Major concern over consent for two offshore wind farms in Moray Firth (RSPB) (1 Viewer)

[BF Newsroom]

Scottish Ministers have today granted consent for two major offshore windfarms in the Moray Firth. RSPB Scotland fully supports the development of offshore wind in Scotland but has major concerns about the impact these two huge windfarms could have on Scotland's internationally important seabird populations.

Read More...

 

[Jimmybirder]

Maybe its time for bird conservation orgs to call a spade a spade and stop promoting wind energy which is a growing threat to numerous bird species while at the same time has failed to reduce emmissions across Europe.

 

[Ratal]

Thats the winter wild fowl and divers decimated..... Profits for foreign companies as we sweat the bills and shovel in subsidies.

 

[jogresh]

RSPB Scotland fully supports the development of offshore wind in Scotland

but has major concerns about the impact these two huge windfarms could have on Scotland's internationally important seabird populations.

so not that fully then.. maybe it's time to stop saying one thing but thinking another?

Thats the winter wild fowl and divers decimated..... Profits for foreign companies as we sweat the bills and shovel in subsidies.

Are there data on bird declines? Very interested to know, thanks if you can give directions where to look. (not being sarky, genuine Q).

 

[Mark Lew1s]

Its very easy to look at a consented windfarm development and make rash and emotional judgements about 'decimations' of birds etc without actually knowing what you're talking about. I'm not particularly pro windfarm at all, but I think it's important to know that a good deal of work goes into investigating the potential impacts of these developments. The impact assessment process is by no means perfect, but it's good enough to be able to predict whether an impact will be acceptable or not - and there are well known cases where potential impacts on birds have stopped developments (Sandwich terns at Docking Shoal, for example, or the uncertainty over impacts upon red-throated divers in the London Array)

The whole process is reasonably precautionary (especially where there is some uncertainty) and the sort of impact thresholds that are being looked for are along the lines of a 1% increase in mortality - thats not 1% of a population being killed, its an increase of 1% of the natural annual mortality. So if you've got 1000 greater black backed gulls (one of the major species of concern for these developments based on the 2 years of fieldwork) and 100 of them die each year naturally, you're looking at 1 extra death being deemed acceptable. Not ideal I agree - but hardly a decimation.

Windfarms are obviously an emotive issue and I can see why people don't like them. They do have impacts on the environment, although I suspect they are smaller, and a lot more carefully considered than most people give credit for.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that you are all of course entitled to your opinion - but try doing a little research before making sweeping and damning statements. Also, while typing your messages, consider where the electricity that runs your computer has come from and ask yourself how complicit you are in other forms of environmental damage. Unless we drastically cut down our energy consumption we need to find non-fossil alternatives. I'm not saying wind power is the solution, but it's about all we've got at the moment.

 

[Ratal]

Its very easy to look at a consented windfarm development and make rash and emotional judgements

Fought the Barvas Moor windfarm to a standstill. It was science, pure cold hard science that wins.

about 'decimations' of birds etc without actually knowing what you're talking about.

Campaigned against a certain Norwegian windfarm too... White Tailed Eagle population just happened to get decimated after its completion. Funny that.

I'm not particularly pro windfarm at all, but I think it's important to know that a good deal of work goes into investigating the potential impacts of these developments.

Like the genius that decided to dig up millions of tonnes of peat moorland for a CO2 saving windfarm when peat is 90% by weight stored CO2 which (would of, had it gone ahead) turned the windfarms into massed pollutants.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that you are all of course entitled to your opinion - but try doing a little research before making sweeping and damning statements. Also, while typing your messages, consider where the electricity that runs your computer has come from and ask yourself how complicit you are in other forms of environmental damage. Unless we drastically cut down our energy consumption we need to find non-fossil alternatives. I'm not saying wind power is the solution, but it's about all we've got at the moment.

Research. Yes, love research. Technology is my current field (Defence) and before that, Healthcare (nursing) but you know what, when I turned my hand to wind farms and their impacts and their so called 'sustainability and 'green credentials' I sat back and laughed at the absurdity of it all.

As for 'its all we got', well, there is a man alive today who invented a wind powered device that would generate electricity at any wind speed ever seen on the face of the globe, be it 10 knots or 200. The system is a stroke of genius, and I'd actually vote with both hands for a hillside of them. However, due to the desire for profits above true, green, sustainable power, these eco-crucifixes got the nod.

The rest is history. I found out about these when I did my research many years ago, and I am amazed that such a learned man as yourself states that these tall wind turbines are all we have - I mean, you have done your research into all of the available technologies, right? you must of to have written such a condescending piece (but then there is the quandary! if you have, how come you don't know of alternatives!?!)

R

 

[Mark Lew1s]

When I say it's all we have, I mean it's all we have as an alternative that is actively being commercially exploited. I'm aware that there are other options - I'm also aware that no-one is looking into using them, large scale, that much at the moment.

With regard to the decimations of white tailed eagles - I'm aware of that project. I'm also aware that EU countries have more stringent processes to go through than non-EU ones prior to consent. The processes that the UK and other EU countries have to go through are designed to eliminate exactly the sort of problem encountered at Runde and Altamont. So while it's a good example of the dangers of windfarms, it's not particularly relevant in a UK context. If Runde was in the UK that windfarm would never have been consented.

I don't disagree with what you've said about how much of the decision making with windfarms is led by political and financial considerstions, rather than ecological ones. I don't disagree with that at all. I'm under no illusion that they are not as green as we are lead to believe. I just have a problem with sweeping statements being made about 'decimations' when a huge amount of work goes into avoiding this - I also wasn't particularly having a pop at you or your opinion either, it was just your use of the emotive word decimation that I happened to quote. I'm sorry you thought my post was condescending - perhaps it was a little but it wasn't directed at you. I hear so much crap spouted by people who genuinely believe that there is no EIA or HRA process and that big business gets to do whatever it wants at whatever cost to the environment. The impact assessment process is not perfect but it exists and it is mandatory.

So fair play to you for getting involved and standing up for what you believe in. I'm glad there are people who do. Like I said I'm not particularly pro windfarm...