Wind farms fall prey to demands of the golden eagle
Decision to set aside land to protect birds threatens renewable energy plans
Digg
del.icio.us
Facebook
Reddit
Google
Stumble Upon
Fark
Newsvine
YahooBuzz
Bebo
Twitter
Independent Minds
According to Damian Aubrey of Wind Prospect, 'There is very little evidence to show that birds are affected by wind turbines'
enlarge
A vast swath of northern and western Scotland could be set aside to give greater protection to one of the UK's most enigmatic birds of prey.
There are just over 40 breeding pairs of golden eagles left in Britain, all but one in Scotland, but plans for the establishment of a 350,000-hectare Special Protection Area designed to safeguard the future of the raptor has brought conservationists into conflict with the renewable energy industry.
A 14-turbine wind farm near Inverary in Argyll was turned down by the Scottish government in October.
Meanwhile, Scottish Natural Heritage will begin a three-month consultation on the SPA proposals in the new year.
Damian Aubrey, senior development manager of Wind Prospect, one of the partners in the Inverary project which has built wind farms across the world, warned the decision threatened to "sterilise" the development of renewable energy sources and thwart the Scottish government's ambitious plans to generate 50 per cent of its energy needs from green methods by 2020. He said: "There is very little evidence to show that birds are affected by wind turbines. It is very much a myth that has no scientific basis. Potentially this could sterilise against development huge swaths of the Scottish landscape, which would have serious implications for reaching renewable energy targets."
Announcing the six new proposed areas, the Environment Minister, Roseanna Cunningham, said the future wellbeing of the golden eagle was finely balanced and needed protection. "While we have a duty to protect our biodiversity for future generations, this should not automatically mean that leisure and economic activity cannot take place in our countryside."
She added: "We must find a balance between access, conservation and development to ensure that all sectors can benefit from and enjoy the countryside."
There are currently eight Special Protection Areas for golden eagles in the peatlands and uplands of northern and western Scotland favoured by the birds.
However the species, which saw numbers decline dramatically in recent centuries due to persecution and agricultural poisoning, remains vulnerable and highly dependent on large undisturbed spaces to hunt.
The new proposed sites will include Glen Affric as well as Jura, Scarba and the Garvellachs off the west coast.
View all comments that have been posted about this article.
Offensive or abusive comments will be removed and your IP logged and may be used to prevent further submission. In submitting a comment to the site, you agree to be bound by the Independent Minds Terms of Service.
- Next Article In Nature
- Print Article
- Email Article
-
Click here for copyright permissions
Copyright 2009 Independent News and Media Limited
Reduce your global impact.
Comments
If you have noticed anything about modern wind farms, Altamont is not modern, you should have noticed that the towers are smooth and provide nowhere for birds to perch or nest.
Your point is not the end of the argument.
Wrong. Over the course of a year the output of a typical wind farm will be 30% of the theoretical output had it operated at full capacity all year. At times the wind farm will be operating at full output, at other times at zero output, most of the time it will be operating somewhere between these points.
No form of generation operates at full capacity all year. DUKES Chapter 5 Table 5.10 http://www.decc.gov.uk/en/content/cms/s
"The electricity they produce costs at least 3 times that from a conventional power station."
Says who?
http://www.embracewind.com/myths.ht
"Wind energy is one of the cheapest of the renewable energy technologies. It is competitive with new clean coal fired power stations and cheaper than new nuclear power. The cost of wind energy varies according to many factors. An average for a new onshore wind farm in a good location is 3-4 pence per unit, competitive with new coal (2.5-4.5p) and cheaper than new nuclear (4-7p). Electricity from smaller wind farms can be more expensive."
"300 square kilometres of wind farm are needed to produce the same power as one nuclear power station."
Says who?
http://www.embracewind.com/myths.ht
"To obtain 10% of our electricity from the wind would require constructing around 12,000 MW of wind energy capacity. Depending on the size of the turbines, they would extend over 80,000 to 120,000 hectares (0.3% to 0.5% of the UK land area). Less than 1% of this (800 to 1,200 hectares) would be used for foundations and access roads, the other 99% could still be used for productive farming. For comparison, between 288,000 to 360,000 hectares (1.2-1.5% of the UK land area) is covered by roads and some 18.5 million hectares (77%) are used for agriculture."
"Each wind farm must have a back-up conventional power station to take over when there is no wind."
Wrong. Any form of generation can fail and thus there has to be backup. Wind farms do not need their own dedicated backup, it is part of the common pool. If there is anything you can't understand about http://www.foe.co.uk/resource/briefing_
"The blades of wind turbines kill thousands of birds. The noise disturbs other wildlife in the breeding season."
Cats and motorists kill far more birds than are killed by wind farms. Do you object to them too?
If wind farms were great bird killers then I think RSPB would object to more than 7% of applications http://www.rspb.org.uk/ourwork/policy/w
Your second point is easily disproved by visiting a large wind farm in the spring, as I have done. Plenty of newly bred life around.
Quoting propaganda from the wind industry and FoE isn't very helpful.
Your games with capacity factors are not helpful. The national figure is below the wind industry's 30% "average" and will fall further as the RO subsidy (some 42% of WF earnings) encourages building in cheap and easy areas with a lousy wind resource (most of E/S England).
There are only a couple schemes in the North East that have achieved the 30% average. We have schemes that are as low as 11% capacity factor.
Wind power generation is not even regarded as capacity in the usual sense of the term, so it is pretty silly comparing with 'firm' (predictable) power generators. Only 1588MW of 4,027MW wind capacity is classified as "visible windfarms" by the National Grid. The margin of error in wind forecasting is such that it cannot be relied on for more than a very small percentage of even visible capacity. Check the NETA/Elexon website which gives system reports, including constantly updated wind generation forecast and out-turn figures: http://www.bmreports.com/bsp/bsp_home.ht
The only research I have read that attempts to put costs on a level playing field (by international energy consultants PBPower for the Royal Academy of Engineering (RAE), 2006, in European Process Engineer Magazine)concluded that onshore wind generation is the cheapest renewable, but with back up, it costs two and a half times as much as gas or nuclear.
That independent study attempted to put all energy sources on a level playing field by comparing the costs of generating electricity from new plants using a range of different technologies and energy sources. The cheapest electricity was from gas turbines and nuclear stations, costing just 2.3p/kWh, compared with 3.7p/kWh for onshore wind and 5.5p/kWh for offshore wind farms. This included the cost of decommissioning nuclear generators.So you claim, but you provide very few links to show others where you get your figures from while I explain where every figure came from.
You also failed to disprove any of the information.
Last, but not least, are you claiming that the compilers of DUKES and the RSPB are producing propaganda for the wind industry or FoE?
"Your games with capacity factors are not helpful."
It is not a game, it is the truth. In 2004, when wind was less developed than it is now, Scottish Power explained the capacity factors they were getting http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/busin
Individual wind power station capacity factors are easily available from: "UK Renewable Energy Data: Issue 8 'Monthly Generation Statistics, April 2002 ? September 2008' at http://www.ref.org.uk/Files/ref.reds.win
National capacity figures are available from 'Energy Trends' - "Energy Trends is DECC's bulletin of statistics on energy in the United Kingdom." - see: http://bis.ecgroup.net/Publications/Ener
The RSPB is in the wind power propaganda business - it earns considerable amounts from 'RSPB Energy' and puts the best possible spin on wind power generation.
Err, I know. I provided a link to them upthread.
I take it you are not going to answer my question, which is whether you think the authors of them are producing propaganda for the wind industry or FoE?
It entirely fails to address the point I was making, which concerned UK average load/capacity factors, not what has been achieved at some sites in Scotland.
I was quite clear when the information was given. Since then engineering has improved, which will raise capacity factor, on the other hand it *may* be the case that the best sites are already in use and this would lower the capacity factor. I say *may* as that is a claim by the anti-wind lobby and claims by them should always be checked carefully. Assuming both factors are true then the effects are likely to balance, in other words capacity factors would be about the same.
Scotland is important, which is easily shown by looking at BWEA's statistics http://www.bwea.com/statistics/ which demonstrate the Saudi Arabia of renewables. Scotland also has the majority of hydro schemes and the greatest potential for tidal stream power. England has more of a look in with wave power.
Operational Onshore
England 108 739.10 MW
Scotland 85 1,939.73 MW
Under construction Onshore
England 1 26.00 MW
Scotland 22 581.70 MW
Consented Onshore
England 83 864.37 MW
Scotland 74 2,102.49 MW
The picture is not the same for offshore wind, but the capacity factor is higher for offshore wind.
(7.45) I have answered your question on the RSPB - yes they are wind propagandists and can't be trusted even to ensure that proper bird surveys are carried out. We have local evidence of this, see: 'RSPB Ducks Out' at http://www.moorsydeactiongroup.org.uk/bi
Many local birders have resigned from the RSPB as a result.
I have not argued with Digest of United Kingdom energy statistics (DUKES) figures, because they are about the only authoritative source mentioned in your long list of citations from wind propaganda sites (FoE, BWEA, Yes-to-Wind etc. etc.).
As you are still avoiding the issue I originally raised, I will follow you to Scotland. Please consult two websites which present impartial facts about the area where the greatest concentration of wind development in Scotland is taking place:
1. The Ayrshire Joint Planning Steering Group's 'Windfarm Mapping Application' - interactive mapping which shows the physical footprint of wind power sites (not the visual footprint, which is hugely greater): http://gis.south-ayrshire.gov.uk/mapsWin
2. I have already mentioned REF's Renewable Energy Data files (the RED Files)- http://www.ref.org.uk/Files/ref.reds.win
Have a look in the latter for the recorded outputs of Bowbeat (Emly Bank and Roughside), near Peebles, on one of the highest (and windiest) sites in Southern Scotland - highest recorded load factor - 28.3% i.e. nowhere near what you/the BWEA claim is average for the UK.
This is mirrored by sites across southern Scotland, on some of the highest and windiest moors going.
Or you can build in even windier places in N and W Scotland where they do actually hit 30-40% load factors. The trouble is you then lose 10% per 100km in transmission losses transferring power to where it is actually needed by a new transmission line that will not be built for years. Great idea: heating the wind with enormously subsidised wind power!
Or, maybe, we should clear the human populations from all of the outlying Scottish islands and cover them in wind turbines! We NEED alternate forms of energy and we need to develop them NOW. On the day the lights start to flicker and go out, WHO will give a sh*t about the birds then? I guarantee it'll be a minority.
Or it may be a flickering prior to a blackout caused by the failure of this government to invest in proper power stations.
As even Ed Miliband, DECC Minister (or 'Minister for wind', as he is popularly known) admits: "...due to the intermittency of wind, we will need significantly more generating capacity in the longer term."
Hence the present panic to get force through consents under the IPC for nuclear, clean coal etc.
Unlikely. Nearly all wind farms are connected to the distribution system, not the transmission system (the grid). The connection is usually made in a fairly remote location.
The effect of the first commercial wind farm, Delabole, on the local distribution system was measured very carefully. The effect it had was to stabilise the local system, shown by tap changers operating less frequently. This isn't difficult to understand, fairly remote locations are usually on the end of a long and not large line, so that fluctuations in load which would not be noticeable in a city have a far larger effect on voltage stability. Add a wind farm to that situation and, provided it is done properly, it will improve the situation.
Quoting out of date research on the earliest commercial WF in England with a total headline capacity of 4MW (single turbines are mostly 2-3MW each now) is not helpful.
To put it in perspective, in our area of South East Scotland, by 31 October 2009, some 308 turbines (590MW) had already been built or consented; applications for c. 175 (503MW) had been submitted or appealed after refusal; c. 191 turbines (450MW) were being scoped. Quite a few more projects were the subject of "pre-scoping opinion discussions". There is absolutely no sign that developer activity is tapering off.
I know that huge efforts (at huge expense)are being made to strengthen the grid and distribution network to try and cope with large scale intermittent and erratic generation from wind power generators.
The German experience has been that large concentrations of wind power have de-stabilised their grid and have led to increasingly frequent problems that lead to them shutting down wind power generators. National Grid here say that we will be paying WPG's exorbitant sums not to produce power in future years.
Unfortunately, the system is not being planned according to supply and demand. Power engineers are desperately trying to reverse engineer the system to try and cope with unplanned and unco-ordinated wind power generation.
This is costing billions and will do for the foreseeable future. A recent leak of internal documents from the National Grid noted that wind power could cost "�300 ? �800 per mega watt hour (MWH) compared to conventional generation at �23 per MWH").
In Scotland the SNP are talking about closing Scottish Nuclear capacity and at the same time will be forced to close several large coal stations under EU Directives. These presently provide baseload and balancing capability. Power engineers that I know say that now would be a good time to buy a good domestic diesel generator and a large diesel storage tank!
The wind propagandists are fond of quoting the example of Denmark, which they say copes with 20% produced from wind. this is inaccurate: Denmark is not an islanded system, it is essentially part of the much larger German system and is also blessed with large interconnects with Scandinavia that allow it dump hugely expensive wind-generated power (below cost) so Scandinavian countries can switch off their cheap hydro-power.
In Germany, they have already discovered that the Greens were wrong: they are discussing whether they have a huge new coal/lignite build and/or whether they renege on commitments to close down their nuclear capacity. 24,000MW of headline wind capacity have not solved their carbon problem or secured electricity supplies.
Interesting tactic. Claim something is "not helpful" and, as New Labour do, "move on".
"A recent leak of internal documents from the National Grid noted that wind power could cost "�300 ? �800 per mega watt hour (MWH) compared to conventional generation at �23 per MWH")."
Ah, a recent leak of internal documents.
Not having seen these documents it is not possible to evaluate them. However, in a market system prices can go up and down. That's a market. This was evaluated by P�yry Energy Consulting http://www.ilexenergy.com/default.a
Those who understand the electricity systems in Britain and Denmark/Germany will explain to anyone willing to listen why market experience in Denmark/Germany cannot be translated directly to Britain. You don't give the impression of being someone willing to listen so I will not waste my time, however one of the differences is to do with the different gate closure times.
Poyry also highlighted the problem of backup with wind and the future problem of costs in either paying WPG's not to produce or paying large amounts to power utilities to build gas power stations purely as additional back up to a large wind build.
This is the essential problem with wind: it is additional to real power generation, it does not substitute for more than a tiny percentage of thermal PG. Even Ed Miliband now recognises that fact - much too late of course, thanks to the wind lobby.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9srPoOU6
Wind turbines are just a huge visible sign that the Government is doing something to pacify people like 'climatewarrior". They don't quite know what else to do to meet the EU CO2 reduction targets in time, they know their aspirations to build God-knows how many thousands of turbines will never work, and they know it will cripple the honest bill-payers in extras hidden charges for the ROCs, the building of power stations over and above what we actually need simply to provide back-up for all the thousands of useless turbines, and the up-grading of the Grid system. But never mind - so long as Climatewarrior and his Greenie mates are happy, that'll be alright then.
P.S. yeah, yeah, I've been on low energy bulbs since before Climatewarrior was born, and I wanted my own wind turbine for my isolated farmhouse over 20 years ago - til I discovered how useless they are. Just because they're bigger now doesn't mean they are any better. I remember well when FOE and Greenpeace told us in the early 70's we were in for an ice age if we didn't stop wasting resources (that's when I stopped wasting stuff).
One or two videos and photographs on Internet don't tell us how many birds are killed by wind turbines and how this compares with the numbers killed by motorists and cats.
As RSPB say, "The environmental impact of wind farms needs to be monitored and analysed as they operate � and policies and practices will need to adapt as we learn more about the impacts of wind farms on birds closer to home. We scrutinise hundreds of wind farm applications every year to determine their likely wildlife impacts, and object to about 7%, because they threaten bird populations."
http://www.rspb.org.uk/ourwork/policy/w
"they know it will cripple the honest bill-payers in extras hidden charges for the ROCs,"
�9.00 per year on the average household electricity bill in 2007. Less than a pint of beer a quarter. http://www.sd-commission.org.uk/publica
Not all of that great sum goes to wind farm operators.
"the building of power stations over and above what we actually need simply to provide back-up for all the thousands of useless turbines,"
I have referred to this before, but it appears that some will not follow references so here is an extract,
"A distinction must be drawn between the extra reserves needed for short-term balancing in an
electricity system with wind and the extra backup (if any) needed to guarantee the security of the
system at all times. That means making sure that there is always enough power available to meet the
peak demands of the system. Although some suggest that there is a need to provide �backup for
windless days� to ensure that demands are always met, this is misleading, on two counts: -
"� When a new thermal power station is built there is no discussion as to how the electricity
system will manage when the station is unexpectedly out of action for emergency repairs
during the winter. The �plant margin� is a common pool of �extra� plant that ensures peak
demands are met. No power stations are 100% reliable, as discussed earlier.
"� Not even the most zealous of renewable energy enthusiasts would suggest that System
Operators should rely on the full rated capacity of wind power plant. When wind is added to
an electricity network, the situation is not fundamentally different from an addition of thermal
plant. If the wind plant has some �capacity credit� (discussed next) then it will be possible to
retire some of the older plant, without compromising system security. If the new plant has
zero capacity credit, then no plant can be retired, but, either way, no new plant needs to be
built for �backup� � it already exists."
"I've been on low energy bulbs since before Climatewarrior was born,"
As you don't know when I was born that claim is easily shown to be bogus.
"I remember well when FOE and Greenpeace told us in the early 70's we were in for an ice age if we didn't stop wasting resources"
As some people will not follow references here is the response
"Objection: The alarmists were predicting the onset of an ice age in the '70s. Now it's too much warming! Why should we believe them this time?
"Answer: It is true that there were some predictions of an "imminent ice age" in the 1970s, but a cursory comparison of those warnings and today's reveals a huge difference.
"Today, you have a widespread scientific consensus, supported by national academies and all the major scientific institutions, solidly behind the warning that the temperature is rising, anthropogenic CO2 is the primary cause, and it will worsen unless we reduce emissions.
"In the 1970s, there was a book in the popular press, a few articles in popular magazines, and a small amount of scientific speculation based on the recently discovered glacial cycles and the recent slight cooling trend from air pollution blocking the sunlight. There were no daily headlines. There was no avalanche of scientific articles. There were no United Nations treaties or commissions. No G8 summits on the dangers and possible solutions. No institutional pronouncements. You could find broader "consensus" on a coming alien invasion.
"Quite simply, there is no comparison."
http://www.grist.org/article/they-predi
Given that some people appear unwilling to follow references, a good indication of a closed mind, there seems little point in my continuing so this will be my last posting in this thread. I'm sure there will be postings accusing me of all sorts of things, those who fail to follow references also tend to want the last word.
It is not just a matter of protecting Golden Eagles but also the habitat. Once the habitat becomes merely an industrial scape, the intrusion by people and machinery will naturally increase.
This will cause the prey species to leave the area as well making it impossible for the shy Eagle to continue hunting.
We ask countries all over the world to conserve their habitats, therefore Britain should lead by example and Scotland is doing a fantastic job.
Yes we need renewable energy but not at any cost. There is also an increase in tidal stream turbine technology which will actually be better because tides are constant.
Scotland is blessed with enormous tides, so this does not seem an unrealistic alternative.
The same sort of people said the same sort of thing when hydro electric schemes were promoted in Scotland. As well as the dams and so on they objected to the pylons and other lines. Thanks in part to them only half the hydro potential of Scotland had been developed.
The one thing that objectors gain is sometimes to cause a re-think, countries which don't allow objection to state schemes quite often end up with vast environmental and human tragedies...
And that is sometimes a very good thing. The two rejected hydro schemes for Glen Affric were horrible, completely out of keeping with the surroundings. The third scheme, the one which was built, has shown that it is in keeping with the glen.
There is a short history at http://www.glenaffric.org/heritage_hydr
So please Indy, that mistake on the numbers must be corrected.
Presumably the article is intended to be about one eagle or the another.