[1] http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal....
[2] http://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/how-many-birds-do-w...
[1] http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal....
[2] http://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/how-many-birds-do-w...
Which really just goes to show how good wind is. The worst complaints aren't actually a big deal in the grand scheme of things.
Also, it + solar will not meet needs.
As a bridge fuel natural gas is also perfectly capable for base load and peaking, and due to pricing has already been rapidly supplanting coal and oil. Longer term, pumped hydro where available, or even technologies like syngas could be used to store peak wind/solar capacity to generate when the resource does not meet need. Along with a better long-distance grid, it takes no stretch of the imagination for renewables to meet virtually all current demand, without even accounting for huge advances in new technologies.
Peak population is coming, and with increasing energy efficiency/conservation, we can very well expect peak energy usage to precede peak population.
The population will peak. What causes the peak? Lifting from poverty. What results? Much higher energy demand.
Regardless, current demand cannot be sustained by wind and solar. Not even speaking about future demand.
Gas is fossil. I prefer nuclear to meet demand for the foreseeable future.
Stop quoting this bullshit "fact." It is a meme made up by conservative think tanks to discredit wind farms. As other posters have already pointed out, other human-related factors such as domestic cats, buildings and towers, and most importantly pollution and loss of habitat are far more significant dangers to birds. If you actually care about birds, take your cats to the vet and put them down (this will also help save the oceans: a large part of fish in cat food comes from massive and illegal trawling in South-east Asia often done with slave labor), and donate any rural/suburban property you own to a land trust, to be given back to natural habitat.
It's not necessarily the raw numbers of birds killed, it's the type and the impact on their population. If your cat kills 1000 pigeons, the pigeon population won't notice. A handful of golden eagles every year or two though, and we get closer to losing another species.
[1]http://www.audubon.org/news/will-wind-turbines-ever-be-safe-...
At least over here in Germany the organisations working to get more renewables deployed and studying these things massively overlap (e.g. nature clubs lobbying/advertising for renewables, and at the same time providing the boots on the ground counting dead birds). It has been recognized as a problem and is now managed, just as other environmental influences of new construction projects are (e.g. evaluating a new location includes a comparison with known migratory patterns/populations and restrictions and monitoring requirements can be set accordingly)
> Some say just 10,000 birds a year meet their end at the hands (blades) of the wind industry. Others ramp that number up to 600,000
1. https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/outdo...
source: https://thinkprogress.org/chart-how-many-birds-are-killed-by...
But the economic alternative is not coal but natural gas. What is you opinion in this context?