bird strikes & wind farms

[webmannie]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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 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?

[nirofo]

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.