The extirpation of eagles from Scotland (windfarms again) (1 Viewer)

[Tyke]

In fairness to RSPB, in Scotland-where the key problems arise-they have urged The Scottish Executive to develope a "strategic" plan for wind farm siting.This would clearly help in that cumulative & regional effects could be taken into account . The present system of individual planning applications must be a nightmare to police.
The Scottish Executive have clearly lost control of the gold rush in their country-and the revelation that The Grid cannot cope with the increasing number of remote connections emphasises the botched nature of this whole fiasco.
And what of SNH's role in protecting Scotland's environment?

Colin

 

[savethebirds]

for those new to the thread and who might have the idea that the RSPB are doing nothing to oppose wind farms in unsuitable areas, try this:

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.

Wind Farms and Birds
The available evidence suggests that appropriately positioned wind farms do not pose a significant hazard for birds. However, evidence from the US and Spain confirms that poorly sited wind farms can cause severe problems for birds, through disturbance, habitat loss/damage or collision with turbines.

Because of this, the RSPB has objected to 76 wind farm proposals (on and offshore) between 2000-2004 and has raised concerns about a further 129. The RSPB recently objected to a proposed 234 turbine wind farm on the Isle of Lewis in the Hebrides, on an extremely fragile and special area for wildlife.

Environmental assessment
The RSPB insists that all wind farm proposals are subject to rigorous environmental assessment before development is permitted and that the effects of any approved developments are monitored before and after construction.

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.

Research and monitoring
To ensure that future wind farms do not affect sensitive bird populations or their habitats, the RSPB is pressing the government for more research and monitoring of the effects of these developments on birds.

a reasonably balanced stance i feel, and one i can certainly go along with.

Tim

And of Inverleiver and John M's experiences... where does his experience sit with your statement above?

 

[Tyke]

Is there enough non-wind renewables in the UK that can totally replace fossil fuel energy?

Thats the problem just now. The ROC system is technology blind, so the low capital cost-low output technology (wind) is being installed.

But there are signs of investment in other renewables:-

http://www.oilvoice.com/Wave_Energy_Companies_Selected_for_UK_Ocean_Test_Site/5762.htm

Your question about replacing fossil energy is the 64,000$ one!!!

Colin

 

[nirofo]

www.uic.com.au/uran.htm[/url]

]Not 100% sure that we do know how to store the waste with complete safety.

Hi Osprey_watcher

We do know how to handle the waste safely and the legislation is good, it's a case of will we and will we heed it?

There are several ideas in the pipeline for long term storage, in principal it's quite logical. Total encapsulation of the nuclide, followed by deep underground storage, the method is already available, it still awaits the will of government to approve it. In the mean time, long term above ground storage is well advanced, the safety precautions are very well prepared and practised.

nirofo.

 

[Osprey_watcher]

]Not 100% sure that we do know how to store the waste with complete safety.

Although U-238 is not all that radio active (U-235 is used for power generation) it still has a half life of 4500 million years. So if I had 2 grams of it today in 4500 million years I'd still have 1 gram left.
How do I store something for this long in complete safety

Hi Osprey_watcher

We do know how to handle the waste safely and the legislation is good, it's a case of will we and will we heed it?

If you had 2 grams of U-238 today, you would still have 2 grams in 4500 million years but there would only be half the activity, for example, half the Radiation emitted!!

nirofo.

Thanks for the correction nirifo, it's been 20 years since I covered this subject.
I still think my point is a valid one though.

 

[nirofo]

Thanks for the correction nirifo, it's been 20 years since I covered this subject.
I still think my point is a valid one though.

Hi Osprey_watcher

If you had 2 grams of U-238 today, you would still have 2 grams in 4500 million years but there would only be half the activity, for example, half the Radiation emitted!!

This should have read:
If you had 2 grams of U-238 today, in 4500 million years there would only be half the activity, for example, half the Radiation emitted!!

Your original statement was correct, sorry for the mix up.

nirofo.

 

[deborah4]

for those new to the thread and who might have the idea that the RSPB are doing nothing to oppose wind farms in unsuitable areas, try this:

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.

Wind Farms and Birds
The available evidence suggests that appropriately positioned wind farms do not pose a significant hazard for birds. However, evidence from the US and Spain confirms that poorly sited wind farms can cause severe problems for birds, through disturbance, habitat loss/damage or collision with turbines.

Because of this, the RSPB has objected to 76 wind farm proposals (on and offshore) between 2000-2004 and has raised concerns about a further 129. The RSPB recently objected to a proposed 234 turbine wind farm on the Isle of Lewis in the Hebrides, on an extremely fragile and special area for wildlife.

Environmental assessment
The RSPB insists that all wind farm proposals are subject to rigorous environmental assessment before development is permitted and that the effects of any approved developments are monitored before and after construction.

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.

Research and monitoring
To ensure that future wind farms do not affect sensitive bird populations or their habitats, the RSPB is pressing the government for more research and monitoring of the effects of these developments on birds.

a reasonably balanced stance i feel, and one i can certainly go along with.

Tim

Thanks for posting this Tim - its encouraging to see the RSPB are being fairly proactive here, contrary to the impression gleaned from some of the previous posts to this thread.

However, the precautionary principle should apply (a founding principle of environmental law) and there should be a moritorium on all wind farm sitings unless it is proven beyond a reasonable doubt that there will be no harmful outcomes to wildlife in the proposed area. Based on fatalities (regardless of squabbling over actual numbers) that have already been attributed to turbine blades, I would have thought there was enough evidence to argue for a prima facie assumption that turbines do cause fatalities and the burden of proof that a particular site will not cause harm is surely on the developers/landowners (in fact anyone with a vested interest) to establish.

Until then, Mark D, how about designing an on-line Petition, calling on the RSPB to call in a moritorium on every sensitively sited windfarm proposal until such 'proof' is established beyond a reasonable doubt. I would certainly sign such a petition.

 

[Edward woodwood]

And of Inverleiver and John M's experiences... where does his experience sit with your statement above?

it's not MY statement

it is the RSPB position. Was that not clear enough?

Tim

 

[Tyke]

Thanks for posting this Tim - its encouraging to see the RSPB are being fairly proactive here, contrary to the impression gleaned from some of the previous posts to this thread.

However, the precautionary principle should apply (a founding principle of environmental law) and there should be a moritorium on all wind farm sitings unless it is proven beyond a reasonable doubt that there will be no harmful outcomes to wildlife in the proposed area. Based on fatalities (regardless of squabbling over actual numbers) that have already been attributed to turbine blades, I would have thought there was enough evidence to argue for a prima facie assumption that turbines do cause fatalities and the burden of proof that a particular site will not cause harm is surely on the developers/landowners (in fact anyone with a vested interest) to establish.

Until then, Mark D, how about designing an on-line Petition, calling on the RSPB to call in a moritorium on every sensitively sited windfarm proposal until such 'proof' is established beyond a reasonable doubt. I would certainly sign such a petition.

:clap:

Colin

 

[Tyke]

Wind Power's much vaunted environmental credentials are being put under the spotlight in USA as well :-

http://www.dfw.com/mld/dfw/news/opinion/13784035.htm

This is an interesting point of view from the article :-

"Schleede contends that Whole Foods and other corporations that buy expensive wind power credits are undertaking "pseudo-environmental actions" -- in effect, sacrificing cost efficiency to buy customer good will."

Colin

 

[nirofo]

Thanks for posting this Tim - its encouraging to see the RSPB are being fairly proactive here, contrary to the impression gleaned from some of the previous posts to this thread.

However, the precautionary principle should apply (a founding principle of environmental law) and there should be a moritorium on all wind farm sitings unless it is proven beyond a reasonable doubt that there will be no harmful outcomes to wildlife in the proposed area. Based on fatalities (regardless of squabbling over actual numbers) that have already been attributed to turbine blades, I would have thought there was enough evidence to argue for a prima facie assumption that turbines do cause fatalities and the burden of proof that a particular site will not cause harm is surely on the developers/landowners (in fact anyone with a vested interest) to establish.

Until then, Mark D, how about designing an on-line Petition, calling on the RSPB to call in a moritorium on every sensitively sited windfarm proposal until such 'proof' is established beyond a reasonable doubt. I would certainly sign such a petition.

While it's nice to be lulled into the feeling that the RSPB are being proactive in their support for both the birds and windfarms at the same time, the two can't possibly mix when it comes to Schedule One Special Species, SSSI's, SPA's and RAMSAR sites. All these are legally protected by legislated UK and European law.

If the RSPB are vehemently protesting for the protection of our most precious bird species, such as the Golden Eagles and their environment, why then are they not telling us all about their endeavors, why are they not using the law as it stands. With a lttle bit of publicity for the fight they might attract many willing helpers, but then too much publicity may mean the Power Company sponsors will not like it and withdraw funding. What then, back to relying on subs and donations from members.

nirofo.

 

[Tyke]

, the two can't possibly mix when it comes to Schedule One Special Species, SSSI's, SPA's and RAMSAR sites. All these are legally protected by legislated UK and European law.

nirofo.

Indeed so Nirofo-so a moratorium on wind farms in or near sensitive sites would include all areas designated under national & international conservation law.

Colin

 

[savethebirds]

it's not MY statement

it is the RSPB position. Was that not clear enough?
Tim

I always believe in the principle of stating the source and date. This was previously pointed out to JT (previous post) when she quoted information which she had obtained from the nuclear industry. The information was incorrect and it was out of date thus misleading people.

Nirofo posted correctly when he referred to other sources with regards to his post re Gamekeepers and Land owner etc.

Your post read as a statement but was open to interpretation since it was signed off as Tim. Anyone reading the statement, the source was not documented nor was it dated and therefore misleading.

 

[savethebirds]

http://www.dfw.com/mld/dfw/news/opinion/13784035.htm

This is an interesting point of view from the article :-

.......-- in effect, sacrificing cost efficiency to buy customer good will."[/I]

Colin

and... from the article

Generating the 458 million kilowatt-hours of wind power purchased by Whole Foods would require 109 32-story-high wind turbines roughly as tall as the Statue of Liberty.

For the money spent buying the wind power energy credits for 458 million kilowatt-hours, Whole Foods could have saved nearly 785 million kilowatt-hours of electricity merely by purchasing readily available fluorescent light bulbs for its stores, bakeries and warehouses.

!!!!!

 

[savethebirds]

Indeed so Nirofo-so a moratorium on wind farms in or near sensitive sites would include all areas designated under national & international conservation law.

Colin

As Mark Duchamp; Deborah4, Nirofo, Tyke, myself and many others feel, lets set up a Petition for a moratorium. David at Proact... is this something you can help us with especially in the light of the clickable link ban imposed on Mark? Can this be done so that not all names/signatures are viewed publicly? This should enable certain people to sign without fear of losing their job especially if they work for the RSPB.

Mark. What's better? Your email suggestion or a Proact Petition with signatures hidden for above reasons.

 

[KC Foggin]

especially in the light of the clickable link ban imposed on Mark?

This is NOT a ban imposed on Mark. It is a Member's guideline for ALL members.

 

[Collster]

While it's nice to be lulled into the feeling that the RSPB are being proactive in their support for both the birds and windfarms at the same time, the two can't possibly mix when it comes to Schedule One Special Species, SSSI's, SPA's and RAMSAR sites. All these are legally protected by legislated UK and European law.

If the RSPB are vehemently protesting for the protection of our most precious bird species, such as the Golden Eagles and their environment, why then are they not telling us all about their endeavors, why are they not using the law as it stands. With a lttle bit of publicity for the fight they might attract many willing helpers, but then too much publicity may mean the Power Company sponsors will not like it and withdraw funding. What then, back to relying on subs and donations from members.

nirofo.

Exactly! Lets not forget that important fact, that these schedule 1 species are protected by law, so anything that interferes with their ecology ie Massive turbines, roads , pylons , amounts to disturbance which is breaking the law, especially as these companies are aware of birds being present( thats if they got the right people surveying the area). How can this be justified?

 

[David]

Petition on moratorium

As Mark Duchamp; Deborah4, Nirofo, Tyke, myself and many others feel, lets set up a Petition for a moratorium. David at Proact... is this something you can help us with especially in the light of the clickable link ban imposed on Mark? Can this be done so that not all names/signatures are viewed publicly? This should enable certain people to sign without fear of losing their job especially if they work for the RSPB.

Mark. What's better? Your email suggestion or a Proact Petition with signatures hidden for above reasons.

I think the idea of a moratorium is a good one. I could prepare a petition AND run an email campaign as I did with Mark earlier. For those who don't know this, have a look at

PROACT WINDFARM CAMPAIGN​

As you will also know - or can check - I started this thread on Mark's behalf and bowed out when we couldn't agree on wording.​

And that's the main issue. I am only prepared to assist if we take everybody (or as many as possible) with us and that means a text we can all sign our names to.​

I assume the petition is to be addressed to the Scottish National Heritage, cc. RSPB and (which)? others.​

As to the question of anonymity. No - it is not possible to hide the names. But there is no reason why people can't sign "a concerned RSPB member" (or whatever) as long as they provide a valid email address which only I and the website owner have access to.​

So - what about it?​

I'll gladly accept any draft texts ..... or acceptable amendments to mine ​

David​

"Let's bury hatchets and save birds"​

 

[nirofo]

Exactly! Lets not forget that important fact, that these schedule 1 species are protected by law, so anything that interferes with their ecology ie Massive turbines, roads , pylons , amounts to disturbance which is breaking the law, especially as these companies are aware of birds being present( thats if they got the right people surveying the area). How can this be justified?

Hi valley boy

These companies are very well aware of what birds are present and the relevant laws protecting them, that's why they are so keen to sponsor the RSPB, the RSPB has all the relevant Schedule One bird species data at hand for every known (and they know 95%) breeding territory in the Scottish Highlands and Islands, if not the whole UK. The Schedule one Raptor data for all the Scottish Highlands & Islands is handed to them on a plate every year by the Raptor Study Groups and others. They already have the right people surveying the the areas, they've been doing it for years!! THERE IS NO EXCUSE!!

nirofo.

 

[deborah4]

I think the idea of a moratorium is a good one. I could prepare a petition AND run an email campaign as I did with Mark earlier.

I'll gladly accept any draft texts ..... or acceptable amendments to mine ​

]

Just an idea for a draft David taken from my initial post above:

It is encouraging to see the RSPB are being fairly proactive in voicing concerns about proposals of wind farms in areas where risk of harm to birds is likely. However, the RSPB cannot be said to be fulfilling its primary objective to protect birds without taking more radical and urgent action.

Based on fatalities that have already been attributed to turbine blades, there is enough evidence for a prima facie assumption that all wind farms sited in ornothologically sensitive areas will cause fatalities. As such, the Precautionary Principle should be applied to environmental impact assessment of all wind farm proposals in sensitive areas. The burden of proof that a particular siting for a wind farm will not cause harm should therefore rest on advocates of such sitings before any application is approved.

I therefore call on the RSPB to declare a policy position of lobbying for an immediate moritorium on all sensitively sited windfarm proposals until it is proven beyond a reasonable doubt that there will be no harmful outcomes to birds or other wildlife in any area proposed.


Thanks for doing this David :flowers:

Deborah