Talk:Environmental impact of wind power/Archive 4

Caption removed
I've removed the following caption from the lead image which was stated as fact, but the citation supports only that it is one person's opinion: "Livestock ignore wind turbines, and continue to graze as they did before wind turbines were installed." citation: "The animals don’t care at all. We find cows and antelope napping in the shade of the turbines." - Mike Cadieux, site manager, Wyoming Wind Farm ." Sminthopsis84 (talk) 16:32, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Why is this in doubt? Turbines are not disruptive to livestock - if you doubt it, then i expect you to at least present some documentation for your doubt... --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 17:20, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
 * There are many things that grazing livestock routinely ignore: passing road traffic, overhead aircraft flights, ramblers and pedestrians, passing trains, and so on. Of course anyone who has ever passed by a field of animals can testify to this, let alone a farm site manager. Saying that we can't mention such a quote until there is a scientific study on the matter is absurd - it is unlikely that anyone will waste science research budgets on enumerating the multitude of things that farm and wild animals quickly learn to ignore. WP:BLUE, as I mentioned in an edit summary. --Nigelj (talk) 17:37, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
 * How much harm is caused to cattle, to other livestock, and to people is a very contentious issue, and as quite a number of journalists have pointed out, ignoring the issue or claiming that it is a non-issue, only makes people more angry about wind farms. Try these links for a brief introduction to the controversy: 1, 2, 3. Putting that quote from whoever the guy is back at the top of the article, formatting it as a statement of fact rather than as one person's opinion, is not a good way to present a serious discussion of the environmental impact of wind power. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 23:17, 10 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I understand Sminthopsis84's point, it is awash with greenwashing to state that the cows are not affected. However, why don't you two compromise and Say something like According to the owner of the field that cows are not affected, however no studies on the effects to livestock have confirmed this. If I am to make an observation, it is indeed peculiar that all the cows appear clustered as far away from the turbine as possible in the picture.
 * Boundarylayer (talk) 20:05, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh good, it is nice to see that I'm not the only one who finds that that statement suggests that a wind-power agenda has colored the article. The cows pictured appear to be in Germany, whereas it's a Wyoming Wind Farm manager who is quoted. Wouldn't just the picture without any caption evoke the whole concept of wind power and the environment quite well enough? Sminthopsis84 (talk) 20:35, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Sminthopsis84, you completely removed the caption for the image at the top of the article, leaving the article poorer than it was before your edit. Where material is contested moving to neutral wording would be appropriate instead of 'blanking', which can be viewed very negatively by Wikipedia's administrators. I have now added in a neutral caption pending new sources verifying that cows can graze peacefully beside wind turbines. HarryZilber (talk) 16:52, 13 February 2013 (UTC)


 * It really gets under my skin when editors completely remove what someone else has written, instead of just trying to talk it out or, like you said, attempting to approach a neutral wording that satisfies everyone. 'Blanking' just isn't sound. However presently it suggests the cows are unaffected by the turbine. When that is not the case, as we don't know that for sure(it has opened up this edit war for example). So what do you think of my attempt at wording the caption? To prevent the can of worms.
 * Boundarylayer (talk) 18:33, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Users Sminthopsis84 and Boundarylayer appear to be talking about noise from wind turbines in some way affecting livestock. The three references supplied above appear to be from small-town local newspapers and are all about noise, and none of them mention farm animals. The text that was removed (and is still not present) had a clear citation and nothing has been presented that challenges it. This is a kind of POV editing, regardless of reliable sources, that 'gets under my skin' - spreading unsupported FUD via Wikipedia articles and their talk pages. Editors who continue to do it here usually end up facing sanctions. --Nigelj (talk) 19:05, 13 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm not talking about noise. I'm talking about how we do not have any strong references to support the claim that livestock are completely unaffected by wind turbines in there fields.
 * I think the current caption description neatly side steps this issue, I also proposed to have the caption be - According to xyz the cows are fine but that was seemingly not tried by the two editors. I have provided both ideas in an effort to mediate between the two editors that were discussing this. I'm certainly in favor of keeping the caption and describing what is in the picture, but its just POV(and a bit of stretch) to dress up a caption as if it were factual when really its just the opinion of the owner of the wind farm. Either we state it is his opinion or we leave it out. There's no FUD in that friend.


 * On the Wind Power page I worded the caption to the picture to be more balanced by inserting- According to...
 * Boundarylayer (talk) 20:17, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
 * The fear, uncertainty and doubt is in your implication that the cattle could in some way be 'affected' by wind turbines in their fields. Affected in what way, precisely? With references please. --Nigelj (talk) 21:12, 13 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Please reference were in my edit of the article, were I have implied that the effect on livestock would be large or they would be affected. You won't find any, I was simply attempting to moderate, and leave out contentious greenwashing captions when its not supported by anything more than an industry shill, as my friend on the nuclear power page would call him. Nevertheless seen as you asked, here is one of many references -
 * http://dnr.state.il.us/publications/pdf/00000544.pdf
 * Arnett et al.(2007) had to say. -
 * Flicker is one factor which may affect wildlife and its use of available habitat. Those few studies which have been conducted generally observe changes in wildlife behavior in response to wind turbines without attempting to distinguish the effects of verticality, noise, motion, or flicker.
 * Wind turbines generate turbulent wakes that alter local air flow, temperature, and humidity. These alter soil properties and forest structure downwind and probably have direct effects on plants as well as both flying and ground dwelling animals.
 * In forest, about four acres or more are cleared for each wind turbine, not including access roads and power lines. This fundamentally changes the nature of the land cover and creates habitat fragments and edge, which can be deleterious for some important species.
 * thats apart from the bird and bat carcasses caused by wind deaths that I've personally seen livestock eating.
 * http://dnr.state.il.us/publications/pdf/00000544.pdf


 * http://www.naturvardsverket.se/Documents/publikationer6400/978-91-620-6510-2.pdf


 * Boundarylayer (talk) 23:17, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I will respond, just this once, and only on the first point you make. I was referring to your talk page comment where you disputed "the claim that livestock are completely unaffected by wind turbines". Therefore I asked you, on the talk page, about "your implication that the cattle could in some way be 'affected' by wind turbines". You respond by asking me to "Please reference were in my edit of the article, were I have implied that the effect on livestock would be large or they would be affected." Do you not see that it takes so long to deal with this level of nonsense, that it really isn't worth it. I'm not going to go through the rest of it at that level of detail, apart from just to point out that the picture was of cows, not bats, birds or access roads. --Nigelj (talk) 00:57, 15 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I do not have any records of us discussing anything on my talk page. I think you may have been confused with this talk page? Irrespective of which talk page it was, I'm trying to see things from your shoes, however I did not suggest in my edits of the article that the cows are affected. Only here, on this talk page, have I expressed skepticism that in an encyclopedia should we have wind turbine benefactors describing the zero 'environmental impact of wind' on cows as if it were a matter of fact. Here, I think I can help you see things from my perspective if for a moment you imagine if the environmental impact of nuclear power had a picture of some cows beside a power plant and the caption read 'the cows ignore the power plant and graze as they had none so before' with a reference by none other than a Nuclear industry worker? You wouldn't stand that, would you? Furthermore, I do not understand how you support the claim that livestock are completely unaffected, and ignore the wind turbine. As we do not know that for sure? in fact the evidence is quite to the contrary of the prior greenwashing caption.
 * Arnett et al.(2007) -
 * Flicker is one factor which may affect wildlife and its use of available habitat. Those few studies which have been conducted generally observe changes in wildlife behavior in response to wind turbines without attempting to distinguish the effects of verticality, noise, motion, or flicker.
 * Wind turbines generate turbulent wakes that alter local air flow, temperature, and humidity. These alter soil properties and forest structure downwind and probably have direct effects on plants as well as both flying and ground dwelling animals.


 * Remember I only came in here to moderate the issue between two editors.


 * So shall we leave the greenwashing out of the article? The prior claim is not substantiated at all. Just describe the caption as 'cows standing in a field' or whatever. Finally, I'm wondering now, why should we not include what Arnett et al.(2007) have noted?
 * Boundarylayer (talk) 20:55, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
 * You said, "Please reference were in my edit of the article, were I have implied that..." (I assume you meant 'where'). I replied that I was responding to your talk page comment (i.e. not in the article), and you reply "I do not have any records of us discussing anything on my talk page". As for forest structure downwind affecting the cows in the photo, even though the farmer says it doesn't... Forget it. --Nigelj (talk) 23:11, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Arnett et al.(2007) -
 * Flicker is one factor which may affect wildlife and its use of available habitat. Those few studies which have been conducted generally observe changes in wildlife behavior in response to wind turbines without attempting to distinguish the effects of verticality, noise, motion, or flicker.
 * Are you forgetting this too?
 * Boundarylayer (talk) 13:21, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Sovacool is an outlier with assuming what he does
Due to what Sovacool says about nuclear power killing more birds than wind turbines, well, suffice to say he is on his own with that particular claim. So because his opinion is unsubstantiated by every reputable avian specialist or environmental agency, he should not be given the weight that he has garnered in the article. Moreover, his claim that the hundreds of other researchers are wrong is pretty extremist. Boundarylayer (talk) 20:37, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 * If you'd put down your biased reading hat, and instead read what the article actually says. You'd find that Wind and Nuclear are (close to) identical in bird-kills per kWh. The only reason that nuclear kills more than wind, is because nuclear is responsible for more kWh's than wind. Both Wind and Nuclear have negligible bird fatalities compared to fossil-fuels, buildings etc. There is nothing anti-nuclear in that study.
 * As for being "unsubstantiated by every reputable avian specialist or environmental agency" this is simply wrong. All the studies i've read on this particular issue say the same thing: Wind is responsible for negligible bird-kills - except on two wind-farms (one in California, and another in northern Norway), both of which aren't characterized by the number of birds killed - but by the species killed being endangered. Do please substantiate your claims instead of acting on gut-feelings. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:10, 23 March 2013 (UTC)


 * It saddens me that you have not moved away from the usual filibustering and name calling Kim. However, as always, contrary to your unsubstantiated personal opinion, just like every single Sovacool publication I've had the pleasure of coming across, this 'bird' paper by this guy has also been rightly regarded as bunk by actual bat and avian biologists/specialists. Here is the peer reviewd rebuttal to Sovacool's birds paper. - Published in the Journal of Energy Policy. Which you can read here for free in PDF form http://repository.up.ac.za/handle/2263/11581 Bats are not birds and other problems with Sovacool's analysis on animal fatalities due to electricity generation.
 * Here's a quote for you from the paper - We feel it important to point out serious errors in biological fact, logic, and data selection in his paper, and another quote by actual biologists - Sovacool’s analysis compares apples to oranges or ‘‘forests to trees’’. A more nuanced, realistic approach is required.


 * As for bats, excluding birds, for example, listen to bat specialist Dr. Paul Cryan at the Fort Collins Science Center. He states at the 3 minute mark that he has found US wind turbines kill from 1 bat per MW per year, to 50 bats per MW per year depending on location. http://www.fws.gov/midwest/wind/wildlifeconcerns.html


 * As for 'birds' exclusively, you see Sovacool estimates that in the USA there are 0.02 million 'bird' deaths per year due to wind turbines in the USA, this is not in line with official estimates at all, the estimate by the USFWS put the range at 5 to 22 times higher, at 0.1 million to 0.44 million. i.e 100,000 birds/year to 440,000 birds/year calculated by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). ::http://www.abcbirds.org/abcprograms/policy/collisions/wind_faq.html


 * So using these far more authoritative and unbiased estimates one doesn't conclude, as Sovacool always has done, that nuclear is worse than wind, you instead find that Wind kills almost 5 to 22 times more birds than nuclear power per unit of energy generated.
 * Moreover 'birds' is a bit of a misnomer in the debate over wind power's environmental impact, as no one cares if you kill the most common species, as cats commonly do, all we care about is the slaughter of large, commonly endangered birds and bats with low population numbers. So really all this sleight of hand with such crap like - well cats kill loads of birds...so don't worry about wind turbines is contemptible. As when is the last time you heard of a household cat killing a giant eagle or raptor?


 * http://www.abcbirds.org/newsandreports/releases/110303.html “It is unfortunate that, rather than owning up to, solving, or at least mitigating for impacts to birds from wind farm installations, the industry’s lobbyists spin outdated and misleading information, and try to conceal the inconvenient truth that wind energy has significant bird impacts that need to be addressed. Instead of asserting that they are the good guys merely because they are not as bad as coal, they should be looking at how they can get their own environmental house in better order,” said Michael Parr, Vice President of American Bird Conservancy. 


 * Not all bird species are equally vulnerable to wind turbines. Eagles appear to be particularly susceptible. Large numbers of golden eagles have been killed by wind turbines in the western states. However, bald eagles have also been killed, although not in the numbers seen in the West. http://www.fws.gov/midwest/wind/wildlifeconcerns.html


 * http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2012/1110/OF12-1110.pdf Bats and Wind Energy —A Literature Synthesis of fatality rates by the USGS see page 43 and 20 for the most recent studies on this. As noted on page 44, bat deaths are on the rise, completely contrary to what Sovacool might lead you to believe.
 * http://www.fws.gov/windenergy/docs/WEG_final.pdf
 * http://www.fws.gov/windenergy/wind_comments/barry_sweitzer.pdf
 * Boundarylayer (talk) 05:57, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Sovacools paper is from 2013. The papers that you cite are all from earlier than that. You may want to actually check things before going on rants. Do please keep in mind WP:TLDR-effect when commenting, as well as your tendency to go out on tangents. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 06:46, 25 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Sovacool's 2013 paper is really not from 2013 as (1) it is titled a |2009 update, (2) He has not adequately addressed a single criticism by the team of biologists that criticized him, or has he dealt with the 2012 | Bats and Wind Energy —A Literature Synthesis, USGS and USWFS, instead he has largely ignored both of them, and switched to publishing in a separate journal - titled Renewable energy no less. (3) He still wildly claims that only ~20,000 'avian' deaths have been caused by wind turbines in the USA - this is, you know, exactly what he was claiming in 2009, and this is exactly what the team of biologists pulled him out on as being unrealistic.


 * What qualifications does Sovacool hold? He is working in the law department of Vermont, and has done a fair degree of legal advocacy/lawyer conduct, including in India. - http://www.vermontlaw.edu/Our_Faculty/Faculty_Directory/Benjamin_K_Sovacool.htm?child=x13226


 * He is not accredited with a single hard science degree, unlike the biologists who have criticized him. http://www.vermontlaw.edu/Our_Faculty/Faculty_Directory/Benjamin_K_Sovacool.htm?child=x13208
 * He allegedly received certificates in science and technology studies which is a social science course where he also won an award from the College of Social Sciences and Humanities. - aka- doesn't hold a single hard science certificate.


 * Boundarylayer (talk) 08:33, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * A paper from 2013 that updates a paper from 2009 .... is a paper from 2013 - no matter how you slice and dice it.
 * As for the rest of your comments, it constitutes WP:OR as well as being a classic example of Poisoning the well. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 08:45, 25 March 2013 (UTC)


 * The fact of the matter is Sovacool has consistently been stating, in 2008, 2009 and in his 2009 update, that wind turbines cause ~0.3 'avian' deaths per GWh, he hasn't changed his story since 2008, to use your phrase - no matter how you slice and dice it. This is in direct contrast to what a team of seven ecologists and biologists have estimated, who have noted massive inconsistencies in Sovacool's 2009 methodology-which he did not address in his update.
 * Boundarylayer (talk) 10:05, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * You haven't noticed that Sovacool in the paper in question is actually referencing the 2010 paper by your "team of seven ecologists and biologists" - and thus has taken into account their criticism? Hint: It is reference #2 in Sovacools paper. You really need to try to read the papers. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 11:36, 25 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Sovacool does not take the numerical criticism's into account, nor the findings of the 7 scientists. He only acknowledged that he was completely wrong to suggest, as he did in his first paper, that bats are birds. Secondly, he even acknowledges in his 2009 update that his figures are outliers. - Next, the author(Sovacool) assessed the real world operating performance of six wind projects, each varying according to windiness, size, and location in the United States. Though his numbers may not be the most accurate or accepted given varying searcher efficiency and carcass removal rates[2] - So he even acknowledges his figures really are indeed to be held with a grain of salt, it is quite curious how this article never mentioned that it was pushing figures on bird death rates from wind turbines that are not even regarded as the most accurate or accepted by the author himself.
 * Boundarylayer (talk) 06:35, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Please take the time to read WP:OR thoroughly. It is not up to you, to criticize methodologies of a paper, nor to determine whether a caveat pointed out by an author of a paper, makes the paper flawed or sufficiently inaccurate not to use. As simple as that. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 09:58, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

For a view of some (but not all) of the flaws in the Willis et al. article being discussed above (re: "Bats Are Not Birds...."), see the section below: Willis et al and other issues. HarryZilber (talk) 19:06, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Bats and birds
I've reverted this for several reasons: The text written, as well as the edit-comment is clear WP:POV editing. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 06:39, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Sovacool is not a lawyer.
 * The paper referenced as if it addresses the Sovacool metaanalysis does not infact reference that analysis. [it references a Sovacool paper from 2009].
 * How a 2013 paper (Sovacool's) could be "debunked"/"disputed" by a 2009 paper is a mystery to me - but that is what was claimed here.


 * Sovacool's 2013 paper is really not from 2013 as (1) it is titled a |2009 update, so no mystery Kim, just common reading is all that is needed. (2) He has not adequately addressed a single criticism by the team of biologists that criticized him, nor has he dealt with the 2012 | Bats and Wind Energy —A Literature Synthesis, USGS and USWFS, instead he has largely ignored both of them, and switched to publishing in a separate journal - titled Renewable energy no less. (3) He still wildly claims that only ~20,000 'avian' deaths have been caused by wind turbines in the USA - this is, you know, exactly what he was claiming in 2009, and this is exactly what the team of biologists pulled him out on as being unrealistic.


 * What qualifications does Sovacool hold? He is working in the law department of Vermont, and has done a fair degree of legal advocacy/ he is a lawyer. - http://www.vermontlaw.edu/Our_Faculty/Faculty_Directory/Benjamin_K_Sovacool.htm?child=x13226


 * He is not accredited with a single hard science degree, unlike the biologists who have criticized him. http://www.vermontlaw.edu/Our_Faculty/Faculty_Directory/Benjamin_K_Sovacool.htm?child=x13208
 * He allegedly received certificates in science and technology studies which is a social science course where he also won an award from the College of Social Sciences and Humanities. - aka- doesn't hold a single hard science certificate, and as the biologists brought up, he seemingly didn't know the basic fact that bats are not avian species.


 * Boundarylayer (talk) 08:33, 25 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes, Boundarylayer - a 2013 paper is from 2013. The fact that it updates a 2009 paper doesn't make it timetravel back to 2009. Nb: the 2012 USGS survey use the Sovacool 2009 survey (the real one (with bats mentioned in the title) - not the preliminary which is the one that the biology paper used). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 08:48, 25 March 2013 (UTC) Just to have a little fun: Have you noticed that reference #2 in the Sovacool paper actually is the "Bats are not birds" paper, which puts a rather large stick through the heart of your argument that the Bats paper is referencing this one - Sigh! --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 08:59, 25 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Kim, you really do look like you are grasping at straws at this stage, I'm not entirely convinced you can even access the journal papers under discussion? There is no preliminary and real one papers as you are now suggesting. If you can't login to read the journal papers, I'm sure I could send you the paper if you're stuck?


 * Anyways, the | Bats and Wind Energy —A Literature Synthesis, USGS and USWFS do include Sovacool's 2009 update paper, but its at the extreme outlier perimeter, and is the only such extreme study in their giant literature synthesis. A synthesis that, if you actually looked at the numbers being published by others, makes Sovacool's estimated bird wind deaths, look more than a little out of place. Especially considering WP:WEIGHT.


 * I think the problem that you're having is that you assume that just because Sovacool's updated 2009 paper references the bats are not birds paper, it means all of the criticisms in that paper, and indeed the 7 scientists peer reviewed wind turbine deaths, are somehow no longer valid? Maybe this is again stemming from you not being able to actually access the paper? Because if you did actually read the paper you would notice he just repeats the same methodology from his initial 2009 paper - that the bats are not birds researchers were so critical of- Sovacool does not factor in there figures.


 * The claim that Sovacool's 2009 update paper really states the exact same figures as his initial 2009 paper is substantiated by none other than Sovacool himself, who acknowledges this, at the very end of the paper stating-This paper was initially published in [1 2009] Moreover, The title of the very table in his 2009 update, now copied verbatim into this wiki article, is - Comparative assessment of avian mortality for fossil fuel, nuclear, and wind power plants in the United States, 2009.


 * Do you even know how many times Sovacool references the are not birds... paper by the 7 ecologists and biologists that criticized his work? A total of three times. Once with this sentence - Next, the author(Sovacool) assessed the real world operating performance of six wind projects, each varying according to windiness, size, and location in the United States. Though his numbers may not be the most accurate or accepted given varying searcher efficiency and carcass removal rates[2] - So he even acknowledges his figures really are indeed to be held with a grain of salt, funny how this article never mentioned that. The second time Sovacool mentions the bats are not birds... paper is with this sentence in the introduction - Other avian species, and chiropteran species such as bats. and the third time with - Human error plays a role as well, as researchers miss carcasses, especially in agricultural landscapes and dense forest ridge tops [2]   That's it in total Kim. Sovacool does not address how his figures are so drastically different from those found by the 7 ecologists and biologists.


 * Secondly, my argument has never been about which paper is referencing which, my argument is, as it always has been, Sovacool is not as reliable as you people make him out to be, he is an outlier, and he even acknowledges this. Did you not notice how the number of dead birds he attributes to wind turbines is exactly the same (~0.3/GWh) as his earlier 2009 and, indeed his 2008 papers? That means he hasn't changed his wind fatalities/GWh figure at all since then, Kim. Therefore the 2010 critique from 7 ecologists and biologists is still completely valid, as he hasn't even changed his methodology, he just essentially reiterated the 2009 paper verbatim.


 * I truly find it hard to fathom how anyone can claim the reason why you blanket censored a peer reviewed rebuttal by 7 ecologists and biologists, was out of a concern for chronology, however if this was really your only motivation- why then did you not simply ask me to state which paper was being criticized, why did you instead move to completely revert/censor all mention to the peer reviewed paper by 7 actual scientists? I think you are eminently aware that Sovacool hasn't changed his tune in respect to the bird fatality rate since 2008. All his 'figures' in his 2009 update are indistinguishable to his prior estimates.
 * Boundarylayer (talk) 14:55, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I've addressed most of this on your talk-page. I will make it very simple: You cannot use an old paper to refute a newer paper . That is simply not acceptable.
 * If you want to address the paper - then you will need WP:RS's that address that paper. Otherwise we're in WP:OR/WP:SYN land. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 16:33, 25 March 2013 (UTC)


 * No, you have not addressed why you completely reverted the second edit that specifically stated, and made crystal clear, which paper was being criticized.
 * Moreover Sovacool even acknowledges in his 2009 update that his figures are outliers. - Next, the author(Sovacool) assessed the real world operating performance of six wind projects, each varying according to windiness, size, and location in the United States. Though his numbers may not be the most accurate or accepted given varying searcher efficiency and carcass removal rates[2] - So he even acknowledges his figures really are indeed to be held with a grain of salt, it is quite curious how this article never mentioned that it was pushing figures on bird death rates from wind turbines that are not even regarded as the most accurate or accepted by the author himself.
 * Boundarylayer (talk) 06:07, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I do not have to address your interpretation/personal opinion on the paper. You are cherry-picking a paper, by finding a description of error-bounds and caveats, and then blowing it up to attempt to discredit the paper. Sorry but that is pure original research. Please let WP:RS' speak .... and do rememember to make that WP:RS's that actually address the paper (and not an older paper). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 10:03, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Just curious btw.: Why are you ignoring the following paper, and every other paper that cites Sovacool(2009) [quite a lot with Willis cited as well]?
 * Or are you only interested in discrediting the paper? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 10:22, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Or are you only interested in discrediting the paper? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 10:22, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

For a view of some (but not all) of the flaws in the Willis et al. article being discussed above (re: "Bats Are Not Birds...."), see the section below: Willis et al and other issues. HarryZilber (talk) 19:06, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Errors by Willis et al. and other issues
Boundarylayer, first lets review some discussion etiquette. You should NOT be using SHOUT-OUT BOLD TEXT TO EMPHASIZE YOUR PROMOTIONAL VIEWPOINTS, UNLESS YOU WANT PEOPLE WHO DISAGREE WITH YOU TO DO THE SAME, under the 'what's good for the goose is good for the gander' dictum. If you don't retract your shout-out bold text, we can all turn this discussion page into a zoo spectacle of crazy fonts. Would you like to further this discussion in !Patchwork font, or can we resume improving the article in a normal type style?

Several of your edits have been skewed with POVism, bias and factual errors. For example in one of your earlier discussions above you pushed the US annual mortality of 440,000 birds as provided by the USFWS, without mentioning, as stated in this very article, that the "... USFWS later [pointed] out that it was only an 'estimate' by one of many scientists and was not officially supported by the agency". Then about a week ago you inserted a mortality rate for wind energy of 2.94 deaths per GWh into the table of US bird mortality, using a bogus combined total figure for both bird AND bat mortality taken from Willis.

You further shouted out several errors culled from Willis et al., referring to the Willis's article as being "peer-reviewed", although it is clearly designated as a "Forum" article immediately above its title, with an acceptance date only seven days after it was received. A forum article that sorted, adjusted and compiled data from hundreds of studies being peer-reviewed in seven days? Really?? You then ignored the [http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S030142150900648X "Megawatts are not megawatt-hours...." rebuttal article by Sovacool], which also bore a Forum designation and which immediately followed the Willis paper (as pointed out by KDP earlier), above this new section.

What Willis et al. did, or didn't do is equally relevant. They accurately pointed out that chiropterans are not birds and that Sovacool should not have implied his meta-study results for birds should also apply to bats. They further pointed to instances of Sovacool using 'gray' studies and the lack of detailed data related to bats. Then they proceed to essential make the same or similar errors in consistency in methodology and accuracy that Sovacool was accused of, such as completely confusing nameplate megawatt capacity with megawatt-hour electricity production actually created. Willis et al. thus undermined their own assumptions of deaths per MWh. Sovacool pointed to instances in his rebuttal of Willis et al. where the Willis group:
 * 1)  failed to adjust death rates downwards, where required, in addition to upwards, thus conflating total mortality due to wind energy;
 * 2)  used 'gray' studies, even after criticizing Sovacool for doing just that;
 * 3)  criticized Sovacool for the supposed underestimating of scavenging losses and the overestimating of searcher efficiency, then offering significantly higher death rates based on different data sets that Sovacool did not use, all the while ignoring and failing to apply the same adjustments to nuclear and fossil-fuel electricity studies, making those power sources appear more benign in comparison to wind energy;
 * 4) criticized Sovacool for not including habitat loss due to wind farms, ignoring the far smaller footprint created by wind farms compared to the significant habitat loss created by uranium and coal mines;
 * 5) criticized Sovacool for lack of detailed mortality rates across species and time periods, while they employed studies using the same summary methodology used by Sovacool;
 * 6) pointed to 'disproportionate [negative] influence' of some wind farms, without applying the same standard to nuclear waste lagoons and artificial coal flyash 'ponds' (such as the one that collapsed in Europe two years ago devastating a wide area).

Although you have done your best to denigrate Sovacool's meta-study, it did what his 2010 Forum rebuttal article claimed: It provided "....a rough sense for what wind, coal, and nuclear sources may be doing to birds, bats, and other animals", something that the non-renewable energy industries would much rather the public remain ignorant on. In the same rebuttal article, Sovacool also pointed to the Sundqvist and Soderhom papers which showed the environmental and social costs of nuclear energy as 29 times greater than those of wind energy. That appears nowhere in your edits to this article or on this article improvement page. HarryZilber (talk) 19:42, 27 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Harry, there is a difference between caps lock 'shouting' - HELLO!, and simply highlighting a salient point with bold. If you incorrectly assumed bold text = shouting, then I apologize for any harm done to your inner ear. From now on don't assume it is shouting. As CAPS LOCK is reserved for that.


 * Now, I have not done my best to denigrate Sovacool, Sovacool denigrates himself far better than I could, with suggesting bats are an avian species, for example. I have just supplied the most mainstream data on wind farm induced bird and bat deaths, by 7 scientists - so it appears WP:WEIGHT applies, Sovacool is not a scientist, nor mainstream, he even recognizes in his 2013 paper that his fatality figures are held in suspicion by 7 ecologists and biologists, The point essentially rests there for the material to be included under WP:WEIGHT, the rebuttal by the 7 scientists clearly meets wikipedia's criteria to be included. Furthermore, so too does Sovacool's response. So why are you guys so eager to censor the rebuttal? It appears that if you don't like what mainstream scientists say, you instantly move to revert. Which strikes me as very odd and anti-scientific.


 * Moreover, just to help you out with seeing things from my perspective, Benjamin K. Sovacool is, as you know, not free from bias. Having repeatedly come out with anti-nuclear books, and has even lobbied against nuclear power. So as Meta-analysis clearly elucidates:The most severe weakness and abuse of meta-analysis often occurs when the person or persons doing the meta-analysis have an economic, social, or political agenda such as the passage or defeat of legislation. Those persons with these types of agenda have a high likelihood to abuse meta-analysis due to personal bias. For example, researchers favorable to the author's agenda are likely to have their studies cherry picked while those not favorable will be ignored or labeled as "not credible". In addition, the favored authors may themselves be biased or paid to produce results that support their overall political, social, or economic goals in ways such as selecting small favorable data sets and not incorporating larger unfavorable data sets. The influence of such biases on the results of a meta-analysis is possible because the methodology of meta-analysis is highly malleable.


 * The 7 ecologists and biologists however do not have an axe to grind(only a wish that less endangered birds and bats were being killed, and that proper unbiased studies be conducted on the matter), and as the team have not declared any preference for Wind or coal, or hydro and nuclear etc, there publication henceforth is clearly more reliable, as it is entirely free from bias. Contrary to Sovacool, who even went so far as to openly acknowledge that his entire motivation behind him publishing on this subject - avian benefits of wind power - was so that no one could claim(as one speaker at a seminar he was giving did) that wind power kills more birds than nuclear power. So he started his 'study' with a motivation to prove this argument wrong, and hey what do you know, he got the exact result he wanted, what a surprise...Oh yeah fellows, true science at work there, no question. - He acknowledges this, in this paper - "Megawatts are not megawatt-hours..."


 * Now, To point out some of the easily demonstrated errors with how you are viewing this Harry, taking your summations list, you claim the paper by the team of scientists #criticized Sovacool for not including habitat loss due to wind farms, ignoring the far smaller footprint created by wind farms compared to the significant habitat loss created by uranium and coal mines;


 * I really do not understand how you did not recognize the cognitive dissonance with that sentence. You do know that you are really comparing apples to oranges here. The negative effects of only a part of the impact from wind power - Wind farms on there own, excluding the mining necessary to manufacture them, should not be compared to the negative effects from the entire life cycle of other power sources - the mining activities and the cooling tower impacts from nuclear and coal power plants. We should all compare like with like, the total life-cycle from wind power vs the total life-cycle from other power sources. Otherwise that is called skewing the playing field my friend, and pushing pseudoscience. This should also not be done because unlike Sovacool's assumption that they do, a great majority of thermal power plants in the USA don't even use cooling towers(a source of bird strikes) at all. The reality is - Currently, of the USA's total of 104 nuclear power reactors, 60 use once-through cooling from rivers, lakes or the sea, while 35 use wet cooling towers. In continuation, as wind farms don't just magically sprout up from the ground(unlike Natural nuclear fission reactor for example :), wind farms therefore require mining to make them, and a substantial amount of it actually, as wind is more materials intensive(that means more mining)- according to the ExternE project - per unit of energy generated in comparison to hydro power, nuclear etc.


 * So it is just a biased opinion that the footprint per unit of energy generated from wind power is smaller, not least of which because the boundaries of this footprint you are talking about, needs to be clearly defined. As pointed out by the team of 7 ecologists and biologists, Sovacool's data selection is skewed, as he did not even include the impacts of mining for the construction of wind farms. This is what you call the magic playing field my friend. Any rational thinking person(like the 7 scientists) instantly recognize Sovacool's exclusion of wind power mining is not an intellectually honest method to analyze this. The scientifically correct method to approach a study like this is to include the total life cycle bird and bat impacts of all power sources, including the mining necessary to make each power source,e.g wind turbines, and the extra transmission lines, crane's necessary for construction, transport impacts etc. necessary to connect all the individually widely scattered wind turbines.


 * You also claim that the 7 ecologists and biologists - #pointed to 'disproportionate [negative] influence' of some wind farms, without applying the same standard to nuclear waste lagoons and artificial coal flyash 'ponds' (such as the one that collapsed in Europe two years ago devastating a wide area).


 * This is incorrect, they don't say some wind farms. The team also, contrary to your opinion, actually agreed with the general assessment that coal use causes a large negative effect on bird and bat populations. You are simply putting words in their mouths now and assuming they have a horse in the race/an axe to grind. There is not a single shred of evidence that they do.


 * Again, it is incorrect to simply say how many birds does XYZ kill. Some bird species are pests and no one really cares if cats eat them, however as constantly pointed, this debate is constantly being skewing by those who like wind turbines, even in the publication by Nature it states wind turbines are having a disproportionate effect on large birds and endangered species as a whole. - That's the problem. Not simply the absolute number of 'birds' each power source kills. For example, a house cat has never, and will never kill a healthy eagle, in direct, and stark, contrast with a wind turbine. The faulty argument that is being pushed in this article - with comparing house cats who have been estimated to kill more 'birds' than wind turbines - is therefore nothing but a scientifically dishonest joke.
 * Boundarylayer (talk) 19:29, 29 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Good for you Boundarylayer, you've restricted yourself from the further use of boldface text in these discussions, an analogue to UPPERCASE SHOUTING text (see the MOS section validating your decision). Your progress is notable and praiseworthy.


 * Your critical assessment of Willis et al., however, is not. In summation to this article's discussion of Sovacool's meta-study, you have his analysis of 616 other related studies, then you have a non-peer reviewed forum article by Willis et al. which critiques Sovacool's study and which itself is notably flawed, followed by Sovacool quickly pointing out the flaws in Willis et al. in his own forum article. That's hardly MOS:weight or justification to censor Sovacool; further the fact that he doesn't have a formal degree in the hard sciences is countered by the fact that the biologists have little knowledge in energy production and distribution, resulting in their mistakes on basic assumptions flawing their detailed analysis. So you have, essentially, Sovacool erring in biology and Willis erring in energy. That happens. Again as put forth earlier, Sovacool started a beneficial discussion with his meta-study and it will be good to see others learn from the errors within both his work and Willis et al. To my knowledge no other meta-study similar to Sovacool's has pointed to gross errors in his bird mortality results, and his insights into the total harm reduction to avian species (from toxins/pollution leading to birth reductions and habitat loss) are noteworthy.


 * The fact that improvements to mitigating bird and bat strikes and other concerns such as noise reduction are ongoing is not disputed and those issues are described in this article. You can hardly cry foul in that regard (no pun intended), since the dangers to large birds of prey and bats are described in the article's various sections, as are noise issues. Where there is a real concern to the this article's quality is from skewed edits painting wind energy egregiously in a bad light by anti-renewable energy editors, who equally downplay wind's positive benefits, such as the reductions to habitat loss resulting from conventional energy pollution and contamination, and the great reductions in green-house gases that lead to climate change. That last issue is a further significant threat to birds, bats and also, by the way, to humans and all other species. HarryZilber (talk) 17:23, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Removal of caithnesswindfarms.co.uk accident database references
Caithnesswindfarms.co.uk, an anti-wind energy website, has been referenced in this article for accident data on wind turbines. On their website they have stated there were wind turbine accidents which killed members of the public. Their website is listed as the source for such claims in this article. Included in their website's previous claims on wind turbine accidents is that a wind turbine killed 17 people on a bus.

Their claims have been provided to the media. In this January 13, 2013 article (Wind turbines – not just hateful but ruddy dangerous too!) in the online version of The Telegraph, journalist James Delingpole stated:
 * "For chapter and verse on this go to Caithness Windfarm Information Forum. It has compiled a list of accidents and fatalities caused by wind turbines. Since the 1970s, for example, there have been at least 133 fatalities caused by wind turbines. The worst of these was an accident in Brazil last year when a turbine fell onto a bus, killing 17 passengers ."

As shown below, the claim was investigate by a utility commission member and found to be false or patently misleading, as the bus driver involved drove into a truck carrying wind turbine components killing his passengers. Caithnesswindfarms distorted the news article in their database to make it appear as the turbine, not the bus driver, killed the passengers. As stated in a public comments database: RESP Public Comments Volume I Wind.xlsx - Rhode Island Sea...) : ""The website www. caithnesswindfarms.co.uk, while a helpful resource, should be used with caution as it does not provide verifiable data on the structural failure rates of turbines (as stated in the website's disclaimer), but rather compiles news articles, press releases and other accounts of wind turbine incidents. Furthermore, upon closer examination by the RESP team some of the reports deemed as "Wind Turbine Accidents" on Caithness may be misleading . For one example, on its accident summary report, Caithnesswindfarms.co.uk cites an accident in which "17 bus passengers were killed in one single incident in Brazil in March 2012." The report fails to mention that the "Wind Turbine Accident" to which it refers involved a bus crossing lanes and hitting a truck carrying wind turbine parts. The accident was found to be the fault of the bus driver, and as such cannot be labeled a "fatal wind turbine accident" without qualification. On the PDF this comment refers to, the "Wind Turbine Accident" discussed, in addition to being so labeled, is characterized not as an incident of "transport" but as a "fatal" accident, corroborating the Accident Report's implication that wind turbine malfunction resulted in the deaths of 17 people, which is simply not true.""

Reviewing other listings in the caithnesswindfarms database quickly found other distortions and falsifications, such as labeling a warehouse fire at a dock as an accident involving a wind turbine fire, and people killed while they dismantled cranes at wind farms as wind turbine caused fatalities. The website and its data are clearly prejudiced and thus unacceptable for use in Wikipedia, unless there's an article for List of biased anti-wind energy organizations. Text and claims referring to Caithnesswindfarms as their source will be removed for cause. HarryZilber (talk) 18:28, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Redundancy in first Paragraph.
The first paragraph states, "Unlike electricity derived from fossil fuel-powered generating plants, wind power consumes no fuel and emits no air pollution in operation. As well, wind power consumes no fuel in operation, unlike nuclear power plants which do."

Isn't it a little redundant to say that wind power consumes no fuel, and then say the exact same line, word for word, in the next sentence?


 * Fixed.   Djapa Owen (talk) 22:58, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Net Energy Gain section
The "Net Energy Gain" section begins with ""The initial carbon dioxide emission from energy used in the installation is "paid back" within about 9 months of operation for off-shore turbines.""

How is carbon dioxide emission "paid back"? Is this supposed to read ""The initial energy used in the construction and installation is "paid back" within about 9 months of operation for off-shore turbines.""?

Also, there is no reference for the 9 month figure. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thompn4 (talk • contribs) 21:25, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
 * The sources for that section were all crap, so I just deleted it. If anyone can find sources for that stuff, it should be restored/recreated/fixed/etc. TippyGoomba (talk) 02:18, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
 * That is not a biassed assessment is it? Two leading academics from the Australian National University and University of Boston constitute a 'crap' reference do they? I am chasing a reference that has not been used on a community based encyclopaedia (like Wikipedia).   Djapa Owen (talk) 02:56, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Your revised version looks excellent! Thank you for finding a reference. TippyGoomba (talk) 03:32, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I do not know where the 9 months bit came from. I did not see it in the paper, and it does not sound very scholarly, although it may be true.   Djapa Owen (talk) 06:21, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Long term negative impact?
I'd like to see a section covering maintenance costs and long-term environmental impact when the windmills reach end of life. It seems many windmills break down and are left for dead, although some are partially scavenged for parts. No one seems to be taking responsibility to clean up the debris left behind. Palm Springs has passed an ordinance requiring new windmills to remain working, but many other wind-farm areas have no such requirements and are turning into graveyards. Due to these unaccounted for costs, it can be argued that windmills are a net negative in terms of energy produced vs. energy used to create AND MAINTAIN them.
 * Such a section would have to be based on WP:RS reliable sources. Do you have any to suggest? --Nigelj (talk) 20:14, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
 * That simply is not true. There are plenty of cited references stating that windmills are net positive energy producers.
 * There are undeniably shut down costs, but they are are insignificant compared to the cost of decommissioning a coal power plant, let alone rehabilitating an open cut coal mine or decommissioning a nuclear reactor, and any section on decommissioning costs would have to compare with these alternatives to be unbiased.    Djapa Owen (talk) 22:35, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Do you have sources? TippyGoomba (talk) 22:46, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Are you asking me or Skbenz? The references I am talking about are in the article, particularly . If a turbine has an EROI of 18 on average and 35+ for newer systems then even if the decommissioning is not included it could not be more than the commissioning cost and that would at worst halve the EROI. However I doubt that Kubiszewski et. al. would have missed that in their calculations.    Djapa Owen (talk) 23:34, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Both actually. Thank you for the reference, I see it's already in the article. I didn't realise the article already contained this information. It would be cool to see some new sources regarding what the OP has suggested but without sources, we can't say much. TippyGoomba (talk) 01:11, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I suspect that early wind farms may have produced a negative EROI as Skbenz suggests, and apparently there are some derelict wind farms which need to be properly decommissioned, particularly a large one in California and a smaller one in Hawaii, . However there is no such problem with new wind farms being built now so it does not make sense to raise the issue except as a note about historical or legacy cases.    Djapa Owen (talk) 13:19, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Unsourced lead sentence

 * "Compared to the environmental impact of traditional energy sources, the environmental impact of wind power is relatively minor, slightly higher than the environmental impact of hydro power on a life-cycle basis."

Although the body of the article contains some comparisons to different types of environmental impact, I see no overall ranking to say that the impact of wind is higher than hydro. Such an overall environmental impact ranking would involve a lot of fuzzy intangibles, such as the value of the ecosystem drowned by the hydro reservoir. The article linked to "life-cycle basis" deals only with GHG impacts. Using the info from the linked article on life-cycle GHG impacts, it would be more accurate for the lead to read:


 * "Compared to the environmental impact of traditional energy sources, the environmental impact of wind power is relatively minor. Greenhouse gas emissions by wind power on a life-cycle basis are higher than those of hydro and nuclear, lower than those of solar and geothermal, and much lower than those of fossil fuels."

Unless someone can point out an all-inclusive ranking of overall environmental impacts, the current lead should be changed. Plazak (talk) 02:48, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

New bar graph
The new bar graph comparing causes of avian deaths in the US is OK, but I am not sure a logarithmic scale works as it exaggerates the low numbers and makes the high numbers look smaller. Would it not make better sense to do the same graph on a plain scale showing power generation figures per GWh only? Djapa Owen (talk) 00:05, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Failed links
Cite 2 is inaccessible and cite 3 only goes to the group's home page. Gravuritas (talk) 14:48, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

contradicted figure
"The energy consumed to manufacture and transport the materials used to build a wind power turbine is equal to the new energy produced by the wind turbine within a few months" is a big claim and is only supported by a single cite from Australia. The figure is also contradicted in the 'net energy gain' section which talks about NEGs of 5-35, which means, assuming a 25-year life, that the energy consumed is equal to the energy produced between 9 months and 5 years. I'll delete the "..few months". Gravuritas (talk) 05:43, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Acknowledging competence of reference
"The controversy around Pierpont's work centers around her statements made in a self-published, non-peer-reviewed book that ultra-low frequency sounds affect human health, which are based on a very small sample of self-selected subjects with no control group for comparison." Whether Pierpont is right or wrong, there is a claim that her book is peer-reviewed: www.windturbinesyndrome.com/wind-turbine-syndrome/peer-reviews/. The current text implies that her work is not acknowledged as competent by specialists. Could someone more knowledgeable on this subject check this out? Albertus Mus (talk) 23:58, 12 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Discovering peer reviews does not normally involve spending $18 to buy a book. To me this looks more like spam than the processes of real academia. HiLo48 (talk) 01:35, 13 February 2014 (UTC)


 * You don't have to buy the book: the peer reviews can also be found on the link I gave. I don't hold a view on the subject matter; my only concern is that the article implies a bias that may not be supported by reality, but I don't have enough background knowledge of the subject and I don't like editing material that is out of my area. But perhaps I should just go ahead and remove the 'non-peer-reviewed' part of the paragraph on the grounds that my objection isn't related to the topic, just the accuracy. Where's the spam?Albertus Mus (talk) 16:01, 14 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Are you serious? That link is simply an ad for a book. That's spam. HiLo48 (talk) 20:04, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I've really not made myself clear. The article claims the book has not been peer-reviewed, the publishers claim it has. The two claims cannot both be correct. I agree that the link is promotion for the book, but I've just referred to it as evidence. I have NOT suggested that the link should be part of the references on the Wikipedia page; I'm trying to be objective - isn't that what Wikipedia is supposed to be? Albertus Mus (talk) 16:14, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
 * On the one hand, "peer-reviewed" implies a formal process of review by supposedly objective experts. For a self-published book, I would assume that the author herself selected the reviewers, which is not the usual meaning of the term. On the other hand, I doubt that most science texts are subjected to formal pre-publication peer-review processes, other than the author often requests like-minded colleagues to read and offer suggestions. Should we denigrate On The Origin of Species because it was not subjected to a formal peer review process before publication? The important points for the article should be the qualifications of the author and the reception of her findings among specialists in the field. Plazak (talk) 02:27, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Here are some real peer reviews: |National Health and Medical Research Council, |Skeptiod (blog with links to scientific papers), |New Scientist: The sickening truth about wind farm syndrome and response to same here response to New Scientist, and here is a huge collection of references on the subject for the enthusiastic to trawl through: |Wind Health Reviews. The "peer reviews" on the book's own website are no more than advertising material. They are not what is meant by peer review, and that is shown by the publisher trying to introduce them by persuading readers that peer review means something different. Virtually all the papers listed above argue against the content of this book or against the types of assertions it makes. The only one supporting the book is the response to the New Scientist article published on the anti-wind blog wind-watch.org. &#32;  Djapa Owen (talk) 04:20, 16 February 2014 (UTC)


 * My main point was that journal articles are expected to be peer-reviewed, while books are not. That the book received a negative response from experts in the field, as cited above, should certainly be stated in the article.  At the same time, there is no reason to expect a book to have gone through the sort formal pre-publication peer-review process expected of journal articles, and so it is unfair to label it as not having been peer reviewed. And while the selected blurbs quoted on the website may be advertising, the extended reviews from which they came - said to be published in full in the book - presumably go more into the science, and suggest that the author is not alone among scientists in her view (I don't know, not have read the book or its included reviews). In summation, the article should present the author's thesis, should note that it is a minority view, but the article should not go overboard denigrating the book as not having been "peer-reviewed." It would be fair, however, to cite a reference (if there is one: no WP:OR) that the author's thesis has never been published in a peer-reviewed journal article, if such is the case. Plazak (talk) 10:27, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Peer reviewed effect of wind turbine generated infrasound and stress response in livestock
Preliminary studies on the reaction of growing geese (Anser anser f. domestica) to the proximity of wind turbines. http://www.uwm.edu.pl/pjvsci/8.pdf

Pubmed seems to be a bit behind and haven't published Volume 16 no.4 2013 of this journal, they're still stuck on Volume 16 no.3. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=%22Polish+journal+of+veterinary+sciences%22%5BJournal%5D&cmd=DetailsSearch

Regardless, farmers would probably want to know about this - that if they put a wind turbine on their land and livestock grow up nearby (less than 500 m away) then the livestock will have more blood cortisol and have less weight gain than had no turbine been erected, a small effect sure, but statistically significant. 86.46.163.12 (talk) 00:33, 26 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Pubmed was updated and now includes the study. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24597302 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.45.192.251 (talk) 06:21, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Tethys
A broken link to Tethys has been added and removed from this article. A quick search produced this link: Tethys Home. Should we be adding it to the article? Perhaps to the "See Also"? &#32;  Djapa Owen (talk) 13:42, 5 April 2014 (UTC)


 * It should be in the article, but were exactly to put it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.47.21.225 (talk) 03:00, 8 April 2014 (UTC)


 * See also? &#32;  Djapa Owen (talk) 07:47, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Noise section
This section refers to a review in the "British Acoustics Bulletin". I do not believe that such a review exists. Can we have full citation please. There is no publication called "British Acoustic Bulletin" but there is a British publication called "Acoustic Bulletin". I am not aware that it has any such review every year and the quotation in sentence 2 comes from Simon Chapman in Australia. Can this all be clarified please.


 * Interesting problem. Wikipedia has validly sourced all that information to the Sydney Morning Herald, a normally very reliable source. But the article is a kind of an opinion piece from Simon Chapman. Perhaps a wording change that attributes the claim to Chapman would be best. I've had a go. What do you think? HiLo48 (talk) 08:10, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, forgot to sign last post. I've been trying to locate the actual quotes but without success. Whilst I understand your point the fact is that the reference to the review is simply not correct. Can I suggest either deleting the paragraph - Simon chapman's views are covered later anyway. Or, alternatively, add a sentence at the end saying "however, the reference to the "British Acoustic Bulletin" has not been found." I think this noise section needs a bit of expansion. I will try to make some suggestions in due course. I have not actually edited anything. What are your views?--Allprogress (talk) 08:27, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Environmental impact of (onshore) wind power
I'm not happy about the parenthesised '(onshore)' in this statement of the article's title as it appears in the opening sentence. Either we need to expand the scope of the text in this article to include some discussion of offshore wind farms - e.g. to seaweed, fish and marine invertebrates, due to restrictions on bottom-trawling, the impact on migrating birds and bats, on sea birds, impact during construction compared to during operation, etc, or if we want to restrict the scope of the article to onshore wind only, then we should move (rename) the article to environmental impact of onshore wind power to reflect that. Having an article about one thing, and then restricting it to something else in the opening text seems wrong. I don't have a ready list of possible sources to begin such an expansion, but if other editors know of any, perhaps either they could make a start, or at least list a few useful links below. --Nigelj (talk) 12:44, 4 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I concur that the use of (onshore) in the opening lede is distracting and unnecessary. There's no need to start a separate article for "Environmental impact of offshore wind power" and the qualifier will be removed from the lede of this article.  At the same time I've reviewed the new material on offshore wind power concerns previously added by user:Tehanim and found that it was reliably sourced as per WP:RS.  The edit to add that new material was reverted in Good Faith as being an advert, which it was not, as the material originated with the U.S. Government's Tethys website, created by the U.S. Department of Energy's Wind and Water Power Technologies Office.  Additionally, belonging to the U.S. Government and under U.S. Federal law (barring some very rare exceptions), no copyrights are attached to its materials on its websites.  In order to improve the article's quality I will be removing the onshore qualifier from the lede and will also reintroduce the new material for offshore wind turbine concerns.  Best:  HarryZilber (talk) 15:41, 14 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Disagree- the original cites for the environmental impact of wind power only refer to onshore wind, and additional material needs to be sourced for offshore wind if you wish to take the onshore out of the lede. US-centric people have a different perspective because so much of their wind power is land-based.  In Europe a great deal of it is not.
 * Gravuritas (talk) 19:03, 14 May 2014 (UTC)


 * That is not true. In 2013 there were 318 GW of total wind power capacity, but just 7.4 GW of offshore capacity See here. Even in Europe, where most of the offshore power is located, the share of offshore wind is small in comparison with the total wind power capacity (about 5-6 %). Andol (talk) 20:53, 14 May 2014 (UTC)


 * growing fast.
 * Gravuritas (talk) 22:24, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Aside from the discussion on sector shares of onshore vs. offshore turbines, the lede's previous intro sentence didn't comply with Wikipedia's MOS, and has now been revised to remove the outlier. Best: HarryZilber (talk) 22:11, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

carbon generated during manufacture
Hi,

One concern I have about this article is the lack of discussion of the energy consumed and carbon generated in the construction and transport of the wind generators to their final locations. For example the steel, the rare earth elements, painting, the assembly, and many more factors all have a net energy cost and generate carbon. In addition, considerations for type of transport would be helpful as I'm quite sure that a seabed installation would be far more expensive and energy and carbon intensive than for a land based unit. These are going to be the focus points for an objective evaluation of the technology. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.49.91.99 (talk) 13:58, 10 June 2014 (UTC)


 * It's not carbon, but carbon dioxide, that would be the problem, if there is one. If you can find the information you believe should be added in independent, reliable source, you could add it, but it would be valuable to discuss it here first. HiLo48 (talk) 17:46, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Bird Fatalities are Fungible
Electrical energy delivered to the grid is utterly fungible. Accordingly, one might take estimates from the meta-analysis of bird mortality by Benjamin K. Sovacool and perform elementary arithmetic with them.

For example, the figure for bird deaths due to wind power of 0.269 fatalities per gigawatt-hour can be directly subtracted from the corresponding figure for bird deaths for which fossil-powered stations are responsible, 5.2 fatalities per gigawatt-hour. The net of 4.93 fatalities per gigawatt-hour means that for every gigawatt-hour of electrical energy produced by wind power which displaces a gigawatt-hour of fossil-power, the lives of nearly 5 living birds are saved.

Facetious Observation Alert: People who do not have garages can complain about an increase in bird droppings on their cars attributable to wind power. 109.218.127.98 (talk) 10:00, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

This passage may be confusing for some readers if not misleading to all readers: “Fossil-fueled power plants, which wind turbines generally require to make up for their weather dependent intermittency, kill almost 20 times as many birds per gigawatt hour (GWh) of electricity.” If the wind is not blowing, the blades are not turning, and birds are safe.

Reminder: This article is about the environmental impact of wind power. Bird fatalities attributable to anything other than the generation of electrical power (cats and cars, towers and buildings) have no pertinence to the article and should be moved to a separate article about bird fatalities for all causes. Paul Niquette (talk) 16:37, 24 July 2014 (UTC)


 * If bird deaths were truly fungible, then the death of (1) California condor would be valued the same as the death of (1) starling. Regards,  Plazak (talk) 18:25, 24 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Not the best use of ‘fungible’, I admit. The article is rich in numbers, so one might suppose, that each condor is worth x starlings (x > 1) – both with gigawatt-hours in their respective denominators for comparison among the various alternative sources of electrical energy.


 * At the risk of being too insistent that the general subject of bird mortality belongs elsewhere, let me ask if anybody knows how one might produce gigawatt-hours of electrical energy by reducing the population of domestic and feral cats, limiting licenses for shooting birds, covering windows in tall buildings, eliminating pesticide use, reducing mechanization in agriculture, slowing cars and trucks, dismantling communications towers, imposing a moratorium on nuisance bird control, covering over oilfield waste pits for nesting sites, or grounding fleets of aircraft?  If so, a whole lot of bird fatalities would be prevented without depriving the U.S. of fungible gigawatt-hours of energy consumption. Paul Niquette (talk) 12:40, 26 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Comparing wind power to other causes of bird deaths serves the useful purpose of putting wind turbine bird deaths into a wider perspective. That said, the usefulness of the comparisons of total bird deaths are limited by fact that the controversy over wind power bird mortality is largely limited to raptor deaths rather than total birds. Plazak (talk) 15:31, 26 July 2014 (UTC)


 * The raptor article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raptor_conservation describes how predatory behaviors (soaring and kiting) make raptors especially vulnerable to impact by wind turbine blades.  A citation to a 2013 meta-analysis by Smallwood estimates that wind turbines account for 573,000 bird fatalities in the U.S. and that 83,000 are raptors or 14.5% .  That article does not provide a reference for raptor fatalities attributable to fossil-power plants.   For the sake of comparison, let us assume that raptors are ten times safer from the environmental impacts of fossil-power plants, such that only 1.5% of those bird fatalities are raptors.


 * Applying those percentages to the Sovacool estimates in the present article of 0.269 bird fatalities per gigawatt-hour for wind power and 5.2 bird fatalities per gigawatt-hour for fossil-power, one calculates that for every 100 gigawatt-hours of fossil-power displaced by wind power, the lives of four living raptors are saved. Paul Niquette (talk) 13:42, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

New Section "Cultural impact" contains several faked sources
Some hours ago, I removed a section about a Antwindkraftlied (anti wind power song) with the reason "The song is completely unknown in Germany (as is the band) and the local paper (!) cited here says, it is only a success with anti-wind-campaigners. There is no popular culture influence or even relevance". If your read the German sources, all local newspapers, you will see that there is no relevance at all. The song sung by al local band and even the local newspapers claim, that it is nearly online known and used by anti-wind-campaigners. I don't see a reason why this local phenomenon, even in Germany should be relevant for this article. And the claimes "went viral" etc. isn't backed at all by the sources, in fact, it is a claim of Serten.

User:Serten, who wrote this section, reverted my remove and even expanded the section. So I looked up the sources. To make a long story short, I accuse Serten of intentionally fake the sources and make claims, which are not supported by the sources he names. When you search the footnote 113 (Unesco), there is nothing to prove the sentence "The impact on cultural landscape (German Kulturlandschaft) has been discussed among others by the World Heritage Committee. Sight relations and unhindered views are a part of the value of cultural landscapes, e.g. in the Rhine Gorge or Moselle valley." A brief search makes clear, that in the cited paper all relevant words a absent. There is no word "wind" in it, no word "Rhine" or "Rhein" (German), no word "moselle" or "Mosel". So these two sentences are made up.

Source 114 is mostly correct.

Source 115 may be correct, I didn't read it completely, so I can't be sure. But it is a sign that should raise awareness that in the german text there is no word such as Archäologie, archäologisch etc (the German words for archaelogical).

Source 116, a book not published online, however seems to be completely faked. I have online access via a library and searched the cited pages. User:Serten claimes "increasing social and cultural conflicts about wind power stations on-shore" but in fact the book writes: "Mit der Nutzung von Offshore-Windenergie verbindet die Bundesregierung die Hoffnung, die ökonomischen Potenziale und ökologischen Vorteile dieser Energiequelle verbinden zu können." This can be translated as "With the use of offshore wind power the German Government hopes to connect the economical potential and the ecological advantage of this technology". Only later is there a sentence in which the hope of fewer conflicts is mentioned.

Then Serten writes about "The image of wind power has become increasingly large and less soft technology as the Renewable energy commercialization and industrialization have been moving forward." This seems to be completely made up, there isn't even a path mentioned, nor is a industrialization or a commercialization.

Given the fact that these abundance of false citations can't be a accident and that the "Anti-Windkraftlied" is completely exagerated, I accuse Serten of deliberately fake the (German) sources, hoping that nobody would notice. So I will deleted the complete section and I hope that maybe other Users able to understand German may support my claim. Wikipedia is not a platform for propaganda or other biased POV edits. 84.170.138.211 (talk) 21:12, 3 August 2014 (UTC)


 * * Goodness, are you kidding?
 * * The UNESCO heritage council cares very much about asthetic aspects, especially view connections of heritage sites. Thats what the source is used for. Insofar the purported "fake" is offensive and I erased that in the entry title. As well the UNESCO has - see Waldschlösschenbrücke - denied the status just based on single buildings. The various studies clearly see a problem with the impact of wind power on protected landscapes. I added the conflict about wind power at Mount St. Michel with a valid source. The offshore conflicts as with regard to Source 116 are clearly stated as well. The IP has selectively chosen one sentence which does not apply to the text in question. And? Whoever wonders about the offshore installation problems in germany - thats due to the landscape protection rules, which are much stricter that in DK or GB. That said, the revert is just a form of vandalism and I restored the entry in question with some improvements and clarifictaions. Serten (talk) 21:27, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
 * * Regarding the band Die Rhöner Säuwäntzt and their at wind power song - the prportetly "completely unknown" band has had gigs in various TV station emmissions, at major festivals and on important radio stations. The strong feedback with regard to the wind song is clearly stated in the relevant sources and in the wording in question. Insofar the IP statement is completely senseless and again quite offensive. I have expanded the entry about the landscape heritage protection, in so far the paragraph about the musicians is an interesting but not overstretched detail (UNdueWeight does not apply) and exactly in line with the topic we are discussing here. Serten (talk) 07:48, 4 August 2014 (UTC)


 * No, I am not kidding, I am totally serious. You did manipulate your references. I checked them and didn't find the claims you made. Why is that so? It starts right at the beginning. You wrote "Windmills clearly signify and indicate industrialization of landscapes." In none of both the two sources the word "Industrialisierung" was even mentioned! So where does this claim come from? I have access to both sources, so tell me, where I can find these claims! In fact, one of the sources argues clearly in favor of wind energy, stating "Der durchschnittliche Betrachter, der an entsprechenden Befragungen teilnimmt, empfindet also in der Regel keine erheblichen Beeinträchtigungen des Landschaftsbildes durch WEA bzw. er fühlt sich von WEA nicht bedeutend gestört" (The common visitor doesn't experience considerable annoyance of the landscape by wind turbines). In the other source you cited a section about offshore wind power in which the landscape isn't even mentioned (Windenergie in Deutschland, 215ff). So the claim in the first sentence is completely made up and the references are faked.
 * Exactely the same is true for the second sentence. It's the same section about offshore wind power (Windenergie in Deutschland, 215ff) and there is nothing about " increasingly large and less soft technology as the Renewable energy commercialization and industrialization have been moving forward." in it. So this is also made up.
 * Also the next sentence is wrong. You wrote: "Landscapes are endangered by wind mills the more they have traditional, rural and historical aesthetic aspects and the more these type of aesthetics are important in and for a local community or its guests. On the other hand, wind mills can be used to signify innovation and to "landmark" and structure landscapes. In that sense and as well in more more urban and industrial regions wind mills provide less nuisance respectively may even have a positive symbolic or aesthetic effect" But the source states that "Aber nur Landschaftsräume, deren Eigenart vor allem in einer hohen Naturnähe begründet liegt bzw. die als historische oder harmonische Kulturlandschaft die Proportionen der vorindustriellen Landnutzung wiedergeben, werden durch Windenergieanlagen überprägt und damit zerstört, verunstaltet oder erheblich beeinträchtigt. Anders ist es in der technisch geprägten, modernen Kulturlandschaft, der Urbanlandschaft oder der Industrielandschaft. Dort - in den häufigsten Landschaftstypen Deutschlands - sind Windenergieanlagen weitere technische Elemente, die sich in ein Gesamtbild einfügen." This translates in "Only landscapes that are characterized by high orientation by nature are destroyed or affected by the sight of wind turbines, in modern cultural landscapes or industrial landscapes, the most frequent landscapes in Germany, wind turbines blend in the landscape." This is quite a difference to what you wrote, because you just inverted the arguments.
 * Next you cited the UNESCO World Heritage Implementation Guidelines. This sources is of course citeable, but it should contain the word wind energy or wind turbines, which it does not. So by using this source you claim that they write about wind turbines, but they don't at all. That is a clear manipulation and it isn't corrected by the fact that a different source then mentions wind power. This is WP:Synthesis and strictly forbidden. Furthermore I did not see something about archaelogical background in the source. Is this also made up?
 * As I wrote before, this is not a accident. Yesterday I showed several clear missinterpretations of sources as well as some made up statements that do not originate in the sources you cited. And today you went on with that! This is deliberate. Why did you manipulate the sources? Is this a political agenda or something like that? And don't try again to change the heading of this discussion section! This is an attempt to cover your manipulative actions which I won't let you do! 84.170.152.169 (talk) 09:40, 4 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Fact is - the UNESCO rules AND the German Kulturlandschaft protection laws cover and protect historical sights and views, as worded and sourced, and this -as worded and sourced - has major implications on wind power planning. Accept facts of life. I won't discuss rutting calls under this entry any much further. Serten (talk) 09:53, 4 August 2014 (UTC)


 * And that gives you all rights to deliberately missinterpret and fake sources? Now you are kidding. Why don't you rebut my observations? Because I am right? 84.170.152.169 (talk) 10:09, 4 August 2014 (UTC)


 * And the sentence "The policy has strong implications on zoning and allowances for building projects in general and wind power projects en detail." seems to be also unbacked. There are 3 references, but none of them is clear. One book, cited without the page number. A reference without a page number is no reference. The next one is a paper about "Energiewende und Landschaftsästhetik". Correct topic, but if you read or search in it, nothing about zoning concepts ore something like that. In fact it is about "Drei Landschaftsideale" (three ideal landscapes), but not about zoning concepts. And again the whole paper was cited without a page number. As if to make it most difficult to check the claims. And also in the third source, a paper ranting about "Windkraftwahn" (Wind power delusion) nothing about zoning ore zones. You made 3 references and none of them writes what you write. Again and again and again. Why for god's sake are you faking your sources? Do you think we are idiots, don't speak German and don't notice such massiv manipulations? 84.170.152.169 (talk) 10:52, 4 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Goodness, if youre ignorant about basic implications of the legal circumstances, skip editing here. "zoning ore zones" would be about geology, try to google Zoning Resolution and come back when you have read and understood. Last change does express the specific content of the various sources more in detail. Of cause is a book title a reference and if - as here - the title of a study is already covering the entry in question, there is no need for page numbers. I have as well interlinked zoning, maybe you better read before writing further poyhoy. btw Windkraftwahn was new to me, who told you that? I hope its not contagious.  Serten (talk) 11:36, 4 August 2014 (UTC)


 * It's very easy. You wrote an essay and tried to back it up with sources, that don't write, what you wrote. Even if what you wrote was completely correct it would still be WP:Original Research and therefore a violation against wikipedia rules. If I am wrong and everything you wrote was writen in your sources, you can prove that.
 * WP:Original Research states clearly: "To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented." And more precisely: "Any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by a reliable source. Material for which no reliable source can be found is considered original research. The only way you can show your edit is not original research is to cite a reliable published source that contains the same material. Even with well-sourced material, if you use it out of context, or to reach or imply a conclusion not directly and explicitly supported by the source, you are engaging in original research; see below. [...] Information in an article must be verifiable in the references cited. In general, article statements should not rely on unclear or inconsistent passages, or on passing comments. Passages open to multiple interpretations should be precisely cited or avoided. A summary of extensive discussion should reflect the conclusions of the source. Drawing conclusions not evident in the reference is original research regardless of the type of source. It is important that references be cited in context and on topic."
 * So if you want me to not delete the section because of Original Research and manipulation of the references, you have to prove that every sentence you wrote has an counterpart in the sources you cited. Show them to me. For you as author of the section it should not be a problem to copy the German sentences here on the talk page. Copy them and cite them correctly (i.e. with page number). I want to check if your claims are correct. Just like WP:OR requiers it. And don't become rude. I am not the one who did manipulate sources, I am the one who noticed it und wants proper citations. 84.170.152.169 (talk) 12:31, 4 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Stop wikilawyering, start talking content. Serten (talk) 12:51, 4 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I think a section about the visual impact on cultural heritage might be warranted, but the current text lacks focus, due weight and in part is not comprehensible. I concur with the above concerns raised by the IP, and I would like to invite both participants to be more cooperative and desist from personal attacks. -- ELEKHHT 13:00, 4 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Thank you. I will do my best to desist from personal attacks. I'm sorry if I was offensive. Regarding cultural aspects I am not opposed to that section as a matter of principle. But I demand that this section is written according to wikipedia rules and no personal essay. And the sources must be correctly cited. Especially in the first part the current version is the opposite of how it should be. I named several of the problems above and so I think that I don't need to repeat them. This section must therefore be completely new written. The second part, i.e. "Conflicting interests" hat problems too, but I think that these problems can be solved by overhauling the current text. 84.170.152.169 (talk) 13:42, 4 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Why don't you behave just from start? I integrated most of my contributions in the aestetics paragraph. Windmills is an industry now, instead of small and beautiful we get ugly and everywhere ;) Serten (talk) 14:45, 4 August 2014 (UTC)


 * This may be your opinion, but it's not of any relevance here. Ther recent edits seem to be a improvement though. Nevertheless I still want you to cite correctly, and this is with page number. I want to check if the citations are correct and therefore I need the page numbers. You can't expect me, or other people to read a whole book, if I just want to check the citations. Most important for me are the footnotes 83 (Kirchhoff), 84 (Job), 85 (Ratzbor), 91 (Ohlhorst) (where I again didn't find anything closely relating to what you wrote), 92 (UNESCO), 97 (Nohl) and 98 (Schöbel). You just cited them, so there shouldn't be any problem for you. Thank you. 84.170.152.169 (talk) 16:12, 4 August 2014 (UTC)