RSPB's Position on the Dogger Bank Wind-Farms. (1 Viewer)

[Robert Piller]

RSPB's Position on the Dogger Bank Wind-Farms.

Please read their own comments in Exhibit 2, page 6 in the link below.

https://www.dropbox.com/home?preview=A+Case+Against+the+RSPB..pdf

Wind power has a significant role to play in the UK’s fight against climate change.

Thorough environmental assessment is vital to ensure that all ecological impacts are fully identified prior to consent of any development. If wind farms are located away from major migration routes and important feeding, breeding and roosting areas of those bird species known or suspected to be at risk, it is likely that they will have minimal impacts.

Compare this with what they say in the report below. Despite the North Sea being a major migration route, in this entire report you will not find the words Bewick's Swan, Fieldfare, Redwing or Starling written once in all of their 30 or so pages of waffle.

http://infrastructure.planningporta...ociety for the Protection of Birds (RSPB).pdf

 

[Jimmybirder]

RSPB's Position on the Dogger Bank Wind-Farms.

Please read their own comments in Exhibit 2, page 6 in the link below.

https://www.dropbox.com/home?preview=A+Case+Against+the+RSPB..pdf

Wind power has a significant role to play in the UK’s fight against climate change.

Thorough environmental assessment is vital to ensure that all ecological impacts are fully identified prior to consent of any development. If wind farms are located away from major migration routes and important feeding, breeding and roosting areas of those bird species known or suspected to be at risk, it is likely that they will have minimal impacts.

Compare this with what they say in the report below. Despite the North Sea being a major migration route, in this entire report you will not find the words Bewick's Swan, Fieldfare, Redwing or Starling written once in all of their 30 or so pages of waffle.

http://infrastructure.planningporta...ociety for the Protection of Birds (RSPB).pdf

RSPB like a number of other so called conservation groups increasingly sound like a PR wing of Big wind - parroting nonsense that wind energy makes a significant difference to emmissions etc. Rising energy prices on the back of wind subsidies across the EU simply means heavy industry re-locating outside the area(British Steel anyone??). Apparently when you export emissions you "reduce" them|^||^|. In additions the anti-nuclear hysteria in Germany etc. means more and more coal is being burn't to to plug the gaps left by installing unreliable sources of energy like wind on the grid

 

[John S. Armitage]

One things really worries me about offshore installations. When survey work is being carried out relating to offshore installations a series of transects can be completed by boat and the distribution of birds logged etc etc. However such boat based work appears only ever to be completed in reasonable weather conditions for obvious reasons. Surely it's within the periods of adverse weather when squally conditions, poor visibility, heavy rain and such like exist that can lead to numbers of birds being disorientated and fall foul of large arrays of turbines. Despite assurances, Danish research work with cameras based on turbine structures and so on I feel there's a potential threat that we haven't, possibly can't, evaluate properly.

 

[Robert Piller]

RSPB like a number of other so called conservation groups increasingly sound like a PR wing of Big wind - parroting nonsense that wind energy makes a significant difference to emmissions etc. Rising energy prices on the back of wind subsidies across the EU simply means heavy industry re-locating outside the area(British Steel anyone??). Apparently when you export emissions you "reduce" them|^||^|. In additions the anti-nuclear hysteria in Germany etc. means more and more coal is being burn't to to plug the gaps left by installing unreliable sources of energy like wind on the grid

This is my facebook page, give it a visit. We've got some action going on.

https://www.facebook.com/robert.piller.3979

 

[Mark Lew1s]

One things really worries me about offshore installations. When survey work is being carried out relating to offshore installations a series of transects can be completed by boat and the distribution of birds logged etc etc. However such boat based work appears only ever to be completed in reasonable weather conditions for obvious reasons. Surely it's within the periods of adverse weather when squally conditions, poor visibility, heavy rain and such like exist that can lead to numbers of birds being disorientated and fall foul of large arrays of turbines. Despite assurances, Danish research work with cameras based on turbine structures and so on I feel there's a potential threat that we haven't, possibly can't, evaluate properly.

Yes - the boat based seabird surveys would not have been carried out in anything over a sea state 5, but the boats were still out there and the observers were still present on them. During the Dogger surveys monitoring the presence of migrants on the vessel was part of the daily routine regardless of weather (health and safety permitting). In my time out there we regularly encountered small (i.e. very small!) numbers of migrants on/around the vessel, in all weather conditions, although there was one occurrence of thrushes/starlings that numbered three figures on one of the surveys that I wasn't on. I'm afraid I can't remember what the conditions were prior to that fall. As such it is my experience (and only that though) that birds were occurring in all weathers during daylight hours, in very small numbers. The number of night casualties on board would suggest that the numbers involved at night were very small too.

 

[Mark Lew1s]

RSPB's Position on the Dogger Bank Wind-Farms.

Please read their own comments in Exhibit 2, page 6 in the link below.

https://www.dropbox.com/home?preview=A+Case+Against+the+RSPB..pdf

Wind power has a significant role to play in the UK’s fight against climate change.

Thorough environmental assessment is vital to ensure that all ecological impacts are fully identified prior to consent of any development. If wind farms are located away from major migration routes and important feeding, breeding and roosting areas of those bird species known or suspected to be at risk, it is likely that they will have minimal impacts.

Compare this with what they say in the report below. Despite the North Sea being a major migration route, in this entire report you will not find the words Bewick's Swan, Fieldfare, Redwing or Starling written once in all of their 30 or so pages of waffle.

http://infrastructure.planningporta...ociety for the Protection of Birds (RSPB).pdf

Yes, because it is a review of the collision risk work carried out by others, that use data from Dogger bank. In this regard, how can RSPB comment on the collision risk calculated for Bewick/s swan when there is no collision risk presented for this species? And how can a collision risk be calculated for this species when none were recorded in the area during 2 years of survey? Regardless of what you think about wind energy, there are people out there who ARE trying to be scientific about these things - both regulators and advisors. You may well conclude that they are not succeeding, but to dismiss RSPBs work in this area as waffle shows your inability to view things with an open mind.

 

[MTem]

Regardless of what you think about wind energy, there are people out there who ARE trying to be scientific about these things - both regulators and advisors. You may well conclude that they are not succeeding, but to dismiss RSPBs work in this area as waffle shows your inability to view things with an open mind.

I agree. As I have commented in your other threads seeking to demonise wind energy, Robert, a lot of man's activities result in the death of large numbers of birds, but do not have any of the offsetting benefits of wind energy. Spend at least 12 hours gathering quality scientific data for every hour you spend facebooking and getting 'action going on', and you might actually contribute value to this important subject.

Mick

 

[Jimmybirder]

I agree. As I have commented in your other threads seeking to demonise wind energy, Robert, a lot of man's activities result in the death of large numbers of birds, but do not have any of the offsetting benefits of wind energy. Spend at least 12 hours gathering quality scientific data for every hour you spend facebooking and getting 'action going on', and you might actually contribute value to this important subject.

Mick

Very little basis to that statement - unless you are referring to the subsidy cash the developers pocket

 

[MTem]

Very little basis to that statement - unless you are referring to the subsidy cash the developers pocket

What your statement or mine...?

I meant the following

1. A few of the other man activities that result in the death of many birds e.g. unnecessarily lit large buildings and structures, domestic cats, introduced rats and mustelids, shooting for fun etc that seem to have limited offsetting benefits. We certainly don't get any energy production from them.
2. The low-carbon energy production and the need for the development of these (unless you are a CC denier, or see a medium term shift in our consumer-led, capitalist lifestyle worldwide), with the consequent reduction in the need for coal-fired plants

I'm no wind-power advocate or industrialist - I just value informed debate, not pub gossip.B

 

[Jimmybirder]

What your statement or mine...?

I meant the following

1. A few of the other man activities that result in the death of many birds e.g. unnecessarily lit large buildings and structures, domestic cats, introduced rats and mustelids, shooting for fun etc that seem to have limited offsetting benefits. We certainly don't get any energy production from them.
2. The low-carbon energy production and the need for the development of these (unless you are a CC denier, or see a medium term shift in our consumer-led, capitalist lifestyle worldwide), with the consequent reduction in the need for coal-fired plants

I'm no wind-power advocate or industrialist - I just value informed debate, not pub gossip.B

I suggest you read up on this subject - not one coal fired station has been closed on the back of wind power, which due to its unreliability needs constant conventional back-up. Germany has covered vast areas in windfarms and spent vast sums of money on wind(and now has the second most expensive power prices in the EU) - yet coal continues to underpin their grid

 

[davholla]

What your statement or mine...?

I meant the following

1. A few of the other man activities that result in the death of many birds e.g. unnecessarily lit large buildings and structures, domestic cats, introduced rats and mustelids, shooting for fun etc that seem to have limited offsetting benefits. We certainly don't get any energy production from them.
2. The low-carbon energy production and the need for the development of these (unless you are a CC denier, or see a medium term shift in our consumer-led, capitalist lifestyle worldwide), with the consequent reduction in the need for coal-fired plants

I'm no wind-power advocate or industrialist - I just value informed debate, not pub gossip.B

I want a lower carbon energy production but isn't nuclear better, it is of course a lot more reliable as atoms don't stop fission in a random way (unlike the wind which more than 10 days out is not predictable).

I agree with about the other things although I don't think the RSPB supports any of them.

 

[MTem]

I suggest you read up on this subject - not one coal fired station has been closed on the back of wind power, which due to its unreliability needs constant conventional back-up. Germany has covered vast areas in windfarms and spent vast sums of money on wind(and now has the second most expensive power prices in the EU) - yet coal continues to underpin their grid

And I suggest you read more carefully - what I said was the need to develop low-carbon alternatives, of which wind is only one, that would reduce the need for coal. Actually I have read an awful lot on the subject and until recently was on the faculty of a Cambridge uni sustainability group. As I said 'informed debate'........

 

[davholla]

And I suggest you read more carefully - what I said was the need to develop low-carbon alternatives, of which wind is only one, that would reduce the need for coal. Actually I have read an awful lot on the subject and until recently was on the faculty of a Cambridge uni sustainability group. As I said 'informed debate'........

I like informed debate, so if we have wind how do we deal with low wind days without diesel generators (not green) being used on a large scale?
BTW my attitude to wind is like my attitude to England winning Euro 2016 I want to believe but I need convincing.
Sadly many wind proponents are like the FA - you just need to keep the faith, it will happen etc.

 

[MTem]

I like informed debate, so if we have wind how do we deal with low wind days without diesel generators (not green) being used on a large scale?.

As I said I'm not a wind power advocate, but I am completely convinced of the science of climate change, and of its potentially fatal consequence for billions of people (including my children) and animals. Therefore a lot of the hydrocarbon resources we know of needs to stay in the ground, even if there is an as yet unachieved decoupling of GDP growth from energy use, or a move to a less consumer oriented global economy. Therefore we need a range of low or zero carbon energy sources. Wind, solar, wave, hydro, geothermal linked probably with nuclear and gas would seem to offer potential solutions .... but as you point out they all have issues or downsides, as well as in some cases being political 'hot potatoes'. What is universally lacking to varying degrees is quality scientific information on these issues and downsides to allow 'informed debate'. What is not lacking is folk 'getting action going on', often based on tenuous, self-interested, assertion-based, selective information. Some of it might well be correct - wind turbines do kill birds for instance (as do many other human activities as I listed a few above) - but without quality, statistically relevant data it is unhelpful at best, and irresponsible at worst, to prematurely move to the action stage.

Hence my suggestion that if Robert put in 12 hours on a boat in the North Sea gathering quality data (like it seems Mark has) for every hour spent facebooking, then he would indeed be contributing significantly more to the debate than in my opinion he is now.

 

[Jimmybirder]

As I said I'm not a wind power advocate, but I am completely convinced of the science of climate change, and of its potentially fatal consequence for billions of people (including my children) and animals. Therefore a lot of the hydrocarbon resources we know of needs to stay in the ground, even if there is an as yet unachieved decoupling of GDP growth from energy use, or a move to a less consumer oriented global economy. Therefore we need a range of low or zero carbon energy sources. Wind, solar, wave, hydro, geothermal linked probably with nuclear and gas would seem to offer potential solutions .... but as you point out they all have issues or downsides, as well as in some cases being political 'hot potatoes'. What is universally lacking to varying degrees is quality scientific information on these issues and downsides to allow 'informed debate'. What is not lacking is folk 'getting action going on', often based on tenuous, self-interested, assertion-based, selective information. Some of it might well be correct - wind turbines do kill birds for instance (as do many other human activities as I listed a few above) - but without quality, statistically relevant data it is unhelpful at best, and irresponsible at worst, to prematurely move to the action stage.

Hence my suggestion that if Robert put in 12 hours on a boat in the North Sea gathering quality data (like it seems Mark has) for every hour spent facebooking, then he would indeed be contributing significantly more to the debate than in my opinion he is now.

You claim to know all about this so can you put a figure on the % CO2 emmissions saved by wind farms worldwide and how it related to "saving us" from climate change - noting too that the climate has always changed.

 

[MTem]

You claim to know all about this so can you put a figure on the % CO2 emmissions saved by wind farms worldwide and how it related to "saving us" from climate change - noting too that the climate has always changed.

Why such pointed and provocative responses, Jimmy?

Nowhere in any of the above have I claimed to 'know all about this'. If anything I'm suggesting we do not know everything, or even enough, about these technologies, and that quality scientific information is needed to allow informed debate on the topic.
But simplistically every MW of wind generated power with no CO2 emissions reduces the need to generate that MW by 'conventional' means, that does release CO2, because in most places in the world that marginal MW is produced by burning hydrocarbons. Not complicated.
Beyond that if you want more data go find it for yourself.

If you really don't think climate change is a 'real and present danger', then hmmmm....

 

[Jimmybirder]

But simplistically every MW of wind generated power with no CO2 emissions reduces the need to generate that MW by 'conventional' means, that does release CO2, because in most places in the world that marginal MW is produced by burning hydrocarbons. Not complicated.
Beyond that if you want more data go find it for yourself.

If you really don't think climate change is a 'real and present danger', then hmmmm....

Thanx - I know plenty about wind energy and your statement above that every MW of wind energy displaces a MW of fossil generation is simply untrue as it ignores issues such as spinning reserve etc.