• Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.

    Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
ZEISS DTI thermal imaging cameras. For more discoveries at night, and during the day.

High stakes for wind farm plans (1 Viewer)

Chris Monk

Well-known member
High stakes for wind farm plans

By Paul Rincon
Science reporter, BBC News

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6169389.stm

The Lewis peatlands are a rare and beautiful habitat

In 1852, an engineer by the name of John Lawrence drove an iron post down through 22 feet of bog in Holme Fen, East Anglia, so that the top of the pillar was flush with the peat surface.

Mr Lawrence had recently finished draining the nearby lake of Whittlesey Mere. The landowner, a Mr William Wells, asked the engineer to sink the iron column so he could use it as a gauge to calculate peat shrinkage following drainage of the lake.

That cast iron pillar is very visible today - the top is now 15 feet above ground. Over 150 years, the peat vanished through a gradual, steady process of water loss and oxidation.

To Richard Lindsay, head of conservation at the University of East London (UEL), "Holme Fen Post" serves as a reminder of the delicate ecological balance in which peatland environments are held. We regard the Lewis wind farm as the biggest conservation challenge in the UK at the moment."

Martin Scott, RSPB
The fens of East Anglia were successively drained from the 17th Century onwards to make way for more profitable grazing and arable land, often against the will of local people.

Today, Britain's peatland habitats are at the centre of a rather different wrangle.

The drive towards cleaner energy alternatives to fossil fuels, backed by government, has jump-started the wind power industry. And many of the most suitable locations for wind farms in the British Isles happen to be on peat.

Peatland conflict

"There is this direct conflict," says Mr Lindsay. "The windiest areas tend to be on the west side of either Ireland or Britain.

"That means you are also going to be in areas with lots of rain, lots of mist and fog - exactly the environment you need for blanket bog development."

Holme Fen Post now stands some 4m above ground
This week, the developers behind one of Britain's biggest onshore wind projects has submitted revised plans for scrutiny by the Scottish Executive.

This wind farm on the island of Lewis has kicked up a storm of controversy because it would stand in protected conservation areas. The peatlands support breeding bird populations of national and international importance.

Those who back wind farms want the peatlands they build on to prosper despite the turbines. And the developer, Lewis Wind Power, is providing money for habitat conservation.

But opinions are sharply divided on the extent to which turbines and infrastructure will impact surrounding bog ecology - with some conservationists warning that this rare and beautiful habitat could be devastated.

"We regard the Lewis wind farm as the biggest conservation challenge in the UK at the moment," said Martin Scott, conservation officer for RSPB Scotland. The RSPB says it only opposes a handful of wind farm projects.

Damning critique

The organisation commissioned Richard Lindsay to write a report on the project's environmental impact statement (EIS). The result, published last year, was a damning critique of the developer's assessment.

The central charge contained within Professor Lindsay's report was that the EIS underestimated by a factor of 30 the area of bog potentially affected by the wind farm.

The Lewis wind farm plan has stirred up controversy

One of the most important impacts on the blanket bog could be through the construction of drainage ditches, which will remove water from the peat, leading to erosion. Peat is 98% water held in an organic matrix of partially decayed vegetation, mainly sphagnum moss.
Richard Lindsay argues that all access roads built as part of the project will need drainage ditches - despite the developer's statement that "floating roads", which can be laid down directly on top of the peat, would not need them.

"The developer's impact assessment has, at almost every turn, taken a minimalist view of the level of impact," he told BBC News.

Water loss

Tom Dargie, the Lewis project ecologist counters: "I was very shocked when I read the report, then I thought: 'Okay, a 30-fold difference. That means one of us is wrong. And I know it's not me'."

"I've spent a year monitoring a wind farm as it is being built, looking at water levels away from roads, away from turbine bases, and everything fits the published literature - which is that you are not going to get an effect beyond 10m."

In his report, Richard Lindsay refers to a scientific study from 1972, in which researchers measured the extent to which the water table was drawn down in peat around an open drainage ditch.

On an initial reading, the report suggests that the peatland water table is not drawn down very much beyond a few metres from the drainage ditch.

Birds like this red-throated diver may be at risk from turbines Photo

But over time, even a small fall in the water table can have a devastating effect if the ditch remains open; the peat becomes prone to the same slow, steady process of erosion that transformed Holme Fen, says Mr Lindsay.

This larger zone of influence was largely responsible for Mr Lindsay coming up with radically different figures from Tom Dargie for the impact of wind farms.

As the water table drops a little, he says, fresh peat is exposed on the surface; this dries out and "oxidises", releasing carbon dioxide and water. The water table then drops a little more, and so the process continues.

"Over time, this will continue until the peat disappears and you are down to the mineral," Mr Lindsay explains.

Tom Dargie, who runs Boreas Ecology, argues that the 1972 study was based on a different type of peatland in a lake basin which drains more quickly. He added that it was inappropriate for calculating impacts on the drier Lewis peatlands.

But Mr Lindsay said the emphasis placed on erosion by the developer was unjustified. He explained that some 67% of peat in the area surveyed is either stable or recovering.

Small numbers

While the impact on peat remains a contentious area, it is bird deaths that have fuelled some of the most heated arguments over wind farms.

The vast Altamont Pass wind power site in California is an oft-cited example of the threat posed to birds by turbines. A study published in 2004 suggested the 4,000 turbines kill an estimated 880 to 1,300 eagles, hawks and falcons each year.

US trade publication Windpower Monthly has branded the report "a genuine black eye for the industry".

The California Wind Energy Association has now called the study's findings into question, publishing its own report pointing out what it says are flaws in the original study, including a claimed discrepancy in the figures for golden eagle deaths.

The opposition say [the industry is] covering up the data, but that is a major slur

Tom Dargie, Boreas Ecology
But there are many similar reports, from wind farms in Spain, Britain and Norway.

"You have a direct collision effect where birds fly into the turbine blades and get chopped up, says Martin Scott. "The other effect is disturbance; there is disturbance during the construction period, and then when they're up and running."

While some birds find it hard to avoid the turbines, others manage to dodge them all too well, giving the giant towers a wide berth. The net effect is to "sterilise" whole areas of birds.

"Wind turbines in Britain are probably killing birds in small numbers, due to care taken in siting individual wind farms," says Tom Dargie. "They are not killing birds in significant numbers.

"The opposition say [the industry is] covering up the data, but that is a major slur. There are very good ornithologists involved, they would not risk their reputations."

Site layout Map

Lewis Wind Power says the example of Altamont Pass cannot be applied to Lewis as it is a completely different type of wind farm. In addition, it says the level of threat to birds is being updated and revised all the time as new research becomes available.

The Altamont report was a "black eye" for the wind farm industry
The developer says one major difference with the Lewis project is that major areas of bird activity on the island have been mapped out and the data used to inform the design and layout of the wind farm.

"Many of these birds can avoid turbines. But there are some which are less manoeuvrable such as the red-throated and black-throated divers. We've worked very hard to eliminate turbines from their feeding corridors," says Mr Dargie.

But Martin Scott is sceptical about these efforts: "It is totally untested," he says.

"It has never been done before because no one has ever thought it was possible. To be honest, we don't think it's possible either; it may be feasible with one or two turbines, but not with 181."

The attitudes of the island's inhabitants will also be crucial in any eventual decision on the wind farm.

And as the wind farm developers await the reaction to their revised application, the battle for hearts and minds on this Hebridean island looks set to continue.
Paul.Rincon-INTERNET 'at' bbc.co.uk
 
A timely & informative post Chris.
The information on peatland degradation is very interesting.

These wind farm proposals for Lewis are the key battleground in this clash of money makers & climate change con-men on the one hand-and conservationists and local people on the other.

It is encouraging to hear RSPB state that the revised proposal is still of concern-they must save this vital habitat.

On "Coast" on tv the other night a montage of the proposed array-full size-was shown against that haunting landscape. It was horrendous-the huge turbine towers, the massive blades, the roads across the peat bogs. The footprint of the scheme was then superimposed on a map of Greater London-it stretched across it's whole width.

A local objector made a key & telling point-one you never hear debated.
That is -that the islanders would like to have a wind farm!-a small community wind farm that provides enough power for their population.This is not allowed because the whole point of the Lewis proposals is to export electricity off the Island-and the cost of the underwater cables to carry the electricity south to England is so large that the Lewis array has to be of massive industrial scale to justify the interconnector cost.

The decision on Lewis will test the credentials of all the main players-RSPB. SNH.The Scottish Executive.

Colin
 
"The decision on Lewis will test the credentials of all the main players-RSPB. SNH.The Scottish Executive."


Colin, is the SNH in the pocket of the Scottish Executive, or is it the other way round?
Who pays who, but who influences the decisions made by the other??
And will the society relent to political power, be it UK or European??

Regards

Malky
 
The decision on Lewis will test the credentials of all the main players-RSPB

Don't see how it tests the RSPBs credentials read this

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

What more can they do they are not the ones that make the decision. It's up to people to follow their advice and right a letter to the local MP

Edit: SNH and SEPA (whoever they are) are named as objectors too. ITS THE POLITICIANS THAT SAY YES OR NO
 
Last edited:
alcedo.atthis said:
"The decision on Lewis will test the credentials of all the main players-RSPB. SNH.The Scottish Executive."


Colin, is the SNH in the pocket of the Scottish Executive, or is it the other way round?
Who pays who, but who influences the decisions made by the other??
And will the society relent to political power, be it UK or European??

Regards

Malky

Good questions Malky.
SNH is a government body-so presumably being lent on heavily.
RSPB-fingers crossed-I don't see how they can back down now??
Scottish Executive-hah!-they have let this gold rush up there get out of hand-so now's their chance to put it right. But they are so in thrall to this nonsense target for "Scottish" renewable electricity-is it 184% or something ;) -god knows what they will do-get pissed I expect.

nice to hear from you again
atb
Colin
 
Steven Astley said:
The decision on Lewis will test the credentials of all the main players-RSPB

Don't see how it tests the RSPBs credentials read this

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

What more can they do they are not the ones that make the decision. It's up to people to follow their advice and right a letter to the local MP

Edit: SNH and SEPA (whoever they are) are named as objectors too. ITS THE POLITICIANS THAT SAY YES OR NO

It will test them because since the original proposal -to which your link refers-the developer has revised the proposal with less turbines-& RSPB have said this :-

"We will, of course, consider the detail of the proposal carefully once we receive
the environmental statement" says RSPB


Colin
 
Tyke said:
It will test them because since the original proposal -to which your link refers-the developer has revised the proposal with less turbines-& RSPB have said this :-

"We will, of course, consider the detail of the proposal carefully once we receive
the environmental statement" says RSPB


Colin
It will be interesting to see the RSPB stance with regards to other plans in the pipelines up and down the country
 
"We will, of course, consider the detail of the proposal carefully once we receive
the environmental statement" says RSPB

Your fishing for things, misquoting, taking statements out of context. The next bit says

"but be in no doubt that this proposal raises serious issues of compliance with EU environmental legislation.'

The more the objections are relevant to the specific proposal the more they will be taken seriously. It also shows that they are open-minded and co-operative. Although instinctively they know the reduction isn't good enough and are still maintaining a stance against the development.
 
Steven Astley said:
"We will, of course, consider the detail of the proposal carefully once we receive
the environmental statement" says RSPB

Your fishing for things, misquoting, taking statements out of context. The next bit says

"but be in no doubt that this proposal raises serious issues of compliance with EU environmental legislation.'

The more the objections are relevant to the specific proposal the more they will be taken seriously. It also shows that they are open-minded and co-operative. Although instinctively they know the reduction isn't good enough and are still maintaining a stance against the development.

Nope I'm not fishing-or taking statements out of context.I welcomed the second of your quotes in an earlier post here.
I am cautious in the light of the first of your two quotes though of course I appreciate RSPB have to wait for the revised EIA.
I don't think there can be any doubt that this will test RSPB-they have a policy which is generally in favour of wind farms-but are charged with upholding Habitat Protections & Directives.
I wish then well in their further deliberations.

Colin
 
If I remember correctly the current proposal is a modified one involving fewer and more dispersed towers than the original scheme. This change was in part due to concerns on impact of the towers on birds. However, it remains a massive development which will dominate the entire north end of Lewis, and change Barvas moor beyond all recognition. The greater dispersal of towers will mean more access roads and more disturbance of the peat.
I believe the original proposal suggested 'floating' roads on top of the peat, but the viability of this has been questioned, as even these floating roads (similar to the old pony tacks you can still see on Harris) required drainage ditches which will impact of the stability of the peat beds.
 
gordon g said:
If I remember correctly the current proposal is a modified one involving fewer and more dispersed towers than the original scheme. This change was in part due to concerns on impact of the towers on birds. However, it remains a massive development which will dominate the entire north end of Lewis, and change Barvas moor beyond all recognition. The greater dispersal of towers will mean more access roads and more disturbance of the peat.
I believe the original proposal suggested 'floating' roads on top of the peat, but the viability of this has been questioned, as even these floating roads (similar to the old pony tacks you can still see on Harris) required drainage ditches which will impact of the stability of the peat beds.

Interesting post-it made me remember this :-

http://www.swap.org.uk/Windfarms on blanket peat.pdf

Colin
 
I saw something interesting on the way home tonight. A large wind turbine just off of the M25 turning at about one revolution every twenty seconds, but lit up with two very powerful arc lamps, one blue, one red. I'd love to know the percentage of power generated at 0.05 Hz compared to the power used by the lamps.
 
Chris Monk said:
High stakes for wind farm plans

By Paul Rincon
Science reporter, BBC News


One of the most important impacts on the blanket bog could be through the construction of drainage ditches, which will remove water from the peat, leading to erosion. Peat is 98% water held in an organic matrix of partially decayed vegetation, mainly sphagnum moss.
Richard Lindsay argues that all access roads built as part of the project will need drainage ditches - despite the developer's statement that "floating roads", which can be laid down directly on top of the peat, would not need them.

"The developer's impact assessment has, at almost every turn, taken a minimalist view of the level of impact," he told BBC News.

Paul.Rincon-INTERNET 'at' bbc.co.uk

I worked on the Falklands airport construction contract which required lots of roads in peat areas. Generally the peat was about 300mm deep but in every dip in the landscape it was deeper - up to 4 metres deep.

Floating roads with lots of hardcore were not at all possible as the hardcore just sank even with the construction traffic on it.

All peat had to be laboriously dug out and hilltops blasted to provide hardcore to replace the peat and take the road levels up above surrounding ground. It wasn't just peat that was dug out, soft clay underneath was also removed. The roads weren't motorways, they were just gravel access roads for maintenance traffic and the road to Stanley was also gravel for cars and occasional buses.

All roads had deep side ditches to take water and streams away.

http://www.wickham43.supanet.com/falklands/peatdigandcorral.html

This shows what can happen just with construction traffic:-
http://www.wickham43.supanet.com/falklands/boginsonsite.html

See http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?p=755375#post755375 in the News section regarding the wind farms for the Thames Estuary.
 
Last edited:
Warning! This thread is more than 17 years ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top