The extirpation of eagles from Scotland (windfarms again)

[David]

An analysis of environmental statements for a number of windfarm projects in Scotland has evidenced that their avian risk assessments were deeply flawed. Self-serving "modelling" of the collision risk is being used where real data shows that mortality of eagles will be unsustainable.

Another "model" allowed a promoter to pretend that the part of an eagle range where the windfarm will be built is "not important to the eagles", whereas field observations show just the opposite: it is a ridge routinely used by the eagles for soaring and perching. - The name of this site is Inverliever.

Another site, Edinbane, which arguably has the highest concentration of immature eagles in Scotland, will soon have 2 windfarms built on the ridges used by these birds to soar. It will act as a population sink for new generations of eagles coming from all over Scotland.

And another, Eishken, which holds 10% of the population of white-tailed sea eagles in Scotland (and the UK), and 11 pairs of golden eagles, has been targeted for a large windfarm of 133 turbines. 30% of the machines will be within a National Scenic Area, and 100% within a designated Important Bird Area.

Over 300 windfarm projects are in the pipe-line for Scotland, most of them in remote areas - i.e. where eagles fly. These birds are supposed to be protected by law. Yet, promoters predicting the killing of 15 eagles at Edinbane, and 16 at Eishken, are not stopped in their tracks by SNH (Scottish Natural Heritage). And more realistic estimates for these 2 sites alone exceed 250 dead eagles over 25 years.

What is more, no one has addressed the cumulative effect that 300 windfarms will have on the eagle populations of Scotland. The same holds true for ospreys, peregrine falcons, merlins, harriers, and a dozen more "protected" bird species that will be victimized by the turbines.

Some people pretend that birds can see the blades, and therefore avoid them. Yet 1,000 to 2,000 golden eagles and 10,000 other raptors were killed by wind turbine rotors at Altamont Pass, California, over the past 20 years.

If humans are fooled into thinking turbine-blades are turning slowly, when in fact their tips travel at 150 to 300 kph, why wouldn't birds?

Dr. Smallwood, in his latest field study at Altamont, has made the following observations:
- Altamont is not an "exception": collision rates for raptors are no different from other sites. Actual collisions are a function of local abundance of these birds.
- far from avoiding wind turbines, eagles show a preference for flying close to them.

It is clear from the above that we are headed for the extirpation of eagles from Scotland (and the UK). - Current numbers are: 430 pairs of golden eagles, and 32 of white-tailed sea eagles.

More details to be found here:


http://www.iberica2000.org/Es/Articulo.asp?Id=2250 (http://www.iberica2000.org/Es/Articulo.asp?Id=2250)

David

[Tyke]

An analysis of environmental statements for a number of windfarm projects in Scotland has evidenced that their avian risk assessments were deeply flawed. Self-serving "modelling" of the collision risk is being used where real data shows that mortality of eagles will be unsustainable.

Another "model" allowed a promoter to pretend that the part of an eagle range where the windfarm will be built is "not important to the eagles", whereas field observations show just the opposite: it is a ridge routinely used by the eagles for soaring and perching. - The name of this site is Inverliever.

Another site, Edinbane, which arguably has the highest concentration of immature eagles in Scotland, will soon have 2 windfarms built on the ridges used by these birds to soar. It will act as a population sink for new generations of eagles coming from all over Scotland.

And another, Eishken, which holds 10% of the population of white-tailed sea eagles in Scotland (and the UK), and 11 pairs of golden eagles, has been targeted for a large windfarm of 133 turbines. 30% of the machines will be within a National Scenic Area, and 100% within a designated Important Bird Area.

Over 300 windfarm projects are in the pipe-line for Scotland, most of them in remote areas - i.e. where eagles fly. These birds are supposed to be protected by law. Yet, promoters predicting the killing of 15 eagles at Edinbane, and 16 at Eishken, are not stopped in their tracks by SNH (Scottish Natural Heritage). And more realistic estimates for these 2 sites alone exceed 250 dead eagles over 25 years.

What is more, no one has addressed the cumulative effect that 300 windfarms will have on the eagle populations of Scotland. The same holds true for ospreys, peregrine falcons, merlins, harriers, and a dozen more "protected" bird species that will be victimized by the turbines.

Some people pretend that birds can see the blades, and therefore avoid them. Yet 1,000 to 2,000 golden eagles and 10,000 other raptors were killed by wind turbine rotors at Altamont Pass, California, over the past 20 years.

If humans are fooled into thinking turbine-blades are turning slowly, when in fact their tips travel at 150 to 300 kph, why wouldn't birds?

Dr. Smallwood, in his latest field study at Altamont, has made the following observations:
- Altamont is not an "exception": collision rates for raptors are no different from other sites. Actual collisions are a function of local abundance of these birds.
- far from avoiding wind turbines, eagles show a preference for flying close to them.

It is clear from the above that we are headed for the extirpation of eagles from Scotland (and the UK). - Current numbers are: 430 pairs of golden eagles, and 32 of white-tailed sea eagles.

More details to be found here:


http://www.iberica2000.org/Es/Articulo.asp?Id=2250 (http://www.iberica2000.org/Es/Articulo.asp?Id=2250)

David

Yes indeed.

As you rightly observe, Mark Duchamp has worked hard to expose this slaughter & did so for a brief period on BF.

The landowners, developers,& power companies who gain taxpayers money for industrialising wild uplands will not care.
The politicians who have unleashed this free-for-all in the name of "Kyoto" will not care.
A species which can countenance the mass slaughter of it's own kind in Rwanda & Darfur is unlikely to care about a few eagles in Scotland.

Mark Duchamp was so right to call it "Red Energy"

Colin

[David]

Yes indeed.

As you rightly observe, Mark Duchamp has worked hard to expose this slaughter & did so for a brief period on BF.

Colin

Thank you Colin. I posted the above on behalf of Mark who, after the pounding he took for his views last time, prefers to present the facts through a proxy for the time being. I personally would like to see him , with his expert knowledge and diligence, active in the Forum to keep the discussion on this important matter 'on the boil'.

David
Proact

[Tyke]

I guessed you did David. Glad to see Mark is still involved in publicising the facts about wind energy.
It is a great pity that he feels he has to do it by proxy.

Colin

[James Lowther]

It is clear from the above that we are headed for the extirpation of eagles from Scotland (and the UK).

I am not sure exactly where i sit on the wind farm issue, but Mark Duchamp was generally pretty scathing about the use of scaremongering by the 'pro' lobby.

James

[jpoyner]

Can I also use this thread to draw members attention to the proposed development at Dunmaglass.

www.stopdunmaglass.com

This is above probably Scotland's most famous Eagle site, "The Findhorn Valley" or Strathdearn. Please voice you oppositon to this development as directed on the website.

John

[Tim Allwood]

anyone noticed the downside to the avian world of Global Warming and burning of fossil fuels?

at least Chelsea are winning

Tim

[Tyke]

anyone noticed the downside to the avian world of Global Warming and burning of fossil fuels?

at least Chelsea are winning

Tim


Yes Tim-but wind turbines won't remove it.
There are other options which will reduce fossil fuel consumption & CO2 emissions -we can then see if that slows/halts Global Warming.


Chelsea won-close at the end though!...?Liverpool next?

Colin

[Stewart J.]

Thanks for that info David, I for one was sad to see Mark leave as he did, always thought his views and arguments were well researched, thought through and balanced.

Stewart

[Tim Allwood]

will 'birders' ever see the bigger picture?

Tim

[maersk]

how many golden eagles are there left in scotland?

[Tyke]

how many golden eagles are there left in scotland?


431 pairs at the last count :-

http://www.rspb.org.uk/scotland/action/goldeneaglesurvey.asp

Colin

[James Blake]

There's an interesting article on birds and windfarms in the current British Birds - seems balanced. Conclusion: conservation-wise, some are a problem for some groups of birds; most are not a problem for any. Includes some interesting statistics about bird collisions with a whole range of human-made objects.

James

[Tim Allwood]

Hi James

thanks for that

hopefully it might make a few birders think twice about the knee-jerk anti reaction there seems to be...

Tim

[DKR]

There's an interesting article on birds and windfarms in the current British Birds - seems balanced. Conclusion: cobnservation-wise, some are a problem for some groups of birds; most are not a problem to any. Includes some interesting statistics about bird collisions with a whole range of human-made objects.

James

Thanks for the info. Should really get around to subscribing.

[alcedo.atthis]

"Includes some interesting statistics about bird collisions with a whole range of human-made objects."

The only difference is where these other man-made objects are situated!!


Regards

Malky. Noting that Scotland already exports 40% of it's produced electricity, so why are we generating more by uneconomical means??

[Tyke]

.... so why are we generating more by uneconomical means??

Because it is profitable to do so since the government has arranged that consumers pay the "excess" costs, allowing developers to make a profit.

From the Telegraph:-


Wind energy endures a gale of hostility
(Filed: 26/03/2005)


Aaron Patrick asks whether expensive wind farms are the solution to our power needs - or part of the problem

They were fortunate the weather was bad in Norfolk this week. When dignitaries gathered at Caister Lifeboat Station on Tuesday for the official opening of Britain's newest and largest wind farm, the organisers were not embarrassed. A strong wind ensured the giant turbines spun on cue.


Click to enlarge
Scroby Sands is located on a sand bank two miles off the coast of Great Yarmouth. Owned by Eon, a German power utility, the 30 turbines can produce enough electricity for 41,000 houses and should cut 75,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions every year.

If there is such a thing as a morally pure form of energy, wind is it. Wind has been hailed as part of the solution to global warming, a way to reduce pollution, and an alternative to nuclear power.

There is another side to the story. Not only is wind more expensive than other forms of power, its advantages have been overstated, sceptics say. They are controversial views, but those who hold them are not to be dismissed lightly.

Those lined up against the wind industry include Professor John Ffowcs-Williams, an engineering professor at Cambridge for 30 years, Sir Martin Holdgate, president of the Zoological Society, and Professor Michael Laughton, who taught electrical engineering at the University of London.

All three have offered their expertise to the Renewable Energy Foundation, a private lobby group set up by former BBC presenter Noel Edmonds which is running a campaign against wind farming. The foundation's research director is John Constable, a Cambridge lecturer who devised a mathematical formula to tell verse from prose. He took up the cause when a wind farm was proposed near his Suffolk home.

"The benefits of wind power have been overstated and mistakenly described," he said. "The European experience has shown that it cannot be expected to carry the burden of the obligations placed upon it.

"There are about 20 buildings in London above 100m high and a developer will turn up in a Devon village and propose erecting 10 turbines taller than that near houses. Laid down, those turbines would be longer and wider than a football pitch. It is not surprising people are upset about it."

The foundation's opponent, the British Wind Energy Association, receives money from corporate memberships. Britain's wind power industry is in turn supported by cross-subsidies imposed on the power industry by the Government, which is promoting wind power to help fulfil its commitment to reduce carbon dioxide emissions.

Electricity generation is the single biggest cause of the emissions, largely because coal-fired power stations are terrifically pollutive. To promote wind farms and other forms of renewable energy, the Government created a clever scheme in 2003.

Under the "renewables obligation certificates" introduced by former energy ministers Brian Wilson and Stephen Timms, power utilities are required to generate part of their electricity through renewable sources. The present rate is 4.3pc, and will rise to 15pc by 2015. Utilities without wind farms and other clean sources of power can meet the obligation by buying credits from those who do.

The credit system has led to large payments to "green" operators from conventional power companies, which are also subject to a climate change tax. The research shows they are passing their higher costs on to consumers.

A report from the National Audit Office last month estimated that the total financial assistance for the renewable energy industry - which is made up mainly of wind farms - is £700m a year. By 2010 the figure will be £1billion, equivalent to a 5.7pc rise in electricity prices, a tax hike in all but name.

The credit scheme is the single most important force behind Britain's rapidly growing wind farms. According to trade magazine, Platts Power UK, the amount of renewable power capacity is planned to increase 21-fold over the next five years. In Scotland there are applications for 7,000 new turbines, according to the Renewable Energy Foundation, and in five years 7pc of the nation's electricity supply is expected to come from wind.

The Audit Office warns that Britain is over-investing in wind energy. Its consultants found that wind farms would continue to be built if subsidies were lowered, and estimated that one third of the money going to them would be wasted unless the policy was changed.

Paul Golby, the chief executive of Eon UK, said: "Without the renewable obligation certificates nobody would be building wind farms. This is the balance we are trying to strike: protecting the environment and the cost of building wind farms."

According to a study published by the Royal Academy of Engineering, the only forms of electricity more costly are wave power and chicken manure. (The world's first poultry-litter power plant was built at Eye, East Anglia, in 1992.)

The study estimated that wind power is 70pc more expensive than nuclear or gas. Offshore wind farms, like the one at Scroby Sands, are two and a half times as expensive because of higher construction costs.

Calculating the cost and benefits of wind power is difficult. What is usually left out is the blight of large turbines dotting the countryside and reductions in land values. Or the benefit of reducing carbon dioxide emissions and the damage to Britain's reputation if it were to opt out of the international climate change agreement.
There is also the possible benefit of replacing nuclear plants - which have the potential to leak or blow up - or the drawbacks of relying on natural gas, in which Great Britain in not self sufficient.

Apart from the cost, wind power's biggest problem is its lack of reliability. Wind turbines are inactive most of the time. According to the Department of Trade and Industry, even in the best "wind year", 1998, British wind farms operated at only 31pc of capacity.

Demand is more predictable. Every evening after Eastenders, electricity usage shoots up. Cold days require more power. Lights and appliances are switched off at night.

The supply and demand mismatch would be less of a problem if electricity could be stored. But there is no battery for the national power grid. Surplus power cannot be saved, and the single connection to France is of limited capacity. When it comes to electricity, Britain is an island.

The Renewable Energy Foundation says the German experience indicates that as wind farms become a larger part of Britain's power grid, 80pc to 100pc of their capacity will need to be replicated for windless days. If true, almost every unit of electricity generated through wind will need to be matched somewhere else by a gas or nuclear plant.

The wind power industry dismisses the idea as absurd, and argues that wind could comfortably generate 10pc of Britain's electricity with no back-up plants.

With Britain spending billions subsidising wind power, policymakers have a responsibility to ensure it is the most efficient way to protect the environment.


© Copyright of Telegraph Group Limited 2005. Terms & Conditions of reading.
Commercial information. Privacy and Cookie Policy. Disclaimer.

[Tim Allwood]

so wind may be more expensive

the price of continuing the use of fossil fuels is enormous.

how much is an inhabitable planet worth?

we sure know the price of everything and the value of nothing these days

Tim

[Tyke]

I was trying to provide a response to Malky's question Tim.

Of course I agree that cost must be compared with benefit-there's no point in it otherwise.

I just don't see how the "value" of a 10% to 15% contribution to UK electricity generation by wind farms stacks up.
There are better alternative uses of £1 billion-compulsory change of all lighting systems to low energy/long life materials will produce the same result at half the cost and without destroying wild uplands & their ecosystems.

Anyway electricity generation is only half the problem-what about the oil burning transportation sector?-what are we doing about that ?

I don't accept your linkage of wind farms with an "inhabitable planet". They won't provide it for you. If you are really that worried then get behind some serious attempts to replace oil-as well as gas & coal.

We are playing at carbon emission reduction by concentrating on Kyoto targets, instead thinking strategically.We are losing time.

Colin

[Stewart J.]

I was trying to provide a response to Malky's question Tim.

Of course I agree that cost must be compared with benefit-there's no point in it otherwise.

I just don't see how the "value" of a 10% to 15% contribution to UK electricity generation by wind farms stacks up.
There are better alternative uses of £1 billion-compulsory change of all lighting systems to long life materials will produce the same result at half the cost and without destroying wild uplands & their ecosystems.

Anyway electricity generation is only half the problem-what about the oil burning transportation sector?-what are we doing about that ?

I don't accept your linkage of wind farms with an "inhabitable planet". They won't provide it for you. If you are really that worried then get behind some serious attempts to replace oil-as well as gas & coal.

We are playing at carbon emission reduction by concentrating on Kyoto targets, instead thinking strategically.We are losing time.

Colin

:clap: :clap: :clap:

Wholeheartedly agree mate.

Stewart
Stewart

[Grousemore]

Thank you Colin. I posted the above on behalf of Mark who, after the pounding he took for his views last time, prefers to present the facts through a proxy for the time being. I personally would like to see him , with his expert knowledge and diligence, active in the Forum to keep the discussion on this important matter 'on the boil'.

David
Proact

So would I, and I'm surprised that he feels he took a 'pounding';he seemed to win most of the debate to me, particularly as he was only ever countered by the soundbite/cliche response crew.
Reassuring though that Tyke has remained as a voice of reason and I,for one, appreciate the balanced opinion he presents to the Forum on this important issue.

[Andrew Rowlands]

So would I, and I'm surprised that he feels he took a 'pounding';he seemed to win most of the debate to me, particularly as he was only ever countered by the soundbite/cliche response crew.
Reassuring though that Tyke has remained as a voice of reason and I,for one, appreciate the balanced opinion he presents to the Forum on this important issue.

I wish Mark would return too, guys -I still have an email to him, unsent, in my pending folder from weeks ago - I don't really understand what upset him so I don't want to get it wrong and make things worse.

Help?!?

Andy.

[Mark Duchamp]

So would I, and I'm surprised that he feels he took a 'pounding';he seemed to win most of the debate to me, particularly as he was only ever countered by the soundbite/cliche response crew.
Reassuring though that Tyke has remained as a voice of reason and I,for one, appreciate the balanced opinion he presents to the Forum on this important issue.


Hello everyone.

I did not mind the pounding by the soundbite/cliche response crew. I can handle that. But what I found unfair was the closing of my thread. I was effectively silenced, and with me the cause of the birds.


Mark Duchamp

[Grousemore]

Hello everyone.

I did not mind the pounding by the soundbite/cliche response crew. I can handle that. But what I found unfair was the closing of my thread. I was effectively silenced, and with me the cause of the birds.


Mark Duchamp

Glad to see you're still around, hope you keep the debate going.

As an ex-Moderator of Birdforum, I can personally vouch for the fairness and even-handedness of this site during my time and I've certainly seen nothing from the current incumbents to give any concern that things are different.

[Tyke]

Hello everyone.

I did not mind the pounding by the soundbite/cliche response crew. I can handle that. But what I found unfair was the closing of my thread. I was effectively silenced, and with me the cause of the birds.


Mark Duchamp

Nice to see a post from you again Mark. Welcome back.
Andrew's post must help?
I share Grousemore's hope that you will return to the debate here.

Colin

[Stewart J.]

Nice to see a post from you again Mark. Welcome back.
Andrew's post must help?
I share Grousemore's hope that you will return to the debate here.

Colin

And me!

Stewart

[Tim Allwood]

the tide is slowly turning towards an acceptance of wind and a realisation that the horror stories put forward on some forums are just that...stories.

see the latest BB (often derided as too highbrow/irrelevant by some folks on Bird Forum) for a balanced view

soundbites and cliches are fine by me - the length of a post denotes nothing. Brevity and clarity by another name perhaps?

as the pro camp keep saying wind is not the be all and end all. It's a simple way of getting the ball rolling.

the saddest part for me is the way people have been galvanised into getting involved in bird conservation but in a way that is attempting to stop positive things being done. None of my friends will enter the debate as to say you're in favour of wind farms and a birder seems a capital crime at the moment despite most UK birders not giving a hoot about tropical deforestation and habitat loss and the real loss of birds and biodiversity

We can bang on about green transport, reducing consumption etc but time is running out and those steps will not be taken by government. I imagine at least half the people on here wont vote for a party that wants a penny more off them for ANYTHING.

enough cliches in there?

Tim

[Tyke]

Hi Tim.
I wonder if you are correct in saying that the tide is flowing in favour of wind energy. My impression is the reverse.

Here is todays Sunday Times Leader :-

April 17, 2005

Leading article: Blow them away

The news that Britain’s police forces are turning to a dash of cooking oil to power their squad cars may smack of a budgetary squeeze gone mad, but it is far from that. The police are prepared to put up with being called the “frying” squad, and to take all the jokes about driving around in mobile chip shops for good reason. The biodiesel being used by them and other enlightened motorists is environmentally friendly. Made from a combination of traditional diesel and vegetable and rapeseed oil, some of it indeed recycled from chip shops, it can cut carbon dioxide emissions by up to 5%. Ironically, the police have taken their lead from those in south Wales who a couple of years ago powered their cars on cheap, unadulterated cooking oil from Asda.

The use of biodiesel (and bioethanol, which can be used instead of petrol) is an example of good environmental practice. Nobody notices when a car is chugging along on bio-fuel. There is not even a faint whiff of fried potatoes. Everybody does notice, on the other hand, when somebody builds a wind farm in an area of unspoilt and beautiful countryside. This week the planning inquiry into the Whinash wind farm on the edge of the Lake District National Park will begin. Opponents include Lord Bragg and Sir Chris Bonington who rightly say that the farm, encompassing 27 400ft high wind turbines, will be a blot on the landscape visible for miles around. It amounts to no less than an “industrialisation of the countryside”. The plan for these giant towers is backed surprisingly by Friends of the Earth and Greenpeace.

Wind farms are the electricity pylons or open-cast mining of the 21st century. They are ugly and destructive of birdlife and their contribution to Britain’s energy needs is minimal. The solution to our relentless thirst for energy will mean much greater fuel efficiency (roll on the 300mpg car) and the development of more nuclear power stations with appropriate safeguards for the disposal of waste. There is a limited place for alternative sources, but it is difficult to see that there is anything very intelligent about the giant wind farms.

Copyright 2005 Times Newspapers Ltd. Interestingly the article also highlights at least one small corner of the public sector which is trying to sponsor oil free transport.

The BB website summary of the article you refer to is here :-

"Windfarms are becoming increasingly common in Britain, and concerns about their possible effects on birds are increasing too. There are two main ways in which windfarms can affect birds: by collision with the turbines themselves, and through disturbance from a zone around them. Although no significant ornithological problems have yet been recorded at existing windfarms in the UK, there have been serious problems at windfarms in other countries, notably with birds of prey, and these are discussed. The evidence shows that birds and windfarms can coexist if the windfarm site is located appropriately. In particular, windfarm development should avoid areas: (i) with high-density raptor populations, where collisions could be significant; (ii) with high densities of other species vulnerable to a low level of additional mortality, and whose susceptibility to collision may be high; and (iii) where disturbance could potentially displace birds from important feeding or nesting habitats. It is vital to consider the potential problems of collisions and disturbance at windfarms on a case-by-case basis." It is indeed a balanced article -pointing out the "serious" problems for birds of prey in other countries. Who could argue with the three criteria set out in the article?......but then why have so many Scottish Wind Farm applications been the subject of intense objection on just such grounds as these. Would you agree that Landowners, Developers and Power Companies do not accept the BB criteria ?

The Sunday Times article on the Whinash proposal is here :-

April 17, 2005

Bragg and friends try to stop wind farm
Jonathan Leake, Environment Editor

IT IS likely to be Britain’s most high-profile planning inquiry. Sir Chris Bonington, Lord Bragg and a clutch of aristocrats are to take a tilt at plans to build the country’s biggest wind farm along the borders of the Lake District National Park.

They will be among almost 100 witnesses expected to give evidence when an inquiry into the Whinash wind farm scheme opens in Shap, near Penrith, on Tuesday.

The project is being proposed by Falck, the Italian energy company, in partnership with Lowther Estates, one of the region’s biggest property owners controlled by James Lowther, the Earl of Lonsdale.

At stake is what Bonington and Bragg will describe as one of Britain’s most treasured and inspirational landscapes.

They will tell the inquiry that the 27 planned 400ft-high turbines would be visible for miles, would ruin pristine views and amount to an “industrialisation of the countryside”.

The inquiry also marks a split in the British environmental movement. It will pitch groups such as the Campaign to Protect Rural England and the Council for National Parks against organisations such as Friends of the Earth and Greenpeace, which see wind farms as a way of cutting carbon emissions.

Bonington, the mountaineer who now lives in the Lake District, said he supported renewable energy in principle, but Whinash was the wrong place.

“We have to balance the need for clean energy with protecting our landscape and this is simply too intrusive. Groups like Friends of the Earth and Greenpeace are very misguided in supporting these proposals,” Bonington said.

He will be backed by Lord Parkinson, Lord Jopling and Lord Inglewood as well as Bragg.

Under the plan a road would be constructed along the top of the Whinash fells, which are currently rough moorland used mainly for sheep grazing. This would give access to the construction crews and giant lorries needed to ferry the turbine blades and masts into place.

The turbines would be visible to visitors to the Lake District and also to the thousands who use the M6 motorway.

Kyle Blue, chairman of the No Whinash Wind Farm campaign formed by local residents, said the development would be a disaster for the area.

“The artificial subsidies created by the Labour government to encourage renewable energy are provoking the destruction and industrialisation of one of England’s most sensitive and controversial areas.” Blue said.

Falck already has a wind farm in Wales and plans for more are in advanced stages. Charles Williams, business development director for Falck Renewables, its UK windfarm subsidiary, said Whinash was ideal because it was windy, sparsely populated and of low landscape value. He said: “All wind farms affect the landscape but if we want to move towards renewable energy sources we have to accept that.”
Friends of the Earth said: “Whinash offers a great opportunity for renewable energy and would make a significant contribution to county, regional and national targets.”

Others disagree. The scheme has met opposition from local authorities, the Council for National Parks, the Ramblers’ Association and the Cumbria Tourist Board. The Countryside Agency has said it wants to redraw the borders of the Lake District park to protect the site.

The Whinash proposal is just one of many that will cause controversy as a government plan to meet 20% of Britain’s energy needs from renewable sources by 2020 takes effect.

Critics say the subsidies brought in by Labour to kick-start wind power have started a rush, led largely by foreign power companies.

Companies producing renewable energy sell their electricity at the market rate, about £22 per megawatt hour. This return would be too low for most companies so the government has created “renewable obligation certificates” (ROCs).

Renewable energy producers can claim one ROC for each megawatt hour of electricity they produce. ROCs currently fetch £47 each — meaning wind power costs consumers a total of £69 a megawatt hour.

There has been an explosion in the number of planning applications to build wind farms. Britain has about 1,200 turbines but this is expected to reach 6,000-8,000 by 2020.

Copyright 2005 Times Newspapers Ltd.

I have highlighted the Developers view of the "value" of the Whinash Fells. What qualification has this person to make such a value judgement.?

This is not just about birds Tim-it is about wild uplands-their beauty, their ecosystems, their local residents -& our natural heritage.There are alternative options which do not destroy these assets, and we should be thinking seriously about them.



Finally -I do share your sense of urgency about the need for fossil fuel replacements. But my reason is less to do with an imminent climatic armaggedon,( though I do not discount the possibility of anthropogenic climate change -but the planet will cope even if we don't ) than the fact that within decades we will start to run out of oil & gas.


Colin

[Tim Allwood]

nice of you to keep it brief Colin

;)

I've never agreed with 'Lord' Cecil Parkinson, 'Lord' Bragg and Noel Edmonds (Ho Ho Ho) yet, and i'm not going to start now. Certainly not when they are opposing Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth. Nimbyism of the worst order. :C

we aren't going to be using Biodiesel or Bioethanol. We won't be car-sharing. We wont get 300mpg cars. We wont get integrated subsideised public transport. Who will pay for it? As i mentioned above, nobody is willing to pay for anything nowadays so i can't see any other option.

If they are sited 'suitably' and bird casualties are therefore not as issue, are wind farms still a no-no for birders? How else will we realistically reduce carbon emissions?

Tim

[Tyke]

So let me see if I understand you :-

Greenpeace & FoE=always right.

Anyone living where you want to put a windfarm=tough-put up with it.

If your a "Lord" who objects to industrialising the fells-you are politically unacceptable.

If your a "Lord" who wants to make a ( second ) fortune by industrialising your fells-thats perfectly acceptable.

On your last points Tim -you really need to go back to basics . Unless we tackle transport system emissions we will NEVER reduce carbon emissions.( don't you understand what a mountain of cars is going to hit the roads in China & India?)

I just love your use of the word "realistically"-don't you read any of the expert studies by engineers & energy specialists-I've posted enough of them-wind energy alone WILL NOT reduce carbon emissions.We are p*****g in the wind with this policy.

Colin

hope that was a bit shorter for you -what is the maximum permitted number of words in a sound bite actually ?

[Tim Allwood]

watcha Col

yes
yes
yes
no
how are we going to get the transport sorted? This needs an answer.
wind energy ALONE is not what is propsed

shorter = better for me. As an editor i get annoyed by 'redundant' English

When the wind turbines are observed from the M6 it is 'annoying'. Is it 'annoying' to stand on the sheep-grazed 'unnatural' fells and see the great scar of the M6?

atb
Tim

[Blackstart]

Seems that all that is being debated here is how to continue powering a wasteful global economy driven by the consumption of throw-away goods.

Would we need many more additional energy sources if contemporary life were not based on buy, buy, buy, new, new, new, more, more, more?

-Adam

[Tyke]

Seems that all that is being debated here is how to continue powering a wasteful global economy driven by the consumption of throw-away goods.

Would we need many more additional energy sources if contemporary life were not based on buy, buy, buy, new, new, new, more, more, more?

-Adam

Yes of course you are right Adam.
But that's the way it is. The developed world has no right to preach abstinence in consumption to the 2bn plus people of India & China who are just beginning to reap the civilising rewards of economic growth. They want cars , TV's, and the rest, just like we did.Most of them just want electricity & water presently.Economic growth lifts people out of poverty. Even the Chinese communist regime has realised that as it opens up it's economy.

It is the role of the developed countries , surely, to encourage this-and develope emission free energy alternatives for them & for us.

Colin

[Tim Allwood]

sure is our role Colin
not happening though
many countries have taken a step back after economic realignment/restructuring from the World Bank and IMF, notably several in South America: Argentina, Chile, Bolivia (now rather unsafe for foreigners in places)

how is it ever going to happen? we aren't that evolved yet.

Tim

[Tyke]

l

how are we going to get the transport sorted? This needs an answer.
wind energy ALONE is not what is propsed


When the wind turbines are observed from the M6 it is 'annoying'. Is it 'annoying' to stand on the sheep-grazed 'unnatural' fells and see the great scar of the M6?



Tim-

Transport systems:-

More & more of these :-
http://www.tierramerica.net/2002/0602/iarticulo.shtml

eventually mostly these :-
http://money.cnn.com/2005/03/30/news/fortune500/gm_fuelcell.reut/



UK energy policy-follow the advice in this paper :-

http://www.oxfordenergy.org/articles/UK%20Energy%20Policy.pdf

and think seriously about these :-
http://www.visionengineer.com/mech/nuclear_dilemma.php

Implement a subsidised switch to low energy lighting nationwide, starting with the public sector.

Tax aviation fuel .

and stop all windfarm development .

It would seem you & I have a very different set of values with regard to wild uplands.

Cheers
Colin

[Blackstart]

They want cars, TV's, and the rest, just like we did.
Not so sure we wanted cars, TVs, and the rest that we had/have to replace every few years.

As for lifting people out of poverty, there are still a lot of people in Europe and the United States who are very much in poverty. Perhaps one of the reasons is that it's very hard to get ahead financially when you keep having to buy things that don't last.

-Adam

[Mark Duchamp]

If they are sited 'suitably' and bird casualties are therefore not as issue, are wind farms still a no-no for birders?
Tim

That is precisely the point made by this new thread : they are NOT suitably sited. Evidence of this may be found in the original post. Please read it again and address the points made. - I´d like to see where you stand on the extirpation of eagles from Scotland.

Mark

[edenwatcher]

Tim-

Transport systems:-

More & more of these :-
http://www.tierramerica.net/2002/0602/iarticulo.shtml

eventually mostly these :-
http://money.cnn.com/2005/03/30/news/fortune500/gm_fuelcell.reut/



UK energy policy-follow the advice in this paper :-

http://www.oxfordenergy.org/articles/UK%20Energy%20Policy.pdf

and think seriously about these :-
http://www.visionengineer.com/mech/nuclear_dilemma.php

Implement a subsidised switch to low energy lighting nationwide, starting with the public sector.

Tax aviation fuel .

and stop all windfarm development .

It would seem you & I have a very different set of values with regard to wild uplands.

Cheers
Colin

Spot on Colin.

Rob

(working on renewables)

[Mark Duchamp]

If they are sited 'suitably' and bird casualties are therefore not an issue, are wind farms still a no-no for birders? Tim


That is precisely the point made by this new thread : they are NOT suitably sited. Evidence of this may be found in the original post. Please read it again and address the points made. - I´d like to see where you stand on the extirpation of eagles from Scotland.

Mark


No answer from Tim to my question. I guess it's not easy to say: to hell with the Scottish eagles, let's cover Scotland with bird-mincers! - Even if this is what he's been telling us all along, with different words like "bigger picture", and other clichés.

What about the rest of you, folks? Don't you think the Scottish Highlands, the soul-inspiring wilderness, and the 2 species of eagles that survive in that beautiful environment, should be saved?


Mark

[Tyke]

No answer from Tim to my question. I guess it's not easy to say: to hell with the Scottish eagles, let's cover Scotland with bird-mincers! - Even if this is what he's been telling us all along, with different words like "bigger picture", and other clichés.

What about the rest of you, folks? Don't you think the Scottish Highlands, the soul-inspiring wilderness, and the 2 species of eagles that survive in that beautiful environment, should be saved?


Mark

Of course they should Mark.

I always bear in mind when jousting with Tim, that he once stated that he doesn't mean what he says most of the time. I took this as code for " I like to throw in controversial sound bites for effect ".....& he usually gets one !
It is very difficult to restrain a natural reaction to respond to illogical posts from Tim, & I certainly fail in this respect. Thankfully his sense of humour helps keep the old blood pressure down !
I suggest that silence in this instance is worth a thousand sound bites.

Colin

[Tim Allwood]

sorry Mark but i have other things to do as well you know, such as editing an 8,000 word section of Birding ASIA on recent important bird records in the Oriental region - the only such documentation of said records in the world and therefore very important to bird conservation.

you should try a bit of humour too - works wonders now and again

do i really have to state i'm not for 'extirpation of eagles in Scotland'? I don't much like it being sugested i don't and that's what gets my back up with Mr Duchamp. Is he the patron saint of birds or summat? See my OBC work Marky boy!

My views on wind are expressed well on the Greenpeace website. Not going over them here just to have my committment to bird conservation questioned again.

Ciao
Tim

[alcedo.atthis]

"My views on wind are expressed well on the Greenpeace website."

Tim, are you a teaching "eco warrier" perhaps??

Interestingly enough, since all of these wind thingies are going up, it may be just in time, as I see the E.U. has decided to shorten the working lives of all power stations in Europe. I hope for more wind, in that case, as without it, we will be in the dark. So please keep blowing. I appreciate your efforts. But do leave some for later, as that's when we will need it!!;)

Regards

Malky

[Barred Wobbler]

It is very worrying that so much political and financial backing is being given to a "solution" that will not solve the problem, costs more to produce electricity at the point of sale whilst maintaining fat (subsidised) profits for the developers and introduces more problems of its own, such as visual blight and environmental damage to birds and habitat.

It is strange also that many of the proponents of wind turbines, on the topic of visual impact talk about electricity pylons as if they are somehow separate from, and distinct from wind farms. How the hell do they suppose the power (in the 30% of the time that it is being produced) gets from the turbines to the consumer?

If anything wind farms will have more pylons than a conventional power station because conventional stations have normally been built close to the point of need, near industry and centres of population. Wind farms are being built and proposed ever further away from the consumer, hence the threat to moorland and mountain landscapes and birds. The transmission lines and the pylons to support them will increase by an order of magnitude if these plans go ahead, using more raw materials, increasing environmental intrusion and paradoxically wasting electricity through increased transmission losses in the extended lines.

It is sad that by the time they finally realise that these things are not the cure and in fact are even worse than the disease that so much needless harm will have been done. It is a disaster dressed up as good news.

P.S.
Good to see you back Mark. Did you use the Tarifa S-T Eagle pics?

Alan

[Tim Allwood]

"My views on wind are expressed well on the Greenpeace website."

Tim, are you a teaching "eco warrier" perhaps??

Regards

Malky

no Malky,

I'm a bit of an eco-warrior though

kids today and spelling eh?

Tim ;)

[Tyke]

Absolutely Alan.

It is such an awfull paradox.Our demand for ever more houses & cars, which results in ever greater swathes of concrete & brick in our urban lowlands; is now to be expiated by industrialising our wild uplands.

Colin

[Tim Allwood]

seeing as the major parties will not address the housing or transport problem should we vote Green?

but that would mean actually changing our lifestyle and for many of us a raise in taxes

how else are we gonna get there?

Tim

[Mark Duchamp]

seeing as the major parties will not address the housing or transport problem should we vote Green?

but that would mean actually changing our lifestyle and for many of us a raise in taxes

how else are we gonna get there?

Tim

The Greens are not part of the solution, but of the problem. Look at Germany, where they are holding the environment ministry: 15,000 useless wind turbines, and going for 30,000 in spite of a report from the experts saying it's a mistake (the report was hastily shelved, but Der Spiegel got hold of it).

Let's face it, Tim, your Green friends will go down in the History books as did the communists before them: as dangerous apprentice-sorcerers. Only this time, they will leave an enduring legacy of wrecked landscapes and extinct bird species.

[Jane Turner]

Mark I find it really hard to believe you are anti-green.

[Tyke]

seeing as the major parties will not address the housing or transport problem should we vote Green?

but that would mean actually changing our lifestyle and for many of us a raise in taxes

how else are we gonna get there?

Tim

You prompted me to read the Green party policies !!
There is some good stuff on carbon related Fuel Taxes, Aviation Fuel Taxes etc. There are a couple of policies however which, for me are absolutely wrong at this stage-not including there love affair with wind energy !
Will they ever have any influence at Westminster though?

So I looked at the Environmental policies of the two main parties-and got a surprise!

I don't think most UK citizens will change their lifestyle Tim, and the emerging countries will swamp any change we do make voluntarily. So for me a UK government can only effect & manage change to non-carbon fuels by compulsion( legislation) and/or tax incentives/disincentives. It should also be
setting an example in it's own expenditure on energy.

But the energy strategy has to be right first. I dont think it is at present.

I will now be ticked off for being off thread.

Colin

[Mark Duchamp]

Mark I find it really hard to believe you are anti-green.

They disenchanted me with their windpower policy. And when someone goofs, it's doing him a favour to tell him.

The windfarm frenzy is a MAJOR blunder, which will have disastrous consequences on bird populations, just to name ONE of the negative effects.

Mark

[Tim Allwood]

surely the Green Party is more than just wind power Mark

they stand for a change to a wholly much more sustainable lifestyle

and that can't be a bad thing overall?

Tim

[alcedo.atthis]

"Surely the Green Party is more than just wind power Mark"

Tim, the eco-warrier, (spell as you pronounce, it's easier) Ever been to one of their meetings. Wind, wind and more wind. Perhaps they are going to sell it to the generating companies.

Warm winds blowing
eco-warriors taking
about a road
that's going no where
Doobity, doobity, doobitty, doobitty
Thinking environmentally
watching that old CO2
wandering what's happening around us
but don't know what to do
erect some big wind-turbines
kill an eagle or two
put up the cost of electricity
so switch off the light in the loo
etc, etc
Sounds like a song!! Ehh ;) ;)

Regards

Malky

[Grousemore]

they stand for a change to a wholly much more sustainable lifestyle

and that can't be a bad thing overall?

Tim

Can't even understand this soundbite, so I have no opinion on it being 'a bad thing overall',or otherwise.

[Tim Allwood]

which is the tricky bit Trevor?

just tried it with bottom set year 8. They had no problem understanding it.

try this:

is a change to a more sustainable way of life...
a) good
b) bad
c) I don't care

Tim ;)

[Andrew Rowlands]

which is the tricky bit Trevor?

just tried it with bottom set year 8. They had no problem understanding it.

try this:

is a change to a more sustainable way of life...
a) good
b) bad
c) I don't care

Tim ;)

Better done by cutting consumption than damaging habitats?

Andy.

[Tim Allwood]

agree Andrew

how are we going to achieve it though?

If anything consumption will actually go up unless measures are implemented by central government. And no government from the 'major' parties dare do anything along those lines, despite the seriousness of the situation

The Greens don't have the perfect solution for sure. But for me they have better ideas to move forward with than the others... and they'd actually DO something given the chance.

Tim

[Grousemore]

The Greens don't have the perfect solution for sure. But for me they have better ideas to move forward with than the others... and they'd actually DO something given the chance.

Tim

But we all know they won't be given the chance, so efforts would be better used trying to influence those that may be elected.

[Grousemore]

which is the tricky bit Trevor?

just tried it with bottom set year 8. They had no problem understanding it.

try this:

is a change to a more sustainable way of life...
a) good
b) bad
c) I don't care

Tim ;)

Thanks, Tim, much easier in English (God help 'bottom set year 8') ;)

[Tim Allwood]

Thanks, Tim, much easier in English (God help 'bottom set year 8') ;)

English is my second language though Trevor, after broad Derbyshire

even God would have his work cut out with bottom set year 8

Tim B (:

[Mark Duchamp]

The Greens don't have the perfect solution for sure. But for me they have better ideas to move forward with than the others... and they'd actually DO something given the chance.

Tim

Talk about better ideas! In this case (wind farms in important bird areas) the Greens are implementing a remedy which is far worse than the desease.

Their credibility will be shot to pieces when the Scottish Highlands are all but wasted away, the eagles dead, tourism potential ruined, electricity bills sky high, people's lives miserable, and with blackouts educating UK voters to the fact that windpower cannot work without conventional power backup (and the added CO2 emissions that go along with that).

You should be more careful about what you are teaching future generations, Tim.

Mark

[Tyke]

This is interesting-pity it's from an ex-minister of the government. But it shows foresight.:-

For Immediate Release
Wednesday, 20 April 2005

Contact: Jim Meyer
Tel: +44 (0)20 7424 0049
E-mail: odac@btconnect.com


Former Minister Says UK Energy Policy
Should Be Major Election Issue

Britain’s current energy policy is “ripe for review” and should be a major issue in the General Election campaign, former Energy Minister Brian Wilson will tell a conference in Edinburgh, Scotland on Monday, 25 April.

With North Sea oil and gas production now in decline and Britain set to become a net importer in the next few years, he will call for “a balanced and, as far as possible, indigenous energy future” that embraces a range of energy alternatives and conservation.

He will also say: “I have no doubt that the biggest global challenge in energy terms, while viable alternatives are still being developed, is to persuade the United States to start reducing its own oil consumption as the basis of a world-wide drive towards conservation of the resource rather than its ever-increasing and ever-more profligate application.”

Citing the UK Government’s own projections that 70 percent of Britain’s electricity will come from gas and 90 percent of that gas will be imported from some of the world’s most politically sensitive areas, he will ask:

“Does it make sense for Britain, whose whole industrial history has been based on our position of energy self-sufficiency, to become – so quickly and so spectacularly – a massive importer of a single energy commodity?”

He will make these remarks in the opening address to a conference on the approaching peak and decline in global oil supplies (‘Peak Oil UK: Entering the Age of Oil Depletion’) at the Royal Museum of Scotland, Chambers Street, Edinburgh, at 9:30 a.m.

He will tell the audience of about 200 business leaders, investment analysts, local government officials, energy and environmental groups, and others that he takes “very seriously indeed the concept of Peak Oil.”

“It is not necessary to be alarmist or even pessimistic to accept, and then advocate action on the basis of, the basic point which underlies the Peak Oil thesis – which is that oil and gas are finite resources which need to be treated with far greater respect than has hitherto been the case.”

“We can all agree that conservation is the responsible path to follow while gross consumption is, more than ever, the irresponsible one.”

But he will also warn that “the shorter-term threat to any kind of orderly transition out of an oil-based global economy into a more environmentally-friendly one comes from the absolute refusal of the United States to adjust its behaviour either to its own reduced status as an oil importer, or to the evolving pattern of global energy consumption.”

“In spite of the most obvious warning of all – namely its own transition from supplier to net importer – it has continued to behave in the most profligate manner imaginable right up until the present day. The average American vehicle now has a worse fuel to miles ratio than in the early 1980s – which is just about as big a two-fingered gesture to environmental responsibility as it is possible to achieve.”

“The average American consumes 25 barrels of oil a year. In China, it is about 1.3 barrels per year. In India and other rapidly developing countries, it is still less than one. If there is to be a crisis in global oil supplies, it will come because these countries move inexorably towards the American levels of consumption rather than the other way round.”

“Nobody can deny China and India the right to develop, to create higher living standards for their people and to use oil in the process. Least of all can the Americans challenge that process while refusing to adjust their own lifestyles.”

Regarding British energy policy, he will say:

“I believe that the planned dependence on imported gas is ripe for review and that we should be planning for a balanced and, as far as possible, indigenous energy future – embracing as much as we can realistically do on renewables, allied to far greater concentration on clean coal technology, a substantial gas component of course, and also the retention of nuclear power which is, I appreciate, a whole debate on its own!”

# # #

Note to editors:

1. Brian Wilson was UK Energy Minister from 2001 to 2003 and has served as Labour MP for Cunninghame North (Scotland) since 1987. He is now standing down as an MP.

2. An Edinburgh-based awareness-raising group, Depletion Scotland, is organising the Peak Oil conference, with support from The Oil Depletion Analysis Centre (ODAC). In addition to Brian Wilson, there will be five other speakers. Registration begins at 8:30 a.m.

3. ODAC is a UK-registered educational charity working to raise international public awareness and promote better understanding of the world’s oil-depletion problem. Further information is available at: http://www.odac-info.org

Environmental Media Services
1320 18th Street NW 5th Floor
Washington, DC 20036
(202) 463-6670
Website comments: betsy@ems.org
Copyright © 2003 Environmental Media Services




This is also interesting-even the Chinese Communist regime is considering carbon taxes to reign back their massive hike in energy consumption :-

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/China/GD22Ad07.html

Colin

[Tim Allwood]

Talk about better ideas! In this case (wind farms in important bird areas) the Greens are implementing a remedy which is far worse than the desease.

Their credibility will be shot to pieces when the Scottish Highlands are all but wasted away, the eagles dead, tourism potential ruined, electricity bills sky high, people's lives miserable, and with blackouts educating UK voters to the fact that windpower cannot work without conventional power backup (and the added CO2 emissions that go along with that).

You should be more careful about what you are teaching future generations, Tim.

Mark

and the trains will be even later than they are too eh Mark? Do you not think you are exaggerating a teeny bit?

the comment was about Greens and their policies in general. There is more to life than wind farms.

Tim

[DavidP]

and the trains will be even later than they are too eh Mark? Do you not think you are exaggerating a teeny bit?

the comment was about Greens and their policies in general. There is more to life than wind farms.

Tim

Isn't the big problem population growth, theres projected to be 6 million more people in the Uk by 2031, 3.6 million of that due to net immigration. Thats bound to stoke up demand for energy and create more pressure for these kinds of things. so what are the parties positions on population growth in the UK

[BarbatusOne]

So far as we are concerned, specifically in our love for birds and desire to keep them around, shouldn't global warming and fossil fuel consumption be a secondary concern? That is, is not the warming of the earth merely a proximate cause of bird extinction in the vast majority of cases (save the arctic species) whereas the ultimate and gravest concern/cause is habitat fragmentation and persecution as a result of human population growth? It seems to me that wind power is, when you get right down to it, just another kind of habitat fragmentation, thus, a bad thing for birds. I agree Global warming is real, bad and we all need to get on this bandwagon in hurry, but we, as has been said at nauseum, need to do so in a way that doesn't contribute to the ultimate cause of bird extinctions: pressure, persecution & fragmentation. What's worse for birds; the slashing of vast swaths of tropical forest, or an increase in global temperature by a few degees? Shouldn't we be most concerned and and doing everything in our power to stop the former, first?

Educate me

Please?

[Tim Allwood]

we need to stop tropical deforestation and people are working to do that. It does require actually doing something though. And very little impact is being made. Travel to these places and it is a very sad sight. In the meantime global warming is accelarating and steps need to be taken to address it ASAP. Wind is just a start. It is happening now because it is one of the few things that can be DONE now. Many other measures would not be accepted by the public who appear willing to let events take their course. Realpolitik is the problem.

I would love it if we could do it without windfarms but how, how, how? In a way that will actually HAPPEN? And people wil not mind coughing up for? After all, most people will effectively be voting to keep things as they are at the forthcoming election...

Tim

Tim
Tim

[BarbatusOne]

I would love it if we could do it without windfarms but how, how, how? In a way that will actually HAPPEN? And people wil not mind coughing up for? After all, most people will effectively be voting to keep things as they are at the forthcoming election...
[/QUOTE]

Tim

It seems like what you are saying is essentially Global warming is a huge problem, we need to do something about it, better wind farms than nothing in spite of the risks.

This is a reasonable position, and no one should impune your credentials or integrity when it comes to your commitment to birds and the environment. Where I, and perhaps others disagree is on the principle in question. That is; better forget about wind and come up with something else as soon as we can, because the violent death of numerous spectacular individual sentient birds is NOT better than doing nothing to solve global warming.

Perhaps it will be for the best, in the end, but I can't stomach the thought of it. It's just a matter of where we come down on the cost benefit analysis. Hopefully an alternative will emerge soon which can boast both sides' support.

Best,

[Tyke]

Blake you put your finger on it.

Fear of Global Warming is centred on it's consequences for man, because we cannot "adapt" away from our current, technology protected, environment.

Other species will adapt to climate change as they always have.Some birds will fail to do so , some will do so but the class Aves will continue.Man may not, and we fear that, so harm to other species from our efforts to abate climate change, is considered acceptable by some.



Colin

[Tyke]

Isn't the big problem population growth, theres projected to be 6 million more people in the Uk by 2031, 3.6 million of that due to net immigration. Thats bound to stoke up demand for energy and create more pressure for these kinds of things. so what are the parties positions on population growth in the UK

Yes it is the problem-as it is worldwide.

Unfortunately rational discussion of this subject-particularly the causes & effects of immigration-is politically constrained in UK.

Colin

[Tim Allwood]

not sure that's entirely logical Col.

we harm species every day in many ways just by the way we live (driving, keeping cats, habitat loss to constructions for industry and houses, excessive pollution. I could go on) A few extra possible casualties in the effort to do something positive isn't the worst thing in the world overall. Not nice i know but what do you do? Sensibly sited, still no problem for me - or RSPB, SWT, FoE etc etc etc

Tim

[Tim Allwood]

population growth and imigaration should NOT be linked

those people will be people using energy wherever they are

immigration to UK is irrelavant surely?

Tim

[Tim Allwood]

those crazy alarmists at the British Antartic Survey today revealed Antarctic glaciers are retreating faster than previously thought. The spokesman aid the blame at global warming's door and said we will look back in 30 years and see how obviously all the pieces fit together (er..that's not the pieces of the glacier btw!) ;)

Tim

[DavidP]

population growth and imigaration should NOT be linked

those people will be people using energy wherever they are

immigration to UK is irrelavant surely?

Tim


Is that really true, if its immigration from the US to the Uk then that would result in less energy used as you'd end up with same people probably using less energy on a per capita basis. However if its immigration from a low use per capita country then it will probably increase energy use as they will have more opportunity to use. All thats on a global scale of course. UK wise per unit area of land england must be one of the most energy intensive users anywhere and surely that would effect the building of more power stations whether they be nuclear, gas or wind farms. Of course quality of life will also be affected. So where will 6 million new people live in the next 25 years.

[alcedo.atthis]

[QUOTE=Tim Allwood]

"Travel to these places and it is a very sad sight. In the meantime global warming is accelerating and steps need to be taken to address it ASAP."





Slight contradiction there Tim.

Following your theories on how to stop "global warming" is at the least two sided. You are advocating for us/yourself to go and see what is going on, but this is the very thing that is adding to high altitude level pollution. Deary me, some of us may be participants in the senile birders club in a few years time, but not just quite yet!!

"I would love it if we could do it without windfarms but how, how, how?"

Another smoke signal Tim, or a native American with a stammer??

"And people will not mind coughing up for?"

I for one will mind "coughing up for" overpriced wind generated electricity, as we have more than enough Hydro Power to keep Scotland going without adding to the existing export levels. (Political deals with carbon emissions)

"After all, most people will effectively be voting to keep things as they are at the forthcoming election..."

Do you really think that there will be a large turnout ("most people will be voting") for the election. Just like the ongoing "global warming" debate, the election will be about lies, broken promises and lining politicians pockets, when Whitehall has already mapped out the U.K's future many years ago. A country cannot be run on a day to day basis. It's planned about 20 years, if not even further, ahead. Windfarms were the fad some time ago. The populous is now realising how damaging they really are to the environment, by looking at the past disasters worldwide.



Regards



Malky (only one)

[alcedo.atthis]

"So where will 6 million new people live in the next 25 years."



All the birders who go and collect the dead birds under the blades of the turbines will be decapitated like the birds, so their houses will be on the market.

With the "hydrogen" proposals, the ozone layer will be depleted, so the fair skinned Red Heads and Blondes will all die of melanomas. That's a few more houses freed for re-occupation.

The oil will run out, the E.U. will stop power stations producing excess power, so the pensioners will freeze, either cannot afford the cost of wind generated electricity, or will have no electricity at all. That will free some large care homes.

Remembering that gas will be an import commodity, and therefore subject to huge cost fluctuations on the open market, the less well off will go and huddle together in a corner, sell their houses for some short term warmth. That is some more homes available.

Lastly, the onset of the next ice-age will start, so everyone can have a holiday igloo which they can rent out for part of the year.


Problem solved.


Regards



Malky

[Tyke]

not sure that's entirely logical Col.


Tim

Very possibly Tim-emotional rather than logical perhaps.
It's known as the Allwood school of Logic !
Cheers
Colin

[Tyke]

So where will 6 million new people live in the next 25 years.


I told you -we are not allowed to discuss it here because it might worry people.

Colin

ps- I've just checked the Prescott Plan for the Future of Everything...and in fact they will live in Kent, which will be known as London.

[Tyke]

Problem solved.

Regards

Malky


Yes indeedy. Brilliant!!

Colin

[Tim Allwood]

I told you -we are not allowed to discuss it here because it might worry people.

Colin

don't let us stop you Col et al

I'd be interested to hear how 'immigration' should be halted/quota-ed to combat global warming.
discuss away...

good to get it out in the open. emotional or logical.

Ciao
Tim

[Grousemore]

Is that really true, if its immigration from the US to the Uk then that would result in less energy used as you'd end up with same people probably using less energy on a per capita basis. However if its immigration from a low use per capita country then it will probably increase energy use as they will have more opportunity to use. All thats on a global scale of course. UK wise per unit area of land england must be one of the most energy intensive users anywhere and surely that would effect the building of more power stations whether they be nuclear, gas or wind farms. Of course quality of life will also be affected. So where will 6 million new people live in the next 25 years.

There is no argument with the above, factually correct.

Unfortunately, there are no solutions there, which is the difficult part.

[DavidP]

don't let us stop you Col et al

I'd be interested to hear how 'immigration' should be halted/quota-ed to combat global warming.
discuss away...

good to get it out in the open. emotional or logical.

Ciao
Tim

Obviously its not going to halt global warming, lets face it China's one child policy has probably done more to halt the increase in global warming than anything in the present and future but i doubt anybody would advocate that.
But getting back to the wind farms and eagles in scotland part of it you have to wonder whether 6 million more people in the UK, about half of them due to immigration will reduce the need for more power facilities of whatever kind. The basic problem is thats there too many people about and there will be more in what already is probbaly one of the most crowded places on earth (certainly england).

[Tim Allwood]

Hi

so don't we need to know where the people come from before we go off on one? That way we would know the net effect on energy required. What is the breakdown?

Anyone know? Let's just stick to published figures as dealing with negatives (people we don't know about is tricky)

Tim

[Mark Duchamp]

So far as we are concerned, specifically in our love for birds and desire to keep them around, shouldn't global warming and fossil fuel consumption be a secondary concern? That is, is not the warming of the earth merely a proximate cause of bird extinction in the vast majority of cases (save the arctic species) whereas the ultimate and gravest concern/cause is habitat fragmentation and persecution as a result of human population growth? It seems to me that wind power is, when you get right down to it, just another kind of habitat fragmentation, thus, a bad thing for birds. I agree Global warming is real, bad and we all need to get on this bandwagon in hurry, but we, as has been said at nauseum, need to do so in a way that doesn't contribute to the ultimate cause of bird extinctions: pressure, persecution & fragmentation. What's worse for birds; the slashing of vast swaths of tropical forest, or an increase in global temperature by a few degees? Shouldn't we be most concerned and and doing everything in our power to stop the former, first?

Educate me

Please?

The first question to ask is the following: is global warming caused by man's emissions of CO2?

Answer: NASA satellite records, and weather balloon data, show that there is no warming of the earth's atmosphere. So there is no evidence of a "greenhouse" effect caused by man. At the globe's surface, some warming has been detected: an increase of 0.6º C. over the past 100 years. Part of it may be due to the normal, cyclical interglacial warming of the earth's climate, and some may be due to the urban island heat effect (the radiating effects of tarmac, concrete, brick and mortar), plus the heat from so many cars, homes and factories.

The lack of warming in the atmosphere, and the lack of elevation of the sea level, prove that our CO2 emissions have no warming effect - at least so far.

See evidence of this here: http://www.iberica2000.org/documents/EOLICA/GLOBAL_WARMING/

The second question we should ask is: If CO2 emissions will eventually cause the atmosphere to warm up, will a million or more wind turbines around the world help slow it down?

Answer: Not in the least. For the simple reason that they must be backed up by fossil fuel power stations shadowing their erratic production in order to stabilize it, thus avoiding blackouts everytime the wind speed drops a notch. More CO2 is produced that way, which negates the savings realized by the wind turbines. See: www.iberica2000.org/Es/Articulo.asp?Id=1186

Conclusion: you are absolutely right when you say that we should not allow bird habitat to be further fragmented by windfarms. Especially if we consider the collision factor: www.iberica2000.org/Es/Articulo.asp?Id=1875

It will take another few years before the windfarm bubble bursts, and before the sham is exposed. It was close to happening in Germany when a report commisionned by the government concluded there were better and cheaper ways to save on emissions. But the wind industry, and their friends in the government (Green minister Trittin), stopped the report from being published.

Nothing is transparent when it comes to windfarms. Governments do not tell us the truth. For when large subventions are involved, corruption is not far behind.

Mark

[cavan wood]

My lesson tomorrow for my grade 9 science class centres around sources of energy (primarily electricity), and the pros and cons of each. They will hear about global warming, acid rain and dead birds. They will laugh at the dead birds. Most of them don't really give a flying f....., and they think that watching birds is the geekiest thing that they have ever heard of. Perhaps the eagle data presented here will impress them a little more because eagles are big and tough and deserve respect (at least in their minds and those of the doe-eyed media).

The problem is, what is the truth? Yes, eagles are dead, yes there is global warming, yes global warming kills birds, yes there are other, less expensive alternatives, and yes wind farms only run when it's windy. So do wind farms save birds, or destroy them?

It all depends on priorities, and perspectives. All birds or eagles? Short term or long term? All wind farms, or just those in important bird areas? Financial or global?

When we debate this in class I will encourage students to attack faulty logic. For example, Wind farms don't cut green house because they need backup. Nonsense! Production is and always will be a mix. When windmills aren't running the fossil fuels are full stream, but when the wind picks up non-renewables like fossil fuel have the flexibiltiy to be turned back temporarily. That's less CO2. Or, Other buildings kill birds so wind mills are no different. That's another silly arguement. Adding more killer structures means more dead birds, regardless of how many are already being killed by other means.

One thing that won't be tolerated during the classroom discussion is disrespect of the person or broad generalities. If there is a faulty arguement then students must criticize the arguement, not the person. Ex. "Will birders ever see the bigger picture?" You don't know all birders, don't pretend you do, or that you are superior to them. References to the "soundbite/cliche response crew" are simply name calling, and add nothing to the arguement. I dare say it was the personal attacks in the previous thread that got it shut down, not the subject being discussed. Bullying can certainly determine a battle, but it does little for finding the truth.

For what it's worth,
Scott

[DavidP]

Hi

so don't we need to know where the people come from before we go off on one? That way we would know the net effect on energy required. What is the breakdown?

Anyone know? Let's just stick to published figures as dealing with negatives (people we don't know about is tricky)

Tim

There's some very nice figures etc from the national statistics office
www.statistics.gov.uk look under population and migration. Basically since about the mid 90's there's been a large increase in inflow mainly comprising immigrants from whats classed as the New Commonwealth and Other, which excludes the EU, USA, Old commonwealth and I think the Middle east.
So there might be a net increase as looks like most of these countries would be low consumers. But really pretty insignificant. What is significant is the change that this will put onto the Uk in regard to population growth and the 6 million extra souls (more than half due to immigration) that will inhabit primarily England in the next 25 years. I'm not anti immigration (I'm one myself) but there has to be discussion of the impacts of that on a small resource poor in terms of land area country like the UK. That surely must impact the issues of power generation and wild spaces in the UK that is being talked about in this thread.

[Tyke]

That surely must impact the issues of power generation and wild spaces in the UK that is being talked about in this thread.


Yes of course you are right David.

There is a terrible lack of discussion here about future population levels & their effects.The issue gets clouded by politics, but also the horizons are too long for our politicians who operate in four year time capsules. The planning required is beyond their capacity to conceive or implement.

Our last Government unleashed an unmanaged scramble to develope wind farms, by providing £1bn pa of taxpayers money as incentive to build them.This is the Renewable Obligation Certificate premium price, without which they would not be profitable. This has been done to meet our Kyoto Targets. ie to counter global warming ( leaving aside the pros & cons of that argument )-not to address the point you raise ie. prospective higher UK energy demand.

Wind Farms cannot be a solution to the latter because their contribution to the mix of supply has an upper limit-around 5 to 10% . It is this fact which renders them so pointless & the damage they do in upland wilderness areas so heinous, when the real problem is considered:-

Mass global population movements & growth (the point you highlight) -plus-impending total depletion of the oil & natural gas resource.The latter is highlighted in UK since we are moving into a net import position on both.

Both of these key issues are hidden from discussion here, by the twin smoke screens of political correctness, which demand that immigration is too sensitive an issue for discussion; and Global Warming requires us to build Wind Farms,

Meanwhile we wait in vain for a credible UK energy policy , whilst it is China, India & USA who will determine the levels of CO2 in our atmosphere.

Colin

[alcedo.atthis]

"When windmills aren't running the fossil fuels are full stream, but when the wind picks up non-renewables like fossil fuel have the flexibility to be turned back temporarily. That's less CO2."



Yes, that may be so, but one must remember that it is only less CO2 after they have been built and put in place, and are actually generating, without any ongoing maintenance.

The construction and erection of these objects does create high levels of CO2. The maintenance and approach for maintenance creates CO2 when they are in service.

The additional services which are required by the operators, for splitting, carrying and controlling the generated electricity creates CO2.



For what it's worth, Scott, in real terms, it ain't, but our political masters with their political games say it is, therefore we WILL obey.
After all, it's not their money that's being spent, is it??


Regards



Malky

[Tyke]

This submission to the Enterprise & Culture Committee of the Scottish Parliament deals with Wind Power in the Scottish Renewables plan.:-

http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/business/committees/enterprise/inquiries/rei/ec04-reis-tubb,mrallanj.htm

It makes some pithy comments about such matters as these :-

The nature & cost of the "spinning reserve" of conventional capacity required.
The scale of losses in transmission from remote installations.
The permanent & irreversible nature of effect on landscape of infrastructure.
The lack of a cohesive UK energy policy & its effect on Scotland.

Colin

[cavan wood]

Yes, that may be so, but one must remember that it is only less CO2 after they have been built and put in place, and are actually generating, without any ongoing maintenance. [/color]

The construction and erection of these objects does create high levels of CO2. The maintenance and approach for maintenance creates CO2 when they are in service.

The additional services which are required by the operators, for splitting, carrying and controlling the generated electricity creates CO2.



Great. THAT is a decent arguement. You're saying by the time they are constructed and on line the CO2 they prevent is relatively small compared to what they cost, both environmentally and economically. I can't say for certain that I disagree. My point was that saying they don't reduce CO2 because they need back up is a poor argument. You've provided a much better one.

Thanks,
Scott

[Mark Duchamp]

Great. THAT is a decent arguement. You're saying by the time they are constructed and on line the CO2 they prevent is relatively small compared to what they cost, both environmentally and economically. I can't say for certain that I disagree. My point was that saying they don't reduce CO2 because they need back up is a poor argument. You've provided a much better one.

Thanks,
Scott

That is indeed one source of CO2 emissions linked to wind turbines. The other is the spinning reserve. You may want to look at this excerpt from the excellent paper brought to our attention by Colin:

"3.7 When a wind power station is connected to the grid a similar conventional capacity must be maintained as spinning reserve to cover the uncontrolled intermittency.

3.9 There is little saving in CO2 emissions when spinning reserve has to be maintained to back up wind turbines, totally negating the reason most often quoted for installing wind turbines, since these are statistically almost certain to "fail" or disconnect from the grid."


For the whole paper: http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/business/committees/enterprise/inquiries/rei/ec04-reis-tubb,mrallanj.htm

It does educate us on a number of points that are never brought up by the media - political correctness oblige.

Mark

[Mark Duchamp]

And if windfarms are not delivering on their promise to save CO2, why put them up? Why kill the Scottish eagles into oblivion? Why trash the crown jewel of the UK, the Scottish Highlands?

Mark

[Barred Wobbler]

Precisely!!!

[alcedo.atthis]

Looking at the wording in the title of the post and the use of the word "extirpation". If this really happens, and Golden Eagles in 10 years time are a "No More" in and around Scotland, what will the Scottish Office do, considering their decisions are being driven to the wind-farm bit, by bureaucrats in the E.U.

Will this be enough of a drive for Scotland to withdraw??

After all, we are seeing a drive for total independence from Westminster in certain quarters during the lead-up to the general election at present.



Regards



Malky. (Perhaps it was a good idea to send some Eagles to Ireland. A little insurance just in case!!)

[Tyke]

This from today's Sunday Times is reasonably balanced :-

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/newspaper/0,,176-1582511_1,00.html

If you don't want to read it all here are some snippets:-

Institute of Civil Engineers say max reduction in UK CO2 possible from wind is 5%

In March, in Spain, cold still weather conditions pushed up elec demand & stopped all windmills-they had to reduce consumers voltage.

In Germany 9% of domestic energy comes from wind power-it has reduced CO2 by 2.5%. They have major problems with intermittency.

The aged Earl of Lonsdale was not responsible for the Whinash application on his land-it was his son. ( apologies to geriatric wealthy landowners-opprobrium on there children !!)

Killer fact on CO2 is still-UK emissions from elec generation only 1/3rd of total-we have to tackle transportation .

Elsewhere in the press it looks certain Blaire is going to gear up on nuclear after the election to avoid the political risk of imported gas & oil. But CO2wise this still doesn't address transportation. Also from the Times article nuclear introduces the opposite of the wind farm intermittency problem-permanency-you can't turn them up or down !

Colin

[Tyke]

And if windfarms are not delivering on their promise to save CO2, why put them up? Why kill the Scottish eagles into oblivion? Why trash the crown jewel of the UK, the Scottish Highlands?

Mark


Yes.

There seems to be the first signs of a rethink on UK energy policy-driven no doubt by the security risks of becoming a net importer of gas & oil. This is to be commended-and nuclear must be looked at again. Lets hope that this review, and the increasing focus on the inneffectiveness of wind & it's environmental costs, may lead to a cessation of the latter. The simple withdrawal of the ROC premium electricity price would bring it to a halt.

What is totally unforgivable though is the damage done to upland ecosystems & wildlife, by unleashing the chaos of wind farm development, in a knee jerk attempt to gain futile "Kyoto points". That was pure political expediency & has caused permanent damage. These things must be stopped now until the upcoming review is completed.

Colin

[Mark Duchamp]

Looking at the wording in the title of the post and the use of the word "extirpation". If this really happens, and Golden Eagles in 10 years time are a "No More" in and around Scotland, what will the Scottish Office do, considering their decisions are being driven to the wind-farm bit, by bureaucrats in the E.U.

Will this be enough of a drive for Scotland to withdraw??

After all, we are seeing a drive for total independence from Westminster in certain quarters during the lead-up to the general election at present.



Regards



Malky. (Perhaps it was a good idea to send some Eagles to Ireland. A little insurance just in case!!)


Unfortunately, the Scottish governement is even more bullish on wind energy than the bureaucrats of Brussels. The reason being money. What else would prompt them to trash Scotland's most valuable asset: its landscape?

As for the eagles sent to Ireland: don't forget Ireland is also into windfarms - although they had to impose a moratorium because of the problems intermittent energy brought to the grid. I don't know if they resumed windpower development yet, but have no doubt they will: why would Irish politicians be more virtuous than the rest of the lot?

Mark

[Mark Duchamp]

In any event, given what's in store for the Scottish eagles, one would expect the RSPB to pull the alarm. - But they have not.

I wonder if one of their members would care to explain.

Mark

www.iberica2000.org/Es/Articulo.asp?Id=1228

[Tim Allwood]

funnily enough the RSPB's position on wind is outlined on their website

http://www.rspb.org.uk/policy/windfarms/index.asp

here's a snippet:

We will, and do, object to specific wind farm proposals where there is an inadequate environmental assessment, where the assessment reveals potential environmental problems that cannot be mitigated, or where there is insufficient knowledge about the threat to sensitive bird populations or their habitats to conclude that there will not be a problem.

and another:
The RSPB views climate change as the most serious long-term threat to wildlife in the UK and globally and, therefore, we support the Government's target to source 15% of electricity from renewables by 2015.

To meet this target, the RSPB favours a broad mix of renewables, especially those, like solar energy, with large long- term potential and minimal environmental impacts. However, wind power has the greatest potential to make a significant difference in the UK in the coming decade. It is the most advanced and widely available of the new renewable technologies.

Tim

[Tim Allwood]

bit more here Mark

http://www.rspb.org.uk/Images/Pages%20from%20Wind%20farms%20and%20birds_tcm5-51248.pdf

atb
Tim

[Mark Duchamp]

funnily enough the RSPB's position on wind is outlined on their website

http://www.rspb.org.uk/policy/windfarms/index.asp

here's a snippet:

We will, and do, object to specific wind farm proposals where there is an inadequate environmental assessment...

Tim

One thing is what they say, another what they do. The RSPB is NOT objecting to the windfarm at EISHKEN, in spite of an inadequate environmental assessment (and that is an understatement !). It is analysed here:

www.iberica2000.org/documents/EOLICA/LEWIS/EISHKEN_EAGLE_KILLER.doc

The promoter himself predicts the possible death of 9 golden eagles and 7 white-tailed sea eagles - in fact, it is more likely that 50 or more eagles will die at Eishken. But even if you take their figures, however minimized they are, of 16 dead eagles, it is reason enough for opposing the windfarm. Especially if you consider the cumulative effect with the rest of Scotland, whose eagle territories are being targeted en masse.

The RSPB has not once requested that a Scotland-wide cumulative study be conducted before so many windfarms on eagle territories are approved. Now, THAT is careless.

Then you have the case of INVERLIEVER, where eagle flight data, recorded in 2001 by the promoters' consultant, are being discarded in favour of a faulty model !

In other words, as the first assessment showed that the windfarm site was being used routinely by eagles, a second one was made using... guesswork. Not surprisingly, the use of the "model" showed that the site was unimportant to the eagles. - see: http://www.iberica2000.org/Es/Articulo.asp?Id=2250

In other words: as field observation showed that eagles are using the site, the promoter introduced virtual reality to pretend they don't !

How can the RSPB accept that, unless they are being disingenuous?

Mark

www.iberica2000.org/Es/Articulo.asp?Id=1228

[alcedo.atthis]

"How can the RSPB accept that, unless they are being disingenuous?"

The "society" and the word "disingenuous" in the same sentence.
Can that be true.
Possible, as we have heard that quite a few times now!!

Mmmmmmmm!!!!

Regards

Malky

[nirofo]

"Elsewhere in the press it looks certain Blaire is going to gear up on nuclear after the election to avoid the political risk of imported gas & oil. But CO2wise this still doesn't address transportation. Also from the Times article nuclear introduces the opposite of the wind farm intermittency problem-permanency-you can't turn them up or down !"

Hi Tyke

That last sentence needs some clarification, you can turn the power of a nuclear reactor up or down to produce virtually any level of power output required, (within reactor limits of course) thats how the nuclear submarines get their impressive burst of speed, works similarly with commercial reactors.

It seems that people are starting to look a little bit deeper into what it's going to take to produce the amount of power we need now and in the future, it's obvious if this issue is to be taken seriously that windmills just don't cut it! The impact on the environment is just too big a price to pay for something that will have almost no impact if any at all on global warming. As the worlds population grows so does the demand for more and more power, we will need so many windmills to keep pace that we won't have room for ourselves. The tremendous low frequency sound eminating from all these windmills will make us all ill, that's assuming they're all still working of course.

A little bit of homework on the many web pages devoted to windfarms will give anyone who really want's to know, all the information necessary about the real output from these windmills and their true impact on global warming, and for all those who are truly interested and not just jumping on the global warming bandwagon, a chance to make a learned decision and not a ideological rush based on the need to be seen as one of the trendy green people.

When the landscapes, the wildlife and the environment has been destroyed it's forever, can we say that about windmills, they have a finite life of 20 years max?

nirofo.

[Tyke]

Hi Nirofo,
I don't know too much about nuclear power plants-so accept what you say. I think we are all going to have to understand more & come to a view on them if the rumours of a government rethink are correct.
I just hope the UK energy strategy which emerges makes more sense than the current one & contains less knee jerk-& more strategy.
Agree with you on wind power in UK-it doesn't address the problem-so the damage it causes is not justified.
But the urgent need is an alternative to oil. This is where the biggest part of the CO2 problem lies-and where the biggest security risk as an importer exists.

Colin

[Mark Duchamp]

"How can the RSPB accept that, unless they are being disingenuous?"

The "society" and the word "disingenuous" in the same sentence.
Can that be true.
Possible, as we have heard that quite a few times now!!

Mmmmmmmm!!!!

Regards

Malky


It is truly disheartening to see a bird society approve of 133 wind turbines in a designated Important Bird Area, home to 11 pairs of golden eagles and 3 pairs of white-tailed sea eagles. Eishken is arguably the Nº1 eagle sanctuary in the UK.

The promoter himself predicts a massacre !
www.iberica2000.org/Es/Articulo.asp?Id=2250 section 2 on Eishken


Mark

[Tyke]

These are quotations from The Oxford Institute for Energy Studies' latest review of EU energy policy:-

the policy measures favoured in the UK and EU have not delivered significant CO2 reductions and are clearly inadequate to the longer term challenge.

the fastest growing source of CO2 emissions – international aviatio n and navigation – is not covered by the Kyoto Protocol or EU policies and measures. While currently a relatively minor source (c 6% of emissions) the rate of growth – 44% across the EU between 1990 and 2002 – must be a cause for concern. Were these emissions included in the calculations, they would wipe out nearly all the small reduction in ghg emissions since 1990 across the EU.

between 1970 and 1995, CO2 emissions fell in many major EU countries: in the UK, France and Germany by 20% or more. Emissions across the EU as a whole also fell over that period. This was hardly noticed at the time (or since) and was not of course due to Kyoto measures but to other factors – the growth of nuclear power, especially in France; replacement of coal by gas, especially in the British residential and power generation sectors; industrial restructuring in the UK and Germany (in the UK alone, more than half the reduction in CO2 emissions during the period came from industry). This long term CO2 reduction up to the mid-1990s has now gone into reverse, as the trends which brought it about have more or less worked themselves out.

The evidence shows that there are two fundamental practical drawbacks with the chosen measures: first, that the relevant targets will not be met; second, that even if they were, they would deliver little in terms of CO2 reduction.

The consistent track record of failing to meet such targets is not surprising: the targets underestimate the real practical, economic (and environmental) obstacles to the development of new renewable sources.

But many people also overestimate the potential contribution of renewables. Even if the UK target is met this would only save around 2.5MtC in 2010 (on the UK Government's own figures). Compare that with the 10 MtC reduction between 1990 and 1995 in emissions from energy supply (mainly due to replacement of coal by gas and nuclear in power generation) or with the UK domestic target of reducing CO2 emissions by over 30 MtC. Renewables, even on the most optimistic assumptions, have only a minor impact, despite their prominence in the public debate.

Denmark has had an active and well-known wind programme and has achieved the highest penetration of new renewables in the EU (over 20% of electricity capacity). Denmark and the Netherlands have the highe st penetration in the EU of CHP (over 50% for Denmark and 37% for the Netherlands as compared with about 6% for the UK). Both countries also have aggressive energy efficiency programmes. Indeed, the Netherlands is taken as a "case study" in the UK Energy White Paper discussing energy efficiency programmes and Denmark is frequently identified as a role model in climate change discussions.

. Since 1970, Denmark's CO2 emissions have fallen only slightly; those of the Netherlands have increased by over 20%; but those of the UK have gone down around 20%.

Reliance on the trinity of renewables, CHP and energy efficiency, though they may have a useful contribution to make, is not a proven or reliable way of making big CO2 reductions.

For a Martian visitor, it would be clear that there are two EU countries in the list which have succeeded in delivering significantly lower CO2 emissions than their peers – France and Sweden. Unlike the Mediterranean countries, Spain and Italy, with their favourable climates, they have not done so by lower levels of energy use (energy use per head is higher than in Denmark or the UK) or by significant penetratio ns of new renewables and CHP. Instead, the reason is simple: they both have high levels of nuclear and hydro power, combined with high levels of electricity intensity. None of this forms part of the current EU policy prescription, or emerges from the Reviews.

Between 1990 and 2002, ghg emissions from transport in the EU-15 rose by 22%; the EEA projects an increase of 34% by 2010.

Conclusions
despite the encouraging tone of the Reviews, and despite some past successes, EU countries have not in recent years made progress in reducing CO2 emissions.
the measures on which EU Governments are focusing are unlikely to deliver reductions on the scale they say is required.
• other measures deserve to be given closer consideration, but they involve much greater political sensitivity.
it is time for the UK and other EU Governments to face up to these realities, and open up a wider debate.

The full text is here :-
http://www.warmwell.com/realitycheck.htm

The comment on Sweden prompted me to look up their electricity generation mix . It is -Hydro36%/Nuclear45%/Imports10%/Fossil9%

Not many eagles being killed in Sweden in order to generate electricity.

Colin

[alcedo.atthis]

It's funny how you can be influenced by the T.V. Yesterday, I watched and listened to Caroline Lucas from the Green Party, talking about reducing the U.K's output of CO2 by 80-85% by 2050. I was not impressed by the content of her speech on the subject. I then looked her up on the web, and found some of the things that she has done as an MEP. She may not impress me with the CO2 bit, but on other subjects, I may give her a Silver star.


Regards

Malky.

[Mark Duchamp]

The full text is here :-
http://www.warmwell.com/realitycheck.htm

The comment on Sweden prompted me to look up their electricity generation mix . It is -Hydro36%/Nuclear45%/Imports10%/Fossil9%

Not many eagles being killed in Sweden in order to generate electricity.

Colin

Unlike its neighbour, Norway, who has now added eagles to wolves and whales on the hit list (look at the windfarm on Smola Island, a sea eagle sanctuary).

Back to the UK. Once re-elected, Blair will put the country back on the nuclear track. His government has hinted that on a number of occasions, feeling the public on the issue.

Cynics say he had been promoting windpower just to prove that it didn't work, enabling him to reintroduce nuclear.

This prompts 2 comments: 1) what about the other alternatives, like clean coal, carbon sequestration, coal gasification, fuel cells, solar, tidal, geothermal, heat pumps, CHP, energy efficiency and, why not? a carbon tax on air transport? 2) The Scottish eagles, and the inspiring landscapes of the Highlands, will have been sacrificed to satisfy a political ploy.

But as I said, only cynics believe that. Others think he's been messing about with the energy issue, only guided by demagoguery.

Either way, what a shocking waste of the UK's foremost natural treasure!


Mark

[led_snapper]

Interesting point about air travel. I have been following this trend and currently one of he biggest growth areas is air. In terms of a person's global eco footprint (put v. simply area of land needed to sustain their current lifestyle) air travel has a massive impact. Just one long haul flight puts you into an 'unsustainable level' if eveyone did the same. Here's a link to a site (my specific involvement has been the pictures and report images):

http://www.walesfootprint.org/

Talking about a carbon tax on aero fuel: Did you realise their is no VAT due on Jet-A fuel?

[Jane Turner]

I know its outrageous! It also bugs me that people are out protesting about high petrol costs again... (putting aside my detest for the BP's Exxon's and Shell's of this world) I think very high fuel prices area damn good idea. Apart from reducing unnecessary car journeys, it would also promote the consumption of local produce.... I mean how can in make economic sense for Lamb's to spend something like 20% of their short-lives being ferried up and down the country!

[nirofo]

Hi Jane

I think you've missed the point, the high price of petrol/diesel has nothing to do with making people cut back on using fuel to curb the Greenhouse Gasses, it's all to do with how much more tax the government can screw from us and to provide still bigger profits for the petrol companies, (incidently, they had record profits in the billions of pounds last year). The high price of fuel only serves to put up the prices of all the other goods we need, it gives an unfair advantage to exporters in other parts of the world where fuel is much cheaper. Yes putting up the price of fuel will have an effect on the production of greenhouse gasses in this country, we'll be the only country without a viable industry, the production costs of our manufacturing industries will be so high nobody will be buying anything so there will be no need for us to generate the greenhouse gasses anymore.

nirofo.

[Tyke]

Either way, what a shocking waste of the UK's foremost natural treasure!


Mark

Yep-it's a cock-up. My view is slightly less cynical than yours-no conspiracy-just Kyoto browny points.I see the Duke of Buccleuth ( ? spelling) , Scotlands biggest landowner has said the minimum required is for developers to have to fund removal of Turbines at the end of their life. The tide is moving against these things for sure-& the engineers are showing how ineffective they are .

On Nuclear, having only just got my head around Wind-I thought I would start by trying to find out what the global uranium reserve is expressed in years usage. Strewth!-it's not thousands of years-or even hundreds. It's decades!!
Unless we find replacements for Gas AND Oil ( elec. & transport & domestic & industry ) which are effective in energy output-and are sustainable, this whole "Peak Oil" thing is going to get serious. I think it's a much more urgent problem than GW. And for UK as a net importer-with the Oxford institute telling him Wind won't do the job, in fairness to TB ( gritted teeth!!) he has to think again.

But the spin doctors have already started-must share this with you-sorry I can't post the link-The Times stops it working :-

April 27, 2005

This is life and death, not a spinning matter
Magnus Linklater
Who would you choose to decide how to dispose of nuclear waste — a focus group or leading scientists?

IT IS A fair bet that, within a month or so of Labour being returned to power, nuclear energy will be back on the agenda. Ministers know that the options are running out, that the only viable alternative, wind power, is beginning to encounter formidable obstacles, and that if CO2 emission targets are to be met, the current policy of running down nuclear plants may need to be reversed. They also know that when they do change their minds, all hell will break loose.

Ensuring good scientific research in this most sensitive area would seem, therefore, to be a priority. Instead, an unholy row has broken out right in the middle of the Committee on Radioactive Waste Management, the body charged with finding a solution to storing nuclear waste. One of the leading scientists on the committee, Dr Keith Baverstock, the international radioactivity expert, has been dismissed by the Labour minister, Elliot Morley, and another, Professor David Ball, of Middlesex University, has fired off a letter which is as devastating a criticism of a government committee as I have ever seen penned by a scientist.

He accuses the committee of preferring PR advice to scientific opinion, says that it seems to view the “laws of science as changeable as the laws of parliament”; charges it with “a misplaced confidence in in-house amateurism”; says that it has been “an uphill struggle to get any respected expertise, scientific or otherwise injected into (the committee)”; and concludes with this devastating judgment: “I have never previously encountered such an attitude to the use of science, and other forms of hard-won knowledge, of the kind of which Britain is normally justly proud.”

Quite how this has happened is hard to explain, except when one realises that the committee comes under the auspices of Defra — the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs — which has a lamentable track record in encouraging and retaining scientific know-how. This is the body which, in its previous incarnation, refused to listen to the world’s greatest experts on foot-and-mouth during the 2001 outbreak, which allowed the leading scientists in its animal health laboratories to be poached by foreign governments, and which withdrew funding from Professor Alan Ebringer, who was reaching important conclusions on the alleged links between BSE and variform CJD.

Examining Professor Ball’s long and detailed letter to Mr Morley, the same syndrome can be detected. Defra has assembled a committee that draws together a broad range of laypeople rather than the best available experts in nuclear waste disposal. Defra’s objective has been to win round public opinion to an agreed solution. There is no question, of course, that the public needs to be engaged in this life-and-death issue. The figures are formid able: some 1,750,000 cubic metres of waste are currently stored in Britain. Of this, 475,000 cubic metres have yet to be found long-term storage space, and this includes 2,000 cubic metres of high-level waste, described as “intensely radioactive and generating heat”. No single acceptable solution has yet been produced that would guarantee the safe storage of this material for periods that may amount to many hundreds of years.


But in this case an exercise in accountability seems to have taken the place of hard research. Some twenty options were posted on the committee’s website and the public was invited to give their comments. The choices included burying waste beneath the seabed, storing it under the ice-cap, or firing it off in a rocket into outer space. Professor Ball reckons that taking soundings on the wisdom of sending nuclear waste into space occupied 17 months of committee time before it was dismissed as pointless. The choices have now been reduced to four — but that the public is in any position to decide which of these should be favoured is surely absurd.

Defra itself says that the reason for dismissing Dr Baverstock was personal and followed an independent assessment of his work. Defra denied to me that it had ignored scientific opinion, and said that its methods were “robust”. As to consulting the public, it said as follows: “The old ‘decide- announce-defend’ approach failed to deliver a solution. We need . . . an approach that engages with the public and stakeholders in a fully open and transparent way. It is imperative to have a sound science and technology input to this process, but it is equally right to expect that scientific and technological views be set out in a manner which the public and stakeholders can understand, if they are to be convincing. This is a societal problem that must be addressed in a manner that acknowledges societal views and needs.”

That is all very well. But when it comes to tackling an issue as critical and as far-reaching as storing nuclear waste, I need to know that it is backed by the very best scientific evidence available rather than that it reflects “societal views and needs”. Professor Ball’s views are too important to be waved aside. This is one problem that will never be solved by a focus group.


Copyright 2005 Times Newspapers Ltd.
This service is provided on Times Newspapers' standard Terms and Conditions . Please read our Privacy Policy . To inquire about a licence to reproduce material from The Times, visit the Syndication website .



Colin

[Tim Allwood]

I'm with Jane

raise the tax take on petrol

raise the tax take on large vehicles that consume more fuel

use the money for something positive such as investment in renewables, provision of low energy lightbulbs etc..., an integrated public transport system.

but as Nirofo's post hinted no one want to pay for bloody anything with their tax and yet they expect the 'politicians' to sort out everything.

this is a very serious problem and time is running out to do it reasonably cheaply....

Tim

[Tyke]

I hope this is on the pessimistic side .

http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/


I'm off to have a nightmare now !

Colin

[Jane Turner]

Hi Jane

I think you've missed the point, the high price of petrol/diesel has nothing to do with making people cut back on using fuel to curb the Greenhouse Gasses, it's all to do with how much more tax the government can screw from us and to provide still bigger profits for the petrol companies, (incidently, they had record profits in the billions of pounds last year). The high price of fuel only serves to put up the prices of all the other goods we need, it gives an unfair advantage to exporters in other parts of the world where fuel is much cheaper. Yes putting up the price of fuel will have an effect on the production of greenhouse gasses in this country, we'll be the only country without a viable industry, the production costs of our manufacturing industries will be so high nobody will be buying anything so there will be no need for us to generate the greenhouse gasses anymore.

nirofo.

No Nirofo - I wasn't suggesting that profits to oils companies was a good idea.. but acually taxes to government would be...

and anything that makes people treat getting in the car as a luxury is a good thing...

[Mark Duchamp]

Unless we find replacements for Gas AND Oil ( elec. & transport & domestic & industry ) which are effective in energy output-and are sustainable, this whole "Peak Oil" thing is going to get serious.
Colin

But coal is plentiful. Clean coal technology, carbon sequestration, gasified coal and fuell cells to run on it: this is the best option at the moment. And hopefully, the Icelandic experiment with geothermal energy producing hydrogen will be a success. This would open a whole new avenue.

And there are other alternatives which I already listed.

There is no need to panic. This is precisely what leads to knee-jerk reactions like windfarming, which in turn will cause the extirpation of eagles and the destruction of our best landscapes.

Mark

[Tyke]

Sure thing Mark.

I wasn't panicking-hydrogen fuel cells certainly look like the best alternative to oil, but cost has to come down a lot yet for a globally saleable system.
Yes the Icelandic plan looks good-hopefully they will have excess capacity of hydrogen.

But there are some major geopolitical tensions ahead as gas & oil run down.

Lets hope the increasing focus on the downside of wind leads to a change of policy-at least in UK.

Colin

[Mark Duchamp]

Sure thing Mark.

I wasn't panicking-hydrogen fuel cells certainly look like the best alternative to oil, but cost has to come down a lot yet for a globally saleable system.
Yes the Icelandic plan looks good-hopefully they will have excess capacity of hydrogen.

But there are some major geopolitical tensions ahead as gas & oil run down.

Lets hope the increasing focus on the downside of wind leads to a change of policy-at least in UK.

Colin

Costs will come down as hydrogen and fuel cells are mass-produced. And Iceland wants to become the "Kuwait of hydrogen", exporting it in liquefied form to the rest of the world. - And there are other countries with geothermal potential.

As for the geopolitical tensions, they will be the best incentive for the world to move into hydrogen. We can produce it with geothermal energy, and with coal - using the clean coal technology and carbon sequestration.

The priority right now is to put a moratorium on windpower development, before irreversible damage is done to our bird life and to what's left of our precious wilderness.

Look at what's happening in Italy: Berlusconi has given the greenlight to blanketing the Apennines with as many windfarms as the promoters care to apply for. My contacts there are talking about 15,000 turbines. Worse hit will be the southern tip of the Italian peninsula, right on the important migration route which link Tunisia, Sicily, the Italian boot, and ex Yougoslavia. Sicily, an important migration stopover point, will be covered with windfarms too.

This is a disaster of major proportions for biodiversity, with absolutely no benefit on the plus side, as we have seen that wind turbines need the 24 hour backup of CO2 emitting thermal plants.

Mark

[Tim Allwood]

when will all that be done Mark, by whom, and who is going to pay for it?

how is it a disaster of major proportions for biodiversity. What does that make tropical deforestation?

another view

http://www.bwea.com/energy/myths.html

atb
Tim

[Tyke]

Tim you know the answer to the first question. I have posted many links to highlight both private & public sector research into hydrogen & fuel cells-particularly in USA & Japan. The effort is global & massive.These oil replacement systems will be commercially available. States will ensure that electricity generation will continue by whatever means is to hand. If that's nuclear for a while -that's what they will authorise & facilitate-and the consumer will pay for it as they do now. I suppose there were people like you saying " yes but when-and who will pay for it" when the internal combustion engine was mooted.

What we will all have to understand pretty soon though is that "cost" is a comparative attribute-not an absolute one. As oil & gas reserves run down over the coming decades, $50 a barrel will look like chicken feed.

Geothermal is a wonderfull resource. I caught a programme about it's use in Kenya. It was a joy to behold. Pity we don't all live on a plate boundary! :-

http://www.worldbank.org/html/fpd/energy/geothermal/

Colin

[Mark Duchamp]

when will all that be done Mark, by whom, and who is going to pay for it?

I suggest we use the huge subventions being now wasted on wind energy.


how is it a disaster of major proportions for biodiversity. What does that make tropical deforestation?

Why don't you start a thread on this, instead of repeating that over and over again on threads that are devoted to other subjects?

Mark

[Tim Allwood]

Why don't you start a thread on this, instead of repeating that over and over again on threads that are devoted to other subjects?

Mark

Because windfarms will not be a disaster of major proportions for biodiversity. That needs to be stated. It is simply not true.

hydrogen fuel cells are the future
wind is now
they will hopefully co-exist in the not too distant future and hopefully hydrogen will take the lead before too long but it must be paid for and I suspect it will take a lot of money, including from the unwilling taxpayer... Wind is something that could be employed in poor countries without too much expense - not so sure about the economics of hydrogen generated energy

[Mark Duchamp]

Because windfarms will not be a disaster of major proportions for biodiversity. That needs to be stated. It is simply not true.

hydrogen fuel cells are the future
wind is now
they will hopefully co-exist in the not too distant future and hopefully hydrogen will take the lead before too long but it must be paid for and I suspect it will take a lot of money, including from the unwilling taxpayer... Wind is something that could be employed in poor countries without too much expense - not so sure about the economics of hydrogen generated energy

Did we not already establish that an unsustainable number of Scottish eagles were going to be killed? And aren't windfarms being installed in other eagle/raptor territories around the world, and on migration routes? And did I not just tell you we could finance the geothermal/hydrogen solution with subsidies now being wasted on windpower? - Don't you read a posting before answering it?

But this is typical: you keep hammering your statements in disregard of all the evidence that has been provided in this forum. This is where you deserve the criticism of being the "soundbite/cliche response crew" (not my words). And this is how you have been bombarding your fellow birders with 4,922 quasi subliminal messages: just repeating the same simple slogan as if it were God's truth, oblivious of the facts.

And the facts have been posted at length. You are forcing me to repeat them - this is another aspect of your strategy: if you can´t win the argument, play stupid, or oblivious, and thus simply wear down the opponent. But I am patient, so here you are:

- wind energy is not a solution for poor countries, as it is atrociously expensive (2.5 times more costly than conventional power, says the Royal Academy of Engineering; 3.5 times if offshore; and more if you count the
hidden subventions: tax breaks, future investments for backup, corruption, etc.).

- wind energy is not a solution for rich countries: it does not save on greenhouse gasses, and it does not save on imported oil, because it is randomly intermittent and needs 24 backup by fossil fuel plants to stabilise its erratic production (otherwise we'd have blackouts everytime the wind speed changes).

I let everyone on this forum appreciate the less-than-straightforward way in which you conduct yourself in these discussions.

Mark

[Tim Allwood]

ok Mark

give it a rest

you know it all but no one (WWF, RSPB, FoE, Greenpeace) is paying attention for some reason?

you have battered me into submission

can anyone disagree with you?

I'm leaving this thread to you now. So you have no need to repeat your 'facts' again. I suspect you will though.

seeing as there's only me who bothers to disagree with you, can this thread be closed?

Tim

[Barred Wobbler]

Why should the thread be closed just because it doesn't run in keeping with Tim Allwood's view of how the world should be?

Mark has produced facts that can be substantiated. Wind farms do not work; they compound the problem by pretending to be a solution and just because the facts don't agree with the political aims of certain organisations does not make them wrong.

[Grousemore]

As someone who lamented Mark's recent absence, I'm pleased to be able to read his straightforward and unambiguous postings on wind farms.
He presents information on an important issue; the absence of any serious contradiction of his views speaks volumes to me.

[nirofo]

(Because windfarms will not be a disaster of major proportions for biodiversity. That needs to be stated. It is simply not true.)

Who say's, many many people don't agree with this at all, many think it is already a major disaster in this country and a total catastrophe in other places in the world like Andalucia in southern Spain, (anybody seen Tarifa lately). Because Tim Allwood and a few others think this is the best thing to happen since sliced bread doesn't mean that the rest of us think the same. I and many others happen to think it's a total waste of effort in both resources and lost opportunity to provide a source of power which is not so enviromentaly desrtuctive and which can produce energy in the amounts that we and the world requires for now and in the future. The windfarms in the UK are nothing but a smoke screen put up by the government to show that they are making a contribution to the decrease of global warming, when in fact they make no contribution whatsoever to the overall reduction of global warming. The destruction of the environment both physically and scenically is both wrong and unnecessary, once it has been destroyed it is for all time, no going back, it'll be just like the vast forestry plantations on the flow bogs back in the 1980's. The only people that gained then were the tax evaders and profiteers. What's happened to all these forests, most of them are unviable as timber resources due to wind fell and poor growth, the remainder hold little benefit to wildlife or anything else for that matter. How many more government sponsored wild goose chases do we have to indulge in before we say that's enough!!

nirofo.

[Mark Duchamp]

As someone who lamented Mark's recent absence, I'm pleased to be able to read his straightforward and unambiguous postings on wind farms.
He presents information on an important issue; the absence of any serious contradiction of his views speaks volumes to me.


Thank you for this. Could you help me answer this question: how do we get from here to saving the Scottish eagles, and their habitat? At stake as well is a world-renown scenic wonder, the Scottish Highlands, and the quality of life of Britons, be they neighbours or travellers (who wants to live in a coast-to-coast industrial zone?).

Elsewhere in the UK, windfarms have started to sprout along the borders of the Lake District, about to ruin many of its stunning views; and they are well engaged into the destruction of the endearing Welsh landscape, along with its red kites (two have been found so far, struck by the blades - probably the tip of the iceberg).

Mark

[Mark Duchamp]

...The destruction of the environment both physically and scenically is both wrong and unnecessary, once it has been destroyed it is for all time, no going back, it'll be just like the vast forestry plantations on the flow bogs back in the 1980's. The only people that gained then were the tax evaders and profiteers. What's happened to all these forests, most of them are unviable as timber resources due to wind fell and poor growth, the remainder hold little benefit to wildlife or anything else for that matter. How many more government sponsored wild goose chases do we have to indulge in before we say that's enough!!

nirofo.

Indeed! And planting the wrong trees in the wrong places is only a misdemeanour in comparison to the road building, the pouring of concrete, and the pylonisation that are brought about by windfarming - not to speak of the bird kills.

But there is some hope: the Labour MSP from the Western Isles has lost his seat because of popular opposition to the windfarm projects. Does anyone know if that could make a difference for Lewis?

Mark

[David]

Just to assure everyone that I'm working on a petition to the European Commission which I will send as:

a. A Proact letter with follow-up mail,

Anyone who would like their name added please let me know either here (full name(s) and town/city) or by mail to Proact Campaigns (info@proact-campaigns.net)

b. an online petition to which you can add your name and comments.

Texts and more details soon.

[Mark Duchamp]

Folks,

SNH Chairman John Markland has replied to the email I addressed him (which was basically the attachment to the original post on this thread).

None of the points I raised is addressed. His response may be summarized in these words: "we are satisfied that there will be no adverse effect".

Exception: in the case of Eishken, SNH have not sent their reply to the consenting authorities. They are not, therefore, at liberty to answer me.

It is like banging one's head against a brick wall. If we are to save Scotland's eagles, we have no choice but to send a petition to the European Commission - and cross our fingers.

Please stay tuned: the petition will be posted shortly on the Proact International webpage, and the link will be advised here. I urge all birders to join us in this protest. - Are we going to let an ill-conceived and hastily implemented rush-to-wind policy bring about the extirpation of the Scottish eagles? (not to speak of other effects on: landscape, tourism and the local economy, quality of life in Scotland and the UK, water pollution, forest fires, loss of carbon-sink peat, multiplication of power lines, increase in electricity prices; and for neighbours: loss of property value, noise, shadow-flicker, stress, etc.).

Saving the eagles is also about saving our quality of life.

Stay tuned.

Mark

save_the_eagles@proact-campaigns.net

[Mark Duchamp]

THE SCOTTISH EAGLES NEED YOUR HELP, IF THEY ARE TO SURVIVE. PLEASE SIGN THE PETITION ON THE FOLLOWING THREAD (Conservation and Ethics):

Petition: Golden Eagles In Scotland - It’s Time For The European Commission To Act.

And kindly advise your friends, contacts, and mailing lists.


Mark

[Grousemore]

Message received and understood.

[cavan wood]

Sources of energy has been a topic in all three of the courses I teach this semester. This thread has been presented in all three classes. This morning, talking to my grade 9 applied class (not the academic stream), they were genuinely interested in the concept of the speed of the blades and the likelyhood of eagles being struck by the blades. They got the point that putting wind turbines on mountain ridges where eagles soar is really a stupid idea. I still think that wind turbines have their place, but you have convinced me that in this situation, it is politics over economics and logic.

Thanks,
Scott

[Mark Duchamp]

Sources of energy has been a topic in all three of the courses I teach this semester. This thread has been presented in all three classes. This morning, talking to my grade 9 applied class (not the academic stream), they were genuinely interested in the concept of the speed of the blades and the likelyhood of eagles being struck by the blades. They got the point that putting wind turbines on mountain ridges where eagles soar is really a stupid idea. I still think that wind turbines have their place, but you have convinced me that in this situation, it is politics over economics and logic.

Thanks,
Scott


It is refreshing to read your post, Scott. So few people have an open mind!

Even when it is revealed that the German government has tampered with the Dena report, a report that concludes there are cheaper ways to reduce CO2 - or when the Navarre government falsifies the Lekuona report on bird mortality at windfarms* - even then most people refuse to open their ears (and their minds). And that includes many birders, sadly.

*www.iberica2000.org/Es/Articulo.asp?Id=1223

Thank you. I hope you will sign the petition to save the Scottish eagles, and spread the message. We need as many signatures as we can get. Here is the webpage:

http://www.proact-campaigns.net/windfarmsandbirds/appeal_to_ec.html

Cheers

Mark

[cavan wood]

Thank you. I hope you will sign the petition to save the Scottish eagles, and spread the message. We need as many signatures as we can get. Here is the webpage:

http://www.proact-campaigns.net/windfarmsandbirds/appeal_to_ec.html

Cheers

Mark


Thanks, I already signed it.

Scott

[Vultur]

My personal view is that every watt generated by wind power is one less watt that fossil fuels need to be burned to generate, and that near-total habitat ruination by global warming is much worse than minor damage to habitat by wind turbines.

However, wind turbines should be sited in low-bird and low-bat locales. (Perhaps Scotland isn;t the best place for wind power.)

[David]

My personal view is that every watt generated by wind power is one less watt that fossil fuels need to be burned to generate, and that near-total habitat ruination by global warming is much worse than minor damage to habitat by wind turbines.

However, wind turbines should be sited in low-bird and low-bat locales. (Perhaps Scotland isn;t the best place for wind power.)

Can't disagree with any of that on principle. Two points though:

1. There are other less intrusive and more efficient forms of alternative (clean) energy. One example is solar power where I have just read that an elderly German physicist and his wife, living in the USA, have produced an improved photovoltaic panel with over 90 % efficiency.

2. What is minor habitat damage? It's all in the eye of the beholder (or promoter). Sadly, few people take time to read the detail of the research being presented and appear to be satisfied with generalisations. In the detailed

OBJECTIONS TO THE MUAITHEABHAL WINDFARM PROJECT, EISHKEN, ISLE OF LEWIS, SCOTLAND (http://www.proact-campaigns.net/windfarmsandbirds/doc_eaglekiller.html)

commenting on the promoters assessment of a grand total of a mortality rate of 16 eagles over 25 years, Mark Duchamp points out that

... actual mortality figures are likely to be much worse ... (as the promoters include in their assessment for the regeneration plan the positive effects to be expected from "providing carrion and live rabbits to attract the eagles away from the turbines") because eagles do not fly only to get "free food". They also fly:

- to get to a hilltop or ridge where they can soar

- to patrol their ranges

- to chase intruders

- to interact with other eagles

- to engage in courtship

- to investigate strange structures placed on their territories (my italics DC)

- to hunt on their traditional range

- to test the defence of neighbouring ranges

- to investigate a vacant neighbouring range

- to roam over vast areas in search of a range (sub-adults and floaters)
I'm not a scientist so this sort of commonsense thinking is refreshing (I particularly like No. 6 ;) )

[Mark Duchamp]

I'm not a scientist so this sort of commonsense thinking is refreshing (I particularly like No. 6 ;) )

And here is yet another reason why eagles fly into wind turbines:

"And then one day last year, windsmiths at the third-largest wind farm in the world watched helplessly as jet black ravens harassed one of the adult eagles, chasing it into a turbine."

I hope the ravens were not doing that on purpose? I would not put it past them: they are remarkably smart, those corvids. This being the case, it could accelerate the end of the eagles?

The story is from an article reporting the death of 2 golden eagles at a windfarm in New Mexico:

http://www.abqjournal.com/paperboy/ia/news/state/355512nm05-29-05.htm?rrc


Mark

[Mark Duchamp]

The article referred to in my previous posting is no longer available on the Net free of charge. The Albuquerque newspaper is now asking readers to pay for it: http://www.abqjournal.com/paperboy/ia/news/state/355512nm05-29-05.htm?rrc.

I made a copy of the webpage when the article was on, but I don't think it can be sent as an attachment. Can it?

Anyway, here is the beginning of the article:

Sunday, May 29, 2005

Some See Wind-Farm Peril to Birds

By Tania Soussan
Journal Staff Writer
HOUSE— Nobody expected the golden eagles to be there.
But after the New Mexico Wind Energy Center was built on the state's eastern plains near House in 2001, an active nest was discovered, outside what had been believed to be the range of golden eagles in the state.
And then one day last year, windsmiths at the third-largest wind farm in the world watched helplessly as jet black ravens harassed one of the adult eagles, chasing it into a turbine.
Later, one of the young eagles from the nest was found dead beneath a turbine.
The deaths of the two golden eagles— a species protected by a pair of federal laws— highlight the worries of biologists and wildlife advocates that New Mexico's rapidly growing wind industry could pose a threat to birds and bats.
"There's no question that we're concerned about it," said David Henderson, executive director of the Audubon Society in New Mexico.
So far, only a small number of bird and bat deaths have been reported at New Mexico wind farms, but more turbines are in the works and the numbers of fatalities are likely to increase somewhat— although not at the alarming levels experienced by older wind farms in other states.
"The problem with wind power is there's very little regulation," said Gail Garber, executive director of Hawks Aloft.
In most cases, all that's required to build a wind farm are building permits and a lease with the owner of the land where the turbines will be placed.
Unless the project is on federal land, neither the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service nor any state agency reviews the wind farm for impacts to birds, bats or other species. And there are no requirements to monitor wildlife deaths.
Quay County has started requiring a four-season bird survey before construction to minimize impacts, but in New Mexico rules vary from county to county.

The rest is about the growth of wind energy in the U.S.


Mark

[Mark Duchamp]

From the Birdlife webpage:

"More birds slipping towards extinction
01-06-2005

BirdLife International's annual evaluation of how the world’s bird species are faring shows that the total number considered to be threatened with extinction is now 1,212, which when combined with the number of near threatened species gives a total of exactly 2,000 species in trouble – more than a fifth of the planet’s remaining 9,775 species.

........ Several species from Europe appear in the list for the first time, ….. and Red Kite Milvus milvus, which has suffered large declines across Europe, despite a highly successful reintroduction programme in the UK. All three move from the Least Concern category to Near Threatened."
http://www.birdlife.org/news/news/2005/06/red_list_update.html

My comments: red kite habitat in Europe is rapidly becoming an aerial minefield, with so many wind turbines and their new tension lines - especially in Wales, Germany, Spain, Italy etc.

In Germany, 38 red kite bodies had been found by the public under wind turbines as at April 2004 (tip of the iceberg). It is suspected that the Länder of Brandenburg is no longer maintaining a record, or at least making public the updates, due to political pressure.
http://www.iberica2000.org/documents/EOLICA/casual_bird_mortality_record_germany.xls

In Wales, 2 red kites have been struck by turbine blades, that we know
of (articles in the press available upon request). Nobody is
keeping a record, except possibly the RSPB, but they don't make
such data public (a case in point: that of the red grouse, which came into the open by a slip of the pen - see RSPB letter:
http://www.iberica2000.org/documents/EOLICA/EDINBANE/Letter_RSPB_25_4_02.pdf
- section "wader and grouse interest", page 5: "they (red grouse) have been known to collide with turbine structures and have shown population declines associated with windfarm developments elsewhere".

Italy and Spain are also sources of bad news.

But I don't want to make this too long. I´d rather you spent the time looking at the evidence gathered about the threat to eagles in Scotland:

http://www.proact-campaigns.net/windfarmsandbirds/appeal_to_ec.html

Can we let windfarm developers build a new Altamont in Scotland, where white-tailed eagles only number 32 pairs? and golden eagles 430? - in California, the Altamont windfarm already killed over 2,000 goldies... (116 a year - http://www.energy.ca.gov/pier/final_project_reports/500-04-052.html Chapter 3, Table 3.11, 1st line: 116.5 golden eagles p.a. adjusted for search detection and scavenging.)

It is a very serious issue. We are asking Asia to save the tiger, Africa to save the leopard, Brazil to save the Amazon. But we let greed and poor planning destroy our "protected" peatlands and our "protected" eagles!
Does it make sense?

The Scottish govenment does not HAVE to locate windfarms in bird reserves! There is plenty of room elsewhere.

I hope that politically-correct discourse has not impaired your common sense, folks.

Please sign the petition, and save the Scottish eagles from the fate of their California cousins of Altamont:
http://www.proact-campaigns.net/windfarmsandbirds/appeal_to_ec.html

Is this asking too much? is this unreasonable?



Mark

[Mark Duchamp]

Doing some filing, I found this:

"Previously unpublished scientific advisory report to Industry
Minister Clement judges wind energy as ecologically useless and
economically wasteful. Modernizing a coal-fired power plant can
achieve same effect for 8% of cost (Spiegel 3/1/04)."

So this year's was the second scientific advisory report that the German government disregarded and shelved without publishing!

When you have faith, who needs science? Isn't Germany lucky to have such a government !

Mark

[alcedo.atthis]

And I found this:

A few oops's


http://mailman.mcmaster.ca/mailman/private/cdn-nucl-l/0403/msg00045.html
http://mailman.mcmaster.ca/mailman/private/cdn-nucl-l/0403/msg00048.html
http://members.aol.com/fswemedien/ZZUnfalldatei.htm
(some nice photies!!)

Regards

Malky

[Tyke]

Isn't Germany lucky to have such a government !

Mark

But not for much longer perhaps. Angela Merkel looks a hot tip to oust the execrable Schroeder in the September elections.
Merkel has pledged to extend the life of German nuclear electricity plants-reversing the SDP's closure plans. She has also admitted that Germany's 20% Renewable energy target is "unrealistic" . She has indicated a review of the system of subsidies for wind energy ....which she introduced in 1997 as then Environment Minister! Germany has 12000 wind turbines.
I hope Blair is listening to the views of his newfound ally in the "Battle of Brussels"

Colin

[timeshadowed]

I have only just begun to read about wind farms and their destructive nature on our bird population, but . . .

Why can't the makers of these wind turbines enclose the blades in a protective cover, much like your typical house fan, to prevent wildlife from getting to the blades in the first place??

TimeShadowed

[Tyke]

I have only just begun to read about wind farms and their destructive nature on our bird population, but . . .

Why can't the makers of these wind turbines enclose the blades in a protective cover, much like your typical house fan, to prevent wildlife from getting to the blades in the first place??

TimeShadowed

I don't know the answer to your question-but i'm sure you will get one here.

I just want to suggest to you that bird kills in flight are only a part of the adverse environmental effects of wind turbines.

Wind turbines tend to be erected on uplands or coastal areas with high propensity to windy weather. These areas are often wilderness places, far from dense human populations. Therefore the access roads/turbine base pits/transmission lines etc. all have to be built in landscapes which constitute habitats with a rich natural biota.The industrialisation of these places, and their subsequent pollution upsets the biodiversity which they harbour.The whole interconnected edifice from plants to breeding birds is sensitive to this disruption.
This study from Kansas illustrates the point in a prairie environment & gave rise to very sensible criteria for turbine locations in that State.
http://www.kdwp.state.ks.us/news/kdwp_info/about_kdwp/department_position_on_issues/wind_power_and_wildlife_issues_in_kansas/wind_power_position

I feel strongly also that wild landscapes are heritage areas which connect us to our deep history. They have a special significance which can uplift and enrich the people who visit them, and those fortunate enough to live in them. They should not be despoiled in a futile attempt to "save us" from "global warming". This is akin to burning the Mona Lisa because we have run out of firewood.
There are means of significantly reducing our greenhouse gas emissions-but wind turbines is not one of them.

Colin

[Stewart Love]

In conditions of low cloud or mist as often happens on high ground, visibility is often much reduced, giving birds little chance of avoiding blades. On a wind farm in North Ayrshire, Scotland, we could not see the blades from the road, a distance of approx. 500 metres, because of low cloud, which is very common in this area.

Stewart.

[Tyke]

Two more commentaries-both from USA-of the terrestrial effects on birds of Wind Turbines. One on prairies & one on uplands :-

http://www.wildlifemanagementinstitute.org/pages/windpower.html

http://elibrary.unm.edu/sora/Wilson/v111n01/p0100-p0104.pdf

Colin

[Tyke]

And a study from UK !:-

http://www.cebc.bham.ac.uk/Documents/Summary%20of%20SR4.pdf

Colin

I know-I should be posting this stuff under "windfarms"!

[Mark Duchamp]

I have only just begun to read about wind farms and their destructive nature on our bird population, but . . .

Why can't the makers of these wind turbines enclose the blades in a protective cover, much like your typical house fan, to prevent wildlife from getting to the blades in the first place??

TimeShadowed

Wind turbines do collapse under their own weight at times:
http://ventdubocage.net/accident12.htm
This webpage is in French, but look at the picture, and view the English-speaking video (if it does not load-up automatically, click on the last link to see the video: le fichier (wmv) de 3 M b

Other pictures/stories of collapsed wind turbines here:
http://ventdubocage.net/accident-allemagne1.htm

and here: http://ventdubocage.net/accident.htm
(many links to click on)

So the answer to your question is simple: adding weight at the top of an already top-heavy structure prone to collapsing is an engineering no-no !
Imagine what resistance to the wind such a "cage" would present (remember wind speed reaches 100 mph at times). At the next storm, all wind turbines in the UK would collapse (if not before!).


Mark

[timeshadowed]

Wind turbines do collapse under their own weight at times: Mark

Ok, I get the picture, but then my next suggestion would be to enclose either each turbine (or the whole group) within a covered chain-link fence to at least keep out all of the larger birds.

It just seems that something in the design of these farms could be changed to prevent the killing of birds.

TimeShadowed

[Barred Wobbler]

These turbines are over 400 feet high. Imagine that chain link was available for such a structure. The weight of a fence over 400 feet high would be immense. The supports for a normal fence 1-2m high are set 2-3 m apart. How thick and how far apart would the supports need to be to support 400' plus of steel fence? How thick would the links in the fence need to be to stop it tearing apart under its own weight?

How would the "roof" of such a fence be supported? The sag would be huge and the lateral forces on the outside supports of the weight of the roof would be trying to make the whole cage collapse towards its centre.

And how much wind would be prevented from getting to the turbine by the cross sectional area of all this mesh and the forest of massive supports?

Wind turbines are already uneconomic without huge government subsidy, If such an impossible structure could even be built no subsidy in the world would be high enough to cover the cost.

[Tim Allwood]

and no subsidy in the world will stop global warming

more 'freak' floods this weekend too....

Tim

[Tyke]

I have had an email from the EU Environment Directorate, in reply to my missive to Commissioners Dimas & Wallstrom. I did this via the Petition & I expect we have all had the same reply(?)

I have tried to copy&paste but failed-so the guts of it is as follows:-

They are "already aware" of concern re Edinbane & Lewis-which are being investigated to ensure compliance with EU Birds & Habitats Directives etc.

They are not aware that G Eagles or WT Eagles are facing extirpation in the UK, and request the evidence for this assertion.

I suppose this is encouraging re Edinbane & Lewis.

Colin

[Mark Duchamp]

I suppose this is encouraging re Edinbane & Lewis.

Colin


Edinbane & Lewis will be another test of the EC's resolve to protect the environment.

3 years ago I sent them a petition to save the Bonelli's eagles from a plan by the Valencia government to erect 2,700 wind turbines in the Bonelli's last European stronghold. After 18 months, I received a wishy-washy reply that meant absolutely nothing.

Windfarms are now getting built in a number of IBA's and Natura 2000 bird reserves across the montains of the Valencia-Alicante-Castellon provinces. And the Bonelli's are doomed. -- Hence my ire.

The Spanish bird society (SEO) did not lift a finger. They are actually pushing Zapatero for MORE turbines in Spain (it's on their website). The Cataluña chapter of SEO is the only one raising its voice against Barcelona's plan to put wind turbines in Bonelli's eagles territories in Cataluña - bless them!


Mark

[Tyke]

Edinbane & Lewis will be another test of the EC's resolve to protect the environment.


Mark
Lets hope.
The rest of your post re Bonelli's is just too depressing.Watched one on Crete in May-low overhead-what a bird.
I've just responded to your PM
Colin

[Mark Duchamp]

Before I leave on a short trip, I thought I would post this analysis to provide food for thought. And I wish high-ranking RSPB and SNH officials would read it too.

ANALYSIS OF THE GRAINGER HUNT STUDY OF JULY 2002 AT ALTAMONT PASS


I do not dispute the qualifications, or experience, of G.Hunt. My
concern, however, is that his report has been used to
support the view that there is no risk of extirpation of the
eagles somewhere else, in Scotland - even with massive implants of
wind turbines where they fly most: on crests and ridges throughout
the country, including natural reserves.

This use of the Hunt report, in my humble opinion, is inappropriate
for a number of reasons, not the least being the presence of a
large number of non-beeding adults (floaters) at the Altamont site.
This particular circumstance undermines any conclusion that may be
drawn regarding the effect of turbine-caused mortality on the
breeding eagle population in a 30 km radius outside the wind
resource area. Indeed, ANY death of breeding adult, whatever the
cause, will be "compensated" by a floater moving into the "widowed"
range and pairing with the remaining breeder. So, at the next
breeding survey, the number of breeding pairs in a 30 km radius
around the windfarm will evidence stability.

If the floaters could be counted, and if they all originated from no
further than this 30 km radius, they could be made part of the
equation, and a valid population study could be made. But this is
not the case. The floaters: 1) are non-territorial, 2) they
migrate from hundreds, if not thousands of kilometers to the
hunting grounds of Altamont, 3) they congregate there in
exceptionally large numbers because of the rich food supply, 4)
newcomers, and sub-adults coming of age, make up for those that die
or pair-up.

The upshot is that you cannot make a valid eagle population study
unless you eliminate the immigration factor by enlarging the scope of
the study to a very large geographical area which has no exchange
with other populations elsewhere. And this is nearly impossible.

G.Hunt has recognized this, and he ended his executive summary with
a question mark on the role of migrating floaters.

So we should do like him, and consider the Altamont study he was
commissioned to do as inappropriate for drawing ANY conclusions on
the effect of wind turbines on eagle populations.

And science being unable to shed any light on the subject, we are
left with something that we all-too-often tend to disregard in this
scientific age of ours: common sense.

Common sense is what Proact International is using in its petition to save,
for instance, a population of only 32 breeding pairs of the endangered
white-tailed eagle from the mass wind-turbinization of its Scottish habitat.

Extirpation of the WTE from Scotland is highly probable. That IS common sense.

Please help save these and other eagles: sign our petition:

http://www.petitiononline.com/proact05/petition.html

Mark

[Mark Duchamp]

Yes folks, money talks! Lewis councillors decided in favour of the 2 monstrous windfarms on their island, one on an IBA and NSA, the other on an SPA and Ramsar wetland of international importance.

http://news.scotsman.com/scotland.cfm?id=722482005

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/4635897.stm

And the saddest thing is that some ornithologists actually helped them reject the idea that it will be detrimental to the birds surviving in these nature reserves. It is a blot on the profession that will only get worse with time, as eagles and other great birds get the chop.

I hope the RSPB are able to stop this disaster from happening, through Brussels. If not, they will be remembered as the bird society that failed to oppose the projects at the outset, when they were first consulted.

As for SNH, I think they should change their name. Any ideas?

Mark

[David]

Today at 13.05 CET * I physically posted a appeal/petition with 1320 signatures to:

Mr. Julio Garcia Burgues, Head of Infringements at the EC Directorate General for the Environment

This addressee was chosen on the advice of the Head of the Directorate for Protecting the Natural Environment in reply to previous representations on this matter.

In the letter I have avoided the term “extirpation” (OED – eradication, making extinct) and have used the formulation “populations of the rare White-tailed Eagle, and the emblematic Golden Eagle, are under threat in Scotland” instead. The EC and others have made clear that the former term cannot be supported.

The Scottish wind energy campaign has been a rough ride, not least for me personally. I have made it clear on a number of occasions (as posted on the Proact site at http://www.proact-campaigns.net/windfarmsandbirds/index.html ) that Proact (and myself personally) are not opposed to wind energy per se. That is another argument which can be conducted on a different and higher plane. We will however continue to oppose the inappropriate development of wind farms in and near bird habitats where breeding and the natural life cycle of significant numbers of birds could be adversely affected.

I think the time is ripe for conservationists to tackle this problem at the key level of governmental (and European) energy policy. Perhaps readers might care to consider this a little more closely. Rising energy consumption and the lemming-like consumer demand for vehicles and appliances which demand even more energy (inter alia the dreaded SUV spread) do not augur well for the future. This is way outside the Proact charter; but nevertheless something with which all those involved or interested in nature conservation should concern themselves.

Thank you all for your support,

David
--
David Conlin, Proact

*I have been visiting my aged (92) and sick mother in Cyprus so was unable to respond before in the past 18 days.

[Mark Duchamp]

I am resigning from Proact International. I firmly believe that the erection
of thousands of wind turbines in Scottish eagles' habitat will cause,
in the medium term, the extirpation of the white-tailed eagles that were
reintroduced at great effort - and which number only 32 breeding pairs.

13 rare white-tailed eagles have been killed by wind turbines in
Germany in the past 3 years, and 3 in Japan in 2004 - that we know of (not
all deaths are reported). How long will last 32 pairs and their offsprings
in Scotland, with turbines on the ridges where they soar?

As for the golden eagles, it will take a bit longer. But 430 breeding
pairs in Scotland (plus one in the UK) is not a large number, if one considers
that a single vast windfarm in California managed to kill 2,300 golden eagles in 20 years (at Altamont Pass, according to the most comprehensive study todate: Dr. Smallwood & K. Thelander, August 2004).

Extirpation, i.e. the extinction of eagles in Scotland and the UK, is not a certainty; but neither is their survival - no one can be sure if any will survive with so many wind turbines. This is why responsible conservation is based on the precautionary principle. And that principle demands that we consider the worst scenario, which is extirpation.

But Proact gave in to pressure. Removing the word "extirpation" had the result of weakening our petition to the European Commission, which is what the wind industry and their clientele wanted. With the petition as originally worded, the eagles had a chance. They have none now. As aptly described by a windpower spokesperson: Proact has joined "the mainstream".

And this is where I exit, for the "mainstream" is not set to save the Scottish eagles.



Mark Duchamp
Formerly: "Windfarms and Birds Research Manager
Proact International www.proact-campaigns.net"


www.iberica2000.org/Es/Articulo.asp?Id=1875

MORE LINKS:
http://www.iberica2000.org/Es/Articulo.asp?Id=1228 (articles in English)
http://www.iberica2000.org/Es/Articulo.asp?Id=1255 (artículos en Español)
http://www.iberica2000.org/documents/dirlist2-main.asp?f=/EOLICA (documents)
http://www.iberica2000.org/documents/EOLICA/PHOTOS/BIRDS_KILLED_BY_WINDFARMS/
(photos)

[Mark Duchamp]

Did we put nuclear plants or fossil fuel generators
in bird reserves? No. Yet we are willing to do it with windfarms. This
is WRONG. There is plenty of space elsewhere. The wind promoters pick
up important bird areas because land is cheap to rent (since no one
can build there). So the motive is: bigger profits. It is nothing
short of a scandal.

Certain areas should be off limits to windfarms. Because of the global
warming scare, we gave a blank cheque to a new industry that hasn't
proven it can deliver (in fact, there is growing controversy on that:
random intermittency of wind, need for permanent backup by fossil fuel
generating plants, increased CO2 emissions as a result, new
transmission lines, etc. - I have a voluminous dossier on this).

It seems to me we should act responsibly, not knee-jerk into "anything
goes" type of policy.

Do you know that all major migration routes crossing from Europe to
Africa will be barred with thousands of wind turbines? Both sides of
the Strait of Gibraltar, Sicily, Southern Continental Italy, Israel,
Egypt, and the narrow band in southern Morocco between the desert and
the sea. In the US, the number one migration chokepoint will have
windfarms: South Texas. The whole Appalachian range will have them
too, on the crests that are followed by migrating birds. And see the
case of Chautauqua, a "hawkwatch" point where birders come and see
thousands of raptors every year:
http://www.iberica2000.org/Es/Articulo.asp?Id=1905

I think it is time to ask for a moratorium, and to draw a strategic
map outlining what areas will be off limits to windfarms. At the
moment, it is a free-for-all. And that portends disaster: for
endangered birdlife, for our remaining wilderness, for our most cherished landscapes.

There should be a balanced approach for everything, including
windfarms. Panic reactions to scares generally cause more harm than
good.

Mark

[brodie]

there is a new eia and what a load of crap this is

now is the time to object we have just over 8 days to object

we can object by letter or by email

by email to john.rennilson@highland.gov.uk

quoting Planning Application Ben Aketil Wind Farm

Planning Application Ref: 02/00275/FULSL/WH/CC

or by letter to

Mr John D Rennilson
Director of Planning & Development
Highland Council
Glenurquhart Road
Inverness
IV3 5NX

please quote following

Planning Application Ben Aketil Wind Farm

Planning Application Ref: 02/00275/FULSL/WH/CC

We need as many objections as possible

[Mark Duchamp]

COME ON FOLKS, NOW IS THE TIME TO SHOW YOU REALLY LOVE BIRDS, AND TO THANK THEM FOR ALL THAT THEY GAVE YOU.

SEND AN EMAIL AS SHOWN BELOW. THEIR SURVIVAL DEPENDS ON ... YOU!

WHAT WILL SCOTLAND BE WITHOUT EAGLES, WITHOUT VAST OPEN SPACES, WITHOUT WILDERNESS? AS THE WINDFARM FIASCO UNFOLDS, YOU WILL BE SORRY NOT TO HAVE LIFTED A FINGER TO SAVE WHAT MUST BE SAVED FROM GREED AND STUPIDITY.

AND IF YOU "BELIEVE" IN WINDFARMS, TELL THE GOVERNMENT IN YOUR EMAIL THAT THEY SHOULD AT LEAST BE SITED RESPONSIBLY. AT BEN AKETIL, YOUNG EAGLES USE THE RIDGE TO SOAR AND INTERACT WITH OTHER EAGLES. IT IS THE WRONG PLACE FOR A WINDFARM.

Deadline: August 5th - so send it before that, send it NOW
by email to john.rennilson@highland.gov.uk

quoting: Planning Application Ben Aketil Wind Farm
Ref: 02/00275/FULSL/WH/CC

Thank you in advance for supporting the cause of the birds.

MARK DUCHAMP
markduchamp@hotmail.com

[Mark Duchamp]

Australians too are worried by what is happening in Scotland - to wit
this letter:

copy starts

To John Markland, SNH Chairman
Attention: Amelia Morgan

Dear John,

I have been reading the debate over the risk of wind farms to birds in
Scotland and feel that I can provide some relevant comments.

The Golden Eagle is in the genus Aquila and so is the Australian
Wedge-tailed Eagle. When it was known that Golden Eagles were being
killed by wind turbines in large numbers in USA it was quickly assumed
that our Wedge-tailed Eagles would be at risk - being in the same
genus and having similar characteristics that could result in
collisions with turbine blades and death. This concept was refuted by
the ornithologists working for wind farm companies and the government
department responsible for wildlife was quick to accept their view. A
couple of years on the results speak for themselves. Visitors to wind
farms have witnessed maimed and decapitated eagles and even wind farms
put up as shining examples of low bird kill rates have now been found
to have killed eagles. The state and federal governments now consider
the threat wind farms pose to eagles is real and they are acting to
protect the eagles - see attachment.

I feel I need to write to you because you are likely to be receiving
all sorts of information suggesting eagles won't be killed at wind
farms from wind farm proponents, their ornithologists and even not for
profit bird groups who, for one reason or another, fail to live up to
their charter. However in Scotland, as in Australia, the fact that
the genus Aquila is at serious risk will prevail and the Golden Eagles
and many other raptors will be killed regardless of the contrived
scientific techniques applied to suggest otherwise. The history of
the re-establishing of Osprey and eagles in Scotland is well known to
bird observers around the globe and it is disappointing to see the
current disregard for their future. I suggest you stand back and ask
yourself are the people responsible for protecting wildlife doing
their job and if not why not.

Regards
Andrew Chapman
Consulting Engineer
2 Beach Avenue
Inverloch 3996
Australia
Ph: 613 56741266
Fax: 613 56743732
Mob: 0438567412
andrewandmarion@bigpond.com

[brodie]

Hi just to let everyone know the ben aketil windfarm was passed yesterday in what could be described as a farce of a hearing they took no notice of the objectors what so ever.It appeared it was already decided,the bird issue did'nt even matter snh withdrew their objection, rspb did'nt even turn up,One councillor came up with an idea for every eagle that the wind turbines killed the contractor should replace it with 2 fledgling,and then contradicted by saying the windfarms don't kill eagles I was there it was a total and utter farce ,

[Tim Allwood]

Hi just to let everyone know the ben aketil windfarm was passed yesterday in what could be described as a farce of a hearing they took no notice of the objectors what so ever.It appeared it was already decided,the bird issue did'nt even matter snh withdrew their objection, rspb did'nt even turn up,One councillor came up with an idea for every eagle that the wind turbines killed the contractor should replace it with 2 fledgling,and then contradicted by saying the windfarms don't kill eagles I was there it was a total and utter farce ,

mmmm
obviously SNH RSPB etc don't share the views of a few birders on here. Many RSPB employees who have worked on windfarms (and i know a few) don't share these views either and have a wider perspective on climate change. I am very pleased that the RSPB are by and large heavily behind wind power. As for them not caring, one of those guys does a lot of free conservation work for OBC and is as comitted as anyone i know to conservation.

Tim

[Hindolbittern]

Hi just to let everyone know the ben aketil windfarm was passed yesterday in what could be described as a farce of a hearing they took no notice of the objectors what so ever.


Brodie,

That is such bad news, you have my sympathies. With all respect to Tim, sadly the wider, and global, picture on climate change just isn't going to be changed by the easy tokenism of wind turbines. It will take a whole lot more than that. Meanwhile it is bad news for the fragile eagle population but very good news for the people who stand to get nicely rich on the back of the development.

HB

http://guestwickpromises.blogspot.com/

[Tim Allwood]

Hiya HB

i'm not fussed about people getting rich of wind power - people in UK legally get rich off selling weapons, torture equipment, ravaging the enviroment in Nigeria and Colombia etc. Getting rich of alternative energy is pretty low on my scale of things to worry about

Yes, it's a small move but how will things ever change? I'm not sure how token it actually is - many people seem to think it's a very good idea and it isn't a weird 'green' dream anymore. It also seems to be taking off bigtime and this could open the door for lots of other climate friendly policies

maybe
Tim

[Tyke]

Hi just to let everyone know the ben aketil windfarm was passed yesterday in what could be described as a farce of a hearing they took no notice of the objectors what so ever.It appeared it was already decided,the bird issue did'nt even matter snh withdrew their objection, rspb did'nt even turn up,One councillor came up with an idea for every eagle that the wind turbines killed the contractor should replace it with 2 fledgling,and then contradicted by saying the windfarms don't kill eagles I was there it was a total and utter farce ,


Thanks for the update Brodie. I,m really sorry -& very sad.

Wild landscapes & their habitats are being destroyed all over the world-for farming, for logging, for roads, for urban sprawl, for oil... & we agonise over it all constantly-and rightly.This is the unnacceptable face of human"progress".

To destroy them simply because State guaranteed profits are available to people who industrialise wild uplands, so that politicians can say they are reducing Global Warming; in the absence of any evidence that this will be the result, is an environmental crime.
It is no good blaming the Landowners & Developers-they are exploiting the financial bonanza . But the politicians who have engineered this gold rush ,to mask their abject failure to REALLY address our profligate use of energy, and it's consequences, are culpable.

Colin

[Mark Duchamp]

It isn't a weird 'green' dream anymore. It also seems to be taking off bigtime and this could open the door for lots of other climate friendly policies

maybe
Tim

"Maybe" is right, for when the uselessness of wind turbines becomes widely known, the credibility of the Green movement will take a plunge. And that's a pity, because a lot of people had worked very hard to develop a societal awareness of our interest in preserving nature.

To think we could be spending all those wasted windfarm subventions on useful investments like clean coal gasification plants, fuel cells, carbon sequestration equipment, hydrogen distribution networks, energy-saving bulbs etc. !

And what a waste of landscape, of emblematic birds, of quality of life! It is a catastrophe of enormous proportions, masked by a green smokescreen emitted by activists and wind turbine salesmen, and financed by our tax money.

Do you know how much electricity will produce Ben Aketil, the controversial windfarm that will kill dozens of eagles on the isle of Skye and transform the pristine island into an emerging brown zone? Let's do the numbers:

10 turbines x 3Mw = 30 Mw x 30% load factor (the wind does not blow at 45 mph all the time) = 10 Mw of effective capacity (i.e. a trickle of electricity)

By comparison, a modern, relatively clean gas fired plant would give us 600 Mw of effective capacity. And the irony is that this plant will need to be built anyway: 1) - for the days without wind, and 2) - to avoid blackouts everytime the wind drops a notch.
And it will be there, burning fossil fuel for nothing, spinning in reserve to make up for impredictable drops in the wind speed.

As I said, windfarms are a total waste of money - plus the landscape, the birds, the peat (a carbon sink!), the quality of water, the forest fires, the loss of tourism potential, the loss of amenity of the countryside, the noise, the shadow flicker, the strife in local communities, etc.


Mark

[Hindolbittern]

Hiya HB

i'm not fussed about people getting rich of wind power - people in UK legally get rich off selling weapons, torture equipment, ravaging the enviroment in Nigeria and Colombia etc. Getting rich of alternative energy is pretty low on my scale of things to worry about

Yes, it's a small move but how will things ever change? I'm not sure how token it actually is - many people seem to think it's a very good idea and it isn't a weird 'green' dream anymore. It also seems to be taking off bigtime and this could open the door for lots of other climate friendly policies

maybe
Tim

Tim,

Good grief yes, of course I completely agree with you. Money made by sh*ts peddling war and torture is in a completely different league. My point was more about the fact that where millions of pounds worth of profit p.a. is at stake it can impact the integrity of the decision making process. Wind turbines, housing developments, motorways, whatever.

I don’t want this to turn into a bust up as I think you and I probably have a lot more in common than separates us. But looking at it as an overall global system (as per your top five polluters), the gesture of sticking up wind turbines in areas such as Skye, where the damage they can do to a fragile environment is so palpable, just really isn’t going to do it. It’s not worth the cost to the wild environment and I’m sure it is driven by money. Harder choices will have to be made.

I’m just not willing to accept the sacrifice of precious wild spaces to accommodate an increasingly consumerist lifestyle. The favoured solutions seem to focus on the supply side of the energy equation, not the demand side where the problem is spiralling uncontrollably. And I question a lot of the propaganda made by institutions on both sides of the debate.

But I accept that we won’t agree on this one and I respect your motives for maintaining your position – you care.

I’m stunned by the SUV/petrol debate elsewhere on this section. I had a wry grin at the assumption that when you said bike it had to mean a Harley. Sums it up really.

Cheers,

HB

[Mark Duchamp]

Not so, even if "global warmers" are unashamedly trying to hijack the catastrophe to their profit.

Tim, on another thread, is attempting to do just that, as if it was OK to kill the Scottish eagles into oblivion because of Katrina.

Here is an article that puts things right:

Green hotheads who exploit hurricane tragedy
by Michael Fumento
September 8, 2005

"The hurricane that struck Louisiana yesterday was nicknamed Katrina by the National Weather Service. Its real name was global warming." So wrote environmental activist Ross Gelbspan in a Boston Globe op-ed that one commentator aptly described as "almost giddy." The Green group Friends of the Earth linked Katrina to global warming, as did Germany's Green Party Environment Minister.

Bobby Kennedy Jr. blamed Katrina on Miss. Gov. Haley Barbour for "derailing the Kyoto Protocol [on global warming] and kiboshing President Bush's iron-clad promise to regulate carbon dioxide."

Time for an ice-water bath, hotheads. If you'd bothered to consult the scientists (remember them?) you'd find they've extensively studied the issue and found no evidence that global warming - assuming it's actually occurring - is causing either an increase in frequency or intensity of hurricanes.

Thus the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which believes global warming is both real and man-made, stated in its last Assessment (2001) that "Changes in tropical and extra-tropical storm intensity and frequency are dominated by [variations within and between decades], with no significant trends over the twentieth century evident."

So, too, states the Tropical Meteorological Project at Colorado State University. In a paper issued AFTER Katrina hit it noted hurricane activity since 1995 has "been similar" to that "of the mid-1920s to the mid-1960s when many more major hurricanes struck the U.S. East Coast and Florida." These are the people, chiefly professor of atmospheric science William Gray, who issue the annual hurricane forecasts each May.

In fact, according to the National Hurricane Center, the peak for major hurricanes (levels 3, 4, and 5) came between 1930 and 1950.

In the wake of Katrina, Gray explained to the New York Times that what might appear to be a recent onslaught "is very much natural." Until recently we were lucky, said Gray. Then, "The luck just ran out."

Roger Pielke Jr., director of the University of Colorado's Center for Science and Technology Policy Research, agrees. In a forthcoming paper in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society he analyzes the damage caused by hurricanes that have hit the U.S. since 1900. Taking into account tremendous population growth along coastlines he finds no trend of increasing damage from hurricanes.

"I don't think you could find any hurricane scientist that would be willing to make the statement that the hurricanes of last year or Katrina are caused by global warming," he told Denver's Rocky Mountain News.

As you might guess, neither Gelbspan nor RFK Jr. are scientists; they're professional scaremongers. Having authored two books on the forthcoming catastrophe of global warming, Gelbspan's fortunes are as tied to this issue as GM's are to vehicles.

Nevertheless, MIT climatologist Kerry Emanuel IS a scientist and stirred up a Category Five controversy with his recent letter in Nature claiming there's no trend in the frequency of hurricanes but "future warming may lead to an upward trend in tropical cyclone [hurricane] destructive potential."

William Gray, however, told the Boston Globe "It's a terrible paper, one of the worst I've ever looked at." According to the Globe, "He was appalled that Emanuel would take such shaky data on wind speeds, then feed them into a formula that puts such heavy weight on those numbers." Such a method, he said, can produce any result you want.

Yet even Emanuel stops short of blaming Katrina or other recent hurricane strikes on global warming. "What we see in the Atlantic is mostly the natural swing," he told the Times. That hardly supports the overheated rhetoric of those exploiting his Nature letter.

Bear in mind, too, that the effects of global warming are supposed to be, well, global. If cyclones are more intense or frequent off U.S. shores, they should also be so elsewhere as in the east Pacific, west Pacific, and Indian Ocean. "This has not occurred," a June 2005 report from the Tropical Meteorological Project stated flatly. "When tropical cyclones worldwide are summed, there has actually been a slight decrease since 1995."

This isn't to say alleged warming is actually moderating these awesome storms. But certainly it's having no moderating effect on the blowhard buzzards ripping chunks off the Katrina disaster to promote their own dubious agendas.

Michael Fumento (mfumento[at]pobox.com) is a senior fellow at Hudson Institute in Washington, D.C. and a science and health columnist for Scripps Howard News Service.

[Tim Allwood]

increased global warming will increase storm activity

fact

writing incredibly lengthy posts will not change this

and John Prescott pointed out the link not me. Not like you to put words into someone's mouth Mr Duchamp...

Tim

[Mark Duchamp]

increased global warming will increase storm activity

fact

Asserting that something is a fact without providing evidence of it does not cut much ice, Tim. Unless you believe that a lie repeated 1,000 times becomes the truth? This could explain why you have over 5,000 postings to your credit on this forum.

Let me remind you that Chris Landsea, the IPCC hurricane specialist, resigned in protest over this false assertion. http://www.iberica2000.org/documents/EOLICA/GLOBAL_WARMING/IPCC_hurricane_specialist_resigns.txt

Mark

[Tim Allwood]

Asserting that something is a fact without providing evidence of it does not cut much ice, Tim. Unless you believe that a lie repeated 1,000 times becomes the truth? This could explain why you have over 5,000 postings to your credit on this forum.

Let me remind you that Chris Landsea, the IPCC hurricane specialist, resigned in protest over this false assertion. http://www.iberica2000.org/documents/EOLICA/GLOBAL_WARMING/IPCC_hurricane_specialist_resigns.txt

Mark

wow! you really are a cheeky piece of work mate

you can't just say what the majority of scientists believe is a lie

and i have 5000 posts to my name cos i bird a lot and post a lot ABOUT BIRDS - think about it

Tim

[Mark Duchamp]

you can't just say what the majority of scientists believe is a lie

Tim

Let´s say an equivocation. Remember the flat earth?

And have you ever heard of the publication bias? the grant money bias?
I´ll use clear language: he who pays the piper calls the tune.

Mark

[Tim Allwood]

yeah

ha ha ha

most anti global warmers are employed by the OIL INDUSTRY

DOH!!!!!

Tim

[tom mckinney]

most anti global warmers are employed by the OIL INDUSTRY or completely insane

:-)

[Mark Duchamp]

most anti global warmers are employed by the OIL INDUSTRY or completely insane

:-)

Thank you for this enlightening comment. And thank you for giving us the URL to your website, which provides a useful insight on the nature of sanity.

Mark

[Tim Allwood]

Tom's comments are spot on Mark

two words are sometimes all you need

the music equivalent is the three chord trick maybe?

Tom's a top bloke Mark and his website is FUNNY.

Tim

[Stewart J.]

most anti global warmers are employed by the OIL INDUSTRY or completely insane

:-)

??????, you got me on this one.

Stewart

[Tim Allwood]

no worries Stewart

this makes it clear - from the New Scientist

Meet the global warming sceptics

* 12 February 2005
* NewScientist.com news service

Most of the prominent organisations making the case against mainstream climate science have an avowed agenda of promoting free markets and minimal government. They often accept funding from the fossil-fuel industry. Few employ climate scientists.

1 Competitive Enterprise Institute (Washington DC)

A free-market lobby organisation that employs six experts on climate change. Two are lawyers, one an economist, one a political scientist, one a graduate in business studies and one a mathematician. They include economist Myron Ebell, most famous in the UK for a tirade on BBC radio in November 2004 in which he accused the UK government's chief scientist David King of "knowing nothing about climate science". The institute receives funding from ExxonMobil, the world's largest oil company and an outspoken corporate opponent of mainstream climate science.

2 American Enterprise Institute (Washington DC)

Another free market think tank. The five experts it sent to the most recent negotiations on the Kyoto protocol, held in Buenos Aires, Argentina, in December, included just one natural scientist - a chemist. Receives money from ExxonMobil.

3 George C. Marshall Institute (Washington DC)

A think tank that has been promoting scepticism on climate change since 1989. It is a leading proponent of the argument that climate science is highly uncertain. Receives money from ExxonMobil.

4 International Policy Network (London)

Free-market think tank which in November 2004 said global warming was a "myth", and described David King as "an embarrassment". Receives money from ExxonMobil.
5 The scientists

There are a few authoritative climate scientists in the sceptic camp. The most notable are Patrick Michaels from the University of Virginia, who is also the chief environmental commentator at the Cato Institute in Washington DC, and meteorologist Richard Lindzen from MIT. Most others are either retired, outside mainstream academia or tied to the fossil fuel industry. In the UK, three of the most prominent are Philip Stott, a retired biogeographer, former TV botanist David Bellamy, and Martin Keeley, a palaeogeologist. Keeley argues on a BBC website that "global warming is a scam, perpetrated by scientists with vested interests". He is an oil exploration consultant.

absolute loons

lock em up

Tim

[Stewart J.]

Thanks Tim, enlightened but still sceptical, still leaning toward the "global warming is a natural cylonic phenomena but hastened by carbon emissions camp".

Stewart

PS and windfarms are a blank cheque, wave power amongst others are the way ahead.

[Mark Duchamp]

Tom's a top bloke Mark and his website is FUNNY.

Tim

"Funny" is in the eye of the beholder, Tim. Just like aesthetics: you think the Scottish moors planted with 10.000 wind turbines will look great, and I happen to think they will be ruined. And more and more people think that way, as they come to realise what they are about to lose.

Mark

[Mark Duchamp]

Most of the prominent organisations making the case against mainstream climate science have an avowed agenda of promoting free markets and minimal government. They often accept funding from the fossil-fuel industry. Few employ climate scientists.

The article forgot professor F. Singer, professor Axel Mörner, prof. Laughton,Prof. Bob Carter, prof. Howard Hayden, Prof. Per A. Bullough, Prof Laughton, Professor Paul Reiter,Dr. Christopher Landsea,Dr. Benny Peiser,
Dr. John, Etherington, 17,000 US scientists, 200 German scientists (these are the ones I know of - no doubt there are many more).

Tell me, Tim: are all these people also paid by the oil lobby? What about me: am I paid by the oil industry?

And now tell me something: how many people - ecologists, scientists, salesmen, PR men, politicians - are on the wind industry's payroll? (which is taxpayer's money, let's not forget - i.e. money spent by vote-seeking politicians without prior cost-benefit analysis - my definition of "insane").




absolute loons

lock em up

Tim

From the looks of it, Tim, you only believe in freedom of speech when people think like you. Mmmm...


Mark

[Tim Allwood]

From the looks of it, Tim, you only believe in freedom of speech when people think like you. Mmmm...


Mark

Give it a rest

we all know the score

they are not mainstream climate scientists - read the New Scientist, Nature, et al.... take your pick but I suppose they don't believe in freedom of speech either? Creationists have the right to free speech - they are still wholly wrong of course. Denial of climate change will be seen as a huge folly by a bunch of nutters in years to come

you're a Flat Earther mate

Tim

[Stewart J.]

Whats a "Flat Earther" I'm absolutely intrigued?

Stewart :h?:

[CornishExile]

Whats a "Flat Earther" I'm absolutely intrigued?

Stewart :h?:

Someone who resolutely refuses to accept a concept despite an overwhelming body of supporting evidence, to the point where they become increasingly strident and desperate to defend their chosen view. As happened to the folk who believed the Earth was flat, and refused to accept it was round.

ce

[Stewart J.]

Thanks for that CE

Stewart

B (:

[Mark Duchamp]

you're a Flat Earther mate

Tim

Stalin must have said similar things to those of his opponents who did not believe in communism.

I must say that your resorting to such desperate and childish accusations do not improve the standing of the theories you so forcibly promote.

Mark

[Tim Allwood]

I must say that your resorting to such desperate and childish accusations do not improve the standing of the theories you so forcibly promote.

Mark

but for you Mark nothing improves their standing - if the best climatologists in the world can't convince you, then what chance have i got? You will never believe it because it will remove your raison d'etre... then what will you do?

I cannot understand anyone denying global warming or the fact that human activity is driving it. It's crazy to do so. You woudn't argue with physicists in a similar way about gravity or tell a flight engineer you know better than he does about how planes become airborne but when it comes to global warming everyone knows better than the scientists - is it becuase we are too scared to face up to the frightening reality of what it means?..... that's what the psychologists say about people denying climate change

sorry for the long post

Tim

Cornish - thanks for the flat earther definition, coudn't have put it any better.

Tim

[John M]

The original post refered to, amongst others, Inverleiver, where Scottish Power were planning to build the largest turbines in Scotland. This ridge is where two Golden Eagle territories meet, and there have been numerous sightings of WTE. The ridge also has many Eagles pass along it to get from the coast to Loch Awe area and return. When the wind is NW right round to NE this ridge is used like a highway by birds on transit. I have watched this for four years. I am pleased to say that, at a hearing early in August, the application for the windfarm was turned down. Scottish Power has right of appeal.
I have to say SNH were good but could have been better and despite this being seen as, a very important Eagle area, including a PAT report for Scottish Power the RSPB did not make an objection. I will find it hard to support the RSPB again.

[Tim Allwood]

that's a shame John. The RSPB do excellent work in a global scale - they were heavily involved with OBC in saving Gurney's Pitta in Thailand; the pitta WOULD have been extirpated otherwise, and at the time it would have been extinction as the birds in Myanmar were not known about.

The RSPB are broadly in favour of wind farms but this is only a small part of their work.

Tim

[John M]

that's a shame John. The RSPB do excellent work in a global scale - they were heavily involved with OBC in saving Gurney's Pitta in Thailand; the pitta WOULD have been extirpated otherwise, and at the time it would have been extinction as the birds in Myanmar were not known about.

The RSPB are broadly in favour of wind farms but this is only a small part of their work.

Tim
Hi Tim,
I`m glad they have helped save the Pitta from extinction. I hope that they are not going to wait till the Eagles are in the same position before they raise objections to the Eagle habitat being destroyed.

[Jane Turner]

Putting a very hard hat on for a moment.... Golden Eagle is no danger from extinction either nationally or globally. Clearly I'd prefer it if wind farms were sited to reduce the chances of an accidental strike.

Scottish Crossbill is however on the brink of extinction (if you believe it exists ;) ) from global warming.

[John M]

Putting a very hard hat on for a moment.... Golden Eagle is no danger from extinction either nationally or globally. Clearly I'd prefer it if wind farms were sited to reduce the chances of an accidental strike.

Scottish Crossbill is however on the brink of extinction (if you believe it exists ;) ) from global warming.

Hi Jane,
No need for a hard hat Jane. I think we basically agree.

My point was, why did the RSPB not object to a winfarm application in an area that is acknowlwdged to be important to both GE and WTE. Do we have to wait till Eagles are in danger of extintion for them to act. Once these windfarms are erected on the hills the landscape will be permanently damaged. We cant just dismantle them in the future and the scar to heel, the damage to the sensitive peatlands will be permanent. Remember too, that in order for windfarms to be placed in such areas it means that a road has to be put in and pylons with overhead wires erected to take the energy away. It is not just the turbines.
The people in the area of Inverleiver, where the windfarm application was, were very dissapointed that the RSPB did not object.
I agree that we have to find alternative energy but I am certain that windfarms in sensitive areas are not the best way to go. Jane, we agree that Eagles are not in danger of extinction in Scotland at the moment, but if we allow the building of all the winfarm applications in Scotland then the Golden Eagle would become more endangered. It is not just through collision.
For example.
One area in Kintyre, where a successful pair of GE nested and reared young, now has a windfarm, the birds have failed each year since.
Another pair in North Argyll have had a windfarm put in thier territory and forced the birds to move south into another pairs territorry causing two, once succesfull breeding pairs, not to rear chicks.
These are just two windfarms that are preventing three pairs of Eagles breeding.
I realise that there is a lot of strong feeling about the pros and cons for wind energy and I have learnt a great deal from both side of the arguement from this forum. I have read a lot about the subject and listened to experts on both sides. In my opinion, in the correct place, windfarms are good, But as for the argument for building windfarms in the Scottish highlands, for the time being, the cons far outweigh the pros and I really can`t see that changing.
Cheers,
John.

[Jane Turner]

What gets to me John is the blanket objection by some people on here to all wind farms, usually combined with a complete refusal to accept that global warming exists, or is caused by or accelerated by the burning of fossil fuels.

I am currently looking to putting a wind turbine on my property which, combined with photo-voltaic roof tiles should make me self-sufficient in all weathers.
I bet I get planning permission objections though!

If it where a choice between rendeing Golden eagle extinct in Scotland (bearing in mind it is one of the most widespread large raptors in the world - I expect only Osprey beats it) and having a significant chance of halting global warming....I know which I would choose.

[Tyke]

But as for the argument for building windfarms in the Scottish highlands, for the time being, the cons far outweigh the pros and I really can`t see that changing.
Cheers,
John.

John-I think you are absolutely correct.
The cases you site & the measured tones you use do a great service to a most worthy cause.
Cheers
Colin

[Tim Allwood]

the latest predictions say that global warming could be even worse than recently thought... this keeps happening, the predictions keep getting worse...

the HUGE west Antatctic ice sheet has started breaking up - it was thought to be stable until recently. Artcic warming is twice the global rate. The most recent predictions go up to 11 degrees of warming this century...

http://www.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change

the results of this are absolutely horrific

from New Scientist: http://www.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/mg18624956.400
It is time for some perspective. With the growing urgency of climate change, we cannot have it both ways. We cannot shout from the rooftops about the dangers of global warming and then turn around and shout even louder about the "dangers" of windmills. Climate change is one of the greatest challenges humanity will face this century. It cannot be solved through good intentions. It will take a radical change in the way we produce and consume energy - another industrial revolution, this time for clean energy, conservation and efficiency.

We have undergone such transformations before and we can do it again. But first we must accept that all forms of energy have associated costs. Fossil fuels are limited in quantity and create vast amounts of pollution. Large-scale hydroelectric power floods valleys and destroys animal habitat. Nuclear power is terribly expensive and creates radioactive waste.

Wind power also has its downsides. It is highly visible and can kill birds. The fact is, though, that any man-made structure can kill birds - houses, radio towers, skyscrapers. In Toronto alone, it is estimated that 10,000 birds collide with the city's tallest buildings every year. Compared with this, the risk to birds from well-sited wind farms is very low.

Even at Altamont Pass in California, where 7000 turbines were erected on a migratory route, only 0.2 birds per turbine per year have been killed. Indeed, the real risk to birds comes not from windmills but from a changing climate, which threatens the very existence of bird species and their habitats. This is not to say that wind farms should be allowed to spring up anywhere. They should always be subject to environmental impact assessments. But a blanket "not in my backyard" approach is hypocritical and counterproductive.

Pursuing wind power as part of our move towards clean energy makes sense. It is the fastest-growing source of energy in the world - a $6 billion industry last year. Its cost has dropped dramatically over the past two decades because of larger turbines and greater knowledge of how to build, install and operate turbines more effectively. Prices will likely decrease further as the technology improves.

sorry for long post again but people deserve the other side of the story too

[alcedo.atthis]

"the HUGE west Antatctic ice sheet has started breaking up"

It's been breaking up for 17,000 years Tim. How recent is that??

Regards



Malky

[Tim Allwood]

don't take my word for it Malky

http://www.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/dn6962

starts like this... The massive west Antarctic ice sheet, previously assumed to be stable, is starting to collapse, scientists warned on Tuesday.

Antarctica contains more than 90% of the world's ice, and the loss of any significant part of it would cause a substantial sea level rise. Scientists used to view Antarctica as a "slumbering giant", said Chris Rapley, from the British Antarctic Survey, but now he sees it as an "awakened giant".

Rapley presented measurements of the ice sheet at a major climate conference in Exeter, UK. Glaciers on the Antarctic peninsula, which protrudes from the continent to the north, were already known to be retreating. But the data Rapley presented show that glaciers within the much larger west Antarctic Ice sheet are also starting to disappear.

British Antarctic Survey? Bloody Amatuers eh Malky?
or perhaps they mean a different massive west Antarctic ice-sheet ;)

Tim

[Tyke]

If it where a choice between rendeing Golden eagle extinct in Scotland (bearing in mind it is one of the most widespread large raptors in the world - I expect only Osprey beats it) and having a significant chance of halting global warming....I know which I would choose.

This is the question isn't it Jane-and your "IF" is vastly important.

But it is seems clear that those who are facilitating wind farms in Scotland ( as elsewhere), in locations which jeopordise eagles ( and many other ground nesting birds ) do not even consider that equation.This is because the driver for them ( landowners/developers/power companies-yes and many local authorities)-is the huge sums of money which can be generated from their construction. Thus the ( local) environmental considerations are seen by these people as an impediment-not as part of a series of considerations which have to be balanced.

It seems to me that the list of questions to be asked are as follows:-

( the answers are those that I have settled on for myself )

1-Is the planet warming?-Yes, the empirical evidence seems irrefutable.
2-Will this warming adversely affect life on earth?-Yes for many species
3-Why is the planet warming?-Probably a mix of cyclical climate change, and anthropomorphic forcing.
4-Which factor is the largest-Not sure, but it may be the man made element.
4- Can the anthropomorphic effect be reduced- Yes, by ceasing the use of fossil fuels
5-Can this be achieved in time to reverse global warming -probably not because of growth of energy consumption in China & India; reluctance in the west to curb consumption;no global unity of purpose; lack of technology to achieve a major effect ,and the unalterable cyclical element.

...So I have asked myself your important question Jane . My answer is that wind energy will demonstrably not reduce greenhouse gas emissions in this country-and therefore the risk to the local environment which John M, and many others on BF, and around the country have demonstrated , is weighed too heavily in the balance . So Wind Farms should not be sited in locations which give rise to this risk.

Although it's off thread it seems to me that there are two related factors which hardly ever get debated by short sighted governments:-

1. The need to replace oil & gas within a visible timeframe-because consumption has begun to exceed availability.
2 The need to adapt our lifestyles to climate change-not building large cities in flood plains being one example. ( I wonder if Canute would be proud of us all ?)

Cheers
Colin

[alcedo.atthis]

"3-Why is the planet warming?-Probably a mix of cyclical climate change, and anthropomorphic forcing.
4-Which factor is the largest-Not sure, but it may be the man made element."

Colin, did a bit of searching into the Western Antarctic Ice Sheet, and Tim's comments re the New Scientists bit, which is now contradicting an opposing article, (Antarctic Ice Sheet Growing) which was printed in the New Scientist a couple of years ago, (2002) I found many comments from various sources stating that in the last 3 million years, the surface of the Earth at the Antarctic has been a lot warmer that it is today. These comments were based on data from core samples. Other sources relating some of the effects on temperature in the present climate is due to the angle of tilt of the Earth's Northern Hemisphere towards the Sun, was at 24.5°, now at 22.5°, but slowly receeding back to a predicted 18.5°, which will lead to a further cooling. Perhaps the scientist who stated in 2001 that we are heading towards an ice age in the near future, and was laughed at, was correct, unless we put more CO2 into the atmosphere to counteract the afore mentioned effect.
Who do you believe??
Can you believe any of them??

Regards

Malky

[John M]

One of the causes of global warming is the depletion of the ozone layer, I think most people would agree that this is accepted scientific fact. Each of the large windmills has a concrete plinth as its base. That base is the same size as an olympic swimming pool. Apparently, one of the biggest ozone destroyers in the world are the cement manufactures.
It would be a terrible irony that in order to save the planet in the long term we help to destroy it in the short term. Not only destroying the Ozone layer but also destroying the fragile upland habital that is so vital for so many species.
It is widely thought that the erection of windmills will do little to reduce carbon emissions. Carbon emisions are the real cause. We have to stop burning fossil fuels and to re-educate people about how to conserve energy in the home and industry.
If windmills must be used then site them in an environmentally sensitive way. The root of this desperation to cover Scotland in Winfarms is short term financial gain for a few companies. This was my interpretation at the hearing of the Inverleiver windfarm application.
Jane, I hope you get permission for your generator as I would rather see small generators in towns being used for local houses than see huge windfarms anywhere with pylons and wires covering the land. I would be happy if every house would try to be energy efficient as you are doing.

[alcedo.atthis]

"Antarctica contains more than 90% of the world's ice, and the loss of any significant part of it would cause a substantial sea level rise."

Tim, as you are a teacher, one would know that if one puts ice in a glass of water and lets it (the ice that is) melt, the water level in the glass does not rise, as the ice prior to melting is flaoting, and does not add to the overal volume.
Same goes with the Antarctic Ice sheet. Its mainly floating. The latest research now contardicts the scare mongering of this circa 50 metre rise in sea levels. Over the last hundred years, the fluctuary melt of the Antarctic Ice Sheets, East, West and other, has only added 1mm to the overal world sea level, per anum, and that is a very conservative conclusion.

Regards

Malky

[Tim Allwood]

Most of the prominent organisations making the case against mainstream climate science have an avowed agenda of promoting free markets and minimal government. They often accept funding from the fossil-fuel industry. Few employ climate scientists.

don't you work in the oil industry Malky? o:D

I'm sure you'd get a Nature paper if you could just refute Mr Rapley of the BAS's findings properly in print... help the poor guy out, he's obviously clueless

Tim

[Tyke]

"Who do you believe??"

Malky-Even a cursory study of the earth's history shows that the cycles you mention have occurred, and will continue to occur.
Oscillatory cycles, as you have decribed, drive Northern Hemisphere glacials & warmings. Over longer periods plate tectonics alters climate, from the intense heat over mega continents like Pangea to the , recently discovered phenomenon of "snowball earth"-the global glaciation.
So yes-cycles are at work, and some dramatic temperature changes have occurred in relatively short periods of time too .And we can believe all of this. It's demonstrably good science.

The trouble is, a) Humans deal in short periods of time because they only care about their own lifetimes.& b) it is very very difficult to forecast climate change & c)-it has to be said-we have increased the output of gases known to have a warming effect.

And so we have this recipe for endless debate about the precise nature of the current warming . Scientist versus Scientist as ever. Hair Shirt Greens versus Macho SUV drivers. . ...all trying to "blame" someone.

Meanwhile governments-or some of them-in an attempt to "do something" formulate a series of totally arbitrary ( and actually totally inadequate) Kyoto "targets" ( boy am I sick to death of bloody targets) for CO2 reduction, and set about their "renewable energy" policies. But there is only one technology available commercially-wind turbines-so they offer huge financial incentives to build these things in our windy areas ( AKA upland/wild/pristine landscapes) breath a sigh of relief & forget about the whole thing, leaving the "poor bloody infantry" of conservationists to battle every application with the developers.

I just wish we could recognise two truths:

1 -It is very important to find SIGNIFICANT replacements for oil & gas, because they will run out soon, and to avoid using coal ( at least "dirty" coal) because it's polluting the atmosphere. These replacements should not generate "greenhouse gasses", just in case these are causing GW .
( exit pointless arguments about the cause of GW)

2-Wind Turbines can cause serious damage to landscape, habitat & wildlife. This is not justified because Wind generated electricity is NOT A SIGNIFICANT replacement for oil , gas & coal usage. It cannot replace coventional plant because it only operates 20% of the time on an unpredictable basis.If it replaces Nuclear power stations in UK because ours are phased out then it will have saved NO CO2 AT ALL.

I wish the people who believe that blanket approval be given to wind farms-anywhere-would explain exactly what percentage reduction in our CO2 levels they will bring about in UK, and what effect this will have on GW -and why. All the data is in the public domain .

So let's have an answer-they have a duty to quantify & demonstrate the benefits which justify the environmental damage being caused.

Regards
Colin

[Tim Allwood]

there is NO DEBATE anymore Colin

this natural cycle stuff being to blame for current global warming is absolute total rubbish... where do these views originate...? Are you going to rewrite all the laws of science? There is virtually complete concensus among scientists; the debate is just how bad it will get. The people disagreeing are people with vested interests, mostly non scientists... remember recently the leading guys in the anti camp discovered faking results re global warming, and the discrediting of David Bellamy's loony views live on Channel 4. It was so embarrassing. Why are so many anti windfarmers against man made global warming? I am perplexed.

evolutionists 'debate' with creationists still...

wind farms are a first step to solving an incredibly serious and very very big problem. If they help to reduce the catastrophic implications of global warming you can cover the whole bloody country in them for me, UK is after all pretty knackered for biodiversity already compared to the tropics

anyway i've stoked this one back up so will take a back seat for a while.

enjoy

Tim

[Grousemore]

I wish the people who believe that blanket approval be given to wind farms-anywhere-would explain exactly what percentage reduction in our CO2 levels they will bring about in UK, and what effect this will have on GW -and why. All the data is in the public domain .

So let's have an answer-they have a duty to quantify & demonstrate the benefits which justify the environmental damage being caused.

Regards
Colin

They haven't got an answer is the only reasonable conclusion to be drawn.

It's easier to tell us to 'see the bigger picture' and other such platitudes.

This Thread is about windfarms, yet the pro-windfarm fraternity never answer the valid questions/doubts that arise, preferring to obfuscate and ridicule.

In my opinion, the likes of you and Mark show admirable patience in the face of these tactics, albeit pointless patience.

[Tyke]

"If they help to reduce the catastrophic implications of global warming "

Well-do they -or don't they Tim-stop saying "if".
Is your view that they do-if so prove it.


"you can cover the whole bloody country in them for me, UK is after all pretty knackered for biodiversity already compared to the tropics"

Take note then all who are involved in conservation in the UK-you are wasting your time-it's all knackered, & it doesn't look like Indonesia.

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Colin

[Tyke]

"Why are so many anti windfarmers against man made global warming? I am perplexed."

Tim-if that's for me you havent read my post #205.

Another question for you:-

Which is most important to you-
1-That other people accept without question that the current warming is solely due to man's effect on the atmosphere.

or

2-That we find significant alternatives to oil , gas and coal, which will reduce greenhouse gasses-ASAP.

Sounds to me like it's 1 that's most important for you?

I'm for 2-then we will find out about 1


Cheers
Colin

[Jane Turner]

Its really starting to get my goat that this debate has to be so B***** polarised. As you all should know I am in favour of offshore windfarms over onshore windfarms and in favour of brownsite onshore windfarms over out of site out of mind ones on Scottish Islands. I am however 10000000% in favour of having wind farms and any other form of energy generation that reduces the use of fossil fuels over keeping my fingers crossed and pretending everything will be ok. Terrible as it is to say, a few Eagles are small beer.

I know that I can be a net contributer to the national grid with a single (small) turbine and a few photovoltaic tiles. Its really that simple Trevor.

There you have got the calmest person on the planet angry... AAAAARRRRGGHHHHHHH

[Tim Allwood]

There you have got the calmest person on the planet angry... AAAAARRRRGGHHHHHHH

chill grrrrrrllll :hippy:

did Tranny lose then?

Tim

let's get a turbine on every house... by law. That'll please some people B (:

[Jane Turner]

That might have somnething to do with it Tim

http://www.est.org.uk/uploads/documents/myhome/Wind_energy_o_p.pdf

For anyone not wanting to appear like an Ostrich

[alcedo.atthis]

"For anyone not wanting to appear like an Ostrich"

Jane, for a member of a wild bird forum, one should know that Ostriches DO NOT bury their heads in the sand.
A little research would show this, along with a little research on Antarctica.

Here are a few pointers :-
http://www.aber.ac.uk/~glawww/antarctic.shtml
http://igloo.gsfc.nasa.gov/wais/articles/eos.html
http://www.asoc.org/general/iceshelve.htm
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn1806
http://www.spacedaily.com/news/antarctic-04n.html
http://visibleearth.nasa.gov/view_rec.php?vev1id=11526
http://www.hypography.com/article.cfm?id=29172
http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/res/pi/WAIS/
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2000/12/001218073333.htm
http://www.agu.org/sci_soc/articles/bind.html
http://wired-vig.wired.com/news/technology/0,1282,49815,00.html

I have stopped there for the moment. If you take the time to actually read all of the conflicting statements held within the above noted sites, noting the origins of the contained data, you will possible come to the conclusion that there is still no outright agreement on what is happening, but there is a consensus of what has happened in the political free past. Just think, Tim might actually read some of this also. I don't need to write papers for "Nature" or anyone else. I'm just not selective regarding the matter I actually read. I try and read it all!!

Regards

Malky. Always willing to help educate others.

[Tyke]

That might have somnething to do with it Tim

http://www.est.org.uk/uploads/documents/myhome/Wind_energy_o_p.pdf

For anyone not wanting to appear like an Ostrich

Great idea Jane-well done on going for this-at least you're "doing something".
Thankfully , not remotely comparable with the serid ranks of monsters proposed for Lewis, Sky etc.
Very pleased to read that you would object to the latter.

....Ostrich?...que?

Colin

[Tyke]

Very interesting stuff Malky-thanks

re:-"you will possible come to the conclusion that there is still no outright agreement on what is happening, but there is a consensus of what has happened in the political free past.":- It seems that for folk like Tim, any equivocation on cause-or at least their view of it-is unnacceptable.
Now if this is because they equate uncertainty on cause with unwillingness to act on fossil fuel replacement, then I can sort of understand .( USA etc.etc.etc)
But it appears that someone who has rational doubts on cause (like yourself) but is nevertheless desperate to see effective replacements for fossil fuels brought forward, and who is frustrated by the absence of a serious energy strategy, ( I'm in this camp)-still receives a tongue lashing .

This leads me to believe that for such people,the cause is what matters-not the solutions.We can recognise this in zealotry everywhere. It always hinders rather than helps.

Regards
Colin

[Tyke]

Malky-those were fascinating papers.

Have you looked at the Northern Hemisphere?-it's a bit closer to home too!:-

http://www.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/mg18725124.500

Portillo in the Sunday Times today says nuclear is the only technology available to provide emission free electricity generation ( Lovelock's view also) If the extraction of hydrogen from water becomes viable , then nuclear plants are all set to complete emission free electrolosis of oil alternatives-the virtuous circle.( apart from the waste that is !)

Regards
Colin

[alcedo.atthis]

"If the extraction of hydrogen from water becomes viable, then nuclear plants are all set to complete emission free electrolosis of oil alternatives-the virtuous circle."( apart from the waste that is !)

Colin, interestingly enough, while mentioning Hydrogen, have a look at the 2003 papers and comments which followed :-

http://www.mindfully.org/Energy/2003/Hydrogen-Harm-Ozone12jun03.htm
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/hydrogen_030613.html
http://www.mindfully.org/Energy/2003/Hydrogen-Secret5may03.htm
From Feb 2005 :-
http://www.ozone-depletion.com/
Some interesting comments down the page here :-
http://www.emagazine.com/view/?171

so as with most other subjects relative to the cure for global temperature change, differing opinions still, and will probably always exist.

Regards

Malky

[Tim Allwood]

well i've taken the time to study the first paper from Aberystwyth and i can't see any contradiction of the concensus view of what is happening today to the ice and that it is a very serious problem. Am i missing something?

in fact they even say
# The volume of the ice sheet is estimated to be 30 million cu. km. If this were all to melt, sea level would rise by 56 m according to recent estimates by the British Antarctic Survey. In addition, the interior of the continent could rise by as much as 900 m.
# The ice sheet as a whole is divided into three main components:

- the East Antarctic ice sheet, mainly occupying ground above sea level and which is therefore relatively stable;

- the West Antarctic ice sheet, resting on a bed that is mainly below sea-level and which is therefore vulnerable to catastrophic collapse; and

- the Antarctic Peninsula ice sheet, a relatively small volume of ice covering the land of the same name that stretches towards South America.

The Antarctic ice sheet exerts one of the major controls on the climate of the southern hemisphere.

Malky, you should ring em up and explain why there will be no sea level rise when all that ice melts. The BAS are probably only up to Key Stage 4 physics, like me

Tim

[Tyke]

so as with most other subjects relative to the cure for global temperature change, differing opinions still, and will probably always exist.

Regards

Malky

Thanks Malky-again fascinating stuff.
Yes I had seen the ozone / hydrogen problem flagged before.
The comment on Peak Oil was interesting-40 years of recoverable supply left!!
I just can't help but feel this is a more pressing problem than fossil fuelled electricity generation.There are very big effects available for the latter from nuclear, or even more Combined Cycle Gas rather than coal......but oil in transport. If not hydrogen then what....rubber bands?
Ah well!
Regards
Colin

[Grousemore]

I know that I can be a net contributer to the national grid with a single (small) turbine and a few photovoltaic tiles. Its really that simple Trevor.

There you have got the calmest person on the planet angry... AAAAARRRRGGHHHHHHH

I'm sorry, but it is not that simple.

However admirable your minor contribution may be, we are talking on this Thread about Tyke's aptly described "..serid ranks of monsters proposed for Lewis, Sky etc."

Sincere apologies for making you angry though ;)

[Mark Duchamp]

from New Scientist: http://www.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/mg18624956.400

[I]"Wind power also has its downsides. It is highly visible and can kill birds. The fact is, though, that any man-made structure can kill birds - houses, radio towers, skyscrapers. In Toronto alone, it is estimated that 10,000 birds collide with the city's tallest buildings every year. "


I recognise here the same untenable rhetoric used by windfarm promoters: if tall structures kill birds in Toronto, why not put more of them everywhere, especially in bird reserves and other wilderness areas?

I am disappointed to see New Scientist talk such nonsense.

Mark

[Mark Duchamp]

....a little research on Antarctica.

http://www.aber.ac.uk/~glawww/antarctic.shtml
http://igloo.gsfc.nasa.gov/wais/articles/eos.html
http://www.asoc.org/general/iceshelve.htm
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn1806
http://www.spacedaily.com/news/antarctic-04n.html
http://visibleearth.nasa.gov/view_rec.php?vev1id=11526
http://www.hypography.com/article.cfm?id=29172
http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/res/pi/WAIS/
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2000/12/001218073333.htm
http://www.agu.org/sci_soc/articles/bind.html
http://wired-vig.wired.com/news/technology/0,1282,49815,00.html

I have stopped there for the moment. If you take the time to actually read all of the conflicting statements held within the above noted sites, noting the origins of the contained data, you will possible come to the conclusion that there is still no outright agreement on what is happening,

Malky.


Thank you Malky. As you said: all very confusing. Talk about settled science on global warming!

Here is another paper:

Antarctic Ice Cap Growing (20 Jan 2002)
"A new paper published in Science (Joughin & Tulaczyk, vol.295, p.476, 18 Jan 2002) reports that radar studies show the West Antarctic Sheet to be growing, not shrinking as previously believed. They measured a net growth of +26.8 gigatons of ice per year instead of the -20 gigatons shrinkage estimated from older studies.

The authors also found that the retreat of ice following the end of the last ice age has now all but ceased and that the current positive mass balance of this ice sheet (i.e. a sheet which is accumulating ice faster in its accumulation zone than it is losing it at its melt zone near the coast) may indeed represent a reversal of the ice retreat which has been going on for thousands of years since the end of the last ice age. With accumulating ice in spite of `global warming' predictions, there is now little chance of the West Antarctic ice sheet collapsing, contrary to some of the scare stories being peddled by environmentalists. BBC story here.

This new finding comes on the heels of another Antarctic study published a week ago in Nature to show that the Antarctic continent has been cooling in recent decades instead of warming as predicted by the climate models and basic greenhouse theory. Taken together, these two studies show there is something seriously wrong with current theory and the models which embody that theory."



As for all these glaciers and toundras melting, I wonder how come the Maldives are still above water... Here is what Professor Mörner wrote about that:

"in 2000, as president of the INQUA Commission on Sea Level Changes and Coastal Evolution, I therefore launched a major sea level research project in the Maldives. Very soon, and to our great surprise, we found out that sea level is by no means in the process of rising in the Maldives today. In the 1970ies, sea level even fell significantly. Our story is duplicated from island to island. We measure it by different means. And, we listen to what the local people had to say. Always the same results: (1) sea level is not rising, and (2) it fell in the 70ies. "

Mark

[Mark Duchamp]

I agree with Trevor, however: this thread is about "..serried ranks of monsters proposed for Lewis, Skye etc." - I just had to cool down the hype on AGW (BTW, brace yourselves for a cold winter folks, if the Met. Office know what they are talking about).

So now, back to windfarms on the Hebrides:

As I travelled through Scotland this summer, I heard some redeeming
comments about RSPB Scotland. I was willing to give them some credit
(even though I could not understand their silence on Inverliever) when
I landed on the Isle of Mull.

Mull, as you know, is eagle island "par excellence": 9 pairs of
white-tailed eagles (almost 30% of UK population), 7 of which
productive this year with 8 fledglings; 18 nesting pairs of golden
eagles, with 37 ranges in total. Add to this 36 breeding pairs of hen
harriers and 5 of peregrine falcons, on an island half the size of
Skye.

It is also an island where 150 volunteers spend many hours each breeding
season to watch over eagles' nests, saving the precious eggs from
would-be snatchers (even at night!) - and where a non-negligible
portion of tourism is eagle-related.

Now then: on a ridge used by the TV-famous loch Frisa sea eagles, a
windfarm is being planned. And on that same ridge, which borders with 3
active golden eagle ranges, 6 adult GE's were seen displaying concurrently.

So what did the RSPB do? It passed the opportunity to oppose the
project at the outset, when it is easiest to stop. Pretending to wait
till a full-blown planning application is presented, the bird society did
not oppose the approval of a permit to erect an anemometer. This,
of course, will lead to money being spent on preparing an application,
performing field studies, and for everyone involved with the project to
nourish expectations - all of which will make it so much more difficult
to stop the windfarm project when the RSPB is finally "ready to object".

It is no secret to anyone on Mull that more projects are in the
offing. This first one is just the ice-breaker. It is therefore
significant that the RSPB has not seized this golden opportunity to
declare its opposition to ANY windfarm on Mull, as it should be.

One is bound to ask: do RSPB management mean what they say
about ill-sited windfarms? And consequently: is their late-started
opposition to North-Lewis and Edinbane for real, or is it an expedient?

Inverliever, and now Mull, are an eye-opener on this score.

Mark

[Jos Stratford]

wind farms are a first step to solving an incredibly serious and very very big problem. If they help to reduce the catastrophic implications of global warming you can cover the whole bloody country in them for me, UK is after all pretty knackered for biodiversity already compared to the tropics


Why bother to worry about global warming or any other environmental issues if we are happy to, with the other hand, write off our natural heritage, including the scenic aspects and significant populations of, for example, White-tailed and Golden Eagles. Now I am sure you are not serious with this one Tim, but I for one don't see a big difference in destroying a country by one means and letting it degrade by another. The solution is not plastering our islands, highlands and headlands with windfarms - that is about as good as saying let's reduce deaths on the roads by shooting everyone before they get out of their garden!

As for a knackered UK, absolute rubbish. Besides, if the UK becomes covered in windfarms, then you can be sure that those tropics will be quick to catch on and add a good few too - and, even if the UK does have a modicum of thought as to where to site windfarms, you can bet many countries in the tropics will have no such thoughts.

[Tim Allwood]

Now I am sure you are not serious with this one Tim,.

what? Moi?

semi serious

Tim

[Tyke]

MULL

Thanks for bringing us armchair pundits back to thread with news from "the front" Mark.

This brings to mind a previous thread :-
http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=37635

Support can be given via :-
http://www.fairwind.org.uk/

I wonder if Bill Oddie could be persuaded to speak against this ? After all he & the BBC made capital out of the Mull Sea Eagles...& Oddie received a handsome fee one presumes.

" Oddie's Eagles for the chop?" might be an interesting headline in the Scottish papers .

Colin

[Mark Duchamp]

.... I for one don't see a big difference in destroying a country by one means and letting it degrade by another. The solution is not plastering our islands, highlands and headlands with windfarms - that is about as good as saying let's reduce deaths on the roads by shooting everyone before they get out of their garden!


:clap:


Or: let's kill our eagles today lest they die tomorrow. Don't laugh: some of the rhetoric I heard from windfarm fanatics included a line of reasoning that wasn't far off.


Mark

[Mark Duchamp]

MULL

This brings to mind a previous thread :-
http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=37635


I browsed through it and picked up these words from post # 6 by Quacker: "All Mull Eagles are better protected than the crown jewels themselves!
Marvellous effort from RSPB, and locals alike."

Looks like the RSPB has now decided the crown jewels could go down the drain.


Support can be given via :-
http://www.fairwind.org.uk/

Done! (petition signed)



I wonder if Bill Oddie could be persuaded to speak against this ? After all he & the BBC made capital out of the Mull Sea Eagles...& Oddie received a handsome fee one presumes.

Don't count on the BBC for giving air time to anyone speaking against the bird-slicers. They would put wind turbines in Hyde Park if you'd let them.



" Oddie's Eagles for the chop?" might be an interesting headline in the Scottish papers .

Colin

:'D

Mark

[Tim Allwood]

so the Beeb are in collusion with the wind farms too eh Mark

watch out Mark the men in black helicopters will come and spirit you away... you becoming too dangerous.... you know too much about their dark network with tendrils twining around all branches of authority, keeping us in line lest we uncover their plan for world domination via er..... windmills

be very careful.... "they" know where you live

Tim

[Tyke]

Balanced headline? :-

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4300723.stm

Colin

[Tim Allwood]

yes
IMHO

it has been widely dismissed
just those Coutry Guardian nutters - Noel Mr Blobby Edmonds, Bernhard Ingham etc - i remember how Ingham treated the media in the mid 80s ... they really did exert pressure on the BBC whereas here it's just how most people perceive these CG folks. There not exactly a respected scientific body...

and why do they always go on about the bloody taxpayer - should we pay for anything, let alone clean energy and a future...?

Tim

[Tyke]

ummmm...am I going blind -report under discussion was by The German Energy Agency...?

Was diesis ist Coutry Guardian nudder, und Noel Blobby-Wer diese leute sind?-Gott im Himmel-Dummkopf Englander!!

[Tim Allwood]

oi

who won the war?

not that i'm mentioning it...

feel free to delete this post mods!

Tim ;) ;) ;)

[Mark Duchamp]

so the Beeb are in collusion with the wind farms too eh Mark

Was Angela Kelly, chair of Country Guardian, ever invited by the BBC to air her views, which reflect those of a growing segment of the population?

Yet just about every other minority in the UK has been, and not just once.

So why is the Beeb discriminating against a minority whose only crime is to want to save the birds and the amenity of the countryside?




be very careful.... "they" know where you live

Tim

Funny you'd say that. A couple of years back, on the BWEA* website I think it was, Angela Kelly, ecologist Dr. John Etherington, and five other prominent opponents to windfarms were singled out and these words appeared after their names, in large letters: WE KNOW WERE YOU LIVE.

This caused alarm in their families. A complaint was made to the police, and BWEA removed the threat.

*BWEA: British Wind Energy Association - official arm of the windpower lobby.

So you can drop the sarcasm, Tim. It ain't funny.

Mark

[Tim Allwood]

Funny you'd say that. A couple of years back, on the BWEA* website I think it was, Angela Kelly, ecologist Dr. John Etherington, and five other prominent opponents to windfarms were singled out and these words appeared after their names, in large letters: WE KNOW WERE YOU LIVE.

This caused alarm in their families. A complaint was made to the police, and BWEA removed the threat.

*BWEA: British Wind Energy Association - official arm of the windpower lobby.

So you can drop the sarcasm, Tim. It ain't funny.

Mark

wow
i thought you might even laugh there Mark, but never mind. take it up with the beeb, i can't speak for them. I imagine they don't think CG worthy of interviewing?

so they really are out to get you then. Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean etc etc etc :eek!:

who's Dr John Etherington anyway? I have at least seven mates who are doctors (of ecology) from UEA, who are in favour of wind farms, some from the Tyndall Centre or Climate Research. Don't know what it proves though.

Tim

[Mark Duchamp]

I imagine they don't think CG worthy of interviewing?
Tim

Ha! ha! You are droll.

Mark

[Mark Duchamp]

who's Dr John Etherington anyway?
Tim

Dr John Etherington, formerly Reader in Ecology in the University of Wales until his retirement in the early 1990s.


Mark

[nirofo]

Hi Tim

About your seven mates who are doctors (of ecology) from UEA, who are in favour of wind farms, some from the Tyndall Centre or Climate Research. Don't know what it proves though. I would suggest it proves that your seven mates obviously don't realise that windfarms in the form that they are being used at the present, are not worth the effort, time, money, land destruction and ecological damage it takes to erect them.

nirofo.

[Tyke]

Following post #223 I wrote to RSPB Scotland asking for their assurance that they would seek to protect the Mull Eagles from the risk of Wind Farms on Mull.

This is their reply received today:-

Dear Mr Boyd

Thank you for your e-mail to our Scottish Headquarters. It has been passed to me as the RSPB Mull Officer. My apologies for the delay in responding but I have been away.

Mull is indeed very important for sea eagles and golden eagles and monitoring their populations is an essential part of my RSPB role here. The only serious wind farm proposal we're aware of for this area is the one you mention in relation to Dervaig and Loch Frisa. Other larger schemes have been proposed in the past but have so far come to nothing thanks largely to the efforts of the local community and indeed RSPB.

The Dervaig scheme is currently in the bird survey and 'other information' gathering stage, such as the anenometers you mention. The anenometers themelves are of little or no risk to birds so we were not in a position to object to them at the planning application stage. We did ask that bird deflectors be fitted to the guy ropes which was agreed. This is all standard procedure in these sort of applications and does not assume that a wind farm will automatically be approved once the information has been gathered. In this instance though RSPB also made it very clear to the local authority and the developers that in this particular case we would have very serious concerns if a formal planning application for a wind farm at this site did eventually materialise in the future.

Meanwhile, we were working hard on comments for the draft Argyll & Bute Local Plan which originally had this area zoned as a site 'suitable for large scale wind farm development'. This was clearly unacceptable to RSPB and we formally objected to the plan on this point. This was a far more effective route to tackle this issue than objecting to anenometers as the final Local Plan will eventually govern all wind farm proposals on Mull. We argued that Mull was of international importance for sea and golden eagles and that wind farm developments here would be incompatible with this status. I am pleased to say that the final draft of the Local Plan that has now emerged has completely removed Mull as a site for large scale wind farm development. The only wind farms which may be considered by the local authority are community-type ventures of 3 turbines or less. This is a major achievement and will have a significant bearing on the outcome of the fact finding stage of the Dervaig exercise.

We have also cooperated with the bird survey (which has adhered to the SNH guidelines) and have contributed additional records of sea eagle activity in the area. I hope from this you can see that far from not defending Mull's sea eagles, RSPB has been involved at all stages and has been tackling the potential threat to the eagles on a number of fronts. I would point out that we are clearly not alone in this and that many members of the local community have also been working hard on this issue.

We now await the outcome of the bird survey which is still ongoing. The developers have stated that if that survey shows there to be substantial use of that area by the sea eagles or other birds then they would not even proceed to a formal planning application which is encouraging. I can assure you that we will be closely involved as this process develops over the next few years and will explore all options to ensure Mull's sea eagles are safe and secure.

Please do get back to me if you have any additional enquiries on this issue. Thank you for your support and for your encouragment for our work and the sea eagles on Mull.

Yours sincerely

David

David Sexton
RSPB Scotland
Mull Officer

Tel: 01680 300 387


...

I find this satisfactory & encouraging ( from the Eagles' point of view !). If anyone has reason to think otherwise I am happy to follow up with more questions

Colin

[alcedo.atthis]

"We now await the outcome of the bird survey which is still ongoing. The developers have stated that if that survey shows there to be substantial use of that area by the sea eagles or other birds then they would not even proceed to a formal planning application which is encouraging."

Colin, do we know who is actually carrying out the survey work, and is it, like most things, open to manipulation, ie due to differences in interpretation of "the SNH guidelines".

Regards

Malky

[Tyke]

"We now await the outcome of the bird survey which is still ongoing. The developers have stated that if that survey shows there to be substantial use of that area by the sea eagles or other birds then they would not even proceed to a formal planning application which is encouraging."

Colin, do we know who is actually carrying out the survey work, and is it, like most things, open to manipulation, ie due to differences in interpretation of "the SNH guidelines".

Regards

Malky

I have asked them Malky
Cheers
Colin

[Sandra (Taylor)]

Thanks for aiming me at that site Colin. I had no idea that windfarms would be considered on Mull. So many people have gone to so much trouble to establish the sea eagles on Mull, and the local population has really got heavily involved.

As we drove along the banks - both sides - of Loch na Keal every car occupant [except contractors/farmers etc.] was training binoculars or telescopes on the sky/loch/mountains. The hotel and B&B owners are really aware of the attraction of the local natural history and one would hope that nothing is allowed to spoil it.

Sandra
:t:

[John M]

Colin, do we know who is actually carrying out the survey work, and is it, like most things, open to manipulation, ie due to differences in interpretation of "the SNH guidelines

The survey done for the Inverleiver windfarm application was, in my opinion, weighed in favour of the energy company.

One of the worries is that the energy company payed the wage of the surveyer and therefore one has to ask how unbiased the results are. Dare I say that with central Government pushing alterative energy, one has to ask if the government department, SNH are being kept on a leash. I detected undertones to this effect with regards to Inverleiver.

As for the PAT report, it appears you can make up whatever you want.

My opinions only,
John.

[Tyke]

Sent to David Sexton today:-

Hi David-just one follow up question if you don't mind.
Who is doing the bird survey?
Can RSPB be certain that it will adhere to the relevant protocols, and not be open to interpretation, or indeed slanted in a particular way?

Thanks again

Yours


Will report when I have a reply

Colin

[Tyke]

Malky/John M et al:-

RSPB Mull's reply re bird survey just received:-

Hi
Yes the bird survey is being conducted by Dr Paul Haworth who runs an environmental consultancy based on Mull. He is an expert raptor biologist with many years experience on Mull and elsewhere. His field worker who is doing some of the obeservations and vantage point counts is Fiona Harmer who has previously worked for the RSPB and is also a very experienced eagle field worker.

They are adhering to the guidelines/protocols as set out by SNH for bird surveys of this type and both RSPB and SNH will be involved in interpreting the results so I feel it will be as sound a survey as it can be.

Best wishes
David


Colin

[Tim Allwood]

I have worked for RSPB and produced reports.

No-one ever tried to influence my report..... what i saw was what was reported

...maybe they knew me too well... but i doubt it!

Tim

[CornishExile]

Colin, do we know who is actually carrying out the survey work, and is it, like most things, open to manipulation, ie due to differences in interpretation of "the SNH guidelines

The survey done for the Inverleiver windfarm application was, in my opinion, weighed in favour of the energy company.

One of the worries is that the energy company payed the wage of the surveyer and therefore one has to ask how unbiased the results are. Dare I say that with central Government pushing alterative energy, one has to ask if the government department, SNH are being kept on a leash. I detected undertones to this effect with regards to Inverleiver.

As for the PAT report, it appears you can make up whatever you want.

My opinions only,
John.

Things are getting strange, I'm starting to worry/
This could be a case for Mulder and Scully...
Catatonia

Oh please. Why is it that any report which might contradict a vocal pressure group's collective opinion is always flawed or biased? Conspiracy theories, what next? This sort of argument just undermines your position and smacks of desperation and irrational paranoia. Hardly compelling grounds for an argument to sway the undecided or pro-windfarm general public.

ce

[John M]

This sort of argument just undermines your position and smacks of desperation and irrational paranoia. Hardly compelling grounds for an argument to sway the undecided or pro-windfarm general public.
ce

Hi ce,

You may well be correct, but the feeling of those involved in trying to prevent the application being passed was the same as my own. It was interesting to note that my own observations and those of a very highly regarded and long time Eagle monitor, who knows both pairs of GE in the area, were not the same as the paid surveyor.

It may well be that he was giving his findings exactly as he found them.

But it is disconcerting that the wages are paid by the company who are going to make vast sums of money from the results of the survey.
Do you not think that a survey should be done by someone suitably qualified who has no contact with either the pro or anti groups. Only this way can we be sure of an unbiased survey and remove the "desperation and irrational paranoia" you speak off.
This is the way forward as regards surveying an area, as it takes away the worry that many have, of a biased report.
The SNH were initially vehemently against the windfarm and initially objected on the grounds that there would be disturbance to the Eagles.
This was later reduced to an objection about the visual impact on the landscpe. The objectors felt that there had been some pressure brought to bear. If there was not, then why did they back off so significantly. The Eagles had not gone away.

Thankfully this application has been turned down, so despite everything it is possible for common sense to prevail.
Cheers,
John.

[John M]

I have worked for RSPB and produced reports.

No-one ever tried to influence my report..... what i saw was what was reported

...maybe they knew me too well... but i doubt it!

Tim


Hi Tim,

I`m sure you would not allow your reports to be influenced,

In this case the survey, for Inverleiver, was for Scottish Power and not the RSPB.

Cheers,
John.

[Hindolbittern]

This sort of argument just undermines your position and smacks of desperation and irrational paranoia. Hardly compelling grounds for an argument to sway the undecided or pro-windfarm general public.
ce

Hi ce,

You may well be correct, but the feeling of those involved in trying to prevent the application being passed was the same as my own. It was interesting to note that my own observations and those of a very highly regarded and long time Eagle monitor, who knows both pairs of GE in the area, were not the same as the paid surveyor.

It may well be that he was giving his findings exactly as he found them.

But it is disconcerting that the wages are paid by the company who are going to make vast sums of money from the results of the survey.


I'm a lot less naive about independent Environmental Impact Assessments commissioned by developers than I was a year ago. The EIA for our proposed development was written by a company who stood up in the local consultation meetings at the beginning of the process and promised that they would be utterly independent and that it was more than their considerable reputation was worth to do anything other. When the EIA was published it was amazingly skewed and had very clearly been written to favour the developer. I think the fact that it was so blatantly dishonest and could be refuted by us, who knew the area intimately, actually worked in our favour in the end. At one of the meetings the whole council chamber collapsed in giggles twice at some of the more ridiculous statements that we highlighted.

The lack of backbone by some of the more established conservation bodies (you can guess who) is sadder for me. The reason that they gave for not opposing the development at the planning stage (and we have a list as long as your arm of important and vulnerable scheduled protected species around the site, birds and mammals), was not that they felt we didn't have a compelling case, it was the fear of individuals having to appear at an appeal. They have lost a lot of goodwill amongst the landowners who worked well with them locally over the years to conserve the afore mentioned protected species.

It's not desperation and irrational paranoia ce, I'm convinced that money talks and I'd urge anyone to examine "independent" reports very carefully - and be prepared to challenge them...

HB

http://guestwickpromises.blogspot.com/