A Wind Farm Threatens The Birds Of MonfragÜe (1 Viewer)

[Jos Stratford]

There is ample research from the UK that impacts to bird communities are generally low/minimal...

How widespread are storks, Cranes, large winged raptors such as vultures and Lesser Spotted Eagles, etc in the UK. The argument regarding wind turbines can not be based on conclusions found in the UK - not only does the UK largely lack the birds likely to be most severely affected, but it has also had (relatively) better campaigning to halt many turbine programs in the most damaging areas.

As said, if turbines are ever going to make a significant contribution to energy needs, Europe (and elsewhere) is going to be have many thousands more, and this means throughout the breeding grounds of all the birds mentioned above.

 

[Simon Wates]

I don't do facebook or Twitter, so email is the only way I can sign. But am I reading it correctly that I have to put in recipient email in the top line (I don't know what it would be)? could someone translate for me, as I do not have that much Spanish? The lines to fill out are labeled:
PARA (?)
TU NOMBRE (my name)
TU EMAIL (my email)

Niels

Niels, No its your email on the top line where it says "Firmar" (= sign) - but only do this if you have signed other petitions there before!

You got the rest! (OH - Código postal = Postcode and as Jos enquired, UK = Reino Unido)

Here it is in English on another important petiton : http://www.avaaz.org/en/petition/Save_Salgados_a_unique_internationally_recognized_birding_sanctuary_from_being_destroyed/?cmJSadb

Cheers!

 

[Simon Wates]

Jos, I agree with all you say

I still don't understand why solar power isn't being used more extensively though!

 

[njlarsen]

Thanks, the link to an English version really helped :t:

Niels

 

[bluechaffinch]

Nuclear has potential to damage the environment if an accident happens, wind turbines destroy as a matter of routine.

Minimal land-take is a falsehood - to create anywhere near enough power, vast numbers are required. The sheer number that would be needed would mean they are virtually everywhere - what would the result of that be? Just in Europe, storks and raptors throughout being diced. And do you really suppose these would be turned off when birds are approaching them, of course not.

Also, if all must go through full EIAs before construction in the EU, how come they are still being built in highly sensitive areas, Monfrague just the latest in the string of proposals.

And then move beyond the so-called enlightened environmental policies of the EU, visit Gujarat - hundreds and hundreds of turbines being built on prime raptor and crane wintering grounds; visit migration corridors west of L.A. chocked by a maze of turbines looking almost purpose-built to take out birds; visit the Canadian island of Wolfe Island, prime wintering grounds of Snowy Owl and raptors, major goose passage, now full of turbines; visit the Bulgarian coast, most important wintering ground in the world of Red-breasted Geese and a major passage corridor to thousands of raptors and pelicans, turbines now right on the migration headlands and encroaching the goose areas.

Simple truth is for most of the world, business, governments and the mass media view turbines as the way forward, virtually no strings attached. Construct regardless. Wind turbines are not green, the green label simply masks the reality.

Well, if you read my post properly I do begin by stating that Monfrague is a stupid place to build a windfarm - is this not clear enough? Clearly the likely impact of each windfarm will be different depending on geographical location - I do realise that we have no vultures or storks in the UK thanks...

If the EIA process is not adhered to (which should screen out any potentially significant sites as happens in the UK, Netherlands etc where in fact turbine operation is controlled to further reduce impacts) then that is an issue for the electorate of that nation - I have no idea why windfarms are seriously proposed in sensitive areas as I am not a mouthpiece for the wind industry. I merely wish to present the fact that not all windfarms are damaging.

To suggest that a nuclear accident is a better scenario than bird collisions at windfarms is odd to say the least - do you really believe this? Perhaps some research on the ecological legacy of Chernobyl and Fukushima may prove enlightening. Or perhaps birds really are more important than ecosystems.

I don't believe anyone (even 'the man') is suggesting that wind should replace entirely other forms of power generation, merely that it makes a significant contribution along with other renewables. The world will therefore not be smothered with turbines. Minimal land-take is not a falsehood - it means actual habitat loss which for your average 125m turbine means a 15x15m apron. Displacement is a real issue and further research is ongoing, adding to over 10 years worth of robust science in the UK alone.

 

[Simon Wates]

Minimal land-take is not a falsehood - it means actual habitat loss which for your average 125m turbine means a 15x15m apron. Displacement is a real issue and further research is ongoing, adding to over 10 years worth of robust science in the UK alone.

Its good to air views.

Regarding habitat loss and impacts of windfarms - here the 24x 135m turbines near (14kms from) Sagres occupy some 35x35m - ie; over 1000sq m each. Add the 8kms of 5m wide purpose built access roads and the substation and you have a considerable amount of land taken up - like over 2,000 hectares. Though thats not the real habitat loss - the farm patchworks some 8 sq kms. Then add 20 kms of new power-lines...

Many people underestimate the land-take of windfarms I find - you have got get up to them and spend time working with the wildlife to really see the impact on this - and that's not thinking about the airspace they affect!

Oh, then the noise for the locals (often significant - I know elderly folk who find it hard to sleep at night) and the complete loss of original landscape character. I like solar because its tight on the ground, quiet and has no real moving parts.

 

[bluechaffinch]

Its good to air views.

Regarding habitat loss and impacts of windfarms - here the 24x 135m turbines near (14kms from) Sagres occupy some 35x35m - ie; over 1000sq m each. Add the 8kms of 5m wide purpose built access roads and the substation and you have a considerable amount of land taken up - like over 2,000 hectares. Though thats not the real habitat loss - the farm patchworks some 8 sq kms. Then add 20 kms of new power-lines...

Many people underestimate the land-take of windfarms I find - you have got get up to them and spend time working with the wildlife to really see the impact on this - and that's not thinking about the airspace they affect!

Oh, then the noise for the locals (often significant - I know elderly folk who find it hard to sleep at night) and the complete loss of original landscape character. I like solar because its tight on the ground, quiet and has no real moving parts.

Simon I agree entirely - always good to air views!

You are right in citing the actual area occupied by each farm - this is of course much more than the actual habitat lost during construction and certainly has the potential to effectively exclude birds and other organisms from the wider area. A recent project i worked on had a land-take of less than 1% of the total site area. Again, this topic has been the subject of some good research here in the UK - and surprise surprise it seems that different species react in different ways - e.g. skylark density increased in one study area. perhaps we are 'fortunate' in not having significant and diverse populations of large soaring birds which means that the potential list of birds at risk is lower than our Mediterranean cousins.

Geographical location is paramount - clearly there are some areas where the likely ecological impact is low/negligible and others we shouldn't touch with a barge pole. Interestingly, much of the objection debate here has nothing to do with ecology and is primarily related to landscape character and noise - not that many folk are genuinely concerned with impacts on species and habitats. Surely a time-constrained 'loss' of 'original' landscape character (whatever that is) should be seen in the light of the benefits of energy production - why should the vocal few have the final say over the needs of the wider populace - we don't accept this in other spheres of our democracy.

Having been involved for many years in EIA studies and report writing it does frustrate me when people assume that windfarms are simply given the nod and wink treatment regardless of the ecological impact - this is simply not the case: I really do know.

 

[Jos Stratford]

Well, if you read my post properly I do begin by stating that Monfrague is a stupid place to build a windfarm - is this not clear enough?

I did not intend to suggest you advocated the locating near Monfrague, if my post implied such, I apologise. However, you defended the wind industry by saying all projects undergo EIAs before construction - clearly even in the EU alone this is not working, as highly damaging projects are still approved. And that's before we even consider localities beyond Europe.

Moreover, as wind turbines become more and more widepread, an EIA may assess each project as perhaps offering 'minimal risk' and thus get approval. However, if that minimal risk is multiplied by the multitude of projects, then the result is slice and dice across the board - each of the stork or vulture casualties just being a 'minimal loss'.

I merely wish to present the fact that not all windfarms are damaging.

Not all windfarms are damaging. The wind industry is damaging.

 

[Simon Wates]

Geographical location is paramount - clearly there are some areas where the likely ecological impact is low/negligible and others we shouldn't touch with a barge pole................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Having been involved for many years in EIA studies and report writing it does frustrate me when people assume that windfarms are simply given the nod and wink treatment regardless of the ecological impact - this is simply not the case: I really do know.

My main problem is that the more I worked at windfarms the more I disliked them - in fact I got to despise them, something I prefer not to do!

Its true what you say about EIA's here in Portugal too - we are governed by European laws completely and EIA's are implemented properly. Trouble is, sometimes the study cannot get going in time for a pre-impact study and sometimes other government ministries step in, like in the case of the windfarm inland from Sagres here. The result was, that contrary to the very solidly founded no go ahead from the EIA a compromise was struck; now the farm stops when raptors are too close during the period of 15th Aug - 30 Nov. This gives work to a whole team of birders - but I can assure you they would have rather it not been constructed!

Another more recent windfarm at Serra de Caldeirão, in central Algarve, has just been erected in a SPA (!!!!!!), which should technically be impossible - a very comprehensive EIA was carried out that said a great big NO too! This summer a massive Cork Oak forest fire was allegedly started by people connect to the windfarm industry!

Anyway - back on track - PN Monfrague and its environs should be completely immune from windfarms but I really worry that it will go ahead regardless - unless the Spanish can shout loud enough!

 

[Irish Kite]

To suggest that a nuclear accident is a better scenario than bird collisions at windfarms is odd to say the least - do you really believe this? Perhaps some research on the ecological legacy of Chernobyl and Fukushima may prove enlightening. Or perhaps birds really are more important than ecosystems.

.

Just how much CO2 has been saved by these turbines??, - intermittancy issues mean they have to be backed up by conventional power plants which mean CO2 savings are minimial in many cases eg. Few if any oil/gas power plants have been shut down in Europe on the back of wind power. As for nuclear, well I think a better and more relevant example of the industry would be France - which has the cleanest,cheapest and most efficient power grid in the World.