• Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.

    Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
ZEISS DTI thermal imaging cameras. For more discoveries at night, and during the day.

Wind farms (2 Viewers)

Jane Turner said:
I've always assumed that the neutrality was because the gasses released by burning had been recently fixed by the plant being burned...hence neutral as opposed to having been tucked out of the atmosphere for a few million years
The simple answer is: there's no simple answer....... Plants, it should be remembered, are PRODUCERS of C02 during respiration: trees are slow and not particularly efficient fixers of C02: marine algae are far better at it! They account for the vast majority of the anniual C02 uptake by the environment. The best thing to do would to chop down ALL the World's forests and let them rot slowly in piles, while cultivating trillions of hectares of grass! And all shallow seas should be turned into algal-bloom ponds! (Never mind the effect this would have on corals! WE'RE the important life-forms, not stupid trees, corals, echinoiderms, molluscs etc and all the other phyla that benefit from high C02 levels and temperatures.
Then again: the Chinese economy is beginning to burgeon rapidly: their coal reserves consist of notoriously 'dirty' forms, emissions from which will rapidly nullify any gains made by emission controls here and in the US (smoke-free zones, cleaner engines, nuclear fuel etc etc.) And the Chinese population are already demanding the kind of consumer durables we have come to enjoy since the fifties. And what right do we have to tell them they must return to some utopian agrarian economy? None, I reckon!
I really do not see a viable alternative that will ever be acceptable to all interested parties! (Unless, of course, we learn to love nuclear: fusion or fission!)
 
Biomass is being put forward as a carbon-neutral alternative to fossil fuels.

The problem with biomass is the low energy to weight ratio. Electricity generation is simply the conversion of energy in one state to energy in another state. Energy from the breaking apart of atoms heats water , produces steam, turns turbines. Result, electricity. Methane in the form of natural gas is burned in power stations with the same result. The carbon locked in coal is released in combustion in the same way to produce electricity. Wind blows through a turbine, turns a generator - electricity.

In each case the amount of electricity generated is proportional to the amount of energy put into its generation. THe bigger the windmill, the more electricity.

The problem with biomass is that it contains a hell of a lot of water that you can't burn and not much carbon that you can burn. The problem is that the energy is in the carbon. Biomass in general is plant material or wood by another name. It has not had the "advantage" of being converted over time and under great heat and pressure that coal has.

Coal, despite its many faults is a RELATIVELY efficient fuel with a highish energy to weight ratio, but consider its relationship to plant material in its raw "biomass" state. It took many metres of wood lying rotting in primeval swamps to produce even a metre thickness of peat, a fuel more efficient as an energy source than biomass. It took almost 40 metres of peat to be compressed into each metre of coal seam. This compression concentrates the carbon so that each tonne of coal contains more heat energy than many tonnes of the raw wood (or biomass).

However, each tonne of coal takes the same amount of energy in the form of road or rail haulage to transport it to a power station as it does to carry a tonne of biomass with only a fraction of the energy content. This means that biomass cannot be transported other than over short distances or the energy used in transportation exceeds the energy content of the product. This also predicates against large scale biomass production. The shear area of crop needed to sustain a reasonably sized power station means that haulage distances from field to furnace become large.

If wood, straw or willows had been the answer to the country's energy needs, coal burning in power stations would never have been invented. "It's hard down't pit".

There is great delight in Newcastle just now at the demolition of a waste incinerator, yet just a few years ago electricity generation from incinerators not a lot different from this was being heralded as a green recycling of waste and an answer to landfills.
 
David Bryant said:
The simple answer is: there's no simple answer....... And the Chinese population are already demanding the kind of consumer durables we have come to enjoy since the fifties. And what right do we have to tell them they must return to some utopian agrarian economy? None, I reckon!
I really do not see a viable alternative that will ever be acceptable to all interested parties! (Unless, of course, we learn to love nuclear: fusion or fission!)



Congratulations on this simple statement of the awfull truth David .
May I add a little to your spotlight on the way things actually are :-

The three fastest growing Economies on Earth-China , India , & Brazil :-
Population combined 2.5 billion-40% of the World population and 3.5 TIMES the combined populations of USA & EEC .

GDP growth rates 7.8% , 7.4% & 5.3% respectively ( USA 4% , EEC 2% )

Combined average GDP per head-LESS than 2000$pa (USA 36000$pa , EEC 30000$pa)

ie:- not much less than half the worlds people are in turbo-assisted economies , becoming consumers at a very fast rate-starting at less than ten percent of our standard of living .

The world order is changing-and as you say David they wont stop growing simply because we tell them to .

Colin
 
Last edited:
Tyke said:
Congratulations on this simple statement of the awfull truth David .
May I add a little to your spotlight on the way things actually are :-

The three fastest growing Economies on Earth-China , India , & Brazil :-
Population combined 2.5 billion-40% of the World population and 3.5 TIMES the combined populations of USA & EEC .

GDP growth rates 7.8% , 7.4% & 5.3% respectively ( USA 4% , EEC 2% )

Combined average GDP per head-LESS than 2000$pa (USA 36000$pa , EEC 30000$pa)

ie:- not much less than half the worlds people are in turbo-assisted economies , becoming consumers at a very fast rate-starting at less than ten percent of our standard of living .

The world order is changing-and as you say David they wont stop growing simply because we tell them to .

Colin
In a nutshell! Succinct and inarguable!
 
Jane Turner said:
I know of a project to build bioreactors that run on waste vegetable matter, creating heat, Methane, CO2 and fertiliser.....

I seem to recall an old invention called the Cow that ate silage, generated heat, plenty of methane and CO2, and prodigous amounts of fertiliser. They went out of fashion once city people realised milk comes from cartons in Tesco, not from animals. Tony Blair burnt the rest of them to make way for more houses. I presume that's what you meant, Jane? ;)
 
No actually it wasn't... but the principal is similar... this was designed to take eg waste sugar cane. Less mobile and no option to turn it into beef burgers
 
CornishExile said:
I seem to recall an old invention called the Cow that ate silage, generated heat, plenty of methane and CO2, and prodigous amounts of fertiliser. They went out of fashion once city people realised milk comes from cartons in Tesco, not from animals. Tony Blair burnt the rest of them to make way for more houses. I presume that's what you meant, Jane? ;)

Of course cows are extremely inefficient - commercial beef production involves using a lot of grain and water to feed them, so much that you get far less food produced than if you'd eaten the grain itself. This would of course mean that you'd have lot's of burger buns but nothing to put in them though... ;)

Pity biomass doesn't seem to hold the answer.

Richard
 
In addition to windfarms NOT being a solution, the wind industry is now making a bid to invade bird sanctuaries. Here is a case that requires everyone's immediate attention:


50 to 200 golden eagles will be killed over 25 years in an eagle (and other birds) sanctuary on the isle of Lewis, Scotland, if the windfarm application gets approved. More on this here:

http://www.proact-campaigns.net/win..._and_lewis.html

Please send an objecting email asap (deadline Dec. 13th)

More on windfarms and bird-kills here:
www.iberica2000.org/Es/Articulo.asp?Id=1875
www.iberica2000.org/Es/Articulo.asp?Id=1228
 
Mark Duchamp said:
50 to 200 golden eagles will be killed over 25 years in an eagle (and other birds) sanctuary on the isle of Lewis, Scotland, if the windfarm application gets approved. More on this here:

[CENTER][B]http://www.proact-campaigns.net/windfarmsandbirds/amec_and_lewis.html[/B][/CENTER]

Please send an objecting email asap (deadline Dec. 13th)

December 13th is next Monday folks. So get your busy little fingers going over the weekend AT THE LATEST please!
*TIA*

David
 
Aquila said:
According to this, everything's fine as less than 1% of birds are likely to collide with wind turbines. Just a few million then.

Ah, nothing like a good misquote.

Less than 1% of birds "fly close enough to the turbines to be at risk of collision". They didn't make any comment on the proportion of those birds that actually do collide
 
hollis_f said:
Ah, nothing like a good misquote.

Less than 1% of birds "fly close enough to the turbines to be at risk of collision". They didn't make any comment on the proportion of those birds that actually do collide
So has the risk of collision been quantified then??
 
Aquila said:
So has the risk of collision been quantified then??

One "study" paid for by the wind industry in Denmark ended with this conclusion: the birds see the turbines, and go around them. - A very convenient conclusion indeed!

What we need is an independent study. But who will finance it?

About the birds seeing the turbines and avoiding them: the majority of birds will, in the daytime. Some won't, and get killed (like onshore). But what about in the dark? Many birds (migrating songbirds especially) fly over the North Sea at night, at turbine height.

Worse: in overcast nights, the turbines' navigation safety lights may even attract them.

During the day, birds will be attracted by perching sites: the nacelle itself, the staircase etc.

Offshore turbines are set up on shoals. This is where common scoters and other birds of the kind come to feed. It is also where harper seals give birth. An article in the Mirror, dated 6 June 2005, reports that scores of baby seals washed ashore, dead, from Scroby Sands off Great Yarmouth (article available upon request). The construction of the windfarm, with all the activity, vibrations etc. caused the mothers to abort.

It remains to be seen if this was only temporary, or if the vibrations of the turbines themselves will have an effect as well year after year.

Where white-tailed sea eagles and gyrfalcon are to be found, it is probable that they will try to perch on the nacelles. And inevitably some will die.

If we applied the precautionary principle, we would forget about windfarms altogether. They are inefficient, very costly, do not really save on CO2, and have a long list of negative effects.... But what do we do instead? - we use bad science to justify them (I have read so many biased, faulty reports...)

Have you read our petition to save the Scottish eagles from, precisely, bad science? - Here: http://www.proact-campaigns.net/windfarmsandbirds/appeal_to_ec.html

Mark
 
Who indeed will finance an independent study?

Trouble with any study is, if it goes against one's opinion. one is likely to accuse someone, somewhere of bias.

I've given you enough grief in the past, Mark, so I'm not going to lay any on you here. You have as much right as anyone to express your opinions, and I respect that.

My gut instinct - no scientific mumbo-jumbo from me!!! - is that Wind Farms must be one solution to our ongoing energy problem. Maybe not the best solution, certainly not the only one.

What I find at worst frustrating, and at best distracting though, is that somehow Wind Farms are portrayed as being a greater social or environmental evil than just about every other non-fossil fuel energy supply, and for some people they are worse even than those.

The major arguments against wind energy always seem to be that they are too inefficient, they are noisy, that (of relevance to this forum) they are a danger to birds and that they are a blot on the landscape.

With regard to their efficiency or otherwise, perhaps they are innefficient, but every single form of energy production has suffered from such inefficiencies in its infancy. That said, there are those who will argue that the claims of inefficiency from the "no" camp are out of date.

With regard to the noise, I understand the new turbines are much quiter than older designs, and no longer hum. (Progress that would be expected for any new technology?)

With regard to the danger to birds. This is a very serious and relevent concern. It would be of the greatest importance to most visitors to this place that the siting of wind farms is carried out with sensitivity to the needs of birds (and other wildlife for that matter). Bird strikes are definitely a concern, but why wouldn't the birds fly around them? Or for that matter through them? I expect they fly round the cooling towers of the enormous coal-fired power stations near my home. The obvious answer might be that they can see cooling towers better that turbines. Well, I'm not sure about that. I can easily see both, but even so, I dare say some mathematical genius could come up with the probability of a bird flying at a wind turbine hitting (or be hit by) the blades. It is often bandied around that the tips of the blades are travelling at many tens on miles per hour. That is largely due to them describing the perimeter of a large circle. The tips are travelling quickly, but they are also further apart. A bird simply has to cross the plane of travel while there is a gap. I'm not suggesting for one moment that there will be zero casualties, but rather that the low estimates might be near to the truth.

The night-time flying issue is also very valid, and that is really where taking care with the siting of the farms comes into play, perhaps also with proximity to breeding grounds.

With regard to being a blot on the landscape. Well, I for one actually find them rather attractive (although only when the blades are turning, I should point out). They are by no means less attractive than conventional power stations for fossil-fuel, nuclear or HEP. But that is simply my opinion. What is not a matter of opinion is that this argument is put forward in spite of the fact the that their are hundreds and hundreds of miles of electricity wires supported by enormous pylons criss-crossing almost the entire length and breadth of this country. I for one would be in favour of fitting "personal" turbines to house roofs. Aesthetically speaking, I don't see how that would be any more unattractive than the television aerials that are already there.

I suppose this is all a very long-winded way of me saying that I can't help thinking that the anti-wind farm lobby cannot help but state an all-pain-no-gain agenda, when the truth is that there would be much to gain from wind as a source of energy, and that the alternatives may be just as guilty of the sins of the turbines as the turbines themselves.

So, an independent study? Probably hard to fund, but there's a reasonably free debate taking place right here.

***

I should close this minor tirade with one comment, and that is that I am anti-nuclear. Many of my arguments could be turned on their head to support the nuclear option, but (maybe it's my generation) I cannot possibly swallow the fallacy that nuclear power is "clean".

Notwithstanding the horrific potential of Chernobyl, we have enough experience of nuclear pollution on the UK to scotch the "clean" claim, and simply burying our radioactive crud and making it someone else's problem doesn't count!
 
Consider this.

It is often said that people would sooner see a few wind turbines than a power station.

The fact is that the alternative to a power station (assuming for a moment that you wouldn't need to keep the power station spinning for back-up for when it is not windy enough, or too windy) isn't a few wind turbines. The "alternative" is a wind farm (isn't it sweet the way they use the word "farm" to conjure up an impression of rural bliss) of about 1,000 to 2,000 turbines, each 400 feet tall. These turbines will be spaced at about 500m or so from each other, so that they collect clean, unturbulent air.

A 1,000 turbine factory will take up a space of 100 square miles - 10 miles by 10 miles equivalent ground space. A 2,000 turbine factory will take up twice this space.

The turbines will need about 300 miles or so of service road to connect them for maintenance, etc. These roads will need to be strong enough to carry heavy engineering equipment. 300 miles (480km) at 5m wide is an area of 2,400,000 square metres (240 hectares, or about 600 acres - a square mile)of tarmac.

The factory will also need a forest of new pylons to collect the electricity and to distribute it to the grid.

For a third of the time it will produce power. For the remaining 8 months of the year the back-up power station will run at full tilt.

And this is for one conventional power station replacement - gas, coal or nuke, we have dozens. The land just isn't big enough!
 
Last edited:
Found this on the RSPB website dont know if it will help here


Wind farms pose low risk to birds

Migrating birds are unlikely to be seriously affected by offshore wind farms, according to a study.

Scientists found that birds simply fly around the farm, or between the turbines; less than 1% are in danger of colliding with the giant structures.

Writing in the Royal Society's journal Biology Letters, the researchers say previous estimates of collision risk have been "over-inflated".

However, conservationists warn that turbines pose other risks to birdlife.

The research project involved one of Denmark's two large offshore wind farms, Nysted in the Baltic Sea, which contains 72 turbines each measuring 69m to the top of the nacelle or hub. It started operating in 2003.

"This is the first such study involving a large-scale offshore wind farm," researcher Mark Desholm, from the Environmental Research Institute in Ronde told the BBC News website.

"There has been other data from farms with fewer than 10 turbines, but we thought this issue was so important because the potential for offshore wind power is so huge."

Globally, offshore projects currently generate around 600 MW, less than 2% of the overall total for wind.

But the potential is huge, because there is less competition for space at sea, turbines are less visible, and the wind there is often more reliable.

Threading a path

From a conservation point of view, the two options present different issues. Land-based turbines may affect birds when they are nesting; whereas at sea, blocking migration routes could be a bigger problem.

Mark Desholm and his colleague Johnny Kahlert began their study in 1999, before building at Nysted began; so they have been able to compile a long-term picture of how turbines have affected the flight-paths of migrating ducks and geese.

"We need a stable platform for the radar, which is usually used for detecting ships," said Mr Desholm.

"We have an 8m-high tower which rests on the sea bed - the little cabin at the top is just 2.5m by 2.5m - and during the migration season we spend three days out there every week, so you have to like each other."

The radar plots the paths of ducks and geese as they migrate to the Arctic each Spring to breed, and again in the Autumn when they return with their young to feeding grounds largely around northern Germany and Holland.

The results clearly show that most of the birds just fly around the Nysted farm; most of those that go through appear to thread a path between the turbines.

Relaxed regulation

Desholm calculates that less than 1% of the birds fly close enough to the turbines to be at risk of collision.

"And these are heavy birds; they're not easily manoeuvrable, so we were quite a bit afraid that they would not be able to avoid a collision," he said.

For the industry, the finding could mean a relaxation of regulations on offshore wind farms, perhaps enabling them to be built routinely along migration routes.

"Offshore wind power is only two or three years old, so there's lots to be learned," according to Gordon Edge, head of offshore wind at the British Wind Energy Association.

"There's been a precautionary approach so far. As experience grows, the current stringent conditions may relax, and we'll find that some of the anticipated problems aren't so serious," he told the BBC News website.

Wind power is sometimes a tricky issue for conservation groups, who have to pit the consequences for wildlife of constructing huge structures in pristine areas against the likely extra impacts of climate change if those turbines are not built and fossil fuels are used instead.

Further research

David Gibbons, head of conservation science at the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB), told the BBC News website that this study suggested the risks to birds were smaller than had been feared.

"It's a nice, clear picture of research; there's always been concern about turbines as 'mincers', but this study is suggesting that the birds fly around or go through.

"So on the face of it, this is pretty good news for wind farms; but there are other issues when you look at the much larger farms which are coming, and different ways in which they could affect birds.

"The proposed London Array farm in the Thames Estuary would, for example, cover more than 200 sq km. This is a very important feeding area for the red-throated diver, which could suffer from being displaced."

Dr Gibbons says that further research is the key, and that view is endorsed by Mark Desholm.

"For example, we presume that the birds are avoiding the turbines by seeing them - in the night they have red lights on," he said.

"But are they more scared off by flashing or still lights? Can they sense turbulence of the wind? Will they become habituated to the wind farm?"

The current study continues for one more migration season, and may provide answers to some of these outstanding questions.

I think this is the one Mark mentioned?


RSPB view is here


http://www.rspb.org.uk/policy/windfarms/index.asp

And there is a wind farm planned for London Estuary

http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/environment/story.jsp?story=645094
 
Last edited:
Vick2903 said:
Found this on the RSPB website dont know if it will help here




I think this is the one Mark mentioned?


RSPB view is here


http://www.rspb.org.uk/policy/windfarms/index.asp

And there is a wind farm planned for London Estuary

http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/environment/story.jsp?story=645094

They hope the birds will detect the turbulent air from the windfarm. Upwind of the turbines there is no turbulent air, all the turbulence is behind the turbines. How often do birds migrate against the wind?

Birds don't have radar, they don't have maps and they aren't psycic. How are they supposed to somehow detect the turbulence before they reach it? And once they do, how are they supposed to tell it from just another gust of wind before they are whacked from the sky by a blade travelling almost as fast as a peregrine in a stoop?
 
Last edited:
The adverse environmental effects of wind farms are not solely to be found in the deaths of birds in flight.
Post #55 eloquently describes the main problem-destruction of terrestrial habitat.The footprint of wind energy on the landscape vastly exceeds that of it's alternatives, and is in inverse proportion to its effectiveness.
Industrialising pristine habitats-often wilderness uplands is an environmental crime.

Colin
 
TV tonight. There has been a proposal put forward to the government for a further 10 nuclear power stations to be built in the UK in the foreseeable future. An ongoing assessment of the waste disposal is still on track, and after consultation of said assessment, then it is likely that the power stations will be built.
Thank god, then they can knock down all that turbine monstrosities.


Regards

Malky
 
Warning! This thread is more than 16 years ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top