PDA

View Full Version : bird strikes & wind farms



spurtle
26-Jan-07, 16:29
In the light of the press report of a buzzard being killed by a turbine blade, is anyone researching bird strikes, around the wind farms currently operating in Caithness?

Ricco
26-Jan-07, 18:42
In the light of the press report of a buzzard being killed by a turbine blade, is anyone researching bird strikes, around the wind farms currently operating in Caithness?

I do question the validity of such a report. Those blades turn quite slowly - it would have to be a pretty daft buzzard to have been struck by one. More likely is that the bird was blown into or flew into the structure itself.

Seabird
26-Jan-07, 19:55
I think this report speaks for itself.

http://www.surfbirds.com/blogs/mduchamp/archives/000042.html

Birds are taken into consideration when wind farms are built in the UK.
But alas bird dont expect a blooming great obstruction to drop into their flight path so these incidents will occur, although greatly reduced by sensible planning.
The R.S.P.B will object strongly if windfarms are built near migratory routs or planned for bird sensItive areas.

Colin

dozy
26-Jan-07, 21:27
Bird strikes are supposed to be part of the E I S but the fact is are that most EIS s are a joke .I have known of some EIS s where the consultants spent only three half days on site in a 30 months study and that only happen because the sun was shining .
The Developer picks the consults and makes sure the questions that need to be answered are in a way that will suit .
One Turbine Factory on the East Coast of Caithness had over 30 geese strikes in 1 day and thats the ones we know off
Turbines are not a natural form on the landscape so birds can't compute the risk and so they really dont see them .It 's a bit like letting your 18 month old child to walk down the street unsupervised . The child would see the cars and can tell by the size ,shape that the cars are moving but they CANT take onboard is the RISK AND THE LIKELYHOOD they COULD BE killed .Birds dont have the capacity to assess what the Turbines are and the DAMAGE they can do
99% of strikes go unreported because there is no one to see them happen and if they do find birds dead they sure as hell won't report them as it would put the EIS in jeopardy so the strikes are alot more common than reported
If the TRUE figure was to get out the Turbine Industry would collapse over night as the planning permission would be revoked because the EIS s would be deemed untrue or false.
I think that the Turbine operator knows what happen is not a one off and thats why they are keeping a low profile...
If the Council have any guts they should stop the works and get the whole site reassessed...

captain chaos
26-Jan-07, 22:02
Quote from Ricco

"I do question the validity of such a report. Those blades turn quite slowly - it would have to be a pretty daft buzzard to have been struck by one. More likely is that the bird was blown into or flew into the structure itself."


Ricco

It may surprise you but a normal wind turbine blade at the tip is travelling at 140mph YES... 140mph even at 1/4 of the distance from the hub the blade is doing 35mph.

This would be in a ground wind speed of about 14mph

Even a buzzard would have difficulty dodging at these kind of speeds

How Turbines Work

Turbines use the principle of lift, which allows the rotational speed of the blades to actually surpass the wind speed. This is described quantitatively by the tip speed ratio: the ratio of the rotation blade speed to the wind speed. Turbines today that employ lift technology can reach tip speed ratios of approximately 10.

spurtle
26-Jan-07, 22:36
[QUOTE=dozy;185427]The Developer picks the consults and makes sure the questions that need to be answered are in a way that will suit .

To confirm your atatement, here is the view of an honest consultant who tried to put an unbiased view to the developer who had employed him :

HADRIANS BIRD WEEK
12 – 20 Feb 2000
JOHN MILES
Jockey Shield
Castle Carrock
Carlisle, Cumbria, CA4 9NF
Email John@birdsociety.softnet.co.uk
26th March 2000
Dear Brian
Having seen both your letter and your article I thought it was time to write
to you. I spent 3 years carrying out ‘environmental assessments’ for wind
turbine companies until I came up against the old enemy. I had previous
worked for the RSPB from 1976 – 1991 and I challenged the establishment on
their views. Here again as a free lance consultant I was facing the problem
of a company claiming that my evidence was wrong for their own gain. My
conclusion was that the site was finally not suitable for the turbines.
The site was close to the other English pair of golden eagles and
information from California showed that immature golden eagles were the most
vulnerable birds when the turbines sites were erected. Also in Southern
Spain large numbers of birds of prey were being killed by turbines off the
Straits of Gibraltar. (The new Scottish site in Argyll where large amounts
of money have been spent trying to keep eagles away from turbines is an
interesting case!)
The company paid another consultant for a one day visit to the site to write
a report condemning my findings and came up with 13 statements that they
wanted changing or I would not get paid for my work. He even changed my
name to make his findings more suitable!
I wrote a letter to the local press telling them what the company was
playing at and after a long wait finally got paid although the company were
given the last reply in the paper which I felt was wrong. I was never
approached by a turbine company again!
The problems of being a free lance consultant are that you are paid to write
what they want to hear not the truth.
I hope this is some help to you
All the best
John Miles
copy ends

dozy
27-Jan-07, 00:02
I would say that the consultant is correct in what he says , they only hear what they want to hear and they only pay for the answers they want .
I have worked as Engineer on these projects as the EIS needs to include the installation infastructure and have been lucky to work with one of the countries best Environmental Consultants and he lives in Caithness .
Most of the EIS are of a very poor qualility and yet they get through and thats a Planning Department failure.

kas
27-Jan-07, 00:55
For those who have not seen the story

http://www.thisisnorthscotland.co.uk/displayNode.jsp?nodeId=149664&command=displayContent&sourceNode=149490&contentPK=16496141&folderPk=85696&pNodeId=149221


I am keen to find anyone with info regarding the comment about the dead birds at the causeway mire turbine farm. Is this the case.

ywindythesecond
27-Jan-07, 10:47
I would say that the consultant is correct in what he says , they only hear what they want to hear and they only pay for the answers they want .
.

Environmental Impact Assessments (EIS) (or Environmental Statements ES), are a compulsory requirement for a windfarm development. The developer has to pay for it. When you pay for something you make sure you get what you want.
Simple answer is for the developer to fund the EIS and the Planning Authority to commission it.

Rheghead
27-Jan-07, 12:49
For those who have not seen the story

http://www.thisisnorthscotland.co.uk/displayNode.jsp?nodeId=149664&command=displayContent&sourceNode=149490&contentPK=16496141&folderPk=85696&pNodeId=149221


I am keen to find anyone with info regarding the comment about the dead birds at the causeway mire turbine farm. Is this the case.

Has the story been substantiated?

dozy
27-Jan-07, 13:16
See todays P&J page 6 ( Iain Grant)

spurtle
27-Jan-07, 15:19
Has the story been substantiated?

I believe the bird was picked up

Rheghead
27-Jan-07, 15:35
Any bird strike is distressing if you are stood there watching but it is worth while remembering that birdstrikes with static buildings is far more common and just as deadly, let alone bird strikes with traffic, trains etc.

webmannie
27-Jan-07, 15:43
Isn't a busload of people not enough substantiation?

I reported the incident to the area RSPB recorder,a photo of the bird carcass has been requested from the person who has it. I have reported one other strike in the past with photographic evidence, I believe it was a sparrowhawk (I am no expert).

The evidence of the recent 'hit' suggests that it had been 'sucked' into the blade. Witnesses spoke of it flying past and wind disruption contributing to its demise.

When we came across the sparrowhawk it had been struck from above, which suggests to me that it had been 'hovering' prior to it's demise.

nirofo
27-Jan-07, 17:47
ywindythesecond;185553]Environmental Impact Assessments (EIS) (or Environmental Statements ES), are a compulsory requirement for a windfarm development. The developer has to pay for it. When you pay for something you make sure you get what you want.[/i]
Simple answer is for the developer to fund the EIS and the Planning Authority to commission it.


It's well known in serious birding circles that many of the windfarm developers require the environmental impact survey's to be doctored to read exactly how they want them. In many cases the true facts are never put to the approving bodies and councils, many of the councillors don't care anyway, the environment means little if anything to some of them. Why should they care if the visual amenity is ruined and the attraction for tourists is removed, they think it's bringing jobs and cash into the local community when in reality the only jobs are a few short term labouring jobs (remember the forestry planting), all the other jobs are short lived and provided by professionals from further afield. As for cash for the community, what a red herring, it's a smoke screen to tempt the local people into accepting the intrusion of the insidious windmills on their doorstep, it's peanuts compared to the huge profits the developers and landowners are making from the huge government (your money) subsidies). It's only later after these things are built that people realise what they've let themselves in for, it's too late then of course. Anyone who thinks these things are being built in an effort to alleviate the effect of CO2 emissions are living in cloud cuckoo land, they'll never replace our growing need for power and dependancy on conventional and nuclear power generation, it would take over a 1000 windmills to generate the same output that say Dounreay PFR used to put out.

nirofo.

captain chaos
27-Jan-07, 18:08
Nirifo

You quote "it would take over a 1000 windmills to generate the same output that say Dounreay PFR used to put out"

I am no lover of windmills but your maths are a little out... most wind turbimes at present are between 1 and 2 MW output. PFR was a 250Mw generator this would mean between 125 to 250 windmills would replace the old PFR generator.

Modern nuclear power station now generate 2200MW so 1000 windmills would not even replace a new power station.

Rheghead
27-Jan-07, 19:15
Isn't a busload of people not enough substantiation?.

Eyewitness accounts are very unreliable, especially mass eyewitness accounts, especially mass eyewitness accounts from a distance, especially mass eyewitness accounts from a distance in poor visibility, especially mass eyewitness accounts from a distance in poor visibility from people who may not be looking in the direction at the time, especially mass eyewitness accounts from a distance in poor visibility from people who may not be looking in the direction at the time and who come from an area whose opinions on windfarms are not favorable.

webmannie
27-Jan-07, 19:52
Eyewitness accounts are very unreliable, especially mass eyewitness accounts, especially mass eyewitness accounts from a distance, especially mass eyewitness accounts from a distance in poor visibility, especially mass eyewitness accounts from a distance in poor visibility from people who may not be looking in the direction at the time, especially mass eyewitness accounts from a distance in poor visibility from people who may not be looking in the direction at the time and who come from an area whose opinions on windfarms are not favorable.

Why don't you just call the witnesses liars, don't beat around the bush.

The bus was a minibus heading down past the turbine, I can't for the life of me class that as a 'mass' of people.

The fact was it was killed (by the blade), there is no hiding that.

spurtle
27-Jan-07, 20:00
Why don't you just call the witnesses liars, don't beat around the bush.

The bus was a minibus heading down past the turbine, I can't for the life of me class that as a 'mass' of people.

The fact was it was killed (by the blade), there is no hiding that.

Don't get upset, mannie, Rheghead is just a stirrer, with nothing better to do, and does not mean to be taken seriously - you will see him stotting around the forum, taking the contrary view on anything at all. If someone puts a price on his head, he should just take the money.

webmannie
27-Jan-07, 20:25
Cheers for that Spurtle, I don't get upset, this is just the internet. Where people can become whatever alter ego they like and say what they like. What I like about this great medium is that it works both ways.

Anyway thats enough about that, digressing from the fact that the buzzard was killed by a wind turbine blade, which I know has not been an isolated incident.

He can call me a liar, it doesn't change the fact that a bird is at a higher risk whilst around turbine blades.

I'd like to see Rheghead dodge blade tips travelling at 140 mph. I'll supply the parachute. You up for it Rheghead, or is it too risky?

Rheghead
27-Jan-07, 21:16
Why don't you just call the witnesses liars, don't beat around the bush.

To tell a lie there has to be some form of malice aforethought in telling a falsehood. It could well be that the people on the bus were telling the truth as they saw it, but it might not be the case. One is for certain though, Caithness has no shortage of anti-windfarm thinking people or roadkill buzzard corpses for that matter. Just ask yourselves, what is the likelyhood of someone on a moving bus witnessing this tragic event then persuading the bus driver to make a detour to scour the area in which this event took place from a large distance away? Would it be worth their bother? Where were they going and at what time? And another thing, if a raptor got hit by a 140mph blade then I'd imagine there would be nowt much left of it bar blood and feathers. Was the corpse condition consistent with a blade strike if it was handed in as evidence in one piece??

I know Forss is subject to an extension to the existing 2 turbines and this event has come rather timely to add a welcome complication for anyone with anti-windfarm leanings.

Not saying anyone is lying neither am I being contrary for being contrary's sake, I just see this as one for objective analysis on the facts.

If we all believe everything what is given as an eyewitness account in the newspapers then we would be extremely naive to say the least...

webmannie
27-Jan-07, 23:24
You are obviously unaware of the topology of the Forss windfarm, how close the turbine is to the business park road and the frequency of the minibus service. Yes I find it pretty amazing that it was seen, otherwise some people might stupidly think that it just dropped dead from the sky.

Don't insult me by trying to wrap this up as you being 'objective'. To be objective you must understand the factual details, like the technical & infrastructure arrangements, the credibility of the witnesses etc and put the incident in context to that, something you have obviously not done. (PS don't try and join the constabulary, you'll fail the entrance exam)

Who said that the Buzzard was hit by the tip, Not me?

The 'extension' has been approved, in fact it is under construction now. I hope to be walking round it at lunchtimes in the summer again. I also hope I DO NOT come across any more dead birds but If I do then i'll not be keeping quiet about it.

Tilter
27-Jan-07, 23:27
It stands to reason the buzzard was killed by the blades. It stands to reason birds have been killed at Causewaymire. Sooner or later it was bound to happen. Even developers allow in their EIA's for a teensy bit of that sort of thing going on. You only have to read up on the horrific numbers of birds killed at Altamont in California, in Norway, and so on to accept that it happens here too. (No, Rheghead, I'm not looking up any references/proof for you tonight - I'll come back later with them should you insist.)

More important than the number of birds killed is the fact that windfarms take away huge tracts of habitat, nesting areas and food from bird populations - that's the real killer. And we have too many internationally protected and truly endangered bird species, resident and migrant, depending on Caithness for us to wantonly sacrifice their habitat.

The developers' line that we have to sacrifice birds for the long-term goal of combatting climate change is risible and totally self-serving.

Rheghead
27-Jan-07, 23:33
You are obviously unaware of the topology of the Forss windfarm, how close the turbine is to the business park road and the frequency of the minibus service. Yes I find it pretty amazing that it was seen, otherwise some people might stupidly think that it just dropped dead from the sky.

Don't insult me by trying to wrap this up as you being 'objective'. To be objective you must understand the factual details, like the technical & infrastructure arrangements, the credibility of the witnesses etc and put the incident in context to that, something you have obviously not done. (PS don't try and join the constabulary, you'll fail the entrance exam)

Who said that the Buzzard was hit by the tip, Not me?

The 'extension' has been approved, in fact it is under construction now. I hope to be walking round it at lunchtimes in the summer again. I also hope I DO NOT come across any more dead birds but If I do then i'll not be keeping quiet about it.

Yes you have to be objective about it, has there been a vet to examine the bird? I guess no. Basically there aren't enough facts available to make a murder out of this smoking gun unless you are jumping the facts.

Oh and btw, I served with Cumbria Constabulary as a constable for 3 years with a commendation to boot.

Tilter
27-Jan-07, 23:41
For those who have not seen the story

http://www.thisisnorthscotland.co.uk/displayNode.jsp?nodeId=149664&command=displayContent&sourceNode=149490&contentPK=16496141&folderPk=85696&pNodeId=149221


I am keen to find anyone with info regarding the comment about the dead birds at the causeway mire turbine farm. Is this the case.

Kas,
I remember someone telling me some children on a school trip to Causewaymire soon after it started operating witnessed a large bird blown to bits on a turbine blade. But I can't substantiate that - I can't even remember who told me, what school, etc. Maybe another .orger heard that too?

spurtle
28-Jan-07, 00:12
Oh, come on, give up, Tilter, a Cumbrian constable with a special commendation clearly has the advantage over an ignorant Caithnessian.

golach
28-Jan-07, 00:22
In the light of the press report of a buzzard being killed by a turbine blade, is anyone researching bird strikes, around the wind farms currently operating in Caithness?
I have seen no similar press reports researching pheasant strikes by speeding cars on the A9, I wonder when will the P&J cover that story, and as an after thought the number of flattened hedgehogs, rabbits, and even, dare I say it...Cats, needs to be looked into with sympathy

webmannie
28-Jan-07, 00:24
'special commendation to boot'. Up here obviously

webmannie
28-Jan-07, 00:33
I have seen no similar press reports researching pheasant strikes by speeding cars on the A9, I wonder when will the P&J cover that story, and as an after thought the number of flattened hedgehogs, rabbits, and even, dare I say it...Cats, needs to be looked into with sympathy

You said it, noooooooooo. Cats! Murderers, Satan of the birdworld, be gone you devil before we are all led down the road to perdition.

webmannie
28-Jan-07, 00:40
I have seen no similar press reports researching pheasant strikes by speeding cars on the A9.

seriously though

A couple of years ago I was travelling up home from Glasgow as a passenger in a car, to pass time I counted pheasant roadkill, from Glasgow to Thurso there were 23. I was quite surprised.

golach
28-Jan-07, 00:49
seriously though

A couple of years ago I was travelling up home from Glasgow as a passenger in a car, to pass time I counted pheasant roadkill, from Glasgow to Thurso there were 23. I was quite surprised.
Webmannie My point exactly, one bird that is daft enough not to see a beeg blade and the whole o Kaitness is up in arms

webmannie
28-Jan-07, 00:56
the whole o Kaitness is up in arms

I'd hardly say that, .org doesn't have that many members. 'storm in a teacup' maybe suits

To me the news item in the P&J was more the fact that somebody seen it rather than that a turbine had killed it. You'd have to be pretty naive to think that it doesn't happen, what is unknown to most is how often it happens.

nirofo
28-Jan-07, 03:06
captain chaos;185650]Nirifo[/I]

You quote "it would take over a 1000 windmills to generate the same output that say Dounreay PFR used to put out"

I am no lover of windmills but your maths are a little out... most wind turbimes at present are between 1 and 2 MW output. PFR was a 250Mw generator this would mean between 125 to 250 windmills would replace the old PFR generator.

Modern nuclear power station now generate 2200MW so 1000 windmills would not even replace a new power station.[/quote


The output efficiency of wind turbines compared to conventional power generating plant is usually accepted as being approx 30%, here's an excerpt from the following web link, many similar web links can be found with a basic search.

http://www.bwea.com/energy/rely.html

[QUOTE]
The load factor of wind varies according to the site and the type of turbine, but it is generally around 30%. It is higher during the winter than the summer. An average windfarm with an installed capacity of say 5 MW will produce an output of 13,140 MWhours/year, i.e. 30% of what it would produce if it were operating continually at maximum output.
The relationship between capacity credit and load factor

Capacity credit is calculated by determining the reductions of installed power capacity at thermal power stations so that the probability of loss of load at winter peaks is not increased. Or, in other words, how much thermal power plant could be 'replaced' by wind power, without making the system less reliable. For low levels of penetration of wind power into the grid, the capacity credit of wind energy is about the same as the installed capacity multiplied by the load factor. In other words if there is 100 MW of wind energy installed in the country, then this can be relied upon to replace (or avoid the need to build) 30 MW of thermal or nuclear generation capacity. However as the level of wind penetration rises, the capacity credit begins to tail off as shown in the figure.



Here's another quote from the following web link, there's many more.

http://www.physicstoday.org/vol-59/iss-8/p11b.html



As a free-standing, reliable, and stable source of energy, wind power is totally inadequate; even as a secondary, supportive source, it has serious limitations. Due to the character of wind, power is not produced in a steady stream over a long period but in a succession of spikes between zero and full power. The fluctuation makes reliable management of the power grid very risky. Moreover, wind power generation delivers only a modest fraction (20% to 25%) of the installed power capacity. For example, a 150-MW wind farm planned for the Gulf of Mexico outside Galveston, Texas, at a cost of $310 million would realistically deliver at an average rate of 30 MW. This will provide power for less than one extra minute per day for the state. To keep up with a 1.5% annual increase in electrical usage in Texas, one would have to build about 25 of these wind farms every year. So one 150-MW wind farm is small potatoes for Texas's electrical supply.
Germany is half the size of Texas but has more than twice the installed wind power capacity of the entire US, namely 16 400 MW, producing 4.9% of Germany's electricity (1.25% of its total energy). The problems created by the large investment Germany has made in wind power are discussed in the Wind Report 20051 (http://www.physicstoday.org/vol-59/iss-8/p11b.html#ref2) from E.ON Netz, Germany's second largest electrical utility. The report concluded that the possibility of wind energy replacing conventional energy sources is quite limited. For instance, the country's 16 400 MW wind-energy system can actually only contribute 8% of its output capacity (1312 MW) as secure power production. So an extra, conventional generating capacity of about 90% of the wind capacity has to be added to the grid as backup, which would require an enormous additional investment.
The report also stated that the feed-in capacity for wind energy can change often and dramatically. "On Christmas Eve 2004, wind production in Germany fell 4000 MW in 10 hours, representing the capacity of eight 500 MW coal-fired power plants! This created an enormous challenge for the operators of the grid and it could easily have led to a vast blackout in central Europe."
For people thinking "the more wind energy the better," Wind Report 2005 should be required reading.


It therefore follows that to generate the equivalent output of the PFR when it was operational 1000 windmills is not so far out.

nirofo

spurtle
28-Jan-07, 11:19
To get back to the original point - has anyone done any study locally on bird strikes - it would be instructive to have an idea of the actual effect.

I would imagine that a coastal scheme like Forss would be a particular danger for the nocturnal migrants that come in, in quite large numbers in the back end of the year.
It is well documented tha raptors are particularly bad at keeping out of the way, and they tend to be more noticeable than other birds, being generally larger than average.

A walk round once a week would at least give an indication.

Rheghead
28-Jan-07, 16:39
To get back to the original point - has anyone done any study locally on bird strikes - it would be instructive to have an idea of the actual effect.

I would imagine that a coastal scheme like Forss would be a particular danger for the nocturnal migrants that come in, in quite large numbers in the back end of the year.
It is well documented tha raptors are particularly bad at keeping out of the way, and they tend to be more noticeable than other birds, being generally larger than average.

A walk round once a week would at least give an indication.

I would welcome any study like that here. The results either way would be very interesting.

Tilter
28-Jan-07, 17:18
Oh, come on, give up, Tilter, a Cumbrian constable with a special commendation clearly has the advantage over an ignorant Caithnessian.

Spurtle,
I gave up long ago. Anyway, Rheghead's a cat in disguise. Didn't you know? He's had lots of lives in order to get all his qualifications and experience in his many and varied careers. There's a different career for every thread. That's why he knows so much more than us.

nirofo
28-Jan-07, 17:32
Eyewitness accounts are very unreliable, especially mass eyewitness accounts, especially mass eyewitness accounts from a distance, especially mass eyewitness accounts from a distance in poor visibility, especially mass eyewitness accounts from a distance in poor visibility from people who may not be looking in the direction at the time, especially mass eyewitness accounts from a distance in poor visibility from people who may not be looking in the direction at the time and who come from an area whose opinions on windfarms are not favorable.


Why not say that there is no proof that there were even witnesses or that the windfarm is only heresay, what a load of crap!!

nirofo.

kas
28-Jan-07, 22:07
I have seen no similar press reports researching pheasant strikes by speeding cars on the A9, I wonder when will the P&J cover that story, and as an after thought the number of flattened hedgehogs, rabbits, and even, dare I say it...Cats, needs to be looked into with sympathy


Not a dig but just agreeing with your comment Golach.
Roads deaths will never ever be prevented, 14 people died on Scotlands roads in the last 48 hours, how much will be done to prevent this from happening again? Yet if 14 people died from any other circumstances there would be major investigations.

Nearly everyone needs road travel to exist these days so it is almost accepted. Whereas Wind turbines are something that has opinions split, and those who oppose them will use every arguement in their case.

As a bird lover I hate the thought of anything that kills birds, although I have double standards as I do own a cat myself.(She prefers rodents to birds though thankfully.)

Why can they not place turbines on the outskirts of towns and cities, instead of slap bang in the middle of our beautiful countryside. Is it because that the land is cheaper?

Rheghead
28-Jan-07, 23:36
Spurtle,
I gave up long ago. Anyway, Rheghead's a cat in disguise. Didn't you know? He's had lots of lives in order to get all his qualifications and experience in his many and varied careers. There's a different career for every thread. That's why he knows so much more than us.

Live life to the full!! Nowt worse than the ever looming rocking chair and no life experience to look back upon...

Rheghead
28-Jan-07, 23:45
Why not say that there is no proof that there were even witnesses or that the windfarm is only heresay, what a load of crap!!

nirofo.

I walk into a room and see you crouched over a dead body and there is a smoking gun on the table.

Without further investigation, can I say you shot the guy?

No more than if someone came up to me with a dead bird with a eyewitness account that I could say it got hit by a wind turbine.

No more than Tony Blair could say that weapons of mass destruction were in Iraq. (that one was for you fred )

Of course you could put a lot of evidence from other sites into a big dossier but on this occasion with this bird, with this evidence?

Sorry I can't but I admit it is a good possibility that it did happen but not that it did.

ywindythesecond
29-Jan-07, 00:15
I walk into a room and see you crouched over a dead body and there is a smoking gun on the table.

Without further investigation, can I say you shot the guy?

No more than if someone came up to me with a dead bird with a eyewitness account that I could say it got hit by a wind turbine.

No more than Tony Blair could say that weapons of mass destruction were in Iraq. (that one was for you fred )

Of course you could put a lot of evidence from other sites into a big dossier but on this occasion with this bird, with this evidence?

Sorry I can't but I admit it is a good possibility that it did happen but not that it did.

Regy
Email this man and ask him if it happened or not. (Neil Robertson)www.newpark.co.uk/contacts (http://www.newpark.co.uk/contacts)

Ask for the boss. Suggest he might be mistaken. Ask to interview the minibus driver, but be careful, he is quite a big chap. Look Iain Grant in the eye and tell him you dont believe what he reports. Demand to interrogate the passengers on the bus. And phone RSPB and check if the incident was reported.
Please report back on your findings.
ywindythesecond
NO EXCUSES PLEASE, JUST DO IT

Rheghead
29-Jan-07, 02:33
Regy
Email this man and ask him if it happened or not. (Neil Robertson)www.newpark.co.uk/contacts (http://www.newpark.co.uk/contacts)

Ask for the boss. Suggest he might be mistaken. Ask to interview the minibus driver, but be careful, he is quite a big chap. Look Iain Grant in the eye and tell him you dont believe what he reports. Demand to interrogate the passengers on the bus. And phone RSPB and check if the incident was reported.
Please report back on your findings.
ywindythesecond
NO EXCUSES PLEASE, JUST DO IT

You fail to see my point, regardless of what he thought he saw, it is an unavoidable point in relation to eyewitness accounts etc that he may be mistaken. The example of the bogus loch ness monster which was really a lump of joiners wood is a good example. When asked to draw what they saw then some of the witnesses drew a monster's head and neck. The brain sees what it wants to see. Your bully boy tactics neither negates this effect nor impresses me and could be interpreted as a threat on the Org.

webmannie
29-Jan-07, 07:54
Rheghead, how do you explain the fact that it is dead from a broken neck? Are you saying that it just dropped dead from the sky?

Rheghead
29-Jan-07, 12:09
Rheghead, how do you explain the fact that it is dead from a broken neck? Are you saying that it just dropped dead from the sky?

There is a very good chance that birds can fall out of the sky. I am sure road kill birds or even gunshot birds can die from a broken neck but apart from that, has the bird been properly examined by a vet?

If a man can die from a heart attack then I am sure a bird can.

webmannie
29-Jan-07, 18:36
There is a very good chance that birds can fall out of the sky. I am sure road kill birds or even gunshot birds can die from a broken neck but apart from that, has the bird been properly examined by a vet?

If a man can die from a heart attack then I am sure a bird can.

I do not believe for one minute that there is a very good chance, can you provide proof please.

ywindythesecond
30-Jan-07, 01:17
Sorry Reggy

Please answer

Email this man and ask him if it happened or not. (Neil Robertson)www.newpark.co.uk/contacts (http://www.newpark.co.uk/contacts)

Ask for the boss. Suggest he might be mistaken. Ask to interview the minibus driver, but be careful, he is quite a big chap. Look Iain Grant in the eye and tell him you dont believe what he reports. Demand to interrogate the passengers on the bus. And phone RSPB and check if the incident was reported.
Please report back on your findings.
ywindythesecond
NO EXCUSES PLEASE, JUST DO IT

Rheghead
30-Jan-07, 01:51
How would Neil Robertson know? He didn't witness it, and anyway the link doesn't work.

And I have told you already the witness may honestly believe that he saw a buzzard fly into the blades.

I need more facts on this case before I will categorically say that his claim is correct, though I think it is quite likely that it did. End of...

fingalmacool
30-Jan-07, 02:03
Its a shame that any bird of prey should happen to meet their end by such a useless object as a windturbine, but hey thats progress for you NOT!!. However I must say that if one or two birds of prey fall foul of the turbines then it must be a better death than what local gamekeepers used to do to them 20 to 30 years ago, if I can recall it was shoot on sight which was far better that the gintrap on a post, stuck in the middle of the hill, which was successful beyond belief,poisoning was another method that most gamekeepers would never admit to. There seem to be few gamekeepers now and thankfully they are not allowed to do the things of the past and that shows in the population boom of the birds of prey, buts that only my opinion. Turbines are as far as I'm concerned a complete waste of time and spoiling the countryside, and hopefully like us the birds will get used to them.

webmannie
30-Jan-07, 08:00
And I have told you already the witness may honestly believe that he saw a buzzard fly into the blades.

I need more facts on this case before I will categorically say that his claim is correct, though I think it is quite likely that it did. End of...

You have TOLD me nothing, nobody tells me, it is your opinion. I don't care for your opinion, you selectively choose details to comment on and do not listen to the whole story and when challenged you do not answer pertinent questioning. I still await your response to 'There is a very good chance that birds can fall out of the sky'

dozy
30-Jan-07, 12:24
Webmannie .The folk in support of the turbines would rather think that Wind turbine Warriors killed the buzzard and thrown it at the blades or maybe strapped an engine to its back and remotely flew the bird to its death.
Some will say its parachute failed or it committed suicide .
Its a sad and sorry state when we would rather see an animal killed than admit we got it WRONG ......

Rheghead
30-Jan-07, 22:19
Its a sad and sorry state when we would rather see an animal killed than admit we got it WRONG ......

Who would rather see an animal get killed than admit they got it wrong? I think any accidental death is a tragedy for these magnificent creatures whether it is via road kill, windturbines etc etc etc. It is even more galling when Town and Country types call murder over these turbines and birds when they have had a history of being the pariahs of bird of prey populations.

But has it ever occurred to anyone if those Dounreay workers were really bothered about the state of Britain's birds, how many times have they notified the RSPB for every time they've seen a dead bird by the side of the road?

It is all a storm in a tea cup which antiwindies are trying to make political capital out of it.

Just think of all the creatures that are saved via the mitigation of fossil fuels in relation to not just climate change but also acid rain etc.

caithness lad
30-Jan-07, 22:49
In the light of the press report of a buzzard being killed by a turbine blade, is anyone researching bird strikes, around the wind farms currently operating in Caithness?i hope they get a lot of scorries:Razz

the second coming
31-Jan-07, 20:01
Who would rather see an animal get killed than admit they got it wrong? I think any accidental death is a tragedy for these magnificent creatures whether it is via road kill, windturbines etc etc etc. It is even more galling when Town and Country types call murder over these turbines and birds when they have had a history of being the pariahs of bird of prey populations.

But has it ever occurred to anyone if those Dounreay workers were really bothered about the state of Britain's birds, how many times have they notified the RSPB for every time they've seen a dead bird by the side of the road?

It is all a storm in a tea cup which antiwindies are trying to make political capital out of it.

Just think of all the creatures that are saved via the mitigation of fossil fuels in relation to not just climate change but also acid rain etc.

here here, rheghead, i would reply to the politically biaist antiwindies (acknowledging each to their own on visual impact) but I just cant be bothered repeating myself every time i hear folk preaching mis-information

c'mon the wind farms

c'mon the birds

boo hiss antiwindies

kas
31-Jan-07, 21:46
Without getting in to a slagging match Rheg, I spoke to a witness at work who said, the Buzzard was hit by the turbine and fell out of the sky like a lead balloon. They went to see it and it had no apparant injuries visible, but has since heard the bird suffered a broken neck.

I do not believe he is lying about what he saw, he has no hidden interests to have to lie.

j4bberw0ck
01-Feb-07, 17:28
More important than the number of birds killed is the fact that windfarms take away huge tracts of habitat, nesting areas and food from bird populations - that's the real killer. And we have too many internationally protected and truly endangered bird species, resident and migrant, depending on Caithness for us to wantonly sacrifice their habitat.

The developers' line that we have to sacrifice birds for the long-term goal of combatting climate change is risible and totally self-serving.


Its a sad and sorry state when we would rather see an animal killed than admit we got it WRONG ......

Interesting viewpoints. Let's assume for a minute that everything said about the cause of climate change is true. Let's also assume, as many do, that wind turbines are a major part of the answer to reducing CO2 emissions from power generation, and so combating climate change.

Now let's assume for a minute that climate change is potentially catastrophic and will lead to wholesale extinctions of plants and animals in (say) the north of Scotland - including, potentially, birds of prey.

So, no wind farms means fewer "accidental" bird deaths. Yayyyy!!

But woops, no wind farms means wholesale extinctions, surely? Booooo!!

So, pro-bird lobby, what's the lesser evil? What compromise would you agree as reasonable? :lol:

webmannie
01-Feb-07, 19:46
Yes Interesting Viewpoint, i'd like to 'assume' also

Lets assume that everything said about climate change is not true and it is cyclic. Lets also assume that wind turbines are no answer to countering Co2 emmissions, due to poor efficiency.

WOW no extinction, no 'accidental' bird deaths yaaay, let's all go to the pub and celebrate. We've solved the worlds ails and we can sleep easy tonight.

We can all put forward assumptions, it is proven facts we need. The top environmental scientists in the world cannot even agree whether 'global warming' is caused by us, what chance have we.

I think the thread should be closed, there is nothing further to be gained.

The bird is dead, end of story. It'll probably end up 'stuffed' by a taxidermist and on show in somebodys home (have you taken a picture of it yet G?).

j4bberw0ck
02-Feb-07, 00:43
I'm as cynical as you about the underlying causes of climate change, but you've completely missed the point of my argument.

Which was that if we accept the prevailing "wisdom", then ultimately a choice has to be made between the occasional buzzard / hen harrier / starling / whatever getting a clonk on the head from a turbine, and all buzzards / hen harriers / starlings / whatever dying out through habitat destruction..

So, which is preferable? Simple as that. And your answer is................?

Rheghead
02-Feb-07, 05:19
We can all put forward assumptions, it is proven facts we need. The top environmental scientists in the world cannot even agree whether 'global warming' is caused by us, what chance have we.



There is just a few points I'd like to make to that.

There is absolutely no scientific doubt that CO2 and the other GHGs are causing climate change. Even the most vocal of the credible sceptics do accept that. Where the big uncertainties are due to the role of the positive and negative feedbacks which can either enhance the effects of the role of GHGs or they can negate them.

For example, more heat will produce more snow and rain which will cool the Earth, a negative feedback, more heat will melt ice cover over the oceans and land thus absorbing more heat, a positive feedback.

What has happened though is that the oil industry has took advantage of this uncertainty for its own needs and turned it around to promote the idea that climate science is not science if there is uncertainty. That is unintellectual claptrap because the only scientific certainty in this universe is that there will always be uncertainty, in everything.

Also, the Bush administration has been proved to have covered up or gagged scientific evidence from reaching the Public in the US, this will hamper Public support in the fight against climate change by encouraging a climate of ignorance.

Another off topic thought has entered my head, if the Bible belt of the US is the richest in oil, how can American geologists and the oil industry cohorts wrestle their religious concience regarding evolution and their knowledge of geological timescales and the fossil record???

j4bberw0ck
02-Feb-07, 10:30
Another off topic thought has entered my head, if the Bible belt of the US is the richest in oil, how can American geologists and the oil industry cohorts wrestle their religious concience regarding evolution and their knowledge of geological timescales and the fossil record???

Because they say that if you had (for instance) a large drum of water and shovelled in an evenly mixed amount of soil containing bones, rocks of different sorts and all the other stuff you find when you dig up the ground, gave it all a mighty stir and left it for a few thousand years, you'd see exactly what we see today - strata, different rocks at different levels, oil deposits etc etc.

No, I don't understand it, either.

dozy
02-Feb-07, 20:32
I have got some results back to-day and the figures have be checked against the Climate Charge Study .
The change in weather and wind patterns across the North of Brittain over the next 5-15 years will make Wind Turbines only 12% efficient (thats less than half what they are touted at now ),as the wind will drop to below operating speeds and then swing to speeds outside the turbines safe working range .
All that Steel ,concrete and Landscape wasted on a power source that will hardly boil a kettle ...It would be funny if it was private money but its the Taxpayer that will foot the bill yet again ....

Kenn
02-Feb-07, 23:53
Have been following the various points with great interest and maybe some one can tell me if there is a way that wind turbines can be made visible to birds ?
I remember many years back the concerns about swans flying into high voltage cables and eventually a simple solution was found, hang reflective discs every few feet along them.This seems to have been adopted throughout this country and elsewhere with great success.Whilst I appreciate that this would not be viable on a wind turbine's blades as it would interfere with what little efficiency they have, there surely must be some way to make them bird friendly.
Thinking caps on folks.

Rheghead
04-Feb-07, 00:54
All that Steel ,concrete and Landscape wasted on a power source that will hardly boil a kettle ...

Have you any suggestion that the energy used to create a windfarm will outweigh the energy that can be retrieve from one over its life time or are you just making guess work?

dozy
04-Feb-07, 11:56
Rheghead
I never guess on anythings. it facts that stand up .I do find that some people dont understand what the total carbon footprint means.Its not just taking a look that the Turbines and saying YES its 40 tonnes of steel 30 Tonnes of composite materials and 1000 tonnes of Concrete.The calculation is more complicated.
You have to start with the first meeting or phone call and ADD all the people,the travel ,the mining of the raw material the machines used and fossil fuel comsumed.All the transport needed and machining of the raw metals and the list goes on right up to the scrapping and energy needed on recycle whats left and thats just the Turbine .Then add in the on site installation like the roads across the peatland ,the service engineers and the powerlines .
You work it out and then say that Turbines will save CO2 .
If we would take the subsidy that the Taxpayer is giving Companies on just 1 turbine and spent it on Energy saving lightbulbs we could have 8 less turbines destroying the Landscape
Saving on the energy production we have now will reduce CO2 and will inturn save the Environment and wildlife.
Yours is a " leave the fridge door open and it will reduce Global Warming" is just as stupid as it sounds.....

Rheghead
04-Feb-07, 13:18
Rheghead
I never guess on anythings. it facts that stand up .I do find that some people dont understand what the total carbon footprint means.Its not just taking a look that the Turbines and saying YES its 40 tonnes of steel 30 Tonnes of composite materials and 1000 tonnes of Concrete.The calculation is more complicated.
You have to start with the first meeting or phone call and ADD all the people,the travel ,the mining of the raw material the machines used and fossil fuel comsumed.All the transport needed and machining of the raw metals and the list goes on right up to the scrapping and energy needed on recycle whats left and thats just the Turbine .Then add in the on site installation like the roads across the peatland ,the service engineers and the powerlines .
You work it out and then say that Turbines will save CO2 .
If we would take the subsidy that the Taxpayer is giving Companies on just 1 turbine and spent it on Energy saving lightbulbs we could have 8 less turbines destroying the Landscape
Saving on the energy production we have now will reduce CO2 and will inturn save the Environment and wildlife.
Yours is a " leave the fridge door open and it will reduce Global Warming" is just as stupid as it sounds.....

Dozy, I never guess on anything either and when I see a statement like yours then I tend to find out if it is correct or not.


Of course you can simply blindly dismiss it as propaganda for the wind industry but I have never seen a convincing calculation by any anti windies to suggest that the energy that it takes to make a windfarm actually outweighs or is a significant comparison of the energy that we get from them. Go do the calculation and tell me what you come up with. They recoup their energy within a few months of operation. I guess you will never come up with one that can be cross referenceable.

And yet the Energy balance (http://www.awea.org/faq/bal.html) of wind farms is shown by three separate studies to be strongly in favour of the energy that they produce. The studies are there to be shot down in flames but do stand up to criticism because they are true.

Your comment about using the subsidy used on windfarms to buy light bulbs doesn't make sense. Why would one part of a strategy to reduce CO2 emissions be used to jeopodise another?

KittyMay
04-Feb-07, 16:23
Dozy, I never guess on anything either and when I see a statement like yours then I tend to find out if it is correct or not.


Of course you can simply blindly dismiss it as propaganda for the wind industry but I have never seen a convincing calculation by any anti windies to suggest that the energy that it takes to make a windfarm actually outweighs or is a significant comparison of the energy that we get from them. Go do the calculation and tell me what you come up with. They recoup their energy within a few months of operation. I guess you will never come up with one that can be cross referenceable.

And yet the Energy balance (http://www.awea.org/faq/bal.html) of wind farms is shown by three separate studies to be strongly in favour of the energy that they produce. The studies are there to be shot down in flames but do stand up to criticism because they are true.

Your comment about using the subsidy used on windfarms to buy light bulbs doesn't make sense. Why would one part of a strategy to reduce CO2 emissions be used to jeopodise another?

Are you admitting to not having calculated the true carbon footprint yourself and being quite content to quote wind industry figures?

As to your argument against spending less money to produce greater benefits - astonishing.

dozy
04-Feb-07, 16:34
The studies you mention have how been shown to be not correct. In their calculations they have taken that the Wind study graphs are a constant,this was never true and the new Climate Change Forecast shows that the figures where off by a factor 60% so the total energy return is greatly reduced .The new figures will be published shortly and the Turbine Industry will have a hard time justifying an 20% efficiency far short of the claimed 33% that they are pushing at the moment.The change in Climate/Weather should have the Government pushing methods inwhich every house should produce a greater proportion of it energy consumption and that should start with reducing demand .
The Wind Turbine Industry has nothing to do with saving the Planet, Environment or CO2 .Its just the way of CONNING the public into believing that we are doing our bit, but it the TAXPAYERS money that is being wasted and it could be put to better use .....
I have stated before that i have reports from Denmark and Germany on why they are taking there turbines down and are more than happy to have the STUPID BRITS buy them .I am in contact with them daily as one Engineer to another on a new cross tidal project of the North of Scotland and it will produce 150MWh ever hour ......Can you tell me how many 2mw turbines you would have to erect to supply the same amount of power...The system has no tidal change lag ......

Rheghead
04-Feb-07, 20:34
The studies you mention have how been shown to be not correct. In their calculations they have taken that the Wind study graphs are a constant,this was never true and the new Climate Change Forecast shows that the figures where off by a factor 60% so the total energy return is greatly reduced .The new figures will be published shortly and the Turbine Industry will have a hard time justifying an 20% efficiency far short of the claimed 33% that they are pushing at the moment.The change in Climate/Weather should have the Government pushing methods inwhich every house should produce a greater proportion of it energy consumption and that should start with reducing demand .
The Wind Turbine Industry has nothing to do with saving the Planet, Environment or CO2 .Its just the way of CONNING the public into believing that we are doing our bit, but it the TAXPAYERS money that is being wasted and it could be put to better use .....
I have stated before that i have reports from Denmark and Germany on why they are taking there turbines down and are more than happy to have the STUPID BRITS buy them .I am in contact with them daily as one Engineer to another on a new cross tidal project of the North of Scotland and it will produce 150MWh ever hour ......Can you tell me how many 2mw turbines you would have to erect to supply the same amount of power...The system has no tidal change lag ......

Well done, blindly rejected as predicted, well you have got it all wrong if you think that the capacity factor has anything to do with energy balance...

Rheghead
04-Feb-07, 20:38
Are you admitting to not having calculated the true carbon footprint yourself and being quite content to quote wind industry figures?
.

Can you give me some data about the construction and the materials that go into a wind farm then I will have a go.

Rheghead
04-Feb-07, 20:49
The Wind Turbine Industry has nothing to do with saving the Planet, Environment or CO2 .Its just the way of CONNING the public into believing that we are doing our bit, but it the TAXPAYERS money that is being wasted and it could be put to better use .....
.

Can you explain to me how 'taxpayers'' money is being wasted? The money doesn't come from taxation.

nirofo
04-Feb-07, 21:03
Rheghead
I never guess on anythings. it facts that stand up .I do find that some people dont understand what the total carbon footprint means.Its not just taking a look that the Turbines and saying YES its 40 tonnes of steel 30 Tonnes of composite materials and 1000 tonnes of Concrete.The calculation is more complicated.
You have to start with the first meeting or phone call and ADD all the people,the travel ,the mining of the raw material the machines used and fossil fuel comsumed.All the transport needed and machining of the raw metals and the list goes on right up to the scrapping and energy needed on recycle whats left and thats just the Turbine .Then add in the on site installation like the roads across the peatland ,the service engineers and the powerlines .
You work it out and then say that Turbines will save CO2 .
If we would take the subsidy that the Taxpayer is giving Companies on just 1 turbine and spent it on Energy saving lightbulbs we could have 8 less turbines destroying the Landscape
Saving on the energy production we have now will reduce CO2 and will inturn save the Environment and wildlife.
Yours is a " leave the fridge door open and it will reduce Global Warming" is just as stupid as it sounds.....


You also forgot to mention that when the ground/peat etc is dug for each windmill foundation there is a release of CO2 to the atmosphere, couple that to the well known and published maximum power output efficiency of 30% that the windfarms are capable of and it paints a very different picture to those who care to do their homework without being blinded by the green at any cost brigade. These windmills are not worth the cost of the metal they're made from, they are a waste of resources that would be better spent elsewhere. They will never replace the need for conventional and nuclear power stations, all our hard earned tax payers money should be used to produce energy efficient power stations and not squandered on worthless windfarms that don't help to reduce the worlds total CO2 emissions one jot.

nirofo.

Rheghead
04-Feb-07, 22:22
You also forgot to mention that when the ground/peat etc is dug for each windmill foundation there is a release of CO2 to the atmosphere, couple that to the well known and published maximum power output efficiency of 30% that the windfarms are capable of and it paints a very different picture to those who care to do their homework without being blinded by the green at any cost brigade. These windmills are not worth the cost of the metal they're made from, they are a waste of resources that would be better spent elsewhere. They will never replace the need for conventional and nuclear power stations, all our hard earned tax payers money should be used to produce energy efficient power stations and not squandered on worthless windfarms that don't help to reduce the worlds total CO2 emissions one jot.

nirofo.

Put facts and figures together and lets have a look at your findings. The windturbines recoup their energy of installation within a few months.

Can you explain how peat cutting is not green? It can be argued that peat for fuel is renewable, in fact the Fins reckon they can cut peat for energy sustainably.

KittyMay
04-Feb-07, 22:23
Can you give me some data about the construction and the materials that go into a wind farm then I will have a go.

Sorry, no. I don't know the facts so have never commented on the carbon footprint of any power station.

Am worried about hijacking a birdwatching thread. How do you go about asking for a new forum for discussions on energy and climate change?

Rheghead
04-Feb-07, 22:26
Sorry, no. I don't know the facts so have never commented on the carbon footprint of any power station.

Am worried about hijacking a birdwatching thread. How do you go about asking for a new forum for discussions on energy and climate change?

Three independent studies show that the wind balance of windfarms are very favorable. Unless you have some form of information which is beyond those researchers then it is folly to summmise that windfarms haven't a good energy balance.

I agree that this thread has gone off topic.

KittyMay
04-Feb-07, 22:28
Can you explain how peat cutting is not green? It can be argued that peat for fuel is renewable, in fact the Fins reckon they can cut peat for energy sustainably.

Maybe the Fins have developed a clever peat cutting technique that prevents the carbon to escape whilst also speeding up the renewable peat growing process by a factor of about a million times.

KittyMay
04-Feb-07, 22:32
Three independent studies show that the wind balance of windfarms are very favorable. Unless you have some form of information which is beyond those researchers then it is folly to summmise that windfarms haven't a good energy balance..

As I've just said - I've never commented on this topic.

Rheghead
04-Feb-07, 22:43
Maybe the Fins have developed a clever peat cutting technique that prevents the carbon to escape whilst also speeding up the renewable peat growing process by a factor of about a million times.

Perhaps they have worked out that peat growth at 1mm per year will be enough carbon sink to mitigate their carbon profile?

Rheghead
04-Feb-07, 22:47
As I've just said - I've never commented on this topic.

If you have an opinion then I'd love to hear it, especially if it is in favour of windfarms. If you think that their energy balance is favorable then you wouldn't mind pointing that out? hehe...:roll:

nirofo
05-Feb-07, 02:33
Put facts and figures together and lets have a look at your findings. The windturbines recoup their energy of installation within a few months.

Can you explain how peat cutting is not green? It can be argued that peat for fuel is renewable, in fact the Fins reckon they can cut peat for energy sustainably.


You obviously do too much talking to find out what you're talking about, search the web, do a bit of googling, it's all there if you care to look for it, all the information you can imagine about windfarms, CO2 emissions, load factors, footprint, etc, etc. Anyway don't you know CO2 is naturally trapped in the ground in massive amounts nearly everywhere, especially in a biomass like peat. When peat is cut, dug or burned it releases large amounts, (for it's volume) of CO2. Peat is a non renewable fossil fuel which if used for powering power stations will give off more CO2 per tonne than it's equivalent in coal. No one is contradicting the fact that peat can be burned for energy production, but can you imagine the huge amounts that would be needed to supply all our energy needs, even forgetting the huge CO2 emissions that would result.

Incidentally, there's a forum on the internet discussing the pros and cons of windfarms going back about 2 years, it's part of Bird Forum and has many genned up people posting there. If you want a real insight into this topic I suggest you log on to the following web address and browse for a while, should take you several weeks. Keep you quiet for a while anyway !!

http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=27198

nirofo.

KittyMay
05-Feb-07, 09:33
If you have an opinion then I'd love to hear it, especially if it is in favour of windfarms. If you think that their energy balance is favorable then you wouldn't mind pointing that out? hehe...:roll:

Sorry to disappoint you but I lack the necessary knowledge on carbon footprints that allows for comment. However, I have read, probably about a hundred differing views on this subject and am extremely confident in my decision to ignore any figures produced by the wind industry.

Dozy may be quite correct and I am content to leave the calculations and investigation in his capable hands. The really sad thing is that I very much doubt if it were ever proven that wind was not carbon neutral it would have any effect on the outcome anyway. Wind worshipping would continue.

As to your remarks about peat. Maybe the government will use the same process for the development of peat as a fuel as for wind. Offer large subsidies to the biomass industry and let landowners decide if they want to sell off their bogs. This might seem lunacy, given the objective is to reduce carbon emissions, but it hasn't been a problem for the wind industry. (Fortunately, peat bogs are protected and SNH and RSPB would have apoplectic fits if this ever came to pass)

It appears our government (and your good self) are quite in favour of handing over the responsibility of national security to landowners and developers.

dozy
05-Feb-07, 12:25
Its great that the WINDIES are also quoting how many homes the electricity from these useless machines are suppose to cater for ,but they never answer the question WHEN...Thats WHEN is the power available
Can the turbine provide BASE LOAD ......NO
Can they provide for DEMAND...............NO
You must agree that we are a supply and demand society and Turbines can't supply it ,when we demand it ...
I gave a challenge to a few Councillors and Windies. That i would supply a device that would only allow electricity to flow in their homes when the Turbines on the Causewaymare was turning......So NO wind.... No power ...None would take it up ..I wonder why .....

nirofo
05-Feb-07, 15:30
Quote: KittyMay:
As to your remarks about peat. Maybe the government will use the same process for the development of peat as a fuel as for wind. Offer large subsidies to the biomass industry and let landowners decide if they want to sell off their bogs. This might seem lunacy, given the objective is to reduce carbon emissions, but it hasn't been a problem for the wind industry. (Fortunately, peat bogs are protected and SNH and RSPB would have apoplectic fits if this ever came to pass)



The fact that many areas where windfarms have been built and are proposed to be built are in legally protected areas, where it is illegal to disturb the Schedule One protected species that live and breed there has not stopped the steady onslaught of the insidious windfarm so far. Why then will the protected peat bogs pose a threat to these people who care little if anything for our fragile environment and beautifull places.

nirofo.

KittyMay
05-Feb-07, 15:31
Its great that the WINDIES are also quoting how many homes the electricity from these useless machines are suppose to cater for ,but they never answer the question WHEN...Thats WHEN is the power available
Can the turbine provide BASE LOAD ......NO
Can they provide for DEMAND...............NO
You must agree that we are a supply and demand society and Turbines can't supply it ,when we demand it ...
I gave a challenge to a few Councillors and Windies. That i would supply a device that would only allow electricity to flow in their homes when the Turbines on the Causewaymare was turning......So NO wind.... No power ...None would take it up ..I wonder why .....

Dozy - This should be mandatory. Every household (especially those poor deluded folk who believe that by switching to a 'green' tariff they are using only renewable electricity and those who worship wind because it's a 'start' or because they believe that wind can replace conventional generators) should hook up to one of these devices you refer to above. Think of the carbon savings and we'd be awash with surplus generating capacity.

OK there would be a tiny downside - we'd very, very rarely have any electricity but other than that the benefits would be awesome.

The wind industry states that Caithness now easily generates enough wind energy to supply all households in Caithness and Sutherland so we'd be OK - wouldn't we??

KittyMay
05-Feb-07, 15:45
The fact that many areas where windfarms have been built and are proposed to be built are in legally protected areas, where it is illegal to disturb the Schedule One protected species that live and breed there has not stopped the steady onslaught of the insidious windfarm so far. Why then will the protected peat bogs pose a threat to these people who care little if anything for our fragile environment and beautifull places.

nirofo.

Nirofo - to be honest I can't get my head around this one, am stunned. We're forbidden to drive our four wheel bike through areas of peatland on our farm and we've 'foolishly' adhered to that ruling. Yet, it's OK to dig up foundations for turbines and possibly dig up the peat itself for fuel and that's leaving aside the over riding issue of carbon release. What can you say?

nirofo
05-Feb-07, 15:51
Nirofo - to be honest I can't get my head around this one, am stunned. We're forbidden to drive our four wheel bike through areas of peatland on our farm and we've 'foolishly' adhered to that ruling. Yet, it's OK to dig up foundations for turbines and possibly dig up the peat itself for fuel and that's leaving aside the over riding issue of carbon release. What can you say?


It's the same old story, it's one rule for us and another specially made or ignored for them ??

nirofo.

Rheghead
06-Feb-07, 04:21
Put facts and figures together and lets have a look at your findings. The windturbines recoup their energy of installation within a few months.

Can you explain how peat cutting is not green? It can be argued that peat for fuel is renewable, in fact the Fins reckon they can cut peat for energy sustainably.[/quote]


You obviously do too much talking to find out what you're talking about, search the web, do a bit of googling, it's all there if you care to look for it, all the information you can imagine about windfarms, CO2 emissions, load factors, footprint, etc, etc. Anyway don't you know CO2 is naturally trapped in the ground in massive amounts nearly everywhere, especially in a biomass like peat. When peat is cut, dug or burned it releases large amounts, (for it's volume) of CO2. Peat is a non renewable fossil fuel which if used for powering power stations will give off more CO2 per tonne than it's equivalent in coal. No one is contradicting the fact that peat can be burned for energy production, but can you imagine the huge amounts that would be needed to supply all our energy needs, even forgetting the huge CO2 emissions that would result.

Incidentally, there's a forum on the internet discussing the pros and cons of windfarms going back about 2 years, it's part of Bird Forum and has many genned up people posting there. If you want a real insight into this topic I suggest you log on to the following web address and browse for a while, should take you several weeks. Keep you quiet for a while anyway !!

http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=27198

nirofo.

As I thought, you can't put any facts and figures together that suggests that windfarms have a negative energy balance, iow your post is all bluff.

I have looked at the facts and figures available with a google search and nothing convinces me otherwise, it can't because there isn't any evidence at all.

btw, I have already posted on the birdforum.net forum and particularly in that thread, in fact, I have posted in that thread quite a lot! :Razz

Rheghead
06-Feb-07, 04:53
Sorry to disappoint you but I lack the necessary knowledge on carbon footprints that allows for comment. However, I have read, probably about a hundred differing views on this subject and am extremely confident in my decision to ignore any figures produced by the wind industry.



Well what is the point in coming on here spouting about windfarms when you yourself are not prepared to listen and digest properly researched papers on this subject and hope to make anyone listen and digest your opinion when you yourself never put any facts and figures together?:confused

I respect your right to ignore researched facts at the same time I reserve my right to ignore claptrap.

Rheghead
06-Feb-07, 04:58
Its great that the WINDIES are also quoting how many homes the electricity from these useless machines are suppose to cater for ,but they never answer the question WHEN...Thats WHEN is the power available
Can the turbine provide BASE LOAD ......NObut do they need to?
Can they provide for DEMAND...............NO but do they need to?
You must agree that we are a supply and demand society and Turbines can't supply it ,when we demand it ...
I gave a challenge to a few Councillors and Windies. That i would supply a device that would only allow electricity to flow in their homes when the Turbines on the Causewaymare was turning......So NO wind.... No power ...None would take it up ..I wonder why .....

I take it then that you are against solar, tidal, wave and hydro power then?:roll:

I take it that if/when they sort out the energy storage problem you will love the wind?:roll:

KittyMay
06-Feb-07, 10:12
Well what is the point in coming on here spouting about windfarms when you yourself are not prepared to listen and digest properly researched papers on this subject and hope to make anyone listen and digest your opinion when you yourself never put any facts and figures together?:confused

I respect your right to ignore researched facts at the same time I reserve my right to ignore claptrap.

So tell me, have the upgrades and replacements to transmission lines been factored into the equation? To the payback period you know without any doubt to be correct.

I'll repeat myself yet again -

We're obliged to substantially reduce our carbon emissions
We must replace/update much of our conventional generators
RESPONSE - set a target for renewable energy generation

The response cannot meet either of the objectives now or in the near future.

Let's greatly simplify matters -

I need to stop smoking and lose weight. The answer is to chuck the fags and eat less. But this is rather painful so I decide my response will be to make a 'start' by taking a little exercise.
The result - a slightly fitter fat smoker.
Failed.

Now. Replace smoking with carbon and weightloss with security of supply. Potentially very politically painful. So response is to introduce a renewable target.
The result - no meaningful reduction in carbon, no security of supply and, oh yes, windfarms.
Failed.

Wrong target. Wrong result.

nirofo
06-Feb-07, 15:42
As I thought, you can't put any facts and figures together that suggests that windfarms have a negative energy balance, iow your post is all bluff.

I have looked at the facts and figures available with a google search and nothing convinces me otherwise, it can't because there isn't any evidence at all.

btw, I have already posted on the birdforum.net forum and particularly in that thread, in fact, I have posted in that thread quite a lot! :Razz


Why should I do all the hard work for you when you obviously know all about it already, you are so confident that there are no facts available on the web to counteract your claims. Use your loaf man, (sorry, or woman), there's tons of stuff available out there, go and find it, then let us know what gems you have come up with. Why don't you call my bluff, if it is bluff ?

If you have posted on the Bird Forum windfarm thread I'm afraid it didn't leave much of an impression or I'd have remembered it ??

nirofo.

golach
06-Feb-07, 20:57
Nirofo - to be honest I can't get my head around this one, am stunned. We're forbidden to drive our four wheel bike through areas of peatland on our farm and we've 'foolishly' adhered to that ruling. Yet, it's OK to dig up foundations for turbines and possibly dig up the peat itself for fuel and that's leaving aside the over riding issue of carbon release. What can you say?

Hmmm, as I thought origionally a clear case of nimbyism

Rheghead
07-Feb-07, 10:09
Why should I do all the hard work for you when you obviously know all about it already, you are so confident that there are no facts available on the web to counteract your claims. Use your loaf man, (sorry, or woman), there's tons of stuff available out there, go and find it, then let us know what gems you have come up with. Why don't you call my bluff, if it is bluff ?

If you have posted on the Bird Forum windfarm thread I'm afraid it didn't leave much of an impression or I'd have remembered it ??

nirofo.

You are in denial as well as others. Please supply facts and figures if you know about the true situation on the energy balance. I have already stated that there is nothing. Just saying that windfarms are rubbish means nothing unless you can prove it.

I guess you know more about it than a load of boffins eh?[lol]

Still waiting....again....

Rheghead
07-Feb-07, 10:15
So tell me, have the upgrades and replacements to transmission lines been factored into the equation? To the payback period you know without any doubt to be correct.

Lots of windfarms will share the joint energy burden for the upgrade. The Dounreay to Denny(or is it Beauly) length will only need stringing of additional cables to increase transmission capacity.

KittyMay
07-Feb-07, 12:52
Lots of windfarms will share the joint energy burden for the upgrade. The Dounreay to Denny(or is it Beauly) length will only need stringing of additional cables to increase transmission capacity.

A simple 'No', as answer to the question, would have sufficed. What about the transmission/heat losses over such long distances?

I think the Beauly to Denny line requires a little more than a bit of additional stringing.
The Orkney to Caithness submarine cable?
The Lewis to 'wherever' submarine cable?
The Scotland to England Interconnector?

That's for starters.

You're quite right though it's going to require development of a fair few wind turbines to drive and finance this little package.

Of course, we could reign in the over-development of wind energy and none of these upgrades would be required.

Rheghead
07-Feb-07, 15:10
A simple 'No', as answer to the question, would have sufficed. What about the transmission/heat losses over such long distances?

I think the Beauly to Denny line requires a little more than a bit of additional stringing.
The Orkney to Caithness submarine cable?
The Lewis to 'wherever' submarine cable?
The Scotland to England Interconnector?

That's for starters.

You're quite right though it's going to require development of a fair few wind turbines to drive and finance this little package.

Of course, we could reign in the over-development of wind energy and none of these upgrades would be required.

Do you honestly believe that all those upgrades would put the energy balance of windfarms/renewable energy schemes in the North(because any Pentland firth tidal scheme will need this upgrade as well as windfarms)into the red? If you do then I think you are severely mistaken.

KittyMay
07-Feb-07, 16:28
Do you honestly believe that all those upgrades would put the energy balance of windfarms/renewable energy schemes in the North(because any Pentland firth tidal scheme will need this upgrade as well as windfarms)into the red? If you do then I think you are severely mistaken.

You stated, rather rudely I might add, that I should refrain from posting comments on wind energy if I was not willing to accept that your chosen formula (whatever that is) for the calculation of the carbon footprint of wind was the correct one. I am still in the dark as to which calculation is correct.

I simply asked if upgrades to the gird had been included in this calculation - the one you know without doubt is correct.

I would have thought and hoped that given the potential output from a tidal scheme in the Pentland Firth it is highly unlikely that the electricity will come ashore at any distance from an area of high consumer demand.

I think it's time to acknowledge that we're attempting to debate/argue two very different issues.

You're arguing the case for wind energy as an additional source of energy production, an add-on, in isolation of the wider energy challenge we face. You also argue that wind is the way forward in meeting the renewable energy target and that the target itself is worthy of achieving.

I question the role for large scale commercial wind energy in securing our electricity supply, as part of Scotlands (or indeed the UK's) generating mix. As we don't have an energy strategy for either Scotland or the UK it's impossible to identify that role.
I argue that wind energy is not the most effective way to reduce our carbon emissions and I firmly believe that if the priority was reducing carbon emissions then the wrong target was set.

Thanks anyway, I enjoyed the discussion - most of the time.

Rheghead
07-Feb-07, 23:22
You stated, rather rudely I might add, that I should refrain from posting comments on wind energy if I was not willing to accept that your chosen formula (whatever that is) for the calculation of the carbon footprint of wind was the correct one. I am still in the dark as to which calculation is correct.I haven't come up with a formula bar from suggesting that you take a look at the published papers on the subject of energy balance of windfarms. I was rather hoping that you came up with a formula to prove they are energy inefficient so I could examine it, but no. I haven't been rude btw.

I simply asked if upgrades to the gird had been included in this calculation - the one you know without doubt is correct.What calculation?



I question the role for large scale commercial wind energy in securing our electricity supply, as part of Scotlands (or indeed the UK's) generating mix. As we don't have an energy strategy for either Scotland or the UK it's impossible to identify that role.The HRES was an effective strategy that ensured that the windfarms went up in areas close to the main transmission lines and in areas where the topography was suitable for build. On that skeletal strategy we could go forward in discussing each application. I am sure the existing generators weren't subject to such planning scrutiny and a strategy but they still secure our energy supply.
I argue that wind energy is not the most effective way to reduce our carbon emissions and I firmly believe that if the priority was reducing carbon emissions then the wrong target was set.Again, I have mentioned this before, each unit of wind energy will mitigate 2.5 units of carbon chemical energy due to thermal losses at generation source. How can this be inefficient?


Thanks anyway, I enjoyed the discussion - most of the time.

Thank, same for me.:Razz

golach
09-Feb-07, 15:28
Well done Scotland, we are doing some thing to save the planet at last. This IMO is showing others it can be done, and should continue to be done, until we find a better method.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6344215.stm

Riffman
27-Jul-07, 19:35
I admit I have not read the whole thread, but at 45RPM (most windmills (they are not turbines in the proper sense of the word)) maximum rotational speed) the tip speed is a shade off 300mph for the caithness sized turbines.

That is quite hard to dodge.....

Oh and the effiency of a windmill (turbine thingy) is 10%.... so a 2MW will actually be 20KW....

..which means that all the claims to generate enough power for 6,000 houses means in reality that it is enough for 600 houses.

You may have guess that I am not a fan of them. They are just a poor excuse for renewable energy. Real power comes from biomass and wave energy. Both of which don't make a mess of the landscape.

Rheghead
27-Jul-07, 21:52
Oh and the effiency of a windmill (turbine thingy) is 10%

It depends where they are sited, a badly sited windturbine will of course have a bad load factor, however, if they are sited in good sites they they do quite well.

BTW, you figure is a bit off from all the official figures that I have read, the DTI had the national average figure at 24.1% 2 years ago.

Riffman
27-Jul-07, 22:52
It depends where they are sited, a badly sited windturbine will of course have a bad load factor, however, if they are sited in good sites they they do quite well.

BTW, you figure is a bit off from all the official figures that I have read, the DTI had the national average figure at 24.1% 2 years ago.

Well I was given my figure by a chap who sells them, make what you will of it.