Sorry, but I can't hear the same old and plain incorrect "arguments" again and again. Yes, wind power does have an effect on the local wildlife population. Some species actually favor to live around wind farms, many favor to keep some distance. However, these effects are localized and do not alter the complete ecosystem of our planet. Additionally, the number of birds killed by wind farms is absolutely irrelevant, when compared to other sources. Looking at the US, you will find that
- About 1.4x10^9 birds per year are killed by domestic cats (!!!) [1]
- About 0.365x10^9 birds per year are killed by the collision with windows [1]
- About 0.089x10^9 birds per year are killed by the collison with vehicles [1]
- In harsh contrast to this, about about 0.00014x10^9 birds per year are killed by the collison with wind turbines with some upper end estimates ranging up to 0.00057x10^9 birds/year [1, 2]
Even if you increase the amount of wind power by 100 and assume that this also kills 100 times as many birds, the number would still be just 1% of the number of birds killed by cats. While the distriution of species killed will likely vary by cause of death, I think the insane difference of currently
five orders of magnitude between "cats kill birds" and "wind turbines kill birds" should make it clear, that this is something that should be studied but can absolutely not be used in any way shape or form as an argument against wind power. It doesn't make sense.
Mentioning the need for 100% traditional backup in conjunction with renewables and then outages in Texas sounds like you're missing the point that Texas had sufficient "traditional" backup and
the massive failure of those traditional plants in severe weather is what caused the outages in the first place. This contradicts the very argument you're trying to make.