windfarms good for birds

[Ted Pearson]

Originally Posted by Nightranger

Bearing in mind what I said about high tension cables earlier in the thread...did you know that oil rig plumes cause incredibly high casualties among migrating birds in bad weather...then again, lighthouses are not innocent either. I am not being cyinical here, it just goes to show how complicated these issues are.

Ted - I am not aware the RSPB has ignored the nuclear debate but I think we ought to have some cynicism about Tony Blair's comments of a few years a go. This has certain parallels with the debate about a new 'London' airport because basically, the real desire is to expand Gatwick but a legal block prevents this and I suspect given that BAA have announced the sale of the airport, the legal block will not be lifted when it expires next year. A few years ago there was a proposal to build a new airport at Cliffe...before that it was Maplin Sands...now Boris Johnson has proposed another airport in the middle of the Thames Estuary. This smacks of 'give us what we want and no one gets hurt' (to quote U2 in Vertigo) or put another way, give in on opposing expansion of current airports or the wildlife area gets it. To my mind, Tony Blair was voicing a lack of patience with the way too many wind farms were being opposed and trotted out nuclear power because he knew it was the one the public has least trust in. At the time, the RSPB stated that they did not think nuclear power was the way forward, which neither supports nor condemns it. As far as I can tell, the RSPB's policy on sustainable energy fully allows them to review situations should the information reveal something of more importance to the overal debate...maybe we should all take a little bit from that and keep our minds open even if that is not normal human nature. At the end of the day, there are few short of the industrialists who think we are not facing a lot of problems even if we disagree on the finer detail

I also am unsure of RSPB’s stance on nuclear. I do know that in the USA, environmental groups advertise an agenda of simply saving the wildlife but ultimately lobby against human health, welfare, energy and advancement. I can’t say if the RSPB has entered this arena, but it seems as if their advice is being sought as it should be. It is only when these agencies refuse solutions again and again, that we must examine their true motivations.
I am unaware of the comments by Tony Blair regarding the RSPB or Nuclear Power. If you would please tell me what they were, it would help my understanding. (Please forgive the ignorance of a Yank) How long ago did he say that we had less than a year to live due to Global Warming? Our Barbara Boxer is a real ‘piece of work’ too. It seems that everywhere I look in our government lately, there are followers of Marx and Mao, child-molesters, liars and a general disinterest in the voice of the people. Fortunately, ‘The People’ will eventually be heard, either through the voting booth or the 2nd Amendment.

[rossy]

i agree with chris jb on this one as i know exactly where he is on about. total waste of money and they do have a devastating effect on birds. also how many on here can tell me that there bills have gone down because of them. people are like sheep and are brainwashed by the people who make these decisions. all this about going green and green tax makes me laugh have you ever looked at the size of britain on the map ? we are being taken for a ride. anyway windfarms to me are of no use end of. rossy

[Herd900rd]

[quote=rossy;557131 anyway windfarms to me are of no use end of. rossy[/QUOTE]

Then you won't be wanting any of the power they produce when they DO become effective? Are you a dead sparrow?

[Ted Pearson]

Originally Posted by freefeet

As someone who used to repair and service aircraft - specifically helicopters - i can assure you that they don't fall to bits after twenty years - and a helicopter takes a lot more punishment and vibration than a wind turbine tower, it's also made from aluminium which i'm sure you know isn't anything like as strong as steel and reinforced concrete.

I've flown in two planes over 60 years old without any thoughts as to them falling to bits. If a turbine is put up correctly, serviced correctly and has its blades balanced correctly there should be no reason for failure.

As to the water mill i think you missed the point. The point i was making is that if things are looked after properly they will last and last and last. It's a very tiny investment in terms of energy for the good upkeep and servicing of a wind turbine in relation to its output.

It sounds as if experience as a mechanic has given you a vast knowledge of structural design. Just how much ‘stronger’ is steel than aluminum? What regulations relating to construction of oil rigs operating in the North Sea (DNV typ.) have structural strength requirements higher than those operating in other waters (ABS, IMO typ.)? Hope that enquiries into if you know what you are prattling on about do not make you irrita(Ted).
Getting around all the conjecture, the manufacturer of these windmills specified their lifecycle at 20 years. By what method do you assume they could last any more than 20%beyond that and how can you claim the overhaul cost to be ‘miniscule’? It has already been established that these windmills will be profitable less than ¼ of their life before requiring an overhaul. I imagine if they were designed to meet your ‘hundreds of years’ serviceability criteria, cost would sharply increase while the energy output does not, so we would only break even decades later. That is only if the wind patterns do not shift north or south of the location, a new migratory path for birds shuts them down or the next technology makes them obsolete.
As to the old fashioned windmill, I think you ignored Rich _’s point. The main reason the mill you speak of has lasted this long is because it was built well and designed to last for generations. I would imagine that hundreds of years ago, when this mill was built, it was by a family of Millers who constructed it as a family business. I think you would agree that occupations back then where handed down through multiple generations and along with the probability that the family also used the mill as their home, it was built to NEVER break down. This being the case, materials used in the construction were selected to have much better properties and were more robust than if it was only to be used for a few decades. Incidental factors such as a river that did not diminish, fairly consistent occupation and yes, owners that provided needed service and repairs, ensured that it still works today. I would hope that you do not believe that the reason many of our newer contrivances today do not last as long as those made years ago is because we do not take care of them properly.

[Ted Pearson]

Originally Posted by eeyore

what errant and total rubbish

My dear, dear, eeyore. It seems that you have once again refused to (or displayed the inability to) do an ounce of comprehensive research on the subjects you talk about. With the exception of the RSPB not taking a stand against nuclear power, (a matter you may realize that I never alleged, if you re-read my post-slowly) you have missed the mark on each issue. I would not intend to berate any person for their lack of cognitive power over written English, but when one blathers on and becomes abusive in an attempt to make an unfounded point, I will show some patience by bringing information to them. I had hoped that you might have referred me to some bit of information to back up your assertions. Now I find you as a Lemming heading towards the cliff’s edge and when I call for you to stop, you only pound your breast and yell ‘rubbish’. So I leave you to your powdered wig and lap-dog freefeet, so you may go the way of the esteemed Cornwallace. Honorably, prideful and steadfast.
Cheers

[richnfamous]

Originally Posted by Ted Pearson

Denmark is doing very good, (if you can say that 20% is good) because they have in infrastructure heavy in hydroelectric power.

I can assure you that Denmark has almost no hydroelectric power at all. Sweden and Norway have plenty - on the other hand, neither Sweden nor Norway uses wind power much.

I don't buy the nuclear argument. The embedded energy in a nuclear power plant is huge and there's still no solution to the waste problem - neither high-grade or low-grade. Like coal, just because a lot of the pollution is invisible, people can be misled into thinking it's clean, when it's not.

The long and the short of it is this: we're going to have to reduce our energy use across the board by a substantial amount - but don't worry, reducing your standard of living can actually improve your quality of life.

As for wind farms being bad for birds: seems to me to be just another 'nimby' argument, and the people who oppose renewable energy development will probably be the first to start shouting 'why didn't we do more, earlier' when energy supplies reach their, on current projections inevitable, tipping point.

Birds aren't stupid. They'll learn to live with wind farms just as they've learned to live with shotguns. If in doubt, just watch a wood pigeon in an area where people shoot at them.

[freefeet]

Originally Posted by richnfamous

The long and the short of it is this: we're going to have to reduce our energy use across the board by a substantial amount - but don't worry, reducing your standard of living can actually improve your quality of life.

I agree. Turn off the television and go for a walk instead - Oh, the horror!!!!

[Rich_]

Originally Posted by richnfamous

The long and the short of it is this: we're going to have to reduce our energy use across the board by a substantial amount - but don't worry, reducing your standard of living can actually improve your quality of life.

.

I agree also. If we have really influenced climate change in such a short time with our energy consumption, then using low energy light bulbs & turning the central heating down one degree is hardly enough I'd have thought.

Our houses are full of appliances we don't need, most things would be classed as luxuries. How do you persuade people to get rid of the TV and their 2nd car , or stop traveling abroad on planes? how many people that are concerned about climate change are leading from the front and taken these steps already? Problem is we live in a society obsessed with improving their standard of living , not reducing it.

[Picidae]

Originally Posted by richnfamous

As for wind farms being bad for birds: seems to me to be just another 'nimby' argument ... Birds aren't stupid. They'll learn to live with wind farms just as they've learned to live with shotguns. If in doubt, just watch a wood pigeon in an area where people shoot at them.

I suggest you do some research. Here's some for you to start with:

Wildlife Extra News - White-tailed sea eagles threatened by wind farms.

www.windaction.org | Wind turbines are killing condors

http://www.iberica2000.org/Es/Articulo.asp?Id=2968

As for birds living with shotguns, you'd do well to familiarise yourself with the bi-annual slaughter of migrating raptors etc in Malta

Birdwatch - Malta slaughter increases

[richnfamous]

Originally Posted by Picidae

I suggest you do some research. Here's some for you to start with:

Wildlife Extra News - White-tailed sea eagles threatened by wind farms.

www.windaction.org | Wind turbines are killing condors

http://www.iberica2000.org/Es/Articulo.asp?Id=2968

As for birds living with shotguns, you'd do well to familiarise yourself with the bi-annual slaughter of migrating raptors etc in Malta

Birdwatch - Malta slaughter increases

Point taken about the larger 'soaring' species - it sounds like they're more vulnerable than the rest.

However, I think it's a tad disingenuous to mention the slaughter of songbirds who are funneled into a tiny island that's on their migration route. Of course they can't avoid the shotguns there - there's no room. It's about time the people there stopped doing it. They can't claim that they need the food.

Next time you're out, watch how a woodpigeon veers off in mid-flight when it sees you. They're bloody hard to shoot, I hear...

[Picidae]

Originally Posted by richnfamous

Point taken about the larger 'soaring' species - it sounds like they're more vulnerable than the rest.

However, I think it's a tad disingenuous to mention the slaughter of songbirds who are funneled into a tiny island that's on their migration route.

'Songbirds'? It's migrating raptors that are being mainly targeted by guns in the illegal hunting. Osprey, Red Footed Falcons, Marsh Harrier, Eagle species, Honey Buzzards, Common Buzzards and many more species including Black Storks, Egrets etc. They can't avoid the guns on Malta any more than they can change their migration routes.

Large birds make easy targets and flap more slowly which is why they are vulnerable. Small songbirds (ie passerines) tend to be trapped or stone crushed in continental Europe, not shot.

Part of the reason why raptors are more vulnerable to wind farms boils down simply to location. Onshore Wind farms tend to be sited in areas where there are 'good wind' currents often on brows of hills which for the same reason tends to be raptor hunting/breeding habitat.

[richnfamous]

Originally Posted by Picidae

It's migrating raptors that are being mainly targeted by guns in the illegal hunting. Osprey, Red Footed Falcons, Marsh Harrier, Eagle species, Honey Buzzards, Common Buzzards and many more species including Black Storks, Egrets etc. They can't avoid the guns on Malta any more than they can change their migration routes.

That makes it even worse in my book. Raptors are my faves...who in their right mind would want to shoot them? I just don't get it.

[Ted Pearson]

Originally Posted by richnfamous

I can assure you that Denmark has almost no hydroelectric power at all. Sweden and Norway have plenty - on the other hand, neither Sweden nor Norway uses wind power much.

Essentially all Danish wind power is exported to Norway and Sweden. These countries dynamically balance the interconnected grid using their extensive hydroelectric generating capacity that can be adjusted rapidly to compensate for the highly variable input from Danish wind. The variance in the Danish wind supply is only a problem for Denmark because wind energy represents a significant proportion of the total grid supply—16%. Any country wanting to rival the Danish wind model will have to either develop a grid balancing system or develop energy sinks within the grid or both. http://www.thomastelford.com/journal...ance%20data%22

Originally Posted by richnfamous

I don't buy the nuclear argument. The embedded energy in a nuclear power plant is huge and there's still no solution to the waste problem - neither high-grade or low-grade. Like coal, just because a lot of the pollution is invisible, people can be misled into thinking it's clean, when it's not.

I am not sure what you mean by embedded energy and where the information is on how huge it is.(Link please?) There are long and short term storage facilities in the U.S. for storage of nuclear waste. In fact the U.S. imports waste from around the world for storage in our facilities. DOE Environmental Management (EM) Waste and Materials Disposition Information
As for the invisible pollution you speak of, the EPA says that the CO2 we exhale out of our lungs is pollution so you will have to be specific about your claim. Where is the data stating that the operation of these new reactors show emitted levels of radiation to the environment? Are these levels higher than what we already experience in our daily life?

Originally Posted by richnfamous

The long and the short of it is this: we're going to have to reduce our energy use across the board by a substantial amount - but don't worry, reducing your standard of living can actually improve your quality of life.

I would love to hear your theory about how the lack of Energy to cook food, heat our homes in winter and refrigerate food, will improve our quality of life.

Originally Posted by richnfamous

As for wind farms being bad for birds: seems to me to be just another 'nimby' argument, and the people who oppose renewable energy development will probably be the first to start shouting 'why didn't we do more, earlier' when energy supplies reach their, on current projections inevitable, tipping point. Birds aren't stupid. They'll learn to live with wind farms just as they've learned to live with shotguns. If in doubt, just watch a wood pigeon in an area where people shoot at them.

I agree about the birds and would like to see some actual data on what and how many birds are actually being killed by windmills. Too often we are quick to believe any assertion that spews out of someone’s pie-hole without some type of proof being provided. Geese migrate over my property every year and they never remember that I am there so they fall. I imagine if I was 100 meters tall with 3 really long arms rotating, they would turn away to miss me. Maybe some extremely unintelligent ones would bang into me, but they would also be likely to fly in front of a truck or into a shop window.
Where can I find the scientific report on the ‘Current projections on the inevitable energy tipping point’? I would be interested in quantifying that statement back to some real measurements.

[Picidae]

Originally Posted by Ted Pearson

I agree about the birds and would like to see some actual data on what and how many birds are actually being killed by windmills. Too often we are quick to believe any assertion that spews out of someone’s pie-hole without some type of proof being provided. .

I've posted several links above Ted. Sadly, many people 'spew' stuff out of their 'pie-holes' without doing any research first!

The British windfarm installations are still relatively small cf. to some of the continental/American ones and to date, but there's absolutely no doubt that windfarm blades kill birds (and Bats!). However, that's just part of it, environmental degradation caused by installations can have a serious impact on birds. Impacts vary depending on where they are sited, the size of installation, the speed of blades etc. Windfarm technology in Great Britain is still relatively recent but the evidence is there, especially from abroad, if one does not have an agenda to bury one's head in the sand.

Assessment of wind-farm and other bird casualties from carcasses found on a Northumbrian beach over an 11-year period - Bird Study

However, if people can't be bothered to access links to the evidence then this excerpt should at least get one started

The available evidence suggests that wind farms can harm birds in three possible ways – disturbance, habitat loss or damage (both direct or indirect), and collision. Poorly sited wind farms have caused some major bird casualties, particularly in Tarifa and Navarra in Spain, and the Altamont Pass in California. At these sites, planners failed to consider adequately the likely impact of putting hundreds, or even thousands, of turbines in areas that are important for birds of prey. Tragically, killing many hundreds of birds as a result.

The RSPB: Wind farms

Recent research into breeding birds in Scotland
Moorsyde Wind Farm Action Group (MAG) - Birds

New Zealand
Powered by Google Docs

[Picidae]

Originally Posted by Ted Pearson

Geese migrate over my property every year and they never remember that I am there so they fall. I imagine if I was 100 meters tall with 3 really long arms rotating, they would turn away to miss me. Maybe some extremely unintelligent ones would bang into me, but they would also be likely to fly in front of a truck or into a shop window.

I'm afraid you are showing your ignorance Ted. Migration routes are imprinted genetically on birds and it's a known fact that even if you are regularly shooting them out of the sky (which by your comment I understand that you are?!) they would take the same route each season.

Originally Posted by Ted Pearson

The Nuclear Power plant is the obvious answer to our Green Energy needs, yet the Environmentalists do not want to use them

As energy provision/vis a vis demand, stands at the moment, I totally agree. Plastering half of Scotland and Wales with wind farm installations is not the answer to our current fuel demands/climate change anymore than destruction of tropical rainforests for biofuels. Personally and imo, it's a short-sighted knee jerk political reaction to imagine that it is. A long term strategy of combination renewables and nuclear, with equally important emphasis on voluntary reduction of our personal lifestyle demands is the only way forward imo. (Including and most importantly having less/no children/stop spending millions on medical research to find more and more ways to 'extend life'/'create' life which can only add to the disastrous environmental effects of global population increases)

[rossy]

well put picidae its pure ignorance by some folk and herd i aint a dead sparrow im alive and kicking. tell me why are the energy people on about putting our bills up by 60% if your windfarms are viable. its absolute bull your just another sheep as far as i can see and believe anything your told. read it as it is they kill birds destroy habitat and are of no use . rossy.

[Herd900rd]

Originally Posted by rossy

.....and herd i aint a dead sparrow im alive and kicking. tell me why are the energy people on about putting our bills up by 60% if your windfarms are viable. its absolute bull your just another sheep as far as i can see and believe anything your told. read it as it is they kill birds destroy habitat and are of no use . rossy.

You get one chance to put a cross on a ballot paper every five years, plus locals and Europeans, and you will be going with the majority. The winning party or parties will have to present a sensible, well-thought out case to get people to vote for them. Are the voters all sheep? I suspect if you had any viable alternative proposals you would be involved in that in some way, rossy, not stirring forum-users up about it.

I don't want to see bird corpses littering the landscape, I think all options should be looked at. I think wind power is sensible because it encourages technology which I hope can make it possible for many more individuals to have their own source of power. I don't see the government or indeed the country encouraging private use of nuclear reactors. Nuclear power may be cheaper and initially more environmentally friendly, but it too runs out and perhaps the nettle has to be grasped before new power stations can be built. Gone are the days when non-sheep like you and your mates have the final say. Thankfully.

[Nightranger]

Originally Posted by rossy

well put picidae its pure ignorance by some folk and herd i aint a dead sparrow im alive and kicking. tell me why are the energy people on about putting our bills up by 60% if your windfarms are viable. its absolute bull your just another sheep as far as i can see and believe anything your told. read it as it is they kill birds destroy habitat and are of no use . rossy.

One of the biggest irritations for me is that just about everyone agrees that we need to be looking towards sustainable energy. However, because so many people dislike wind farms they would rather we suspend any such development until we can resolve the argument about which strategy will be most efficient. Imagine if we had taken the nuclear option from the beginning with the potential for every plant to be a Chernobyl. As Picidae rightly pointed out, first generation wind farms were a nightmare but what was missed in the post is that we now have that information to help mitigate against the problems caused. I am sure most people want to see renewable sources of energy but to me the argument seems to be No Wind Power and therefore, No Renewable Energy until we have something better. Reduced to this level, I simply do not understand the argument because we do not have the luxury of time to debate whilst doing nothing at all.

Incidentally, high tension cables have been around for decades and they can be every bit as destructive to bird life, particularly in bad weather. What many people do not realise is that lighthouses and plumes on gas rigs are also major hazards but little is ever mentioned about this.

[freefeet]

What's not been mentioned is that offshore windfarms create natural reefs where sea life can live and reproduce with 24/7 protection from active gear fishing.

Maybe some gulls get killed in the blades, maybe not, but under the water a whole new environment is emerging which can only be a good thing for the sustainability of wildlife in our local waters. I'd rather lose a few gulls and migrating birds to a few windmill blades and have allow the sea creatures to have a little bit of sanctuary in a very overstressed environment - and get sustainable energy at the same time.

Also with offshore windfarms you can store excess energy when there's a lot of wind for use when there isn't any wind by using excess energy to pump air into underwater containers. That air can be compressed to extreme levels, depending on depth of course, and when there's no wind that highly compressed air can be fed back into the turbines to generate electric. Basically you make a load of upside down Dinorwigs... First Hydro Company Dinorwig Power Station

It's a brilliant system, and in the long run it's far cheaper than a nuclear powerstation. One offshore windfarm is cheaper to build than one nuclear powerstation is just to decommision - let alone build as well. I once read that a nuclear station takes days to come on line from a cold start, while compressed air storage and water storage stations can be brought on line very rapidly - literally seconds - thus energy is saved as you don't have to run the stations when there's no demand.

No brainer really!

[Ted Pearson]

Originally Posted by freefeet

First Hydro Company Dinorwig Power Station
No brainer really!

Very cool. That’s the type of energy sink that will make wind energy viable. Special care must be taken to not let any living creature use the reservoirs as a habitat or the rising/falling water may be deemed to unbalance its delicate ecosystem and the project could be shut down.

[freefeet]

Originally Posted by Ted Pearson

Very cool. That’s the type of energy sink that will make wind energy viable. Special care must be taken to not let any living creature use the reservoirs as a habitat or the rising/falling water may be deemed to unbalance its delicate ecosystem and the project could be shut down.

They had to sterilise the lake at the bottom. It was part of a trout or salmon spawning route though, so they had to build a canal around it so the fish could still swim upstream to their spawning grounds.

It's one hell of a piece of engineering and you can go inside for visits - definitely recommended if you're up that way.

I seem to remember them saying they can go from cold start to full power in something like 9 seconds - you don't get that with nuclear, coal, or oil.

For the reverse of this, the undersea air thing...

Compressed-air energy storage - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Compressed-air energy storage - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Sadly, and amazingly, there doesn't seem to be much money being invested in this wonderful technology.

We live on an island where we have the opportunity to really exploit this kind of technology to make wind and tidal power a 24/7 reality, whether the wind or tides are working or not, while at the same time creating off limit marine environments around our coast where these underwater energy sink are put that will give our local sealife the help it needs to recover from the damage that's been done to it.

As i said above, it's a no brainer. So the next person who says wind power is intermittent, you can tell them that it doesn't have to be at all.

[rossy]

ok herd when i go out on the moors i like to hear birds singing and watch the likes of skylarks high up then descend and the curlew calling meadow pipits wheaters lapwings plovers to name but a few not see some turbines like the 26 they stuck up near me where the abundance of birds have become scarce to say the least. it might float your boat seeing turbines but sorry it does nothing for me. and dont give me technology garbage they cant get the weather forecast right . and i dont need my mates as you put it. i see you as a selfish individual in life and dont even know you personally. this is about the birds not me or you. in years to come when me or you arent around are people going to be saying to future generations these birds used to breed in our country and show footage or photos instead of observing them for themselves. so what will it be a windfarm in your backyard or beautiful countryside i know my choice and maybe one or two more think my way or one might think your way you . rossy.

[Picidae]

Originally Posted by Nightranger

As Picidae rightly pointed out, first generation wind farms were a nightmare but what was missed in the post is that we now have that information to help mitigate against the problems caused. I am sure most people want to see renewable sources of energy but to me the argument seems to be No Wind Power and therefore, No Renewable Energy until we have something better. Reduced to this level, I simply do not understand the argument because we do not have the luxury of time to debate whilst doing nothing at all.

I was responding to the rather simplistic comments that windfarms don't effect/damage habitat/kill birdlife. They do. The mitigations you are probably referring to ie. EIAs, building rafts for divers, selecting 'non-sensitive' sites etc can only go so far in mitigation. I'm certainly not making the argument that we should have ''no renewable energy', simply that eg. decisions like the Lewis Wind Farm, will cause an act of environmental vandalism both with regard to the protected peat bogs of Lewis and it's wildlife ... The SRSPB campaigned vigorously against this proposal as you know. It was an important campaign but it won't be the last. Who will be left to voice the protests when so much recent capitulation has taken place?

Nightranger, perhaps it would be appropriate for you to declare an interest as someone who works for the RSPB? As a long term member of the RSPB, and past volunteer, I'm well aware of the 'marketing' going on to convince 'unconvinced' members that the RSPB's position on widespread wind farm development is justified for the good of the environment (both in printed form and online.) I'm afraid I tore up the last lot of members bumpf on wind farms from the RSPB and dumped it in the recycling bin, and seriously considered withdrawing my membership. The marketing was so overtly in favor of now supporting what it had previously campaigned vigorously against that it's contributed to a major shift in the windfarm 'debate'. In Environmental Law, the Precautionary Principle is/was one of the few 'mechanisms' insisting on proper control and environmental impact assessments vis a vis planning applications. The burden of 'proof' has shifted so far in favor of the developers/power companies now, that the PP has become itself a victim of turbine collision and the burden of proof now seems firmly reversed. The RSPB was one of the few bastions remaining to help slow down the widespread proposals/applications for wind farms in sensitive areas. This is a subtle but significant change coming from a major conservation organisation and one that i'm sure the power companies and political pundits are having a field day over. They've very much tamed the tiger that was threatening to become the proverbial pain in the butt although with what inducements I can't imagine.

In a few years we've gone from this:
BBC NEWS | UK | Scotland | Wind farm 'catastrophic' for isle
to this:
''Disappointed'' and ''Surprised'' doesn't begin to cover it ...

Wind Watch: Wind farm go ahead on Lewis

I will continue to support the RSPB and volunteer, but with regard to it's current drive to 'promote' windfarms to it's members, we part company. The degree to which there is a growing 'reliance' on the idea that covering the Scottish Highlands and Snowdonia with wind farms will either solve our fuel crisis or contribute significantly to reducing overall greenhouse gasses is simply misleading and erroneous.

[Nightranger]

Originally Posted by Picidae

Nightranger, perhaps it would be appropriate for you to declare an interest as someone who works for the RSPB?

I think your memory is short (LOL). I used to work for the RSPB but I am currently a volunteer at Marshside and not paid by the society. To set one part of the record straight though, my views on wind farms are through making my own mind up on the subject. In fact, I still reserve judgement on the RSPB's precise position on the subject but I can tell you that the society is not pushing wind farms quite in the way you think. If anything, the society has no choice but to support some form of renewable energy and as the British government will not throw its weight behind bringing down the cost of solar power, the only vaguely acceptable option is wiond power, at least for the moment.

I was talking to another volunteer a few months ago and he was under the impression the RSPB had changed its policy on wind farms but I am not aware of this being the case either. As far as I can tell, the society retains the right to judge each proposal on merit. As I said previously, I think there is a real danger that most people fall on one side or other without recourse to be ready to accept the other argument when better information comes along. I doubt if wind power is the whole answer nor should it be but we cannot wait for the politicians to get their a***s in gear.

Did you know that one of the country's leading manufacturers of solar cells ceased trading recently (my thanks to Mark Avery for pointing this out in his blog)?

[Ted Pearson]

Originally Posted by Picidae

I've posted several links above Ted. Sadly, many people 'spew' stuff out of their 'pie-holes' without doing any research first!

When I wrote my response to richnfamouse, I had not seen your post below it. The links therein were illuminating and I logged back in this morning discuss further only to find you had turned into a total xexexexexexexexexe. I have been abusive in the past and after being informed that “WAB is a very friendly, polite site and we don't tolerate personal attack” I refrained. Furthermore, it seems that similar abuse is only acceptable if one is on the “right side” of the argument.

Originally Posted by Ted Pearson

Geese migrate over my property every year and they never remember that I am there so they fall.

Originally Posted by Picidae

Migration routes are imprinted genetically on birds and it's a known fact that even if you are regularly shooting them out of the sky (which by your comment I understand that you are?!) they would take the same route each season.

Umm….. We both are saying the same thing here, yet you say I am ignorant? Apart from that being a reflexive argument, I wonder if your true anger comes from the fact that I hunt? I assure you that I do and at every opportunity. I follow all laws and safety regulations and ensure my wife and children do the same. Aside from migrating fowl and dove, there are deer, hog, turkey and squirrel on my property. I hunt in season and we eat what we kill. That is a true renewable resource and reduces the amount of beef we would require.= less methane.

Originally Posted by Picidae

(Including and most importantly having less/no children/stop spending millions on medical research to find more and more ways to 'extend life'/'create' life which can only add to the disastrous environmental effects of global population increases)

I have heard some extremists go this direction and I wonder what the next step would be. I do not believe that you are the most radical person in the world, but this is heading down a path that is very concerning. Maybe if we stopped Cancer research or even better stop treating cancer completely. That could kill two birds with one stone.(pun intended) The government could regulate specific illness treatments and operations. Mandatory sterilization and abortions after the family limit has been reached. Possibly we could set a human age limit of 46 years but if a baby is born with a defect, it is euthanized. All of these ‘final solutions’ may be acceptable to some groups, but I cannot imagine anyone here would do that.
I guess I have to ask the question to you and anyone else who would care to answer.
Imagine yourself in a room with your beloved parent and the last living specimen of your favorite animal. You must directly cause the death of one of them. Which one will you allow to live?
Is the question easier if you just vote for a general law that causes the deaths of people you do not know?