Solar farms, coming soon to a field near you, are an ecological disaster turning productive land into a nature dead zone. Birds frequently fly into the panels mistaking them for water, while electrocution and incineration are common. Blanketing large areas once open to sunlight causes massive habitat disruption and reduced insect numbers. Like the heavily-shaded ground beneath the miles of often Chinese-made panels, all of this is hidden by a mainstream media and governing class that are desperate to keep the Net Zero kite flying high.
“Bird mortality has become an unintended consequence of renewable energy development,” notes Hannah Vander Zanden, an Assistant Professor of Biology at the University of Florida. Little work has been done specifically on bird mortality at solar farms, although it is known that millions of bats and large birds of every kind are killed every year by giant wind turbines and their associated high power electricity lines. In recent work in California, Vander Zanden found that the birds killed at solar farms were often non-local, with peak kills during migratory periods in April and September. Britain, of course, is a haven for many migratory birds, large and small.
In 2023, the US Association of Avian Veterinarians published a “Conservation Note” titled ‘Solar Energy Production’s Toll on Wild Birds‘. It reported the estimate from the US Fish and Wildlife Services that yearly avian mortalities due to electrocution averaged 5.6 million and that some eight to 50 million bird mortalities may occur following collision with electrical lines. The construction of solar farms can lead to habitat destruction, the authors observe, and changes to plant composition and insect abundance, causing shifts in the diets of insectivorous birds.
The earliest scientific study of avian mortality at large scale utility solar plants was undertaken in 2016 by a group of scientists working for the US Government-funded Argonne National Laboratory. It was estimated that casualties at solar farms were similar to those found at wind turbine sites. Extrapolating from three large operations in southern California, the scientists suggested that between 37,800 and 138,600 birds died annually at solar parks across the US. These figures are of course nearly a decade old and appear on the low side. Whatever the true totals, there is evidence that between 2013 and 2022, US solar power generation rose 12-fold.
It might be pardonable to accept some wildlife destruction if solar farms were any good. They are not. In 2020, the World Bank published a detailed study examining the solar energy potential of locations around the world. Out of 230 countries, the UK was ranked second to last, just ahead of nearby Ireland. The Sun rarely has its hat on in a British winter and on the days it does appear it is long gone by 5pm peak electricity time. Despite life-threatening intermittency disadvantages, the British Government has announced plans to cover vast swathes of the countryside with solar panels in a desperate attempt to triple solar power that will not be available when it is most needed. Reporting on the move, the BBC published a truly dumb quote from a member of the public – “when it’s in a field, hidden behind a bush, you don’t even really see it”.
Out of sight, out of mind, might be the conclusion to be drawn from the attitude of the Net Zero campaigner, the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB). Consider the two quotes below and try to spot the difference between the first from a solar farm trade association and the second published by the RSPB.
“Solar farms can become havens for biodiversity, playing an important role in nature restoration across the country.”
“Solar farms provide an opportunity for the long-term existence of land in which wildlife can thrive, which could go a long way to help slow down the rate of decline of farmland birds.”
For its part, the RSPB is all in on the invented political climate crisis and wants to remove hydrocarbon use from modern industrial society within 20 years. As is becoming increasingly clear, this will lead to societal breakdown with food shortages that could be partially relieved in the short-term by slaughtering all the available wildlife! In the RSPB’s fantasy land it calls for an increase in solar, onshore and offshore wind. It appears to simply ignore the plight of millions of bats and large raptors such as eagles and hawks. They cannot escape the pull of giant skyscraper-high blades, which are also clearing the area of tonnes of insects. It was recently estimated that 1,200 tonnes of insects are wiped out every year during the plant growing season in Germany alone. The RSPB is also seemingly unaware of the disturbing rise in whale, dolphin and porpoise strandings on UK shores that appear to track the growth of offshore wind capacity. Deaths of these cetaceans have doubled since the turn of the century and are now running at over 1,000 a year.
In promoting collectivist political change, the wrong sort of ecological disasters are simply ignored, or clumsily explained away, by narrative-driven commentators of every kind.
Chris Morrison is the Daily Sceptic’s Environment Editor.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Nothing to see here. Where are you, Rebecca Solnit?
How could any environmentalist love that scene? The same people who go bonkers if they see any nicely done logging job.
When a solar farm was built behind my neighborhood in 2012 – I filmed the entire production. (me with zero video talent and a cheap camera)
What’s the output delivered to the grid from this atrocity, Joseph?
I think it’s rated at 2.3 MW?? I don’t understand the labels. It’s 2.3 something. It’s about 18 acres of panels.
It was interesting watching it being constructed. I walked all over the site during that work- nobody seemed to mind.
That’s probably Nameplate Capacity.
I think intended load is required to estimate Mega Watt Hours.
Which is all that counts in the real world.
In reality, probably actually delivering about 25% of that.
We have a solar array on about 27 acres of spoiled land that provides about 5% of the university’s annual electrical use. I don’t see there’s any way the birds would be electrocuted since the goats that are used to control the undergrowth don’t have any problems.
Do you know what the Commonwealth does to you if they catch you filling in a vernal pond?
Nota bene; Vernal ponds in Massachusetts are also known as “wicked big puddles.”
I was a forester here for 50 years. Doing any logging work near a VP, the state acts as if you’re near a holy site- you have to stay clear of it sometimes by hundreds of feet. Yet, the state went crazy for clear cutting about 20 years ago- I saw where log skidders on state land drove right through a vernal pool. Did they get punished? Of course not- but if a private forester managed a job and that happened, he’d lose his/her license and maybe worse. Real VPs should be protected- but not every puddle is a VP, yet some of the state “service foresters” don’t understand that. I once had a state guy tell me I had not listed a VP on a cut plan. I said there isn’t one there. I asked where it was. He explained. I went out there and all I saw was a web spot (after snow melt) the size of a bath tub. Just to avoid an argument, I drew it in on the cut plan and he was happy- asshole that he was.
And of course the state plays rough with developers and any kind of wetlands- yet the state wants to pave the land with wind and solar “farms”. This one in my video- it has rare and endangered species- and the proposal would have built too close to a small river – both against state laws- yet the state didn’t catch these problems until I told them. They were going to build within 10′ of our back yards. My wife, a professor, got a car load of law books, and wrote a suit against the company and the town. The proposed solar “farm” was backed up by some Chinese investors. We saw them at the town planning board meeting. I could tell they were real Chinese, not Chinese Americans because they had bad hair styles- like Moe of the three stooges. 🙂
They were going to bring in a big law firm- so we settled- they pushed the edge of the project further from the back yards and they came up with a lot of cash so the neighbors could landscape their back yards to hide the panels. About 5 years after it was built- a large section failed and the panels were replaced. I asked one of the techs working on it and he said they were damaged by lightning.
Thank you so much for the excellent expansion on VPs and the deep background on this particular project. Now come on, admit. You laughed at “wicked big puddles” and this isn’t the first time you’ve heard it.
We had friends in NH who owned a “lake/pond.” Yeah, I know you aren’t supposed to be able to do that but back then whenever Mr. Ranger came snooping they’d open the sluice gate and shrink the surface area and depth below the thresholds of the time.
Massachusetts still lists them as regulated under the Clean Water Act ….
Protocol: Enforce regulations as policy prior to adoption; Enforce preferences as policy after regulations are tossed by court.
In this video you’ll notice up to 14 bulldozers, excavators and log skidders- all burning diesel. The entire site had been a gravel pit- but most of it had regrown into a pine forest. Solar defenders said “but it was just a gravel pit”. Nope, most of it was a new pine forest.
You can see nature has rewinded the site naturally over a fairly long period. No doubt it will again given half a chance
According to renewable energy advocates the number of birds killed by Wind turbines is less than 1% of the bird deaths from birds flying into buildings and birds killed by cats.
What the advocates omit are :
1) the footprint of buildings is 10,000x the footprint of wind turbines.
2) the birds killed by flying into buildings are the old and sick birds vs the healthy birds killed by wind turbines.
3) Cats killing birds is part of the natural ecological food cycle.
Renewable energy advocates lying by omission.
Good points and a cat eating a raptor would be rare, rather the opposite is not uncommon.
4) cats aren’t killing eagles, hawks, falcons, etc. They always lump all birds together to try and hide the damage done by their pet stupidities.
This is a political problem that can only be fixed by a political solution. If the US can lead the way and stop the subsidies perhaps the rest of the Western countries will follow suit. OK, I just put on my tin foil hat here but I believe that the academic world is dominated by Cloward-Piven types that want to see the end of Western governments and the formation of a new One World Government dominated by the East.
The other way this nonsense will end will be through the inevitable power cuts.
Frontier Livin’!
Brought to you by The Green Screw-Steal
STORY TIP (also under Gov’t-subsidized follies):
——————
February 5, 2025
Rarely used oil, coal helped power New England during recent cold snap ——————
posted yesterday at EIA.gov website —
https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=64484
— it has a nice graphic (marred somewhat by poor color-contrast for the [fuel]-oil power) spanning eight (8) days of the Great North-American Freeze of late-January, centered on the 4-day period (20-24.Jan) during which OIL-fired generation briefly surpassed all other sources (and COAL was also revived from the dead).
— RLW
Save the butterflies.
Elon Musk says just 100 x 100 miles of solar could power the USA……and he adds if prodded that “some” batteries would also be required. Putting all electric generation at some remote location would also require “some” huge power lines and make it a target of any enemy….just a bad idea.
Might as well arrange them in a big bullseye while they’re at it.
Keepng 10 000 square miles of PV panels clean might be a bit of a problem.
No problem – they’ll just send a fleet of diesel powered tank trucks full of Windex out there each day. 😅 🤣 😂
We should leave scare tactics to climate alarmists.
We had to destroy the environment in order to save it.
(See Ben Tre)
“avian mortalities due to electrocution“
Can someone explain how a solar panel electrocutes a bird?
A neighbor has a small set of panels on a structure 100 feet from her house.
I’ll have to go over and look. However, if a bird can get zapped on them, what
happens if a person touches them?
As usual, Morrison builds a scare story on absolutely no basis. The ‘Avian Veterinarian” note has no data – it just says people are looking into it. The Argonne study looked at just three farms in SoCal, but two were power towers (including Ivanpah); the only PV tation reported very little mortality. No electrocution was mentioned.
Even allowing for the fact that their data is mostly Ivanpah type and not PV, here is their table on overall causes of bird mortality:
LOL, meanwhile you didn’t address anything in detail in the article itself, thus your common ankle biting is exposed once again.
Is there no end to your dishonesty?
There are no details in the article about solar arrays, except the links that I looked up and reported on.
Most panels are on people’s roofs. I find it incredibly difficult to believe bird’s die of electrocution. Afaik there are no exposed live conductors on a solar panel array.
I doubt they get electrocuted, but it can generate a large static charge then can be shocking.
Nick’s post was intelligent
Yours was not.
Not a close call.
While true, the question I put up still does not have an answer.
I’m going to assume that properly installed and non-damaged solar panels are not electrocuting birds.
No, he didn’t disprove anything all he did was complain that it wasn’t enough while the data he posted from a link does show a chart listing of deaths which they are indeed being killed a fact you and Nick seems to have missed despite that it right there in front of you!
That paper had only one PV station, which had a tiny number of deaths. The vast majority were in two solar thermal towers, no longer running.
But even so, look at the contrast. About 100 times as many birds killed by fossil fuel generators as by those obsolete towers.
“About 100 times as many birds killed by fossil fuel generators “
Yet when ever asked for pictures of birds killed by fossil fuel plants…
… there are never any produced.
Whoever came up with that number is totally deluded, and sprouting total BS. !
Reposting my comment from above:
Your data is highly misleading/distorted – basically lying by omitting important facts
According to renewable energy advocates the number of birds killed by Wind turbines is less than 1% of the bird deaths from birds flying into buildings and birds killed by cats.
What the advocates omit are :
1) the footprint of buildings is 10,000x the footprint of wind turbines.
2) the birds killed by flying into buildings are the old and sick birds vs the healthy birds killed by wind turbines.
3) Cats killing birds is part of the natural ecological food cycle.
Renewable energy advocates lying by omission.
And the number killed by fossil fuel power plants.. is total fiction. !!
It isn’t my data. It is Morrison’s. It is from the only paper he cited that had any data at all.
[how about you don’t talk to Nick~ctm]
Nick Stokes
Reply to
joe-Dallas
February 6, 2025 2:44 pm
It isn’t my data. It is Morrison’s.
Nick – whethers its your data or someone’s else’s data. You posted it and you didnt recognize the either the poor quality of the data nor did you recognize the omission of critical facts which renders the presentation of the data as extremely misleading.
“you didnt recognize the either the poor quality of the data nor did you recognize the omission of critical facts which renders the presentation of the data as extremely misleading.”
Yes that’s an excellent descriotion of Morrison’s *data*, that is indeed extrememly misleading.
You are fricking naive. The US bird population is around 8b.
The report cited by Stocks has about 1b deaths per year caused by man or man made structures.
Did either of you do any due diligence to ascertain if the alleged bird death numbers were credible.
It isn’t “someone else’s data”. It is the data that this WUWT post is based on. It is so typical of WUWT comments that the original article is long forgotten, and all that matters is that I quoted its data.
Nick and Banton –
Do either of you understand the facts that you are arguing?
Table 2 “annual bird deaths” that Nick posted is used to claim bird deaths from wind turbines is a tiny fraction of other bird deaths. That data in that table is highly dubious and missing considerable context designed to give a false impression. note the multitude of logic errors and omissions I pointed out.
“Estimated”
Estimates are just opinions.
Both estimates and opinions are like assholes.
Everybody has one.
Some are one.
That is the only data Morrison could quote.
Sorry to wear my pedant hat again Nick.
But I must insist that an “estimate” is not (or ever will be) “DATA”.
An estimate is a numeric construct, incorporating assumptions (opinions / guesses).
Unless of course “new science” has purloined terms that were classically understood to mean specific things.
For example, “therapeutic treatments” (alas) are now apparently “Vaccines”. 🙁
Take it up with Morrison. He has a post here
“The Shocking Solar Farm Bird Deaths the Mainstream Media Aren’t Telling You About”
and those are the numbers he quoted to support it. My comment is that the estimates are very low. But if you don’t believe them at all, then OK. So what evidence is there?
Would love to know how they “estimated” the amount of birds killed by fossil fuel power stations !
Some sort of crazy model or something..
I have walked around a coal fired power station…
… not a dead bird in sight.. Lots of live ones though. 🙂
And the surrounding bushland area…
… a veritable avian sanctuary, birds everywhere.
Please show us one bird killed by a fossil fuel power plant..
The number is a load of total fiction!!
We can assume that the solar and wind numbers are deliberately and massively under-estimated.
Ivanpah is in Nevada. We do export most of Ivanpah output to Do Cal, but after subtracting the amount of power required to start it up every morning, it is hardly worth mentioning – which is why it’s being shut down.
“Ivanpah is in Nevada.”
Nope.
Yes Nick, Ivanpah is located by Clark Mountain in California in the Mojave desert.
That’s what wiki has to say.
I had to look up how fossil fuel plants are killing birds. The sources I found cited “carbon pollution” as the killer of birds.
1) I could find no articles relating to how long carbon stays in the air – only articles on CO2. Carbon is a solid and falls out of the air pretty quickly. I couldn’t find deaths due to carbon for any life form.
2) The change in CO2 in the air is not enough to directly affect avians or any other animal life. It has been clearly demonstrated that more CO2 in the air is good for plants, demonstrated by the greening of the planet. The more greening, the more animal life can be supported.
3) Since weather events have not been more extreme/severe than it has been over the last few centuries, that can’t be the cause of avian deaths.
4) If the cause of bird deaths is due to power lines it is clear that all the power lines from windmills and solar panels are just as dangerous – if not more so because they are not as concentrated but spread out over tens of thousands more acres.
Looks to me like the number of deaths due to FF plants were pulled out of their butts.
The voltages coming off the panels and being run to converters range from 400 to 1000volts.
Please don’t refer to these installations as “farms.” A farm is a place to grow things. These are FACTORIES. If we make that point over and over, perhaps the fake greenies will get the point.
Solar “SOAKS” perhaps?
(as in, they soak up UV rays when available, and taxpayers’ money for negligible returns on purpose or investment)
Soak indeed.
Factories mischaracterizes them as well; factories produce something useful. Occasional, unreliable, unpredictable, inconsistent electricity often produced when not needed and frequently NOT produced when needed the most is *not* useful, it is worse-than-useless.
But, but, but the science is settled and we have a 97% consensus.
That is why we need to spend hundreds of billions of dollars each year on the models and research.
Hmmmm…….
Maybe we should stop funding the research and divert those funds to building ever more environmentally destructive solar farms?
Hmmmmm…..
Or maybe we should disperse the funds to the common people so we all can enjoy a steak dinner?
Once you have committed support to solar panels and/or wind turbines you really have no place to hide when it comes to being responsible for environmental destruction of a kind that was never equaled before Net Zero marched into prominence.
So much for ‘greens’ caring about our Planet when they haven’t a clue what care means let alone how you save a planet from unnecessary harm. The Greens have convenient blind eyes and no brain fit to be looking after anything let alone suggesting alternative ‘clean’ generating processes which are nothing of the kind.
Where are bodies like the RSPB (to name but one) when it comes to wholesale destruction of wildlife never allowed prior to Net Zero. Busy (selectively) making virtue signals of course backed by an increasingly negligent and neglectful popular middle class media. .
My mate Paul is a green and he says now that even eggs are so expensive, the homeless should be allowed to camp next to the bird grinders and solar stoves so they can get some animal protein in their diet.
Usually reliable Daily Sceptic piles on the BS with this article. With the only exceptions being Ivanpah and one other US mirror collector solar plant, extrapolated into a nonsensical, false claim about solar farms in general. Windmills kill FAR MORE birds than solar farms. No comparison is justified.
If you want to save birds:
(1) no windmills (aka bird shredders)
(2) keep your cats indoors, and
(2) no tall buildings
The alleged danger of conventional solar panel farms is grossly exaggerated here.
Where is YOUR evidence to back up your data/estimate free claims.
While you by accident admit Solar does kill birds, way to go!
LOL
The Sceptic BS article provides the evidence. It extrapolates two mirror collector solar farm of which there are now two (of the three) left in the US, both in Nevada. Ignores up to 5,000 conventional solar farms in the US.
Your reading comprehension is weak.
The EIA estimates that utility-scale solar developers will add 34 GW of solar energy generating capacity in the last quarter of 2024.
The US Large-Scale Solar Photovoltaic Database; The latest release includes data on 4,185 facilities covering 47 states (plus the District of Columbia).
You might have a point, RG, but your confrontational tone and insults completely detract from it.
FFS:
If Morrison cant provide any evidence, when he’s desperately trying to denegrate green energy…. why would/should anyone else in rebutal !!?
Other than to say that his “solar panels” are in fact nothing of the sort, and a tiny tiny fraction of energy created from solar.
Very nice Chris. Wind and solar do not work, stop building them. The very first requirement for any outfit looking to build a power station is how much electricity can we expect every day all day long? If an acceptable minimum can’t be guaranteed 24/7 no permits will be issued. This requirement will make all this nonsense go away.
I would like to see an “availability” rating for grid connected supplies.
What amount of power “can be expected to be available”, say, 90% of the time… (barring regular, set maintenance schedules)
For wind, it will probably be well less than 10% of nameplate. For solar…. ZERO
For coal, gas and nuclear, it could well be up around 80-90% or more of the installed nameplate capacity.
Producing PV panels is one of the filthiest processes around
(the below is from someone else, but I can’t remember who)
The mining, acid leaching, high tonnage coal use for heat treatment and smelting with associated fumes and silicosis disease from dusts and much more makes solar manufacturing one of the filthiest processes ever. It costs 3x more to recycle than landfill, so recycling is nearly non-existent. The toxic heavy metals leach out over time.
Details
Waste
Due to the rapid growth in manufacturing in China and the lack of regulatory controls, there have been reports of the dumping of waste silicon tetrachloride. Normally the waste silicon tetrachloride is recycled but this adds to the cost of manufacture as it needs to be heated to 1,800 °F (980 °C)
The first step in cleaning silica to produce metallurgical grade silicon is to rinse it with a mixture of one part acid to one part water
This process is called acid leaching and is used to remove impurities such as iron, aluminium, and calcium from the silica.
The purified silica is then heated with carbon in the form of coal or charcoal in an electrode arc furnace at a temperature of 1500-2000°C to produce metallurgical grade silicon that is 98% pure
The hydrometallurgical purification method with different types of acids as solvents was chosen to refine MG-Si. Effects of hydrochloric acid, hydrofluoric acid, sulfuric acid, nitric acid in combination with each other as a solvent for purification of MG-Si were investigated.
Note: Yes, hydrofluoric acid!
The majority of impurities contributing to this absorption band are entirely eliminated after the third leaching.
The “H” word very much comes to mind here ….
As though the massive extraction of fossil carbon did not produce pollution in spades ….
https://www.nrdc.org/stories/fossil-fuels-dirty-facts#sec-disadvantages
But net zero has already been shown to be false science. The EU and even now our obsessed UK is winding this expensive stupidity down.
Note to editor(s) of the above article:
The lead-in photo to the above article is that of a solar photovoltaic (PV) farm, NOT that of concentrated solar plant (CSP), which use mirrors to focus thermal energy to the extent that it can kill birds in flight that happen to fly through the reflected solar energy. Solar PV farms do not focus/concentrate solar energy and are not known for causing bird deaths through such a means.
Bottom line: the lead-in photo is not one consistent with the terminology of “incineration” used in the article’s second sentence.
Solar is best locally. As in on your roof to power your house. Or to cover parking lots to power the buildings, malls, or whatever the lots are for. In turn that provides shade, along with rain or snow protection.
Many people would be concerned about the effective time to just break even on such investments in solar PV systems, taking into account such things as:
— the imputed cost-of-money (i.e., materials and installation labor costs are paid up front, but any cost benefit is only realized over the useful life of said PV installation, so any future interest/invetment earning on that up-front money is lost))
— the cost of periodic maintenance/repair on said installation and its electrical interfaces/storage batteries/power converters
— the cost of any increased insurance (specifically, liability for injuries arising from the installation, inspections and use)
— susceptibility of the PV installation to damage from windstorms, hailstorms, floods, landslides and earthquakes
— the cost of grid electricity ($/kWh . . . will it be higher or lower in the future?)
— changing, detrimental environmental factors (e.g., future changes in shading of the particular PV installation, changes in cloud-days per year at the site, changes in snowfall)
— the actual-versus-claimed useful life of the PV installation
— the removal and hazardous debris disposal costs when the solar PV installation reaches the end of its useful life.
The risk, of course, is that the time to break even exceeds the the useful life of the installation . . . but that does not include any perceived benefits from virtue signaling.