Wildlife

Te affect of turbine factories on wildlife

…like a gathering army ready to wreak the most toxic disturbance of rural life in Scotland since the Highland Clearances. Unless you follow the micro-practices of Government and Local Authority planning you may well not know what is about to happen to the countryside and community life in Scotland. The map shows existing and proposed turbines in Dumfries and Galloway (special thanks to Keith Mycock for creating and maintaining it).

Map Key:

  • Yellow: 0-20m
  • Green: 20-50m
  • Orange: 50-80m
  • Blue: 80+m

There is no distinction shown between turbines already built and those proposed – unless indicated in the information associated with specific turbine markers.


View Turbines in a larger map

Please note: turbines under 80m and outwith planning area 2 (The Stewartry) are not shown (there are so many – we cannot keep pace). In addition there are a few wind farms not yet included because we are awaiting information about the turbine layout.

 

Previous objections to Mayfield do NOT stand – you will need to object again to be counted.

 

Reasons for objection and information to help you can be found by clicking 'Projects in the Region'  then 'Mayfield'

 

Or simply click here

 

 

by Matt Rudd, Sunday Times, www.thesundaytimes.co.uk 17 July 2011

         Are the turbines outside your window yet?

         Well it won’t be long now.


         It’s a full-on invasion.

         
When did wind become big business?

         Is it the only option?

Click here to read Matt Rudd's complete article – courtesy of National Wind Watch

Ok, I admit this article isn't about conventional wind power but it is related to wind of a different variety and CO2 reduction so is considered fair game for our website.

This is the type of story where you think "only in America" but you'd be wrong. 

The incentives in Australia to reduce carbon emissions has encouraged one company to apply for a patent to, and I quote…

"obtain a carbon offset credit or emission permit" for…wait for it…shooting camels from helicopters based on the theory that camels emit enough methane from their rear ends to be impacting climate.

The submission is in places laugh-out-loud funny: "The first method of removal is shoot-to-lie, where aerial based platforms (such as helicopter mounted, animal welfare trained and accredited marksmen) shoot the animals according to welfare standards identified in the Model Code of Practice for the Welfare of Animals: The Camel (Camelus dromedarius) (PISC 2006) and locally relevant Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs), and the carcasses are left." I’m sure the camel will be so comforted by the fact that his killer was "animal welfare trained."

Clcik here to read full article  by Ross Kaminsky,    The American Spectator     (scroll down over half way)

 

By Matt Ridley     Spectator.co.uk      (21/05/11)

 

"The government’s new emissions target will despoil the countryside, rob the poor – and enrich landowners like me"

‘Greener food and greener fuel’ is the promise of Ensus, a firm that opened Europe’s largest (£250 million) bio-ethanol plant at Wilton on Teesside last year, and has now shut it down for lack of profitable customers. This is actually the second shut-down at the plant — which takes subsidies and turns them into motor fuel — the first being a three-week refit to try to stop the stench bothering the neighbours.

Welcome to the neo-medieval world of Britain’s energy policy. It is a world in which Highland glens are buzzing with bulldozers damming streams for miniature hydro plants, in which the Dogger Bank is to be dotted with windmills at Brobdingnagian expense, in which Heathrow is to burn wood trucked in from Surrey, and Yorkshire wheat is being turned into motor fuel. We are going back to using the landscape to generate our energy. Bad news for the landscape.

The industrial revolution, when Britain turned to coal for its energy, not only catapulted us into prosperity (because coal proved cheaper and more reliable than wood, wind, water and horse as a means of turning machines), but saved our landscape too. Forests grew back and rivers returned to their natural beds when their energy was no longer needed. Land that had once grown hay for millions of horses could grow food for human beings instead — or become parks and gardens.

Whether we like it or not, we are now reversing this policy, only with six times the population and a hundred times the energy needs. The government’s craven decision this week to placate the green pressure groups by agreeing a unilateral and tough new carbon rationing target of 50 per cent for 2027 — they wanted to water it down, but were frightened of being taken to judicial review by Greenpeace — condemns Britain to ruining yet more of its landscape. Remember that it takes a wind farm the size of Greater London to generate as much electricity as a single coal-fired power station — on a windy day (on other days we will have to do without). Or the felling of a forest twice the size of Cumbria every year.

Yet this ruthless violation of the landscape is not even the most medieval aspect of the government’s energy policy. Its financing would embarrass even the Sheriff of Nottingham. Every renewable project, from offshore wind farms to rooftop solar panels to bio-ethanol plants, is paid for by a stealth poll tax levied from everybody’s electricity bills called the renewable obligation (RO).

The RO already adds an astonishing £1.1 billion a year to the electricity bills of Britons; by 2020 it could be £8 billion, or 30 per cent extra. Unlike the poll tax, which was merely not progressive, this tax is highly regressive. It robs the poor — including those too poor to pay income tax — and hands much of the money to the landed rich in three different ways: higher wheat and wood prices; rents for wind farms; and the iniquitous ‘feed-in tariff’, by which the person who produces electricity by ‘renewable’ means is paid three times the market rate. As a landowner myself I refuse to join the feeding frenzy of the last two, but I cannot avoid the first.

Lord Turnbull, the former Cabinet secretary, put it this way in a report for the Global Warming Policy Foundation this week: ‘It is astonishing that the Liberals who attach such importance to fairness turn a blind eye to this transfer from poor to rich, running to billions a year. If you live in a council tower block in Lambeth you don’t have much opportunity to get your nose into this trough.’

Driving up the price of electricity this way destroys jobs. One Spanish study suggests 2.2 jobs lost for each one created by green energy schemes, another Scottish one finds 3.7. If you don’t believe the numbers, ask a local widget-maker if the size of his electricity bill affects his ability to take people on or lay them off.

So let’s recap. The current energy policy is taking your money off you through your utility bills, handing that money to a rich landowner — like me — to buy first-growth claret with, putting up the price of your food and your (chipboard) furniture, threatening your job and spoiling your view.

It had better be worth it. The sole intended benefit you will get from all this pain is lower carbon emissions. Not a guarantee of a cooler climate, because Britain is such a trivial part of the world economy, and carbon dioxide’s effect on climate is one of several factors. But at least it will give William Hague a warm glow of satisfaction in showing the Chinese what he calls ‘the UK’s international moral leadership on the issue’.

But notice I used the word ‘intended’. Does any of this actually lower carbon emissions? With the single exception of hydro, not one of the renewables has managed to save an ounce of carbon. Wind is so unreliable that coal-fired stations have to be kept spinning in the background (powering them up and down wastes even more energy and carbon). Wheat for ethanol is grown using tractors running on almost the same amount of diesel — and is anyway full of carbon itself (infra-red rays do not distinguish between carbon atoms from plants that grew yesterday and from plants that grew 300 million years ago). Solar will always be a statistical asterisk in cloudy Britain.

As for wood, consider the effect of a simple rule passed by the London borough of Merton in 2003 and slavishly emulated by planners all over the country. The Merton rule requires all developers who build a building of more than 1,000 square metres to generate 10 per cent of energy ‘renewably’ on site. The effect has been to make it worth my while to thin my woods in Northumberland for the first time in decades.

How so? Faced with the need to find an energy source sufficiently dense to fit on site, developers have turned en masse to wood (or biomass as they prefer to call it). This has led to convoys of diesel lorries chugging through the streets of London to deliver wood to buildings — how very 13th-century! Delivering, drying and burning this wood produces far more carbon dioxide than delivering gas would.

And lo, by bidding up the price of wood, the effect has been to cause landowners to harvest their timber younger than before, which increases carbon emissions. Thus enriched by having lost less money in managing woods, people like me take a holiday — on a jet. So as policy own goals go, the Merton rule is a quintuple whammy. According to one estimate, Britain is producing about six million extra tons of carbon dioxide each year as a result of redirecting its wood supply from current use by the wood-panel and other related industries into energy supply.

The neo-medieval policy of picking winners — or rather losers — creates a salivating lobby for subsidies (even the RSPB takes money from wind farms to shut it up about their eagle killing). But it is saddling ordinary Britons with uncompetitive energy prices, lost jobs, rising fuel poverty, spoiled landscapes — and higher carbon emissions too. Time for a peasants’ revolt.

 

16th May 2011     Article written by TW312 member

 

Mayfield Community Windfarm         7 x 130m wind turbines         Planning Application Ref: 11/P/2/0001

Community Windpower has been advised by the Dumfries and Galloway Council to withdraw their application until they have secured additional data to satisfy a number of consultees, notably:

Scottish Natural Heritage who wish to see further watches carried out to fully assess the impact on two bird species, whooper swan and red kite.  They suggest the period September 2011 to April 2012 for additional watches in relation to whooper swan and May to August watches for red kite.  In addition, they suggest that VP3 should be relocated to a more appropriate position.

Galloway Fisheries Trust  wish to see a survey conducted of the salmonids in the water courses in and around the proposed development and wish to see addressed other shortcomings in the information submitted in the Environmental Statement.

Historic Scotland confirmed that the assessment of potential impacts on cultural heritage assets is inadequate and they detail a number of inadequacies.

The implication of the recommendation to withdraw the application and the additional requirements of the consultees would suggest that this application is now in limbo.  We shall keep an eye out for further developments.
 

If you live close to a proposed wind turbine development and you're not sure how it might affect you – please listen to Jenny's story. Jenny lives within 1 mile of the Dalswinton wind farm – 9 miles from Dumfries & 12 miles from Lockerbie – yet clearly visible from the A75. We could be accused of being alarmist – the problem is, once the turbines are up – it's too late. Action is needed now, so it's important to hear about the experience of those who already have to live with it.

Click on the link below to hear Jenny's story.

Jenny's Story

 

Build enough wind farms to replace fossil fuels and we could do as much damage to the climate as greenhouse global warming

 A report by Mark Buchanan (30/03/11)

 

WITNESS a howling gale or an ocean storm, and it's hard to believe that humans could make a dent in the awesome natural forces that created them. Yet that is the provocative suggestion of one physicist who has done the sums.

He concludes that it is a mistake to assume that energy sources like wind and waves are truly renewable. Build enough wind farms to replace fossil fuels, he says, and we could seriously deplete the energy available in the atmosphere, with consequences as dire as severe climate change.

Axel Kleidon of the Max Planck Institute for Biogeochemistry in Jena, Germany, says that efforts to satisfy a large proportion of our energy needs from the wind and waves will sap a significant proportion of the usable energy available from the sun. In effect, he says, we will be depleting green energy sources. His logic rests on the laws of thermodynamics, which point inescapably to the fact that only a fraction of the solar energy reaching Earth can be exploited to generate energy we can use.

When energy from the sun reaches our atmosphere, some of it drives the winds and ocean currents, and evaporates water from the ground, raising it high into the air. Much of the rest is dissipated as heat, which we cannot harness.

At present, humans use only about 1 part in 10,000 of the total energy that comes to Earth from the sun. But this ratio is misleading, Kleidon says. Instead, we should be looking at how much useful energy – called "free" energy in the parlance of thermodynamics – is available from the global system, and our impact on that.

Humans currently use energy at the rate of 47 terawatts (TW) or trillions of watts, mostly by burning fossil fuels and harvesting farmed plants, Kleidon calculates in a paper to be published in Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society. This corresponds to roughly 5 to 10 per cent of the free energy generated by the global system.

"It's hard to put a precise number on the fraction," he says, "but we certainly use more of the free energy than [is used by] all geological processes." In other words, we have a greater effect on Earth's energy balance than all the earthquakes, volcanoes and tectonic plate movements put together.

Radical as his thesis sounds, it is being taken seriously. "Kleidon is at the forefront of a new wave of research, and the potential prize is huge," says Peter Cox, who studies climate system dynamics at the University of Exeter, UK. "A theory of the thermodynamics of the Earth system could help us understand the constraints on humankind's sustainable use of resources." Indeed, Kleidon's calculations have profound implications for attempts to transform our energy supply.

Of the 47 TW of energy that we use, about 17 TW comes from burning fossil fuels. So to replace this, we would need to build enough sustainable energy installations to generate at least 17 TW. And because no technology can ever be perfectly efficient, some of the free energy harnessed by wind and wave generators will be lost as heat. So by setting up wind and wave farms, we convert part of the sun's useful energy into unusable heat.

"Large-scale exploitation of wind energy will inevitably leave an imprint in the atmosphere," says Kleidon. "Because we use so much free energy, and more every year, we'll deplete the reservoir of energy." He says this would probably show up first in wind farms themselves, where the gains expected from massive facilities just won't pan out as the energy of the Earth system is depleted.

Using a model of global circulation, Kleidon found that the amount of energy which we can expect to harness from the wind is reduced by a factor of 100 if you take into account the depletion of free energy by wind farms. It remains theoretically possible to extract up to 70 TW globally, but doing so would have serious consequences.

Although the winds will not die, sucking that much energy out of the atmosphere in Kleidon's model changed precipitation, turbulence and the amount of solar radiation reaching the Earth's surface. The magnitude of the changes was comparable to the changes to the climate caused by doubling atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide (Earth System Dynamics, DOI: 10.5194/esd-2-1-2011).

For the full report by Mark Buchanan in the New Scientist Magazine (issue 2806) please click here

STOP PRESS

Post Categories

Post Archives