[News] Wind energy - number one source of energy for first time

[Thunder Bolt]

The veiw from Brighton beach looking out at that wind farm is hidious.
Maybe they should look at putting them in mountain ranges, as fewer people live in those.

Hideous? When did you last see it?
Windmills are great. They’ve been used for centuries.

 

[Nobby Cybergoat]

Hideous? When did you last see it?
Windmills are great. They’ve been used for centuries.

I think they are beautiful. I look at them and they give me a sense of optimism

 

[Zeberdi]

My understanding is that the number of birds killed by wind turbines is far far fewer than those killed by burning fossil fuels/the environmental impact of this. No I don't have a source/reference to post now, might be able to find out more or someone else can help me?

That’s not really how it’s quantified and there are no accurate figures available - it is the accumulative stressors on bird populations that threaten species survival including: the longterm impact of climate change but also from habitat destruction through human development, pollution, invasive species, over-fishing etc - often, anyone of these can be the last straw in local populations falling below sustainability levels. While offshore wind energy development is crucial to responding to fossil fuel triggered climate change, the global spread of windfarms are presenting a significant risk to wildlife.

The impacts of climate change on individual species is also mixed - some species adapt better than others by shifts in distribution, migration or just an ability to adapt quicker to phenological changes and food availability depending on their particular niche feeding preferences. We should not be adding more anthropogenic stressors to the list above by covering our mountaintops and seas in wind turbine installation without proper mitigation of the risks of mortality by direct collision or displacement from feeding areas due to installations.

Seabirds are particularly vulnerable to immediate direct mortality impact from turbine blade offshore installations because of feeding patterns, and flight height and nocturnal feeding/low level migration - even more so in poor visibility in bad weather - birds are particularly attracted to lights on migration. They are also displaced by installations and destruction of the habitat from offshore windfarm. Additionally, it’s hard to quantify precisely the mortality of offshore installations because carcasses sink. However, it is the increasing scale of installations that present the basis of the scale of risk of significant population damage and one which scientists are particularly concerned about.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0006320722003482?via%3Dihub

Cats kill far more birds than wind farms ever will. So let’s ban cats

sorry but where are your figures for that? Cats only pose risk to entire local populations of birds if they run havoc on island communities with ground nesting birds - otherwise, the 25m or so birds killed each year in our back gardens is spread through a number of different species. In addition, the prey species of cats (at least in the UK) tend to be small songbirds that have large and often more than one brood so able to absorb losses on a larger scale, than say an eagle that has taken many years to reach breeding maturity who is killed by an impact with a turbine - I am not defending cats and it is just one more added stressor to birds already in decline, primarily to do with human development/habitat destruction but it doesn’t have the same level of local population impact as poorly sited windfarm installations can have on entire seabird colonies or migrating raptors.

Artifical feeding/ie bird feeders have boosted survival rates of garden birds which has helped mitigate the impact of cat predation but, much in the same way, risk mitigation in windfarm installations is crucial and part of that can be compensatory mitigation where reducing other population stressors can offset the mortality of those killed by windfarm blades. Eg, installing powerline discs to prevent powerline collisions has help offset the mortality for Bald Eagles killed by turbine collision in the States.

Collisions with turbines can not be completely avoided but better EI scrutiny and monitoring is crucial as is achieving net positive impacts via compensatory mitigation on a regional scale.

I could provide numerous papers on the above but if people really want to protect our wildlife from climate change, plastering our seas and mountain tops with windfarm installations is not the answer - drastically reducing our consumption of all forms of energy is.

 

[portlock seagull]

Marvellous to see this, albeit so frustrating that this wasn't done many moons ago when it was obvious this was the way to go.

Wind is main source of UK electricity for first time

Wind power overtakes gas for the first time in the UK during first three months of year.

www.bbc.co.uk

"Wind turbines have generated more electricity than gas for the first time in the UK.
In the first three months of this year a third of the country's electricity came from wind farms, research from Imperial College London have shown."

I agree. Tidal energy is sustainable and plentiful. Moreover, it produces clean CURRENTS…

Ok, I’ll get my coat

 

[Goldstone Guy]

That’s not really how it’s quantified and there are no accurate figures available - it is the accumulative stressors on bird populations that threaten species survival including: the longterm impact of climate change but also from habitat destruction through human development, pollution, invasive species, over-fishing etc - often, anyone of these can be the last straw in local populations falling below sustainability levels. While offshore wind energy development is crucial to responding to fossil fuel triggered climate change, the global spread of windfarms are presenting a significant risk to wildlife.

The impacts of climate change on individual species is also mixed - some species adapt better than others by shifts in distribution, migration or just an ability to adapt quicker to phenological changes and food availability depending on their particular niche feeding preferences. We should not be adding more anthropogenic stressors to the list above by covering our mountaintops and seas in wind turbine installation without proper mitigation of the risks of mortality by direct collision or displacement from feeding areas due to installations.

Seabirds are particularly vulnerable to immediate direct mortality impact from turbine blade offshore installations because of feeding patterns, and flight height and nocturnal feeding/low level migration - even more so in poor visibility in bad weather - birds are particularly attracted to lights on migration. They are also displaced by installations and destruction of the habitat from offshore windfarm. Additionally, it’s hard to quantify precisely the mortality of offshore installations because carcasses sink. However, it is the increasing scale of installations that present the basis of the scale of risk of significant population damage and one which scientists are particularly concerned about.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0006320722003482?via%3Dihub

sorry but where are your figures for that? Cats only pose risk to entire local populations of birds if they run havoc on island communities with ground nesting birds - otherwise, the 25m or so birds killed each year in our back gardens is spread through a number of different species. In addition, the prey species of cats (at least in the UK) tend to be small songbirds that have large and often more than one brood so able to absorb losses on a larger scale, than say an eagle that has taken many years to reach breeding maturity who is killed by an impact with a turbine - I am not defending cats and it is just one more added stressor to birds already in decline, primarily to do with human development/habitat destruction but it doesn’t have the same level of local population impact as poorly sited windfarm installations can have on entire seabird colonies or migrating raptors.

Artifical feeding/ie bird feeders have boosted survival rates of garden birds which has helped mitigate the impact of cat predation but, much in the same way, risk mitigation in windfarm installations is crucial and part of that can be compensatory mitigation where reducing other population stressors can offset the mortality of those killed by windfarm blades. Eg, installing powerline discs to prevent powerline collisions has help offset the mortality for Bald Eagles killed by turbine collision in the States.

Collisions with turbines can not be completely avoided but better EI scrutiny and monitoring is crucial as is achieving net positive impacts via compensatory mitigation on a regional scale.

I could provide numerous papers on the above but if people really want to protect our wildlife from climate change, plastering our seas and mountain tops with windfarm installations is not the answer - drastically reducing our consumption of all forms of energy is.

I'm all for strategies to reduce the effect wind turbines have on birds/wildlife as described in the link you posted (thank you) - that would be great. Like you I want us to protect our wildlife. I still think we urgently need more renewable energy and part of that is likely to be wind. "Drastically reducing our consumption of all forms of energy" - how? We could insulate homes better but what else? Drastically reducing energy consumption seems like a one in a million shot to me based on what I know at the moment.

Anyone seen Big Oil v the World BTW? It's on BBC Iplayer - worth watching if you're interested in energy policy, fossil fuels and climate (although quite depressing).

 

[Fungus]

I think they are beautiful. I look at them and they give me a sense of optimism

Yes, I remember going to California for the first time, in 1996, and seeing the hills topped with elegant wind turbines - as you say, it felt optimistic. I still feel that way today when I see them dotted around Cornwall - I think they add to the landscape.

 

[Machiavelli]

You don’t get many bats 7 miles out to sea…

You did, shirley, but now they're no longer. Bl00dy wind farms.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

Yes, I remember going to California for the first time, in 1996, and seeing the hills topped with elegant wind turbines - as you say, it felt optimistic. I still feel that way today when I see them dotted around Cornwall - I think they add to the landscape.

People complain that they’re noisy which is rubbish. Friends of ours lived just outside of Huddersfield with turbins at the foot of their garden and we could hardly hear anything.

 

[OzMike]

Hideous? When did you last see it?
Windmills are great. They’ve been used for centuries.

I was there last July and saw it then, looks awful.

 

[Scappa]

The veiw from Brighton beach looking out at that wind farm is hidious.
Maybe they should look at putting them in mountain ranges, as fewer people live in those.

As hideous as oil rigs/refineries, gas/shale extraction and processing, chimney stacks belching smoke, coal mines etc?

 

[OzMike]

As hideous as oil rigs/refineries, gas/shale extraction and processing, chimney stacks belching smoke, coal mines etc?

Yes, asthetically.

 

[Javeaseagull]

Renewable energy does not just have to save the planet, it has to make a profit, doesn’t it. That’s the way we roll. It seems to me that the one constant source is wave power and could be utilised to help protect out shores from erosion. The sun doesn’t always shine and the wind doesn’t always blow but the tides keep on rising and falling. The only problem is in getting it to pay its’ way. The Monarch usually owns the coastlines so maybe Charlie can kill two birds with one stone, well three really if it makes him more money.