Bats are not birds and other problems with Sovacool's (2009) analysis of animal fatalities due to electricity generation

Willis, Craig K. R.; Barclay, Robert M. R.; Boyles, Justin G.; Brigham, R. Mark; Brack, Virgil; Waldien, David L.; Reichard, Jonathan D.

doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2009.08.034

Cited by 21 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 11 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…This is most relevant for birds and bats, which are at risk of colliding with the physical structures. Collisions by birds and bats are most frequently discussed in the public domain and the literature in relation to wind power plants [136,137]. There are also indications of bird and bat deaths at solar thermal power plants and large-scale solar PV plants [138,139], although it should be noted that the estimated avian mortality from both wind and solar power plants is reported to be significantly lower than from other human structures or activities, such as buildings and road vehicles [139].…”

Section: Impacts On Ecosystems and Biodiversity (Non-climate Change-rmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Social Costs of Electricity Generation—Categorising Different Types of Costs and Evaluating Their Respective Relevance

Samadi

2017

Energies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Various electricity generation technologies using different primary energy sources are available. Many published studies compare the costs of these technologies. However, most of those studies only consider plant-level costs and do not fully take into account additional costs that societies may face in using these technologies. This article reviews the literature on the costs of electricity generation technologies, aiming to determine which types of costs are relevant from a societal point of view when comparing generation technologies. The paper categorises the relevant types of costs, differentiating between plant-level, system and external costs as the main categories. It discusses the relevance of each type of cost for each generation technology. The findings suggest that several low-carbon electricity generation technologies exhibit lower social costs per kWh than the currently dominant technologies using fossil fuels. More generally, the findings emphasise the importance of taking not only plant-level costs, but also system and external costs, into account when comparing electricity generation technologies from a societal point of view. The article intends to inform both policymakers and energy system modellers, the latter who may strive to include all relevant types of costs in their models.

show abstract

Section: Impacts On Ecosystems and Biodiversity (Non-climate Change-rmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Social Costs of Electricity Generation—Categorising Different Types of Costs and Evaluating Their Respective Relevance

Samadi

2017

Energies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Similarly, conspecific proximity could be used in monitoring specific movement-ecology processes such as inter-species proximity during grazing succession (e.g., as occurs in the Serengeti migration; Gwynne and Bell 1968). RTM proximity analysis could also be applied to situations where certain geographic points or areas pose an immediate threat to a species but where quick management action could help in protection (e.g., shutting down energy wind turbines for migrating bats; Kunz et al 2007, Willis et al 2010.…”

Section: Positional Analysesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Novel opportunities for wildlife conservation and research with real‐time monitoring

Wall

Wittemyer

Klinkenberg

et al. 2014

Ecological Applications

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. The expansion of global communication networks and advances in animaltracking technology make possible the real-time telemetry of positional data as recorded by animal-attached tracking units. When combined with continuous, algorithm-based analytical capability, unique opportunities emerge for applied ecological monitoring and wildlife conservation. We present here four broad approaches for algorithmic wildlife monitoring in real time-proximity, geofencing, movement rate, and immobility-designed to examine aspects of wildlife spatial activity and behavior not possible with conventional tracking systems. Application of these four routines to the real-time monitoring of 94 African elephants was made. We also provide details of our cloud-based monitoring system including infrastructure, data collection, and customized software for continuous tracking data analysis. We also highlight future directions of real-time collection and analysis of biological, physiological, and environmental information from wildlife to encourage further development of needed algorithms and monitoring technology. Real-time processing of remotely collected, animal biospatial data promises to open novel directions in ecological research, applied species monitoring, conservation programs, and public outreach and education.

show abstract

“…Wind turbines do, however, have batrelated mortalities (Willis et al 2010;Arnett et al 2008;Kunz et al 2007), and the author wholeheartedly encourages research comparing bat fatalities across various energy sources. Indeed, evidence from Barclay et al (2007) compiled from 21 separate wind energy sites suggests that bat deaths may be as high as 1.46 per GWh.…”

Section: Limitationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Consider the real world operating performance of six wind farms, each varying according to windiness, size, and location, in the United States. Using data collected by Erickson (2004), though his numbers are uncorrected for searcher efficiency and scavenger losses (Willis et al 2010;Sovacool 2010) 1 , one can quantify avian fatalities per GWh, inclusive of transmission and distribution lines within each wind farm, for 339 individual turbines constituting 274 MW of capacity spread across six wind farms in Minnesota, Oregon, Washington, West Virginia, and Wyoming. Averaged out over all six wind farms and presuming a capacity factor of 33% reported by the Coal, oil, and natural gas power plants Coal-, oil-, and natural gas-fired power plants induce avian deaths at various points throughout their fuel cycle: upstream during coal mining, onsite collision and electrocution with operating plant equipment, and downstream poisoning and death caused by acid rain, mercury pollution, and climate change.…”

Section: Wind Electricitymentioning

confidence: 99%

The avian and wildlife costs of fossil fuels and nuclear power

Sovacool

2012

Journal of Integrative Environmental Sciences

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Environmentalists and environmental scientists have criticized wind energy in various forums for its negative impacts on wildlife, especially birds. This article highlights that nuclear power and fossil-fuelled power systems have a host of environmental and wildlife costs as well, particularly for birds. Therefore, as a low-emission, low-pollution energy source, the wider use of wind energy can save wildlife and birds as it displaces these more harmful sources of electricity. The paper provides two examples: one relates to a calculation of avian fatalities across wind electricity, fossil-fueled, and nuclear power systems in the entire United States. It estimates that wind farms are responsible for roughly 0.27 avian fatalities per gigawatt-hour (GWh) of electricity while nuclear power plants involve 0.6 fatalities per GWh and fossilfueled power stations are responsible for about 9.4 fatalities per GWh. Within the uncertainties of the data used, the estimate means that wind farm-related avian fatalities equated to approximately 46,000 birds in the United States in 2009, but nuclear power plants killed about 460,000 and fossil-fueled power plants 24 million. A second example summarizes the wildlife benefits from a 580-MW wind farm at Altamont Pass in California, a facility that some have criticized for its impact on wildlife. The paper lastly highlights other social and environmental benefits to wind farms compared to other sources of electricity and energy.

show abstract

Bats are not birds and other problems with Sovacool's (2009) analysis of animal fatalities due to electricity generation

Cited by 21 publications

References 11 publications

The Social Costs of Electricity Generation—Categorising Different Types of Costs and Evaluating Their Respective Relevance

The Social Costs of Electricity Generation—Categorising Different Types of Costs and Evaluating Their Respective Relevance

Novel opportunities for wildlife conservation and research with real‐time monitoring

The avian and wildlife costs of fossil fuels and nuclear power

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About