Wind farms (1 Viewer)

[Barred Wobbler]

Acual turbine density from a devolper's application. About 4 to the square kilometer. You are partially right Ilya, sometimes it pays to let others do the work.

Look at the third map from the top.

http://www.stopturbines.com/maps.html

 

[Barred Wobbler]

Hi Alan-nice to hear from you again. Thanks for looking over my shoulder.
Yes-I screwed up-too fast on the keyboard without thinking!!. Ha should be Sq Kms.

RE: Ferrybridge load factor-this is my reference :-

http://66.249.93.104/search?q=cache...rybridge+load+factor&hl=en&gl=uk&ct=clnk&cd=3

Cheers
Colin

Thanks Colin.

The Ferrybridge output's come down a bit from the days when I knew what I was talking about, but if you don't concentrate on just Ferrybridge, but look at the weighted average of the sector the load factor comes out a bit higher.

Perhaps that would be a fairer figure to use.

(It's still "angels dancing on a pin" when you are trying to turn those that are already convinced of their rightness and are happy to go along with the myth that if it's wind, it's green (and free)).

all the best,
Alan

 

[Ilya Maclean]

As I stated I didn't research the turbine figures before posting, you have now, so assuming your figures are correct c. 1-4 per square km it is. Cheers for correcting me on that.

Greater Gabbard - won't stoop to nit-picking arguments even though you do imply something about my scientific credibility. Report will be publicly available in due course and you can nit-pick all you want then.

Climate change – I think you misread between the lines of what I’m saying too much. Nowhere did I imply that mortality due to wind farms is outweighed by benefits due to climate change mitigation. If you took on board my earlier postings, you’d realise that I couldn’t possibly claim that due to uncertainty of wind farm mortality. There’s probably even greater uncertainty surrounding likely impacts of climate change on bird mortality. I won’t get drawn into the debate on whether or not wind farms mitigate against climate change as I don’t have facts and figures to hand. A lot of people evidently believe they do, hence my reference to it. Others, like you evidently do not believe so.

Goshwaks – personally I’d prefer to see more emphasis on declining native species, but again, I don’t intend to get drawn into an Orwellian debate on the relative value of species.

Anyway - this is all getting a bit petty. I'm going to stick to scientific reports for a while...

Cheers

Ilya

 

[Tyke]

"Greater Gabbard - won't stoop to nit-picking arguments even though you do imply something about my scientific credibility. Report will be publicly available in due course and you can nit-pick all you want then. "

Well there is certainly a difference between the 7 sq ks of Thames Estuary which you suggested Greater Gabbard might occupy...and the 102 sq. ks. which it will actually occupy.

As to whether this is "nit picking" -I suppose only the person assessing Gabbards ecological impact would know.

But since this appears to be you, I find the charge of nit picking to an error of 95 sq ks of footprint both puzzling & somewhat disconcerting.

But what do I know-your the expert.

"Goshwaks – personally I’d prefer to see more emphasis on declining native species, but again, I don’t intend to get drawn into an Orwellian debate on the relative value of species."

...but it was you ( & not George Orwell) who suggested that Goshawks were of lesser conservation status in your response to VB !!-I merely asked you to
explain why you thought so.

Colin

 

[Collster]

In reply to valley boy.

See previous post about area - I know I didn’t take account of roads and pylons, but power stations have roads and pylons too! Actually my opinions on wind farms and raptors are mixed and lie outside my main area of expertise, which is offshore wind farms, so don’t take everything I say as gospel. The mortality rates could easily be higher as well as lower. Typically, as I understand it, a scenario-based approach is taken, with the worst case (as well as better) scenarios presented. However, there is also an additional level of uncertainty when dealing with raptors (also important for other species) as the extent to which they are moving through the area as opposed to being territorial as this also has a major impact on estimates of mortality. I couldn’t really comment on how realistic the facts and figures on raptors are though, except to emphasise the uncertainty. With regards to clear-felling forests for wind farms. Again mixed opinions. Other raptors - e.g. merlins and peregrines prefer more open areas, than goshawks and after all, goshawks are a partially introduced species. Not saying wind farms aren’t bad, and if wrongly sited are likely to cause high raptor mortality, but on the whole raptors have been doing fairly well since DDT banned. Also, climate change isn’t too great for birds either. I think I’ll sit on the fence when it comes to opinions…J

Thanks for the reply, though to be honest you are just sitting on the fence. Obviously merlin and perrys prefer open spaces, but clearfelling isnt going to open up sites for Perrys as they tend to prefer a crag, these are normally at the top of a slope leading onto mountain tops( which is where these turbines will go). This means that these areas are going to be rendered useless to both these species of falcon. As for your comments about Goshawk being partially introduced, i cant see that that cuts any ice as they were a native species before the hand of man wiped them out. If we carry on your train of thought are we at some future point going to ok the killing of other species such as Great Bustard ( if the re introduction scheme for them is a success). The point i was making about Goshawks was the fact that their nest sites are being destroyed at the moment, this is before any windfarm for the sites have been approved, if this action was carried out by a private individial they would get prosecuted, corners are being cut and our schedule 1 laws protecting these birds are being abused.I WHOLEHEARTEDLY AGREE THAT CLIMATE CHANGE IS BAD FOR BIRDS ,but whats the point in trying to save the planet with turbines that are likely to wipe out our birds, and wreck our places of outstanding natural beauty? Or are the birds and animals elsewhere around the world more important that we have to end up living in a sterile wasteland

 

[Collster]

More and more greenbelt land is being eaten up by out of town shopping centres, sport centres, cinemas etc. often on SSSI

They abuse space and encourage yet more car useage with there massive carparks and lack of provisions for public transports.

So I find hard to protest against a renewable energy source on the grounds of local loss of habitat. When they are much worser less worthy building schemes abusing this.

The problem is that these turbines are being erected in areas containing very rare breeding birds, this is going on all over the country, so its not just about local loss of habitat is it

 

[Collster]

Tyke
Bolton Wanderers Reebok Stadium and adjoining shopping centre was built on SSSI mossland.
A local housing development destroyed beech woodland that had wood warblers, redstarts etc that can not be replaced overnight.
huge carparks, shopping centres have a more detrimental affect on the local enviroment than wind farm buildings.

WHAT RUBBISH

 

[Collster]

please explain your rudeness.

How can a stadium or shopping centre and attendant carparks be the same as covering an area from pontadawe in west wales across to merthyr in the east in turbines and miles of road, be the same?See Welsh Assemblies TAN 8 proposals. The habitat is somewhat different too

 

[Ilya Maclean]

Gabbard

Colin - please stop completely misinterpreting what I am saying! Nowehere did I give any figures for the area of the Gabbard. If I had done so I would have checked by looking at my GIS files of the precise boundaries and could have given you a figure to the nearest square meter. All I did was give a guestimate (clearly stated as such) of what I thought turbine density to be for the country in general. It turned out to be wrong, as was your first calculation.

Goshawks - a forum on wind farms isn't the appropriate place to enter into a debate about the relative merits of conserving different species. If you wan't me to do so, I can reply to you in private as the arguments are long-winded, and involve some detailed philosophical points as well as ecological ones.


Cheers

Ilya

p.s. valley boy - I wasn't aware that they were clear-felling before planning approval. Are they plantations? If they are, I can see that it might be quite difficult to stop as plantations are planted for later clear-felling and onus would be on proving presence rather than confirming absence of schedule 1 species- best you work with local RSPB etc on this one. Perry's and crags, not too sure on this one, but surely it depends on whether population is limited by availibility of nesting sites rather than food resources? If the latter, open might well benefit them.

 

[Collster]

Colin - please stop completely misinterpreting what I am saying! Nowehere did I give any figures for the area of the Gabbard. If I had done so I would have checked by looking at my GIS files of the precise boundaries and could have given you a figure to the nearest square meter. All I did was give a guestimate (clearly stated as such) of what I thought turbine density to be for the country in general. It turned out to be wrong, as was your first calculation.

Goshawks - a forum on wind farms isn't the appropriate place to enter into a debate about the relative merits of conserving different species. If you wan't me to do so, I can reply to you in private as the arguments are long-winded, and involve some detailed philosphical points as well as ecological ones.


Cheers

Ilya

p.s. valley boy - I wasn't aware that they were clear-felling before planning approval. Are they plantations? If they are, I can see that it might be quite difficult to stop as plantations are planted for later clear-felling and onus would be on proving presence rather than confirming absence of schedule 1 species- best you work with local RSPB etc on this one. Perry's and crags, not too sure on this one, but surely it depends on whether population is limited by availibility of nesting sites rather than food resources? If the latter, open might well benefit them.

Yes they are plantations , but as these trees are being felled before maturity and not long after up pops a monitoring mast then the reason for the felling is obvious, its to aid wind flow -thus giving better results , thus increasing the likely hood of windfarm approval.I am already involved with RSPB and other agencies in work on raptors. To clear up one point there are rarer birds than Goshawk already being affected by these windfarms, these birds were not re introduced - yet scant regard was given to the fact that they breed in the area.Are we to forget these birds are protected by law just to fullfill the misguided ambitions of politicians who ignore the facts?

 

[Edward woodwood]

but whats the point in trying to save the planet with turbines that are likely to wipe out our birds, and wreck our places of outstanding natural beauty? Or are the birds and animals elsewhere around the world more important that we have to end up living in a sterile wasteland

You won't like this VB, but yes, the birds in other parts of the world are more important. In terms of biodiversity and habitat conservation etc... Please note that, philosphically, that does not mean i 'care' any less about 'native' birds or our 'natural' deforested moorland and hill environment.

A sterile wasteland is not per se the default outcome of erecting wind turbines.

Ilya, beers? Edward's is home. :'D

atb
Tim

 

[Ilya Maclean]

beers

Tim - yup - should be up for beers - UEA then Alex or something along those lines? I'm sure Edwards will spend a long time telling us about how amazing birds in other parts of the world are although I'm not sure I can hack that for too long.

 

[Collster]

You won't like this VB, but yes, the birds in other parts of the world are more important. In terms of biodiversity and habitat conservation etc... Please note that, philosphically, that does not mean i 'care' any less about 'native' birds or our 'natural' deforested moorland and hill environment.

A sterile wasteland is not per se the default outcome of erecting wind turbines.

Ilya, beers? Edward's is home. :'D

atb
Tim

So i suppose that that will exempt these countries from erecting windfarms to help save the rest of the planet then? If we go down that route why should we care about protecting other countries wildlife, its all or nothing as i see it Tim. A sterile wasteland is exactly what we will have once all the Welsh uplands are covered in turbines, corners are being cut , planning laws are being flouted and the surveyors need to start surveying on days when they are likely to see the resident birds. ie not on wet , windy or both days which is more often than not when they survey

 

[Tyke]

"Colin - please stop completely misinterpreting what I am saying! Nowehere did I give any figures for the area of the Gabbard. If I had done so I would have checked by looking at my GIS files of the precise boundaries and could have given you a figure to the nearest square meter. All I did was give a guestimate (clearly stated as such) of what I thought turbine density to be for the country in general. It turned out to be wrong, as was your first calculation."

Its just that the land or sea area per unit electricity output goes to the heart of the wind energy debate.So I would have expected someone involved with assessing environmental impact to have this pretty clearly in focus.
But I accept you did not quote density for Gabbard-I would indeed have expected you to know that!!

"Goshawks - a forum on wind farms isn't the appropriate place to enter into a debate about the relative merits of conserving different species. If you wan't me to do so, I can reply to you in private as the arguments are long-winded, and involve some detailed philosophical ] points as well as ecological ones."

Thanks for the offer Ilya-but I am quite content that RSPB & others consider Goshawks worthy of conservation & protection. I can see no mitigation for deliberate killing or disturbance of these birds -by wind turbines or by any other means.

Colin

 

[Tyke]

So i suppose that that will exempt these countries from erecting windfarms to help save the rest of the planet then? If we go down that route why should we care about protecting other countries wildlife, its all or nothing as i see it Tim. A sterile wasteland is exactly what we will have once all the Welsh uplands are covered in turbines, corners are being cut , planning laws are being flouted and the surveyors need to start surveying on days when they are likely to see the resident birds. ie not on wet , windy or both days which is more often than not when they survey

Keep going VB. The work you are doing is vital.
Without folk like you up & down the country, the wind industry & it's yes men will ride roughshod over our countryside & wildlife.
They don't give a **** for either.

atb
Colin

 

[Tyke]

This interesting study on the BTO web site describes the importance of nocturnal feeding for PLovers.
The last para. highlights the risk that wind turbines pose for nocturnal feeding.

http://www.bto.org/survey/special/w-plovernocturnal.htm

Colin

 

[Capercaillie71]

This has been mentioned on another thread but Scotland now has a bird sensitivity map to show where wind farms are likely to have the greatest negative impact on sensitive bird species:

http://www.rspb.org.uk/scotland/policy/sensitivitymap.asp

The actual map is a pdf file that is in a link on the right hand side of the page.

This could be a very useful tool for the future siting of windfarms, although it is unlikely to be popular with proponents of the various Western Isles windfarms.

 

[Tyke]

This has been mentioned on another thread but Scotland now has a bird sensitivity map to show where wind farms are likely to have the greatest negative impact on sensitive bird species:

http://www.rspb.org.uk/scotland/policy/sensitivitymap.asp

The actual map is a pdf file that is in a link on the right hand side of the page.

This could be a very useful tool for the future siting of windfarms, although it is unlikely to be popular with proponents of the various Western Isles windfarms.

Thanks for that Caper.-this looks like a significant step towards a more strategic approach to wind farm siting.

Colin

 

[Reay_Bonxie]

Quoting from the BWEA website:

"A typical wind farm of 20 turbines might extend over an area of 1 square kilometre, but only 1% of the land area would be used to house the turbines, electrical infrastructure and access roads; the remainder can be used for other purposes, such as farming or as natural habitat".

Leave others to do the calculations....

Cheers

Ilya

I waypointed all the 21 turbines (there are more now) of the 48MW Causeymire windfarm on my GPS and found that they occupied an area of 10km². The nearby substation thingy will occupy land on top of the 10km². But lets face it, if you stand them in a row, arguably they take up very little area.

 

[Collster]

Whilst out for a stroll a few weeks ago, i noticed that a large area of immature trees were being felled. Looked to be no reason as they were a few years from being ready. Earlier this week i found the reason for this felling, yet another wind monitoring mast has sprung up on the mountain top above the trees. This is less than 100 metres from a peregrine eyrie. If anyone has any doubts about the potential damage to protected birds in Wales its time to open your eyes and realise that almost all these potential wind farm sites are in areas right next to breeding sites. The fact that the forestry commission are clearfelling to aid wind flow says it all.They are being led by the noses by the Welsh Assembly and pressured into using our land for unsuitable schemes, bullied by the Labour group leading the Assembly .We are going to be covered in these monstrosities wether the local people want them or not. We go on about democracy for other countries, perhaps the government and assemblies of this country should start practicing it here first.