quell their | population to avoid an uprising. | | Wind power's limits: 1. Not a base load provider 2. Requires | an energy ready base load provider 3. Is dependent on an | energy source that is not providing steady inputs 4. Has | larger footprints than nuclear plants 5. Blot the natural | landscape | montalbano wrote: | > Not for the United States or other western countries. | | Incorrect - An obvious counterexample is the UK. | | _Wind power contributed 24.8% of UK electricity supplied | in 2020, having surpassed coal in 2016 and nuclear in | 2018._ | | https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power_in_the_United_Ki | n... | unethical_ban wrote: | Right now, the Texas power grid is generating more than 9GW | from wind power alone. | | Now, do I think we should have nuclear in the mix? Sure. Do | I ignore the ERCOT dashboard because it doesn't fit my | narrative? No. | | And trust me, there is plenty of land still to look at that | _doesn 't_ have windmills on them. I'm not offended when I | drive through west Texas. | mint2 wrote: | You know what else are eyesores? Vast expanses of monoculture | crops, vast expanses of asphalt and urban sprawl, and vast | fields of oil derricks. | | And those all come with additionally extremely harmful impacts. | While turbines are unquestionably a net good they are a new and | thus unfamiliar thing. | | yeah I understand with most new things or any change it makes a | lot of people uncomfortable despite completely overlooking | similar or worse offenders that are more familiar. A | reactionary antipathy to change is fairly common. | [deleted] | wmeredith wrote: | With wind power killing 20,000 birds a year, and fossil fuel | extraction killing 14,000,000 in the same time period... does it | matter? I mean, paint the turbines or whatever, but it's hard to | care about sweeping the porch when the house is on fire. | | The source for those numbers is linked in the article itself: | https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S09601... | tomxor wrote: | Absolute fatalities are not a useful comparison, in fact they | are meaningless without the context of the proportion of each | source of power. The same study provides adjusted numbers per | GWh in the abstract: | | 0.3 to 0.4 fatalities per GWh for Wind farms and nuclear power | | 5.2 fatalities per GWh for fossil fueled power stations | | i.e Wind and Nuclear cause between 5.8% and 7.7% fatalities per | GWh compared that of fossil fuels. | ncmncm wrote: | Yes, numbers that mean something, and may be compared with | other meaningful numbers, is a necessity for useful | reporting. | | There was a very dumb Two Bit da Vinci vid recently on | YouTube about a big advance in dehumidifier tech. It had lots | of numbers, but none of the meaningful numbers. The | meaningful numbers they did not say were that it captured | moisture 2.4x cheaper than current methods, but still 60x | more expensive (in kWh/L) than desalination. | | There is a hell of a lot of basement dehumidification going | on, so switching to the new method will be very valuable. But | it won't supply drinking water. | | In other news, desalination is astonishingly cheap nowadays. | It just needs cheap, opportunistic power, and could be built | out everywhere. Inland, aquifers that are a little too salty | for irrigation could be put into use. | nickff wrote: | If you want a proposal to succeed, it is usually better to | address concerns from others, rather than to dismiss them. | Dismissing concerns not only alienates the people bringing them | forward, but also makes bystanders see you (and the proposal) | as inflexible and rigid. | colordrops wrote: | The concern wasn't dismissed. It was put into contrast with a | much greater concern that is often overlooked. | worik wrote: | > it is usually better to address concerns from others, | rather than to dismiss them | | It is often better.... | | Many ideas are designed to be refuted. The refutation spreads | the ideas. It is part of the strategy. A "mind worm" (to coin | a phrase) only needs to be repeated and it will do its job. | Refuting it is repeating it. | | So dismiss the speaker, attack the speaker's credentials and | motivations ignoring the ideas. argumentum ad hominem, whilst | rhetorically invalid, is the best tactic in those | circumstances. | ALittleLight wrote: | I'm imagining two conversations | | A: We should use more windmills. | | B: No, those kill too many birds. | | A: You don't know what you're talking about, you have no | credentials, and you are just motivated to stop renewables! | | A': We can paint the rotors to avoid killing birds. | | A' seems like a much better response even if A is accurate. | Maybe you need to be A if you can't be A', but if you | can... | anon_123g987 wrote: | > A "mind worm" (to coin a phrase) | | It's called a "meme" (in its original definition by Richard | Dawkins). And this kind of forcing a rebuttal is | "trolling". Dismissing this trolling is phrased as "Don't | feed the troll!". | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meme | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll | trgn wrote: | And this particular example of trolling, is "concern | trolling". | arcticbull wrote: | Cats kill 2,400,000,000 birds per year in the United States | alone. [1] | | Wind power is 0.008% of that total. | | I strongly suspect that there are better ways to spend the | time and money to reduce avian mortality like neutering a few | thousand cats. | | [1] https://abcbirds.org/program/cats-indoors/cats-and-birds/ | jwond wrote: | I think the solution is clear: we should start painting the | cats | KennyBlanken wrote: | DoneWithAllThat wrote: | On the other hand, all too often the thinking goes: | | - Something must be done | | - This is something | | - Therefore this must be done | | Some ideas are just bad. | ncmncm wrote: | And, some ideas are good, and very, very cheap. There is no | reason to avoid implementing those. | | Building out wind saves birds from petroleum pollution. A | bit of paint saves more. Why not? | Supermancho wrote: | Next you get people who don't like the patterns or think | there are better patterns. It's not a bit of paint for | existing blades. It's appreciable weight added to the | blades, to repaint. | | Everyone in the US can easily identify the wind turbines, | because of the uniformity. The uniformity and simplicity | has inherent value in large projects (including large | volume). White to dissipate heat or black to save birds | (let the bats die either way?). It's not surprising that | prolonging the state of the current environment may | require short-term sacrifices. | | This is Parkinson's Law (bikeshedding) in action, imo. | Maursault wrote: | > This is Parkinson's Law (bikeshedding) in action, imo. | | Common mistake, bikeshedding is the Law of Triviality, | which is distinct from but often confused with | Parkinson's Law. | LeifCarrotson wrote: | Conversely, the thinking can go: | | - You're proposing to change something | | - That change might cause some harm | | - Therefore this must not be done | | It's a trolley problem, where you could do something, and | might kill a few birds, or do nothing and stand by while | nearly a thousand times more perish. | froh wrote: | the concerns on wind energy are blown up artificially. | | specific example from Germany is "the dangers of infrasound", | which led to a highly restrictive anti wind energy | "protective distance requirement" of 10 x height ("10H rule") | in Bavaria. | | And then someone figured the underlying study was off by | three orders of magnitude, i.e. 1000x off. | | yet the disinformation has sunk into the heads and wind | energy now has an irrational and steep uphill battle. | ok_dad wrote: | It's basically a misinformation Cold War by vested | interests. | immmmmm wrote: | i can't find the papers now but it's also very well | organized disinformation campaigns. | | "The New Climate War" by M. Mann talks of this too. | aeternum wrote: | Yes but you also must make sure that addressing the concern | does not create other larger issues. | | The paint job might make the windmills more visible to humans | and make people not want them on their land or within | eyesight. This could lead to fewer being built and more | dependence on fossil fuels which ultimately kill more birds. | harha wrote: | > make people not want them on their land or within | eyesight | | I think that's already the case. Better paint one black | before someone has the idea to put ads on them, the only | thing that could make them even less pleasant to have | around | Someone wrote: | I think it also could lead to lower life expectancy of the | blades. Darker paint tends to lead to higher temperatures. | | And warmer blades might be less stiff, decreasing | efficiency, and with it increasing birds killed/GWh (but | that's not even guessing from my side; I don't know whether | stiffness would be affected, and I don't know whether it | would affect efficiency, or in what direction) | dshpala wrote: | Some might see such dismissals (of "useless" proposals) as a | marker of a focus and honesty, and thus give the author of | the competing proposal more attention. | nickff wrote: | I think that dismissals may improve one's standing within | an 'in-group', at the cost of further hardening the | opposition (by an 'out-group'). I generally see dismissals | as indicators of arrogance, and signs that the author may | not have thought through all the implications of their | proposal. | dudus wrote: | At some point you are just playing into the filibuster games. | wmeredith wrote: | I am totally on the same page with you in most cases. Having | said that, I've got doubts about the sincerity of people | arguing against renewable power for environmental reasons. | It's hard to take it seriously. | ncmncm wrote: | You can take bird deaths seriously without reducing build- | out of renewables. The blades are painted all over, | regardless. It doesn't cost appreciably more to put a | stripe on. | HeyLaughingBoy wrote: | Perhaps not, but if the stripe makes them more visible to | the people living nearby, then they may not want the | turbines there at all. | sgustard wrote: | There are lots of things visible from my house that I | don't want to look at. Power lines, poles, buildings, | cars and roads come to mind. I believe if you own a | thousand acres you get to look at what you want, | otherwise it's not up to you? | crooked-v wrote: | It reminds me deeply of the various people who will use 'it | doesn't have enough affordable housing' to argue against | any housing development in general. | ok_dad wrote: | It's just a tactic those people use to force rational | actors to become irrational. We should just ignore those | who would throw the baby out with the bath water, when it | comes to environmental "concerns" like this. | mech987 wrote: | That 20,000 number is off by at least an order of magnitude | just for US bird wind turbine deaths. Turbine construction has | been accelerating, so the 2013 numbers cited below are low. | | https://abcbirds.org/blog21/wind-turbine-mortality/ | InitialLastName wrote: | Even off by an order of magnitude, it's still 2 OOM below | GP's rate for fossil fuels. | marcodiego wrote: | The ultimate metric would be "killings per megawatt hour". | ben_bai wrote: | It doesn't matter. Both are orders of magnitude less than cats. | | "We estimate that free-ranging domestic cats kill 1.3-4.0 | billion birds and 6.3-22.3 billion mammals annually" from "The | impact of free-ranging domestic cats on wildlife of the United | States" (2013) | onion2k wrote: | Cats tend to kill small garden birds though, which are very | common. Wind turbines take out eagles. I don't think a | domestic cat could kill an Eagle. Although one of my cats | thinks he could, and might be tempted to have a go. | havelhovel wrote: | Since you didn't name the species, it's hard to say whether | they're common or not, or verify that their populations | remain stable while an ever increasing number of cats are | given an unrestricted license to kill anything that moves | if it happens to be small enough. | | Relevant: "Cat owners failed to perceive the magnitude of | their cats' impacts on wildlife and were not influenced by | ecological information" | | https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/ece3.1553 | Errsher wrote: | They do not just kill "common" birds, they have led to the | extinction of several bird species. Keep your cats indoors. | acchow wrote: | > Keep your cats indoors | | Are cats not naturally supposed to be outside? | simondotau wrote: | They are (in nearly every country) a foreign invasive | species, so "naturally" they shouldn't be there at all. | oefnak wrote: | Aren't all animals? | havelhovel wrote: | There's nothing natural about a domesticated species | being spread around the world and allowed to roam free | while simultaneously receiving care and protection from | humans. | ncmncm wrote: | Apex predators are surprisingly important, far out of | proportion to their numbers. | | Efforts to protect them have similarly outsized effect. | m463 wrote: | so statistically speaking, yes - because many domestic cats | live near small gardens. | | But there are lots of ground-nesting birds that have been | decimated by cats. | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Introduced_mammals_on_seabird | _... | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cat_predation_on_wildlife | | I found the cognitive dissonance comment interesting: | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cat_predation_on_wildlife#Cat | _... | gumby wrote: | Raptors are more likely to take the houscat than the other | way around. | orionion wrote: | Mammals such as rats and mice... which can carry many | diseases including hantavirus, leptospirosis, lymphocytic | choriomeningitis (LCMV), Tularemia and Salmonella... | Errsher wrote: | It sounds like the implication here is that it's acceptable | to use an invasive species to deal with pest problems. | There are alternatives to dealing with pests that don't | involve decimating bird populations. | dsr_ wrote: | The other way around: the domestication of the cat helped | deal with pest problems. | | Here's a question: suppose next year we mandate all cats | are indoors unless they work on farms, and all cats | allowed outdoors are sterilized. What happens to the | small bird and mammal populations ten years later? | colechristensen wrote: | It's even more the other way around, the native cat | species basically domesticated itself finding hanging | around humans for our density of vermin to prey on to be | more advantageous than living in the wild. We didn't go | stealing cute kitties from the wild because they looked | nice, we started taking care of the vermin eaters that | migrated into our cities, especially the ones that had | adapted themselves to be cuter and nicer to us. | | We are not separate from the evolutionary process and | several species have effectively domesticated _us_ in | order to survive better. Our civilization has created new | habitats and we don't need to pretend that it doesn't | exist. | | You want to help your local bird populations? Plant oak | trees. | klyrs wrote: | Why oak, and/or what region does this advice apply to? | colechristensen wrote: | Advice applies to anywhere which has native oak species. | | Oak trees serve as host to a particularly large number of | species, many of them feed on the tree and serve as food | for others year round along with acorns as food and | species that feed on acorns as food. Oaks are keystone | species as they have a particularly large positive impact | on the local ecosystem. | | Lots of birds eat mostly insects and only sometimes | seeds, oak trees provide year round supplies of insects | for birds to eat, in a wider variety and number than most | other trees. | colechristensen wrote: | In many many places domestic cats aren't much of an | invasive species. In north and South America, Europe, | Asia, and Africa there are similar cat species of similar | size that take up a similar niche which were recently | extinct (at least locally) many of which are closely | enough related to housecats that they can interbreed. | | One of the reasons to worry about domestic cats in some | areas of the British isles is not to protect birds and | the like, but to protect the closely related extant cat | species that is getting its genetics replaced too much | with housecat genetics. This wild cat used to have very | broad ranges which disappeared. | | Islands with no cat species don't have this consideration | of course. | | Bird populations in places that should have and used to | have catlike predators are and should be fine for the | most part. Predators tend to help the population dynamics | and health of prey species. Some people are just really | uncomfortable with predation. | Errsher wrote: | I don't know the specific numbers, and I've only just | seen one or two studies (would appreciate an alternative | numbers) - but if a three 3 billion bird reduction is | almost a third of the total population in birds in North | America since 1970s, and cats are killing at least 1.3 | billion per year... I guess that's "fine for the most | part"? | | https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aaw1313 | | The predation of cats is also unnaturally controlled as | they are domesticated; people view them as pets primarily | and thus prevent them from being killed (their predators | are also heavily controlled - wolves, coyotes, etc). I | don't see how you could compare that niche to previously | extinct, naturally local species. | lstodd wrote: | > I don't know the specific numbers, and I've only just | seen one or two studies | | You might as well cut you comment at this point. | Errsher wrote: | One or two studies is more than the "zero" amount of data | that's been provided by anyone else at this point. I look | forward to you sharing more specific numbers that counter | the numbers I've provided. | karmakaze wrote: | > Within the uncertainties of the data used, the estimate means | that wind farms killed approximately 20,000 birds in the United | States in 2009 but nuclear plants killed about 330,000 and | fossil fueled power plants more than 14 million. | | This falls along the lines of planting trees for CO2. Sure I | could do it and feel good but maybe there's a more effective | way to go about it. I wouldn't tell anyone not to plant trees | though. | linuxftw wrote: | Not all birds are equal. I believe the turbines are making a | sizable dent in birds of prey, whereas the 14m is probably a | variety of birds. | akozak wrote: | Ask anyone deep in the wind or RE development industry! It does | matter, because policymakers (at least in the US) have decided | it matters though law, regulation, and treaty. It doesn't | ultimately matter (practically) if policy doesn't conform to | your moral calculus. *even if it is a sensible calculus | suprjami wrote: | It does, because we could apparently reduce that 20k down to | 6k, which lets us scale wind power up even more while looking | after the planet even better. | | We need to reduce our negative impact on the earth as much as | possible. So a simple action which results in a 70% harm | reduction is a huge win! | est31 wrote: | We could, but it might drive up prices of wind turbines a | little bit. It's only a little you would say, but there are | also other proposals to e.g. do away with forever chemicals | in some components of wind turbines. If you follow all of | them, eventually wind turbines cease to be cheaper than | conventional energy. | acchow wrote: | > With wind power killing 20,000 birds a year, and fossil fuel | extraction killing 14,000,000 in the same time period... does | it matter? | | That depends. Do we need to increase wind power production | 1000x to replace fossil fuels? Or 100x? | AmericanChopper wrote: | Air pollution supposedly kills 2,000,000 people a year. Nuclear | energy has killed far less than that in its entire history. | Debates around this topic tend to have no basis in rationality | at all, and many of the most vocal "environmentalists" are | really just extreme anti-consumerist or anti-capitalist. | | Talk to somebody from the anti-wind lobby of environmentalists | and you'll likely discover their preferred solution is that we | simply stop using energy for things like heating, or watching | tv, or using our computers... | driggs wrote: | Given that wind turbines are universally(?) white, I've always | assumed it is to minimize heat absorption. If so, painting 1/3 of | the blades black would increase heating of the painted blade, | especially in lower latitudes (this study was done at high | latitude in Norway). What's the side effect? | | Also, this strategy will obviously have zero impact on bat | deaths, given that a white blade and a black blade are identical | to echolocation at night. Curtailment of turbines in low wind | condition - which is when bats are able to fly, and when turbines | produce the least amount of energy - is the proven way to | minimize bat deaths. But wind farms want to maximize energy | production (profit), so are not fond of curtailment as a | strategy. | actually_a_dog wrote: | A lot of things are painted white because titanium dioxide is a | super cheap, white pigment. | exmadscientist wrote: | Is carbon black not a super cheap, black pigment? | daniel-cussen wrote: | Echo-reflective surfaces. | | Plus I agree bats have worth, but these guys carry crazy | amounts of diseases like _cough cough_ Covid-19 _cough_. | o_1 wrote: | Oh i forgot we blamed rats for the plague too, bats | definitely caused covid we can't be wrong twice. | unethical_ban wrote: | Not really, and they are great pest control. | | In South Texas we have bat colonies under freeway overpasses, | and trust me, bats are not a source of disease concern here | beyond "don't mess with them even if injured". | upofadown wrote: | The blades are made of composite materials that involve some | sort of epoxy binder. So heat would be important to avoid. | Composite aircraft are white for that reason. | ncmncm wrote: | It would have been helpful to see if painting a stripe, or the | leading or trailing edges would suffice or work better. | | I had gathered that somebody tried wires sticking out of the | trailing edges, to help warn away bats, successfully. It would be | good to get a lot more deployment and experimentation out. | lstodd wrote: | Yeah, well, imagine all the induced epilepsy attacks. | Dig1t wrote: | Honestly I think natural selection will take care of this | problem. Just let the birds kill themselves, eventually they will | learn to stay away from the giant whirling death blades. | | Most birds are afraid of humans and other animals because of this | exact mechanism. | | We should just worry about making these things as aesthetically | appealing to humans and as efficient as possible. | mey wrote: | Natural selection works on a timescale that is longer than you | are imagining. It is entirely possible for an ecosystem to be | radically altered before there is a chance for adaptation by | existing species. | | There is no reason not to take ecology into the consideration | of any project. Just another trade off. | MaxBarraclough wrote: | I suggest the link be changed to point directly to the open | access paper ( https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ece3.6592 ). The linked | article adds nothing and, as Symbiote's comment points out, | doesn't even include an image. | Traubenfuchs wrote: | 1) Why is this article sabotaging itself by not showing the | picture provided in the original paper? | | 2) Just like many other low effort high impact discoveries, we | will never ever see this used on a significant amount of wind | turbines, which is very depressing. | wiredfool wrote: | > It was not effective at all for willow ptarmigan, ground birds | which tend to run into the turbines' base rather than its blades. | | That certainly says more about ptarmigans than turbines. | Symbiote wrote: | There's a picture in the original paper, _Paint it black: | Efficacy of increased wind turbine rotor blade visibility to | reduce avian fatalities_ : https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.6592 | | (And with a name like Jens Astrom, he should be researching | hydropower.) | mellavora wrote: | hint: A is the Swedish word for a stream/small river. | | translating strom is left as an exercise for the curious. | simonebrunozzi wrote: | Spoiler alert! | | ... | | I'd have guessed strom = stream. Seems like I'm right, more | or less. | diydsp wrote: | based on German, yes it is a stream, but not necessarily of | water... | Ma8ee wrote: | Not only _stream_ but _current_. | brnt wrote: | There are two rivers (creeks?) called Aa in the Netherlands. | We don't have Aa or A in our dictonairy but now I wonder if | there's a shared root somewhere. | Beltalowda wrote: | There are far more than two, and according to [1] it is | indeed related via the proto-Germanic "ahwo" for stream or | river. | | [1]: https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aa_(waternaam) | Symbiote wrote: | Wiktionary is usually good with words like this: | https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Proto- | Germanic... | | And it thinks "a" is an archaic Dutch word meaning stream: | https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/a#Dutch | kerblang wrote: | > It was not effective at all for willow ptarmigan, ground birds | which tend to run into the turbines' base rather than its blades | | What is wrong with these birds ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2022-08-30 23:00 UTC)