Australia could save thousands of bats a year with simple tweak to wind turbines, study says
Australia could save thousands of bats a year with simple tweak to wind turbines, study says
Jack Turnbull
Peer-Reviewed Article: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/aec.13220
News Coverage: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/article/2024/aug/21/australia-wind-turbines-simple-tweak-save-bat-lives-study
BACKGROUND
“Who needs bats anyway?” asks the cynical reader
You do.
Though you might not consider them often, apart from around Halloween-time, bats play an integral role in our ecosystems and are responsible for controlling pests, pollinating plants, and dispersing seeds. According to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, over $3 billion in pest control is saved each year by the consumption of insects by bats.1
Producing energy by more sustainable methods (such as using wind turbines) has been of great interest to many and serves as a method for reducing anthropogenic climate change2. The cost to produce energy by wind-generated power has declined over the years with advancements in turbine, blade, and gearbox technologies and the generation of electricity by wind-power is projected to continue to increase in the coming years3.
One of the common drawbacks to wind turbines you have likely heard mentioned before is that they can kill birds and bats (this is true)4 and it is a problem. You may have heard Donald Trump’s (unsubstantiated) claim that wind turbines kill whales (they do not)5. This ‘pitfall’ of wind-generated energy has become a common talking point for politicians and other people opposed to methods which might decrease the use of fossil fuels and can prevent the advancement of and increased reliance on renewable energy sources. Surely, there must be a way to remedy this situation…
The article I have chosen is a study demonstrating a method for reducing the bat mortality at a wind farm in southern Australia and a subsequent coverage of that article in the media. I chose to cover this topic because I believe this article to have a slightly different goal than many other publications we have studied – the authors identified a problem in our environment, tested a solution to that problem, and then concluded their publication with a distinct, clear argument that the current inaction must change and that their research has provided an implementable solution for the bat mortality problem.
ORIGINAL PEER-REVIEWED ARTICLE
Previous studies have shown that without intervention, some species of bats could be driven to extinction by their collisions in wind farms. Extensive research has been done in the northern hemisphere on how to reduce bat fatalities, but research in Australia has been lacking. The process that is the focus of this study, and is described shortly, is the primary mitigation strategy already used in the US and many other countries.
The authors have created a study that implements curtailment, the process by which wind turbines are restricted/halted below a certain threshold of low wind speeds (most likely to cause collisions) at dusk and dawn (when there is high bat activity). The study was designed as a before/after experiment where they conducted mortality surveys and bat call monitoring for two years: the first year being before curtailment and the second year being after implementing curtailment restrictions. During curtailment, the speed at which the turbines would begin spinning was set to 4.5 m/s, rather than the previous year’s 3.0 m/s. The mortality surveys were assisted by conservation detection dogs and the same teams and methods were used in both years. Bat call activity was monitored to ensure that curtailment was the only changing variable, and not the number of bats in the area.
The results of this study show that curtailment led to a significant reduction in mortality – a 54% reduction. The monitored bat call activity did not decrease following curtailment, which demonstrates that the measurable decrease in fatalities is because of curtailment and not a change in bat activity between years.
The curtailment period resulted in an annual generational loss of 0.16% for the wind farm and a reduction of 0.09% in revenue which is consistent with other studies implementing curtailment.
What I found powerful, and not common in scientific literature, was the final conclusion to the article calling for action by government officials, industry leaders, and other scientists. They state that “a wait-and-see approach regarding the issue of bat population declines is not appropriate” , that “it is critical concerted efforts are made to develop and use more effective methods for educating the public and policy-makers regarding the beneficial ecosystem services provided by bats”, and that they hope other researchers will “consider conducting further curtailment trials in Australia.”
MEDIA COVERAGE
This study was covered in the media by an author at The Guardian, Petra Stock. The article begins with a clear message – that a simple measure can drastically reduce the number of bat deaths by wind turbines. It explains curtailment in simple terms and cites another study on curtailment at the global scale to demonstrate its effectiveness worldwide. The article then introduces the lead author/researcher in the primary journal study, Emma Bennet, and links the journal article directly. The article succinctly summarizes the methods and results of the study in terms of bat deaths and includes the information about energy output and revenue. The article then goes on to interview both the primary author of the study, an ecologist who was the primary author in the global study also cited in the article, the Australian Bat Society, and a senior policy officer at an industry group.
What I think this article does very well is in presenting the authors’ case to the public – it swiftly and clearly identified curtailment as a solution to a problem, provided two academic studies to back up the claim, and then proceeded to interview a variety of experts on the topic all while writing in a way that is easy to understand and not overly pedantic.
A small detail I’m not sure I understand the inclusion of is a 60 second clip from an anti-wind energy rally. This could be used to show that there is opposition to wind energy use, but the content of the video doesn’t seem to use the killing of bats as a reason to oppose wind energy, so I don’t think this particular clip strengthens the articles claim. I am sure there are many videos that contain this information that would be more beneficial for the article to include. Could this article contain more method details? Sure, but I would argue that more details on the methods would not strengthen their claim nor provide the reader with information that would change the take-home message. Should they want those details, they are kindly linked in the original paper. My main qualm with this article is the question I was left wondering after initially reading: “Who needs bats anyway?” Turns out I was the cynical reader all along. It takes five seconds of googling to discover that I DO, we ALL need bats. Why did the authors not begin this article with the importance of bats and why the general public should be invested? This simple inclusion would help to better well-round the article and solidify the reason for needing to implement curtailment.
Overall, I really enjoyed this article and research journal and think that it was used in an interesting, applicational way rather than just recounting the findings of the publication. With that, I would give this article an 8/10, and state that I now know who needs bats and that there is a way we can help save them.
(1) Bats are one of the most important misunderstood animals | U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. https://www.fws.gov/story/bats-are-one-most-important-misunderstood-animals (accessed 2024-10-28).
(2) Bennett, E. M.; Florent, S. N.; Venosta, M.; Gibson, M.; Jackson, A.; Stark, E. Curtailment as a Successful Method for Reducing Bat Mortality at a Southern Australian Wind Farm. Austral Ecol. 2022, 47 (6), 1329–1339. https://doi.org/10.1111/aec.13220.
(3) Chu, S.; Majumdar, A. Opportunities and Challenges for a Sustainable Energy Future. Nature 2012, 488 (7411), 294–303. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature11475.
(4) Smallwood, K. S. Estimating Wind Turbine-Caused Bird Mortality. J. Wildl. Manag. 2007, 71 (8), 2781–2791. https://doi.org/10.2193/2007-006.
(5) Fact-Checking Donald Trump’s Claim That Wind Turbines Kill Whales. September 26, 2023. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-66928305 (accessed 2024-10-28).
I also agree how interesting this read was. The Guardian Article did a great job summarizing the article along with just enough evidence/data to add logos to the text. Though I'm not sure if Stock herself has a scientific background, her clear passion as a climate and environment reporter is seen through this text: being able to use a mix of reputable resources outside the paper, and giving enough context regarding both the context of bats and wind energy. Rather than pushing a narrative of "getting rid of one or the other," it's very rare that such papers on science reach a comprise/balance on two things that seemingly conflict on each other, such as always framing that climate change is bad (without noting the nuance of certain positives).
ReplyDeleteI also agree on how strange the random speech against wind energy is used though, since the article emphasizes the importance of renewable energy while criticizing the adverse effects of its unmonitored management. However, I wouldn't say its necessarily out of place since it gives the reader more nuance on the environmental impacts of wind energy (which they may not have heard of before), which not only helps the article gather more engagement, but also promotes more discussion amongst the international community regarding the proper implementation of green energy. With the high number of bats being killed by wind farms, I think the video helps summarize the frustration felt by the biodiversity communities in Australia, but at the same time, give insight on how sinister figures would use the opportunity for anti-renewables demonstrations.
With the Guardian being slightly left leaning, one could argue that including such a video could perhaps be a veiled tactic in criticizing political rivals for not only being outrageously against renewable energy, but also for not doing enough scientific research and leaving out important context. What do you think? When calling for environmental changes/improvements, should articles aim for a strictly scientific perspective? And avoid all inclusions of political insinuations such as that included video?
Thank you for your comment. Petra Stock has a degree in environmental engineering and worked for years in engineering and climate policy consulting before getting a masters in journalism and working for The Guardian, so I think that definitely helped to shape her writing there. I think I disagree about the community you referenced being in the video – I would not liken the rally-goers there to the "biodiversity community" or believe that they are there because they are only concerned with bats/other animals being injured. It seems most are opposed to off-shore wind farms being created because they will make the area less scenic/cause noise, believe/spread the misinformation about wind turbines killing whales, and they generally do not want renewable energy to be used as opposed to fossil fuels. With regard to whether news sources should include political institutions when reporting on environmental changes, I think it is sometimes a crucial aspect. Scientists can publish and report as much data as they like – without politicians, the public, and other stakeholders using said data to change laws and incentives, nothing will happen. With that, I don't think data or scientifically reported information should be altered/manipulated/misconstrued to conform to a political agenda, but that it is important to recognize how the recommendations made by scientists can actually be implemented/realized by the greater public.
DeleteJack, great job summarizing both articles and selecting such an interesting topic. I had no idea the importance of bats in our ecosystem and was unaware of their connection to renewable energy. I am also disappointed by the Guardian article's failure to explain why bats being killed by wind turbines is an issue that we should be concerned about. You outlined this 'why' so clearly in the beginning of your blog post, I'm surprised that a Guardian writer wouldn't choose to do the same. Generally, I agree with your strong rating of this article, but I wanted to point out one paragraph that slightly bothered me. In the third to last paragraph, the author includes a quote from a policy officer from the Clean Energy Council saying that "blunt approaches like curtailment" are "not necessarily appropriate." This seemed to contradict the entire message of the research and the news article, since all of the data suggested that curtailment would absolutely be an appropriate measure to reduce bat deaths without suffering too great a deal of energy loss. What are your thoughts on the inclusion of this quote? Does is muddy the conclusions of the article or is it beneficial to hear an opposing opinion?
ReplyDeleteThank you, Baker. I think this is an excellent point you have brought up. Though it is a strong writing tactic to include lots of different experts and "key-players", I do believe that including too many opinions can muddy the waters of the argument. Especially in this case, I don't believe the small, two-sentence paragraph offering a differing opinion by someone opposed to curtailment offered any more nuance to the thesis of the article (especially because there wasn't really a counter-argument besides that she thought the problem was more complex and needed more research). I think if an author is to offer an opposing opinion, it should be more developed than this or it needs to offer new information.
DeleteI think you did a good job summarizing both articles and agree with your assessment that The Guardian did a good job at summarizing the science journal and didn't need to include methods, but should have emphasized the need for bats. You mentioned that you appreciate the call to action given by the authors of the journal article. I know that this is sometimes a requirement to publish in specific journals, so I was wondering if you thought the authors were trying to fit their research into the framework of potential policy or if their research fully supports the type of policy change they propose to enact.
ReplyDeleteThank you for your comment. This is interesting, and not something I had heard of before – perhaps it is more common in publications outside of chemistry? I looked at a few other papers published in the same journal and did not, at first glance, see an as pointed of "calls to action" from other authors. I believe that the authors of this paper were resolute in their recommendations because this mitigation method is widely used in other countries and their data proved once again that it was a meaningful change that could be made, so I believe that they were likely passionate and unwavering in their recommendation because of that.
DeleteI’m glad you chose this article, definitely a very interesting read! I agree that including the importance of bats from the get-go would have certainly strengthened the position of the Guardian article. Additionally, after reading the scientific publication, I had a question for you. Maybe I missed it somewhere, but I was wondering if you knew what certain species of bats were more commonly found dead than other species? Do they mention it correlating to the population of different local bat species in a way that is proportional to the numbers of each species? Similarly, I am also very curious of they said anything about why two species showed an increase in deaths with curtailment as compared to before curtailment? I couldn’t find it, but did you look into this at all?
ReplyDeleteI also have a hypothetical question for you after reading this. If you were responsible for instituting this curtailment method for wind turbine operation, how would you convince wind companies to participate? Do you think it could be done without government policy? As we’ve learned, bats are essential to the function of ecosystems around the globe, would it perhaps be better to institute laws protecting the animals rather than regulations for specifically wind turbines?
Thank you for you comment and for looking into the research article! With regard to which species are most commonly affected, the White-striped free-tailed bat is reported as the most frequent species impacted at wind farms in south-east Australia and Victoria. In the US, the hoary bat, eastern red bat, and the silver-haired bat account for 72% of all wind-farm related deaths. The exact cause for why bats collide with wind turbines is not fully understood at this time. I am not sure why for two of the individual bat populations the mortality rate increased with curtailment. Your question about instituting policy is very interesting. I think that certainly if species are designated as protected or endangered it would be more easy to enforce policy, and this could be a good avenue for doing so. In terms of alternate policy enforcement and governmental operation, what I would do is likely offer subsidies to wind farms to make up whatever the difference is in (small, marginal) profits lost by implementing curtailment based on a cost/benefit analysis for the money saved by protecting these species vs. to implement curtailment.
DeleteI agree very much with your analysis and this is a really cool topic! Bats are great - the way they communicate, the way they fly, how they are able to resist diseases. And like you said, they benefit us so much, the Guardian article could have easily highlighted something to make the reader invested. I think this sort of research is very important. We need to consider the way we modify environments and how it will impact other species. I really appreciated the way the article gave a clear storyline and a simple solution to this issue and was glad it was conveyed by the Guardian.
ReplyDeleteDo you think this sort of coverage would negatively impact the way general readers think about renewable energy sources? Bats dying is a very understandable negative associated with wind. The negatives associated with nonrenewable energy sources can be harder to pinpoint for a general reader.
Thank you for your comment. I think this is certainly a difficult topic in environmental studies and it is often called the "green-green dilemma". There are two "green" initiatives/desirable goals –increasing renewable energy and preserving biodiversity, each at a cost to the other. I don't believe that the coverage done here is negatively impacting the way readers think about wind energy because it is offering a solution to said dilemma – curtailment. Surely, this does not eliminate the danger/damage done by wind-farming to bats entirely, but I think it provides an argument to counter the claim against wind farms. You are right that the hard part is that any publicity surrounding this gives a clear image of an animal being harmed/killed directly by this method, and it is much more difficult to see the long-term, and horrible but maybe not immediate, damage done by fossil fuels (though I hope people are not too quick to forget the images of ducklings covered in oil as a result of spills).
DeleteThis is such an interesting topic! I don't know if you knew this, but it's "Bat Appreciation Week" right now so this is great timing!
ReplyDeleteI agree with you assessment of the Guardian's article. It's mostly good, though, like you, I wish they had given more information about the role bats play in ecosystems globally. In today's society of short attention spans I think journalists need to work hard to keep the focus of their audience. Still, I think the article gave a faithful representation of the research and I am interested to see how these kinds of issues will be mitigated as we move towards more renewable energy globally.
I agree with you (and everyone else) that this was a fascinating read and a strong popular media article. The quote from Bennett stood out to me: "I feel like there’s no other situation in Australia where we would be killing so many mammals accidentally, where we wouldn’t change our behavior." It reflects the unique situation surrounding bats. Perhaps because bats are nocturnal and rarely seen, people don’t consider their vital role in the environment, leading to less urgency in addressing their decline. If wind turbines were found to harm animals like cows, for instance, solutions would likely be implemented much faster. That’s why I found it surprising that the article didn’t emphasize bats’ ecological importance. An important goal of popular media is to make science accessible and relatable, so I agree this was a missed opportunity in an otherwise excellent piece.
ReplyDeleteThat is a great opening! The first two lines attract my interest quickly. Besides, you have also covered the implications of the mortality decrease of bats by cutting the wind turbines' speed. I think the article did not mention the importance of bats in the ecosystem. But you covered that in the background! Great job.
ReplyDelete