Scameras and Wind-farms - "Wot, no data?"
Discussion
According to the New Scientist it seems that Scameras are not the only developments popular with governments for which true figures about effects seems to be so diffucult to come by.
A group who it would seem are along at the greener end of the spectrum have been looking at research into how wind farms, particularly off-shore wind farms, might have an impact on bird populations.
Not just how many corpses one might expect, but more subtle everyday living things. (One hopes that the same sort of research might one day appear for humans as well.)
Anyway, seems they can't find much and what information there may be is not being released to the public domain.
That sounds familiar.
Here's the money quote;
"The researchers are scathing about the poor quality of research into the impact of wind farms around the world. The findings of many studies are kept secret for commercial reasons, while supposedly public information produced for planning applications comes without raw information or is of poor quality, Stewart complains. "It's difficult even to find out what data is out there, and when we know it's there, it is extraordinarily difficult to get hold of."
Well, well, well.
Full article here.
www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=mg18624983.900
>> Edited by LongQ on Thursday 5th May 21:33
A group who it would seem are along at the greener end of the spectrum have been looking at research into how wind farms, particularly off-shore wind farms, might have an impact on bird populations.
Not just how many corpses one might expect, but more subtle everyday living things. (One hopes that the same sort of research might one day appear for humans as well.)
Anyway, seems they can't find much and what information there may be is not being released to the public domain.
That sounds familiar.
Here's the money quote;
"The researchers are scathing about the poor quality of research into the impact of wind farms around the world. The findings of many studies are kept secret for commercial reasons, while supposedly public information produced for planning applications comes without raw information or is of poor quality, Stewart complains. "It's difficult even to find out what data is out there, and when we know it's there, it is extraordinarily difficult to get hold of."
Well, well, well.
Full article here.
www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=mg18624983.900
>> Edited by LongQ on Thursday 5th May 21:33
No surprise there.
The UK wind farm industry's website went into we know where you live mode when their research revealed that much of the anti windfarm press letters came from a handful of people....
Scandinavia ought to be a good source of information. Haven't the vikings cut subsidies to the wind industry after finally realising it's a useless pursuit?
The UK wind farm industry's website went into we know where you live mode when their research revealed that much of the anti windfarm press letters came from a handful of people....
Scandinavia ought to be a good source of information. Haven't the vikings cut subsidies to the wind industry after finally realising it's a useless pursuit?
Some stuff in the following piece about bird problems. Written by Marek Duchamp....
WINDFARM MISAPPREHENSION
Moving away from "dirty" energy-producing technologies into cleaner ones is
a must, considering we are 6 billion consumers on this planet, poised to
number 9 billion before the century is over. Several avenues are open to
mankind, most of them leading to a better environment; but two would make
things worse:
In the first category:
1) More funds into R&D to accelerate the switch to the hydrogen economy.
2) More funds to develop innovative ideas in the field of renewable energies
(floating tidal generators, for example).
3) Switch from coal-burning power stations to "cleaner" gas-fired ones.
4) Move decisively into solar energy, developing roof tiles that would act
as collectors.
5) Put a high tax on conventional, wasteful electric bulbs, and bring down
the price of energy-saving ones through mass buying by public
administrations. Ditto for other appliances.
6) Give the proper incentives for home and building insulation.
7) Tap geo-thermal energy where available, using it to mass-produce hydrogen
(Iceland is already moving in that direction).
8) Promote combined-heat-and-power systems, to reduce energy waste.
9) Favour distributed generation and demand-response programs (see
California Energy Plan, available upon request)
In the second category:
1) Unleash forces that constitute a peril to all forms of life, like nuclear
energy.
2) Further impair what is left of the natural environment - wilderness,
biodiversity, and agricultural landscapes - to produce small amounts of
clean electricity backed-up by coal-burning power stations spinning in
stand-by and emitting gases for nothing. I am talking about the deceivingly
named wind "farms":
Here are the facts:
One single combined-cycle gas-fired power plant of 1000 Mw capacity,
relatively clean as to emission of greenhouse gases, and not built on
pristine landscapes, normally and reliably produces 800 Mw at all times, day
and night, year-round without interruption.
To produce the same amount of electricity using wind turbines, which on a
yearly basis work at 30% of their capacity due to the fluctuating nature of
the wind, one would need:
- 3,555 wind turbines of 750 Kw capacity each
or - 2, 666 wind turbines of 1 Mw capacity each
or - 1,333 wind turbines of 2 Mw capacity each
Any of these numbers - 3,555/2,666/1,333 - involves degrading considerable
extensions of countryside with obtrusive 300+ feet-high structures, their
associated tension lines, their access roads, their irremovable
rock-embedded concrete bases, their electric transformer sub-stations, etc.
As a windplant may include anywhere from 1 to 400 or more turbines, say 50
on average, we are talking about 71/53/26 plants, respectively - to produce
the same amount of electricity as one single gas-burning plant wisely built
in an industrial zone.
So the first negative effect of using this renewable energy is to multiply
the number of industrial plants by anywhere from 26 to 71 times. The second
is to erect these industrial structures in heretofore-preserved landscapes,
because wind turbines are normally established where the wind blows
strongest: on highly-visible hill-tops, mountain slopes or shore lines.
There, they stand to be seen from at least 20 miles around on a clear day.
Meaning that a single windplant has the potential of degrading the scenery
on 1256 square miles (20 miles x 20 miles x 3.14 ). Multiply this by 26, 53,
71 plants and you may affect 32,000, 66,000 or 89,000 sq mi of countryside
for an amount of electricity you could produce with a single conventional
plant built out of sight. To compare this with something tangible: The UK
covers an area of 94,251 sq mi.
But Downing Street wants to erect about 20,000 turbines by 2020, to produce
20% of British electricity. So we are talking about potentially spoiling
502,400 sq mi of countryside (1256 x 20,000/50), i.e. 5 times the size of
the country. So, either windplant density will have to be 5 times greater
than my original premise, or each plant will have to include 5 times more
turbines - or a combination of both. In whichever case quality of life in
the UK will be impaired for all: countryside residents, commuters,
travellers, vacationers, seamen, and tourists alike.
The United States, Canada, Germany, Spain, Japan, Australia and New Zealand,
among others, have similar plans. Two hundred years of careful land
management segregating industrial zones from residential, agricultural and
wilderness areas are being discarded everywhere, in the hype surrounding
windpower. The face of the world is about to change forever.
All of this for zero benefits in terms of climate change. In a report
released the 30th of August 2002 by the UK's Royal Academy of Engineering:
"The Energy Review places great faith in wind energy and proposes installing
22,000 MW of turbine capacity by 2020. However, Met Office data shows that
the country's wind record is not dependable the most likely power output
in real life is less than 7,000 MW. To ensure the supply it would have to be
backed up by 16-19,000 MW of conventional generation plant, adding an extra
£1 billion to the cost."
To back up wind-produced electricity it is indeed necessary to keep
fossil-fuel power plants spinning in reserve, ready to produce electricity
instantly when the wind drops - or blows too hard. (California learned that
lesson at great cost - this explains their about-face regarding windfarms).
But the stand-by mode is particularly inefficient in terms of gas emissions;
and much like automobiles idling at a red light, these plants will emit
considerable amounts of gases for nothing. And they will be kept idling 24
hours a day, just to be ready to takeover when wind turbines stop. ---- So
much for windpower being "clean".
We must add to these the gases massively produced during the construction of
the windplants themselves: to manufacture the steel and the plastics for the
turbines, high tension lines and other infrastructure; to make the asphalt
for the access roads, the cement for the concrete bases of tens of thousands
of giant wind towers; plus all the fossil fuels burned by the earth-moving
equipment, the trucks, the vehicles in general. In this regard, let us not
forget that hundreds of wind "farms", in order to be integrated to state,
regional or national grids, will require thousands of kilometers of new
tension lines, hundreds of thousands of new pylons, many substations, etc.
And paramount is the fact that the "farms" and related insfrastructure must
be built in addition to, and not in lieu of, conventional plants, because of
the intermittency of the wind and the need for back up. So all the gases
produced for their construction come on top of those produced for the
construction of conventional plants, for a total amount of electricity
produced that is hardly increased, but mostly displaced.
Considering the extra, additional, unnecessary gases produced during the
construction of the windplants, and tension lines to connect them to the
grid, plus the gases produced by conventional plants idling in stand-by
throughout the life of the "farms", it is abundantly clear that no real
savings will be achieved in greenhouse gas emissions.
The Engineers' report also warns:
"The Energy Review sets a target of generating 20 per cent of our energy
from renewable sources by 2020. While this is a laudable aim it is
over-optimistic and fails to address the fundamental problem with all
renewable sources: they are intermittent. Experience on the Continent,
especially in Denmark, has shown that grid stability can be adversely
affected when the penetration of intermittent renewables reaches about 15
per cent".
This, and other considerations such as the financial burden for the State,
the negative impacts on people, tourism and the environment, prompted the
new Danish cabinet to announce the end of subventions to the wind industry.
As if ruining the landscape, hence our quality of life, for no real benefit
and at great cost, was not enough:
"Major support for research to develop the hydrogen economy is urgently
needed. The Energy Review appears to accept fuel switching, probably to
hydrogen, as inevitable in the long term, but it is unwilling to recommend
early action or signal that this is the Government's preferred solution"
(also from the Royal Academy of Engineering report)
It is obvious that public money spent to subsidize harmful and useless
windfarms cannot be made available to R&D on real solutions, like hydrogen.
So the current windpower boom has yet another negative side effect: it
slows-down our conversion to the hydrogen economy. Thanks to subsidized wind
energy, we shall be burning fossil fuels for more years than necessary -
just the opposite of what Greenpeace, WWF etc. are hoping to achieve when
they promote windpower.
Other ill-effects of windplants include: noise, fires (by short circuit or
lightning - about 35 turbine-generated fires per year in California),
negative impact on tourism (discounting the initial novelty-driven visitors,
and school-children led by their educationists) soil erosion, contamination
of ground-water by lubricants and cleaning-liquids, animal habitat
destruction - and/or disruption - and the further reduction of priceless
wilderness areas in the world.
Finally, we have the bird problem:
It has been estimated that 4 to 5 million birds die every year worldwide due
to collisions with overhead cables and transmission towers (and their
guy-wires). These are non-moving obstacles. No estimate has been ventured as
to how many will be killed by 500,000 giant propellers beating the air from
Seattle to Sydney. A few field studies have been made, and their reports
quickly shelved. For instance: we know from the California Energy
Commission that the 7,000 turbines of Altamont Pass killed 60 golden eagles
and 300 redtail hawks in 1989 (not to speak of the smaller birds). In
Nasudden, Norway, researchers Winkelman and Karlsson counted 49 birds killed
by a single turbine during one night of migration. Extrapolating that figure
to 500,000 turbines spread around the globe, we would get 24,500,000 dead
birds... in one night. I know the limits of extrapolations, but it is
important to vizualize the magnitude of the problem.
That, and other evidence from Spain and the Netherlands, lead us to the
conclusion that millions of birds will be killed by windfarms yearly. Sadly,
emblematic species such as eagles, falcons and ospreys, endearing ones such
as storks, cranes and swans, and delightful ones such as migrating
songbirds, will be greatly thinned-down. Some species will disappear
altogether.
In conclusion:
Windplants are harmful in a number of important ways, beneficial in none,
and they cost dearly to taxpayers and consumers, more still to residents in
terms of property values. They are uneconomical and useless. But they are
highly profitable to their promoters because they are subsidized. So much so
that industry leaders have joined forces to lobby at the political, mediatic
and ecological levels, silencing the opposition with money - taxpayers'
money reaped from the subventions. I know of a bird society that receives
donations from electricity companies amounting to 25% of its annual budget.
Taxpayer's money has been used in that manner to build an apparent consensus
in favour of the wind industry. Politicians, for one, all agree on this
money-laden venture, which on top gives them a favourable "green" image.
Ecologists, too, promote windfarms, in the delusion that greenhouse gas
emissions will be reduced. As a result of such a broad-based consensus,
strengthened by active propaganda and intrigue by the windpower lobby,
contrary opinions are not considered worth publishing by the media -- which
in turn favours ignorance, and perpetuation of the blind consensus that is
working to the detriment of both nature and mankind.
So it looks like wind turbines will continue to spread around the globe with
disastrous effects on birds, on the scenery, and hence on everybody's
quality of life; and for no savings whatsoever in greenhouse gas emissions.
To the contrary, more gases will be produced in the end as subsidies paid to
the wind industry cannot be used to accelerate our conversion to the
hydrogen economy: Politicians feel no pressure in that respect, basking as
they are in the green image provided by their aggressive windpower policy,
and with all the wining and dining associated with efficient lobbying by a
cash-rich industry --at taxpayer's expense.
California and Denmark, which have the longest experience in the field of
windpower, no longer bank on wind for their future. Isn't it time for us to
wise up too? before 500,000 irremovable concrete bases the size of a
swimming pool are poured into the landscape from Vancouver to Auckland?
before countless pylons are added to the landscape? before the horizon is
marred everywhere by giant metallic structures beating the air, and the
birds? and for no benefit whatsoever in terms of climate change?
It is time we study carefully the new California Energy Plan. It contains
many answers.
BIRDS AND WIND "FARMS"
1) Birds in general.
- Problems of vision:
The eyes of most birds are located on each side of the head, covering a
field of vision nearing 360º - to see predators coming from any angle. On
the downside, quality of perception is mediocre in front of the animal and
in his back, zones that are at the limit of the 180º covered by each eye.
This explains why they turn their heads so often when they are on land,
where they are particularly at risk. In the air, they often twist their
necks to look above them, where falcons and other raptors may be stalking.
But unless they turn their heads sideways while flying, their vision of what
is in front of them is rather poor. - Rabbits, and other mammals that
are usually preyed upon, have the same problem: for this it is easy to
capture them in nets).
This explains why so many swans, storks, cranes, bustards, starlings and
countless species of other day-flying birds regularly run into tension
lines, wind turbines or other obstacles, and die on the ground.
The problem is compounded at night. Low flying nocturnal migrants, such as
many species of songbirds, are particularly vulnerable - even when the
obstacles are lit (in overcast conditions, flood-lights attract the birds,
then disorient and blind them). The guy wires of a television tower are
known to have killed 5,408 birds in one night (item 356 of "bird kills"
document - available upon request).
"Nocturnal bird kills are virtually certain wherever an obstacle extends
into the air space where birds are flying in migration" (item 445 of
same document)
Birds are known to crash into all kinds of obvious obstacles such as
buildings, smokestacks, moving cars etc. -- even by day.
- flying in groups:
Where a single bird may luckily pass unharmed through overhead cables, or
the maze of a windfarm, those flying in flocks will always leave a
percentage of casualties behind: 1) law of numbers 2) breadth of the flock
3) bad frontal vision for those not located in the front row.
- Instinct:
Birds, like any other animal, identify living creatures, not objects, as
possible dangers. Their instinct doesn't warn them about television towers,
tension lines, or wind turbines.
- Appearance of slowness:
The arms of a wind turbine seem to be moving slowly. In view of their
length, however, they reach great speed at the tip. This has the effect of
deceiving the birds, of catching them off-guard.
A 100 feet-long blade weighing a ton and traveling at 100 miles an hour at
the apex will kill anything in its way (see pictures of a beheaded eagle, of
a sliced vulture -- available upon request)
In Altamont Pass, California, 60 golden eagles and 300 redtail hawks, among
other birds, fell victims to the turbines in 1989; and further south another
windfarm killed 7000 migrating birds (source: California Energy Commission).
Small birds, more numerous and often flying in flocks, are slaughtered in
greater numbers. In Nasudden, Norway, researchers Winkelman and Karlsson
found 49 dead birds at the foot of a single turbine during a single night of
migration. Extrapolating the figure to the 500,000 giant windmills to be
erected around the world, we would get: 24,500,000 dead birds... in one
night. Extrapolations are inexact by definition; but they have the merit of
providing an order of magnitude.
In Tarifa, Spain, we have documented evidence that at least 13 different
protected species are being victimized by the "farms" (source: Windpower
Monthly - a magazine edited by the windpower industry itself).
- Pulling force:
All turbines, whether they work in water or in the air, create a depression
which has the effect of pulling-in water, air, and whatever happens to be
around. It is well-known that birds are prone to be sucked-in by the jet
engines of an airplane.
The blades of a wind turbine turn much slower than those of a jet engine,
but their sweep is hundreds of times bigger. Their pulling force has been
estimated to be in excess of 12 kilos per square meter, reaching 20 kilos
when the wind is strong. There is no bird, however big or swift, that can
resist such a force.
Table-fans will draw a feather. Giant fans standing 300 feet-tall on
hill-tops will suck-in an eagle, a stork, a crane, a swan.
2) Raptors.
- vision:
Birds of prey, like humans and predators in general, have their eyes located
in front of the head, for an in-depth perception of what's in front of them.
Their vision is superior to that of other animals: a peregrine falcon can
spot a pigeon flying 10 miles away.
As they hunt, they often focus their eyes at great distances, allowing them
to detect the prey before it can see them, and prepare a surprise attack
from a dead angle.
Anyone who has used a camera knows that when the lens is focused far away,
twigs moving in the forefront are barely visible. And so it is with the arms
of a giant turbine when the eyes of a raptor are focused on an area further
away. The danger is heightened by the fact that, in the attack, the eyes are
locked-in on the prey.
Proving this point we have documented evidence of peregrine falcons crashing
into highly visible, stationary cables of high-tension lines.
- flight pattern:
Birds of prey glide most of the time, to save energy. They use ascending air
currents, pass from one valley to the next over hill-tops and
mountain-crests, where windplants are normally located. And they drift on
the wind itself, the same wind that flows through the turbines of these
"farms". This makes them particularly vulnerable.
If they wait too long before maneuvering out of reach of the blades, the
pulling force of the turbine surprises them and they can't fight both the
wind and the pull: they get sucked-in.
- perching:
Birds of prey commonly perch on tall structures, like pylons, to rest and
hunt at the same time. On days without wind, when the blades are standing
still, turbines become a perching site, and will attract raptors. And those
will tend to come back the next day, and the next...
- perfect hunting ground:
Another reason for being attracted by the "farms" is that the area is
generally clear of vegetation, making it an ideal hunting ground where
rodents have no place to hide.
- vicious circle:
As the giant blades kill airborne predators, rodents tend to proliferate on
windplant grounds. Besides, bird carcasses provide them with a diet rich in
protein.
The presence of rodents will keep attracting raptors to be slaughtered. It
is a vicious circle, a "black hole" into which entire neighbouring
populations of hawks, kites, harriers, buzzards, falcons and eagles may
disappear.
- further-reaching black hole effect:
When a resident bird of prey (or the pair) has been killed by the turbines
installed on its hunting territory, that breeding area becomes vacant.
Sooner or later another raptor will claim the territory as its own. It may
be a young eagle coming from as far as 1000 kms away, in which case the
black hole would have a national, or international effect on certain bird
populations. In Spain, a radio transmitter fixed on a young imperial eagle
evidenced that juveniles may travel well over a thousand miles from their
birthplaces. That particular non-migrating specimen flew from Spain to
Senegal, and back, before selecting a territory (article in Quercus, a
Spanish wildlife magazine)
The black hole effect may be more lethal still. If the turbines happen to be
erected in a "dispersal area", i.e. a territory unsuitable for nesting but
good for hunting, it will affect many more raptors - for this is where
juveniles go to feed, the place being free of territorial adults. And
logically, any place containing prey that is not a breeding area occupied by
a territorial pair, is a dispersal area - to a degree or another.
3) Flying mammals.
From Navarra, Spain, we have evidence that bats are being killed in large
numbers by the blades of the turbines. This evidences that their radar-like
perception system is unable to save them from windplants.
4) Migrations.
Placing wind turbines on a migration route will thin populations down as
they fly through. Night-flying songbirds are particularly vulnerable.
High-flying waterfowl are less at risk, except when they land to rest - or
skirt mountain crests.
A migration route may be as wide as a country. Israel, Italy, Spain are the
natural highways to Africa for most European birds.
5) The attitude of bird societies and other nature conservation NGO's.
In May 1998, USA Today quoted a Sierra Club official who had labeled wind
turbines: "The Cuisinarts of the Air".
Today, Greenpeace is actively promoting windpower. Bird societies, the
Sierra Club and other NGO's agree or keep silent. Officially, the buzzwords
are: climate change, Kyoto Protocol, renewable energy. But financial
considerations also bear on the issue: NGO's receive subventions, grants,
donations, and their donors must be kept happy; they also get jobs,
field-study assignments, and commissions for environmental impact analyses.
And the cash-rich windpower industry is generous in that respect, having a
vested interest in putting ecologists on their side. As a matter of fact,
ornithologists have never been so busy, and so well paid, with so many
environmental impact reports to write -- one for each windfarm. And the
promoters are their employers -- a conflict of interest which borders on
indecency.
So there are plenty of reasons for bird societies and other conservation
organizations to keep silent on the bird slaughter issue.
Sadly enough, windplants do not really save on greenhouse gases. A critical
view, presented in "Windfarm Misapprehension", reveals that the contrary may
hold true, through side effects unforeseen by the ecologists -- gases
emitted by conventional power plants spinning for nothing in back up; gases
emitted in the construction of a huge windplant and grid network which will
NOT substitute conventional plants, needed for back up; and additional
delays in the coming of the clean hydrogen economy.
Mark Duchamp
Conservationist
Calpe, Spain
WINDFARM MISAPPREHENSION
Moving away from "dirty" energy-producing technologies into cleaner ones is
a must, considering we are 6 billion consumers on this planet, poised to
number 9 billion before the century is over. Several avenues are open to
mankind, most of them leading to a better environment; but two would make
things worse:
In the first category:
1) More funds into R&D to accelerate the switch to the hydrogen economy.
2) More funds to develop innovative ideas in the field of renewable energies
(floating tidal generators, for example).
3) Switch from coal-burning power stations to "cleaner" gas-fired ones.
4) Move decisively into solar energy, developing roof tiles that would act
as collectors.
5) Put a high tax on conventional, wasteful electric bulbs, and bring down
the price of energy-saving ones through mass buying by public
administrations. Ditto for other appliances.
6) Give the proper incentives for home and building insulation.
7) Tap geo-thermal energy where available, using it to mass-produce hydrogen
(Iceland is already moving in that direction).
8) Promote combined-heat-and-power systems, to reduce energy waste.
9) Favour distributed generation and demand-response programs (see
California Energy Plan, available upon request)
In the second category:
1) Unleash forces that constitute a peril to all forms of life, like nuclear
energy.
2) Further impair what is left of the natural environment - wilderness,
biodiversity, and agricultural landscapes - to produce small amounts of
clean electricity backed-up by coal-burning power stations spinning in
stand-by and emitting gases for nothing. I am talking about the deceivingly
named wind "farms":
Here are the facts:
One single combined-cycle gas-fired power plant of 1000 Mw capacity,
relatively clean as to emission of greenhouse gases, and not built on
pristine landscapes, normally and reliably produces 800 Mw at all times, day
and night, year-round without interruption.
To produce the same amount of electricity using wind turbines, which on a
yearly basis work at 30% of their capacity due to the fluctuating nature of
the wind, one would need:
- 3,555 wind turbines of 750 Kw capacity each
or - 2, 666 wind turbines of 1 Mw capacity each
or - 1,333 wind turbines of 2 Mw capacity each
Any of these numbers - 3,555/2,666/1,333 - involves degrading considerable
extensions of countryside with obtrusive 300+ feet-high structures, their
associated tension lines, their access roads, their irremovable
rock-embedded concrete bases, their electric transformer sub-stations, etc.
As a windplant may include anywhere from 1 to 400 or more turbines, say 50
on average, we are talking about 71/53/26 plants, respectively - to produce
the same amount of electricity as one single gas-burning plant wisely built
in an industrial zone.
So the first negative effect of using this renewable energy is to multiply
the number of industrial plants by anywhere from 26 to 71 times. The second
is to erect these industrial structures in heretofore-preserved landscapes,
because wind turbines are normally established where the wind blows
strongest: on highly-visible hill-tops, mountain slopes or shore lines.
There, they stand to be seen from at least 20 miles around on a clear day.
Meaning that a single windplant has the potential of degrading the scenery
on 1256 square miles (20 miles x 20 miles x 3.14 ). Multiply this by 26, 53,
71 plants and you may affect 32,000, 66,000 or 89,000 sq mi of countryside
for an amount of electricity you could produce with a single conventional
plant built out of sight. To compare this with something tangible: The UK
covers an area of 94,251 sq mi.
But Downing Street wants to erect about 20,000 turbines by 2020, to produce
20% of British electricity. So we are talking about potentially spoiling
502,400 sq mi of countryside (1256 x 20,000/50), i.e. 5 times the size of
the country. So, either windplant density will have to be 5 times greater
than my original premise, or each plant will have to include 5 times more
turbines - or a combination of both. In whichever case quality of life in
the UK will be impaired for all: countryside residents, commuters,
travellers, vacationers, seamen, and tourists alike.
The United States, Canada, Germany, Spain, Japan, Australia and New Zealand,
among others, have similar plans. Two hundred years of careful land
management segregating industrial zones from residential, agricultural and
wilderness areas are being discarded everywhere, in the hype surrounding
windpower. The face of the world is about to change forever.
All of this for zero benefits in terms of climate change. In a report
released the 30th of August 2002 by the UK's Royal Academy of Engineering:
"The Energy Review places great faith in wind energy and proposes installing
22,000 MW of turbine capacity by 2020. However, Met Office data shows that
the country's wind record is not dependable the most likely power output
in real life is less than 7,000 MW. To ensure the supply it would have to be
backed up by 16-19,000 MW of conventional generation plant, adding an extra
£1 billion to the cost."
To back up wind-produced electricity it is indeed necessary to keep
fossil-fuel power plants spinning in reserve, ready to produce electricity
instantly when the wind drops - or blows too hard. (California learned that
lesson at great cost - this explains their about-face regarding windfarms).
But the stand-by mode is particularly inefficient in terms of gas emissions;
and much like automobiles idling at a red light, these plants will emit
considerable amounts of gases for nothing. And they will be kept idling 24
hours a day, just to be ready to takeover when wind turbines stop. ---- So
much for windpower being "clean".
We must add to these the gases massively produced during the construction of
the windplants themselves: to manufacture the steel and the plastics for the
turbines, high tension lines and other infrastructure; to make the asphalt
for the access roads, the cement for the concrete bases of tens of thousands
of giant wind towers; plus all the fossil fuels burned by the earth-moving
equipment, the trucks, the vehicles in general. In this regard, let us not
forget that hundreds of wind "farms", in order to be integrated to state,
regional or national grids, will require thousands of kilometers of new
tension lines, hundreds of thousands of new pylons, many substations, etc.
And paramount is the fact that the "farms" and related insfrastructure must
be built in addition to, and not in lieu of, conventional plants, because of
the intermittency of the wind and the need for back up. So all the gases
produced for their construction come on top of those produced for the
construction of conventional plants, for a total amount of electricity
produced that is hardly increased, but mostly displaced.
Considering the extra, additional, unnecessary gases produced during the
construction of the windplants, and tension lines to connect them to the
grid, plus the gases produced by conventional plants idling in stand-by
throughout the life of the "farms", it is abundantly clear that no real
savings will be achieved in greenhouse gas emissions.
The Engineers' report also warns:
"The Energy Review sets a target of generating 20 per cent of our energy
from renewable sources by 2020. While this is a laudable aim it is
over-optimistic and fails to address the fundamental problem with all
renewable sources: they are intermittent. Experience on the Continent,
especially in Denmark, has shown that grid stability can be adversely
affected when the penetration of intermittent renewables reaches about 15
per cent".
This, and other considerations such as the financial burden for the State,
the negative impacts on people, tourism and the environment, prompted the
new Danish cabinet to announce the end of subventions to the wind industry.
As if ruining the landscape, hence our quality of life, for no real benefit
and at great cost, was not enough:
"Major support for research to develop the hydrogen economy is urgently
needed. The Energy Review appears to accept fuel switching, probably to
hydrogen, as inevitable in the long term, but it is unwilling to recommend
early action or signal that this is the Government's preferred solution"
(also from the Royal Academy of Engineering report)
It is obvious that public money spent to subsidize harmful and useless
windfarms cannot be made available to R&D on real solutions, like hydrogen.
So the current windpower boom has yet another negative side effect: it
slows-down our conversion to the hydrogen economy. Thanks to subsidized wind
energy, we shall be burning fossil fuels for more years than necessary -
just the opposite of what Greenpeace, WWF etc. are hoping to achieve when
they promote windpower.
Other ill-effects of windplants include: noise, fires (by short circuit or
lightning - about 35 turbine-generated fires per year in California),
negative impact on tourism (discounting the initial novelty-driven visitors,
and school-children led by their educationists) soil erosion, contamination
of ground-water by lubricants and cleaning-liquids, animal habitat
destruction - and/or disruption - and the further reduction of priceless
wilderness areas in the world.
Finally, we have the bird problem:
It has been estimated that 4 to 5 million birds die every year worldwide due
to collisions with overhead cables and transmission towers (and their
guy-wires). These are non-moving obstacles. No estimate has been ventured as
to how many will be killed by 500,000 giant propellers beating the air from
Seattle to Sydney. A few field studies have been made, and their reports
quickly shelved. For instance: we know from the California Energy
Commission that the 7,000 turbines of Altamont Pass killed 60 golden eagles
and 300 redtail hawks in 1989 (not to speak of the smaller birds). In
Nasudden, Norway, researchers Winkelman and Karlsson counted 49 birds killed
by a single turbine during one night of migration. Extrapolating that figure
to 500,000 turbines spread around the globe, we would get 24,500,000 dead
birds... in one night. I know the limits of extrapolations, but it is
important to vizualize the magnitude of the problem.
That, and other evidence from Spain and the Netherlands, lead us to the
conclusion that millions of birds will be killed by windfarms yearly. Sadly,
emblematic species such as eagles, falcons and ospreys, endearing ones such
as storks, cranes and swans, and delightful ones such as migrating
songbirds, will be greatly thinned-down. Some species will disappear
altogether.
In conclusion:
Windplants are harmful in a number of important ways, beneficial in none,
and they cost dearly to taxpayers and consumers, more still to residents in
terms of property values. They are uneconomical and useless. But they are
highly profitable to their promoters because they are subsidized. So much so
that industry leaders have joined forces to lobby at the political, mediatic
and ecological levels, silencing the opposition with money - taxpayers'
money reaped from the subventions. I know of a bird society that receives
donations from electricity companies amounting to 25% of its annual budget.
Taxpayer's money has been used in that manner to build an apparent consensus
in favour of the wind industry. Politicians, for one, all agree on this
money-laden venture, which on top gives them a favourable "green" image.
Ecologists, too, promote windfarms, in the delusion that greenhouse gas
emissions will be reduced. As a result of such a broad-based consensus,
strengthened by active propaganda and intrigue by the windpower lobby,
contrary opinions are not considered worth publishing by the media -- which
in turn favours ignorance, and perpetuation of the blind consensus that is
working to the detriment of both nature and mankind.
So it looks like wind turbines will continue to spread around the globe with
disastrous effects on birds, on the scenery, and hence on everybody's
quality of life; and for no savings whatsoever in greenhouse gas emissions.
To the contrary, more gases will be produced in the end as subsidies paid to
the wind industry cannot be used to accelerate our conversion to the
hydrogen economy: Politicians feel no pressure in that respect, basking as
they are in the green image provided by their aggressive windpower policy,
and with all the wining and dining associated with efficient lobbying by a
cash-rich industry --at taxpayer's expense.
California and Denmark, which have the longest experience in the field of
windpower, no longer bank on wind for their future. Isn't it time for us to
wise up too? before 500,000 irremovable concrete bases the size of a
swimming pool are poured into the landscape from Vancouver to Auckland?
before countless pylons are added to the landscape? before the horizon is
marred everywhere by giant metallic structures beating the air, and the
birds? and for no benefit whatsoever in terms of climate change?
It is time we study carefully the new California Energy Plan. It contains
many answers.
BIRDS AND WIND "FARMS"
1) Birds in general.
- Problems of vision:
The eyes of most birds are located on each side of the head, covering a
field of vision nearing 360º - to see predators coming from any angle. On
the downside, quality of perception is mediocre in front of the animal and
in his back, zones that are at the limit of the 180º covered by each eye.
This explains why they turn their heads so often when they are on land,
where they are particularly at risk. In the air, they often twist their
necks to look above them, where falcons and other raptors may be stalking.
But unless they turn their heads sideways while flying, their vision of what
is in front of them is rather poor. - Rabbits, and other mammals that
are usually preyed upon, have the same problem: for this it is easy to
capture them in nets).
This explains why so many swans, storks, cranes, bustards, starlings and
countless species of other day-flying birds regularly run into tension
lines, wind turbines or other obstacles, and die on the ground.
The problem is compounded at night. Low flying nocturnal migrants, such as
many species of songbirds, are particularly vulnerable - even when the
obstacles are lit (in overcast conditions, flood-lights attract the birds,
then disorient and blind them). The guy wires of a television tower are
known to have killed 5,408 birds in one night (item 356 of "bird kills"
document - available upon request).
"Nocturnal bird kills are virtually certain wherever an obstacle extends
into the air space where birds are flying in migration" (item 445 of
same document)
Birds are known to crash into all kinds of obvious obstacles such as
buildings, smokestacks, moving cars etc. -- even by day.
- flying in groups:
Where a single bird may luckily pass unharmed through overhead cables, or
the maze of a windfarm, those flying in flocks will always leave a
percentage of casualties behind: 1) law of numbers 2) breadth of the flock
3) bad frontal vision for those not located in the front row.
- Instinct:
Birds, like any other animal, identify living creatures, not objects, as
possible dangers. Their instinct doesn't warn them about television towers,
tension lines, or wind turbines.
- Appearance of slowness:
The arms of a wind turbine seem to be moving slowly. In view of their
length, however, they reach great speed at the tip. This has the effect of
deceiving the birds, of catching them off-guard.
A 100 feet-long blade weighing a ton and traveling at 100 miles an hour at
the apex will kill anything in its way (see pictures of a beheaded eagle, of
a sliced vulture -- available upon request)
In Altamont Pass, California, 60 golden eagles and 300 redtail hawks, among
other birds, fell victims to the turbines in 1989; and further south another
windfarm killed 7000 migrating birds (source: California Energy Commission).
Small birds, more numerous and often flying in flocks, are slaughtered in
greater numbers. In Nasudden, Norway, researchers Winkelman and Karlsson
found 49 dead birds at the foot of a single turbine during a single night of
migration. Extrapolating the figure to the 500,000 giant windmills to be
erected around the world, we would get: 24,500,000 dead birds... in one
night. Extrapolations are inexact by definition; but they have the merit of
providing an order of magnitude.
In Tarifa, Spain, we have documented evidence that at least 13 different
protected species are being victimized by the "farms" (source: Windpower
Monthly - a magazine edited by the windpower industry itself).
- Pulling force:
All turbines, whether they work in water or in the air, create a depression
which has the effect of pulling-in water, air, and whatever happens to be
around. It is well-known that birds are prone to be sucked-in by the jet
engines of an airplane.
The blades of a wind turbine turn much slower than those of a jet engine,
but their sweep is hundreds of times bigger. Their pulling force has been
estimated to be in excess of 12 kilos per square meter, reaching 20 kilos
when the wind is strong. There is no bird, however big or swift, that can
resist such a force.
Table-fans will draw a feather. Giant fans standing 300 feet-tall on
hill-tops will suck-in an eagle, a stork, a crane, a swan.
2) Raptors.
- vision:
Birds of prey, like humans and predators in general, have their eyes located
in front of the head, for an in-depth perception of what's in front of them.
Their vision is superior to that of other animals: a peregrine falcon can
spot a pigeon flying 10 miles away.
As they hunt, they often focus their eyes at great distances, allowing them
to detect the prey before it can see them, and prepare a surprise attack
from a dead angle.
Anyone who has used a camera knows that when the lens is focused far away,
twigs moving in the forefront are barely visible. And so it is with the arms
of a giant turbine when the eyes of a raptor are focused on an area further
away. The danger is heightened by the fact that, in the attack, the eyes are
locked-in on the prey.
Proving this point we have documented evidence of peregrine falcons crashing
into highly visible, stationary cables of high-tension lines.
- flight pattern:
Birds of prey glide most of the time, to save energy. They use ascending air
currents, pass from one valley to the next over hill-tops and
mountain-crests, where windplants are normally located. And they drift on
the wind itself, the same wind that flows through the turbines of these
"farms". This makes them particularly vulnerable.
If they wait too long before maneuvering out of reach of the blades, the
pulling force of the turbine surprises them and they can't fight both the
wind and the pull: they get sucked-in.
- perching:
Birds of prey commonly perch on tall structures, like pylons, to rest and
hunt at the same time. On days without wind, when the blades are standing
still, turbines become a perching site, and will attract raptors. And those
will tend to come back the next day, and the next...
- perfect hunting ground:
Another reason for being attracted by the "farms" is that the area is
generally clear of vegetation, making it an ideal hunting ground where
rodents have no place to hide.
- vicious circle:
As the giant blades kill airborne predators, rodents tend to proliferate on
windplant grounds. Besides, bird carcasses provide them with a diet rich in
protein.
The presence of rodents will keep attracting raptors to be slaughtered. It
is a vicious circle, a "black hole" into which entire neighbouring
populations of hawks, kites, harriers, buzzards, falcons and eagles may
disappear.
- further-reaching black hole effect:
When a resident bird of prey (or the pair) has been killed by the turbines
installed on its hunting territory, that breeding area becomes vacant.
Sooner or later another raptor will claim the territory as its own. It may
be a young eagle coming from as far as 1000 kms away, in which case the
black hole would have a national, or international effect on certain bird
populations. In Spain, a radio transmitter fixed on a young imperial eagle
evidenced that juveniles may travel well over a thousand miles from their
birthplaces. That particular non-migrating specimen flew from Spain to
Senegal, and back, before selecting a territory (article in Quercus, a
Spanish wildlife magazine)
The black hole effect may be more lethal still. If the turbines happen to be
erected in a "dispersal area", i.e. a territory unsuitable for nesting but
good for hunting, it will affect many more raptors - for this is where
juveniles go to feed, the place being free of territorial adults. And
logically, any place containing prey that is not a breeding area occupied by
a territorial pair, is a dispersal area - to a degree or another.
3) Flying mammals.
From Navarra, Spain, we have evidence that bats are being killed in large
numbers by the blades of the turbines. This evidences that their radar-like
perception system is unable to save them from windplants.
4) Migrations.
Placing wind turbines on a migration route will thin populations down as
they fly through. Night-flying songbirds are particularly vulnerable.
High-flying waterfowl are less at risk, except when they land to rest - or
skirt mountain crests.
A migration route may be as wide as a country. Israel, Italy, Spain are the
natural highways to Africa for most European birds.
5) The attitude of bird societies and other nature conservation NGO's.
In May 1998, USA Today quoted a Sierra Club official who had labeled wind
turbines: "The Cuisinarts of the Air".
Today, Greenpeace is actively promoting windpower. Bird societies, the
Sierra Club and other NGO's agree or keep silent. Officially, the buzzwords
are: climate change, Kyoto Protocol, renewable energy. But financial
considerations also bear on the issue: NGO's receive subventions, grants,
donations, and their donors must be kept happy; they also get jobs,
field-study assignments, and commissions for environmental impact analyses.
And the cash-rich windpower industry is generous in that respect, having a
vested interest in putting ecologists on their side. As a matter of fact,
ornithologists have never been so busy, and so well paid, with so many
environmental impact reports to write -- one for each windfarm. And the
promoters are their employers -- a conflict of interest which borders on
indecency.
So there are plenty of reasons for bird societies and other conservation
organizations to keep silent on the bird slaughter issue.
Sadly enough, windplants do not really save on greenhouse gases. A critical
view, presented in "Windfarm Misapprehension", reveals that the contrary may
hold true, through side effects unforeseen by the ecologists -- gases
emitted by conventional power plants spinning for nothing in back up; gases
emitted in the construction of a huge windplant and grid network which will
NOT substitute conventional plants, needed for back up; and additional
delays in the coming of the clean hydrogen economy.
Mark Duchamp
Conservationist
Calpe, Spain
cptsideways said:
I take it someone's due to get one in their back garden then?
If the government (assuming that Rupert gets the result he wants) continues with its 20% target without listening to reason I suspect most of will have one in the back garden.
Or rather in the 'back garden' of the local land owner who will have de-camped to somewhere much more amenable on the proceeds.
I'm safe from them in my immediate back yard - I live next to an airport!
According to a letter in our village newspaper the runway is capable of supporting the operation of the Airbus 380.
Perhaps the rest of the infrastructure isn't - I can hope ...
Neezer said:
Nuclear is the way forward, makes more economic sense really. Plus the have enough uranium for 1000 years. I live near to Heysham and Sellafield and i don't mind.
Well if we extrapolate the reserve theory on uranium we have enough for 100000 years. Which should be long enough to master fusion.
Isn't it strange that the more you find greenies trying to influence things the more they funk it up, could it be that you need a basic grasp of physics to understand the simple fact, you don't get something for nothing, there ain't no such thing as a free lunch, for every reaction you get an equal and opposite reaction. All the energy expended to produce a windfarm will require how much to make a profit?
Albert had this sussed and came out with an eqaution that proved the point, nuclear is the only way forward
Albert had this sussed and came out with an eqaution that proved the point, nuclear is the only way forward
apache said:
Isn't it strange that the more you find greenies trying to influence things the more they funk it up, could it be that you need a basic grasp of physics to understand the simple fact, you don't get something for nothing, there ain't no such thing as a free lunch, for every reaction you get an equal and opposite reaction. All the energy expended to produce a windfarm will require how much to make a profit?
Albert had this sussed and came out with an eqaution that proved the point, nuclear is the only way forward
Nah, nuclear is too good a solution. T' Green Party really has it sussed, their manifesto didn't say: "we will enact legislation to make it compulsory for everyone to fart into a jar in order to fuel gas burning power stations and halt methane induced anal warming. Recycling centres will be set up downwind of owner-occupier housing where residents have two cars on the driveway"
branflakes said:
I take it all those concerned about the danger to birds have also removed all the windows from their houses? Birds also have a habit of flying into those...
Understood but I think the bigger targets for them are skyscrapers.
I rarely get bird stikes on my windows - perhaps one a year when the newly fledged ar still learning or sometime the odd pigeon playing around in some leylandii a few feet away from one of the windows. I think they nested there. Dumb really at it was exposed to cats, magpies and various other flying predators. The trees were removed a couple of weeks ago anyway.
Never any deaths.
One of the local magpies fed off a blackbird nest yesterday - I think the birds have more to control their numbers than windows.
And of course I don't suppose there are any stats for how many of the apparent human cause fatalities have a cause based in the agedness or health of the birds involved. The turnover rate must be quite high.
Not much one can do about that.
But the whole point of the article, to my mind at least, is that the numbers, such as they are, are being fudged in some way. And the original report that prompted the piece suggests that research has either not happened at all OR is being witheld for unadmitted reasons.
Now, if 'they' are prepared to condone that level of opacity for research into the effects on birdlife, one starts to wonder what other, non-avian, research they have that they also do not want to make publically available.
Gassing Station | The Pie & Piston Archive | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff