windfarms good for birds

[svenrufus]

Here you go - the RSPB believes that the arguments against windfarms are not as important as the need to act to prevent climate change. More birdlife harmed by not having them than by having them. Can't disagree myself, but I'm sure there will be some of you who do!

BBC NEWS | UK | RSPB calls for more UK wind farms

They also said that some areas are more suitable for wind turbines than others in terms of wildlife protection, which is entirely sensible, and all I think that most advocates of turbines would expect.

Let's hope someone is listening to them - apart from WAB that is.

[Gill Catton]

OOh snap! I just commented on Ruth's thread on this!

[Nightranger]

Originally Posted by svenrufus

Here you go - the RSPB believes that the arguments against windfarms are not as important as the need to act to prevent climate change. More birdlife harmed by not having them than by having them. Can't disagree myself, but I'm sure there will be some of you who do!

BBC NEWS | UK | RSPB calls for more UK wind farms

They also said that some areas are more suitable for wind turbines than others in terms of wildlife protection, which is entirely sensible, and all I think that most advocates of turbines would expect.

Let's hope someone is listening to them - apart from WAB that is.

Interestingly, this news item has been dressed up by the anti-wind farm brigade and has been differently reported elsewhere. In fact, there is nothing new in this story because the RSPB has always taken the view that it will assess all wind farm proposals on merit. However (according to a friend), this has been taken to read that some areas (thus, some proposals) will not merit opposition by the antis and that the RSPB has accepted a sustainable loss rate in some cases.

To set the record a little straighter - Phase 1 wind turbines (lattice-type similar to high tension pylons) sited on important migratory routes did cause substantial problems in Spain and the USA. Later designs are usually sited with reference to local habitat and migratory routes (not siting next to wetlands, for example) where problems could be predicted ahead of time. Some authorities believe that high-flying birds can have difficulty with the movement of the blades, particularly in poor visibility but no comment has ever been made with regard to comparison to high tension lines and pylons in similar conditions. Despite impressions given by some people, the RSPB have not changed to a policy of blindly asking for more wind farms irrespective of the risks from what I can gather. Merely, the society is trying to head off a trend towards wind farms falling out of favour, especially in the light of such limited alternatives.

[Paul mabbott]

To be a little pedantic, 'less bad' rather than 'good'! But yes, nothing has changed. Personally, I want to see a lot more solar collectors ....

Originally Posted by svenrufus

Here you go - the RSPB believes that the arguments against windfarms are not as important as the need to act to prevent climate change. More birdlife harmed by not having them than by having them. Can't disagree myself, but I'm sure there will be some of you who do!

BBC NEWS | UK | RSPB calls for more UK wind farms

They also said that some areas are more suitable for wind turbines than others in terms of wildlife protection, which is entirely sensible, and all I think that most advocates of turbines would expect.

Let's hope someone is listening to them - apart from WAB that is.

[Cellarman]

Since wind generators take more resources to manufacture than they will ever save in their useless lives, this is a spurious attitude by the RSPB, who seem to be more interested in selling their "green" power.

[svenrufus]

Originally Posted by Cellarman

Since wind generators take more resources to manufacture than they will ever save in their useless lives, this is a spurious attitude by the RSPB, who seem to be more interested in selling their "green" power.

Rubbish! Where does this stuff come from. I have just done some quick research, and found miriads of references for the payback period of the energy for wind turbines. Depending on which you read (they vary due to different base assumptions in energy yield etc) payback is between 3 months and 8 months. Given a useful life of 20 years + then the payback is generous, and swift.

I also found one rabidly anti wind turbine site that claimed that payback was 9 years. OK, let's accept that for the sake of argument (even though it is massively outside the range of all the other estimates, and questionable in terms of credibility) Even at 9 years, they pay back more than twice the energy invested in them, so where's your argument?

I get really wound up by people objecting to wind turbines who make unsubstantiated and fallacious statements about them. There are plenty who argue passionately against wind turbines from a position of prinicple, backed by facts, with whom I am happy to disagree and respect their views even though I beleive them to be wrong. The comment above though helps no-ones cause.

[Paul mabbott]

Originally Posted by svenrufus

Rubbish! Where does this stuff come from.

Daily Mail, Daily Telegraph, Exxon?????

[nightshade]

I think you will find that the "micro" wind turbines will be the real "killers",
mounted on boats (for instance) alongside towpaths they will come and go so that Bats and Birds are exposed to them in a wide range of locations.
There is also a strong possibility that you will not need planning permission any longer to put up your own generator. So your neighbours will subject you to noise and transmitted vibration (with you having no say)
But you will be used to this of course if you live near a pub or club with the extended licensing (courtesy of the same government )
I believe there are some studies going on at the moment

[Nightranger]

Originally Posted by Cellarman

Since wind generators take more resources to manufacture than they will ever save in their useless lives, this is a spurious attitude by the RSPB, who seem to be more interested in selling their "green" power.

Not so.

If this claim was true, you would expect the RSPB to avoid objecting to Scottish Power's proposals and oppose every other company. RSPB Energy is a deal with Scottish Power (unless it has changed recently) to produce cheaper energy for anyone signing up (see the RSPB website for more details). Charity Commission rules state that the RSPB cannot act against its mission statement when brokering this deal. Despite this, anti-wind energy groups are deliberately trying to muddy the waters by using carefully worded statements to suggest the RSPB has a vested interest.

As mentioned elsewhere on this thread, there are better options than wind turbines such as (some) tidal energy options and solar-voltaic cells. However, the former is controversial because some designs could be potentially damaging to the local environment and the latter is impossibly expensive at the moment. Here lies the problem because there are few (if not, no) alternative green power (note: this is different from Green Energy with capitals) options with adequately funded research underway so the near future prsopects are far from ideal. So we are back to wind power...

...is it really such a surpise that there is no definitive rule that says all wind farms are bad or alternatively, that all wind farms are good? The latest announcement simply reiterates this point and posits the fact that the pendulum has swung to far in favour of long consultation when in some cases, it is not necessary.

Cellarman - I think it is important to state what you mean with a comment such as "selling their "green" power." The similarity between "green" power in your sentence and RSPB Green Energy is being deliberately exploited by some people to suggest a vested interest. The word "selling" is also inappropriate because the RSPB (and others) are not selling anything when they are trying to educate on the need for us all to move away from our reliance on fossil fuels.

[Nightranger]

Originally Posted by nightshade

I think you will find that the "micro" wind turbines will be the real "killers",
mounted on boats (for instance) alongside towpaths they will come and go so that Bats and Birds are exposed to them in a wide range of locations.
There is also a strong possibility that you will not need planning permission any longer to put up your own generator. So your neighbours will subject you to noise and transmitted vibration (with you having no say)
But you will be used to this of course if you live near a pub or club with the extended licensing (courtesy of the same government )
I believe there are some studies going on at the moment

This is an interesting post and great topic for discussion. Micro-turbines have been in use in Australian and the USA for well over a decade without any reported major problems. Most are in use in urban areas anyway and it is a pretty cluttered environment that wildlife has already adapted to so perhaps this is no surprise. However, that does not mean we should be complacent because there is an option for a meshed design that should not present the same collision hazard.