[bhelkey]

> Wind has down sides like ...Birds strikes

Many birds die as a result of human activity. In the US, the leading cause of these deaths is cats [1]. Cats cause four times more bird deaths than the next anthropogenic cause of death, flying into windows.

Cats cause ~1000x more bird deaths than collisions with wind turbines.

[1] https://www.statista.com/chart/15195/wind-turbines-are-not-k...

[gcheong]

By sheer numbers, yes, but the kinds of birds killed are different. Larger, slower reproducing birds such as eagles, condors, etc. are more at risk being killed by wind turbines because deaths in those groups have a much larger effect whereas cats kill a much larger number of birds but they tend to be smaller, faster reproducing species and as such their numbers overall aren't as much at risk.

[bhelkey]

Cats are one of five categories with >100x the rate of wind turbine bird deaths [1].

If your position is that all five of these factors don't impact larger birds, the onus is on you to back that claim up.

[1] https://www.statista.com/chart/15195/wind-turbines-are-not-k...

[EasyMark]

I think his point was that birds much too large for a cat to take down are taken down by wind turbines, also some birds are much more rare than others, and many large species are relatively slow to reproduce as well.

[gcheong]

I’m not saying they don’t but I am saying looking at sheer numbers of deaths as a comparison is misleading because it’s the details of what kinds of deaths that make the difference. Your linked article even mentions this: “ While the relationship between wind turbines and different types of bird populations, particularly apex birds, is understudied, there is some evidence that turbines can hurt those populations.”

[bhelkey]

> Cats cause ~1000x more bird deaths than collisions with wind turbines.

Edit: this should be Cats cause ~10,000x more bird deaths than collisions with wind turbines.