Comment posted on RSPB says Bagmoor Wind appeal on Stacain windfarm damages renewables industry’s good name by Webcraft
In the USA it is estimated that wind turbines kill 10,000 – 40,000 birds a year.
Compare this with:
Feral and domestic cats: Hundreds of millions
Power lines: 130 million – 174 million
Windows (residential and commercial: 100 million – 1 billion
Pesticides: 70 million
Automobiles: 60 million – 80 million
Lighted communication towers: 40 million – 50 million
Kind of puts it in perspective I think . . .
Webcraft also commented
- Hi Karl,
I see that at least the NTA group has now removed the statement from the NTA site about being pro-renewables. Like all groups directly ‘threatened’ by wind turbines you are now prepared to resort to any old argument, myth or tabloid article to condemn the entire technology out of hand.
The death of 40,000 birds in the US due to wind turbines when compared to up to a billion or more through other man-made sources IS insignificant – particularly if you believe that the decarbonisation of the world economy is essential to preserve this planet for our children. It seems certain that many more birds will die and many whole species will become extinct if we allow CO2 emissions to continue on their current path.
In the NTA’s own words:
We do not inherit the land from our ancestors; we borrow it from our children
It would be interesting to be able to hear what our children have to say in 50 years time when they find that we preserved our cherished back yard views at the expense of their quality of life.
- OK, show me a dead eagle killed by a wind turbine in the UK.
The RSPB are a cosy middle class club of twitchers. They pretty much single-handedly stopped the Severn barrage because a few waders might have been discomforted, leaving us with the necessity to build 8-10 nuclear power stations instead. (Which also isn’t going to happen btw).
If we are serious about stopping the destruction of our environment then it is time we realised that uncontrolled CO2 emissions are going to kill a lot more cuddly things than wind turbines are.
- If you don’t support wind that’s fine but don’t get behind a trumped up charge just to support your own general prejudice against wind
Hear hear. I understand that some people don’t like looking at wind turbines and worry about their property prices, but the constant reiteration of mythical environmental, economical and health issues gets very wearing.
As for the RSPB and their much vaunted corncrake programme -I recommend reading ‘Isles of the West’ by Ian Mitchell for another perspective. Or you can read an article by Ian for Country Illustrated magazine at http://www.countryclubuk.com/ci/ci79-corncrake.pdf
Recent comments by Webcraft
- Russell admits vehicle element of former Dunoon ferry was indeed publicly funded
A threnody is a song, hymn or poem of mourning composed or performed as a memorial to a dead person.Quite appropriate. The promise that was the original ForArgyll is indeed quite dead.
I think I will stick to the Cowal Courier from now on. That’s a proper news site that seems to have your measure.
Toodle pip!
- Russell admits vehicle element of former Dunoon ferry was indeed publicly funded
Oh do cheer up Newsroom! The hybrid ferries are non-military ships being built on the Clyde. Surely something to cheer about?Re. your concerns about staff training – I think you will find that staff require retraining whenever a new vessel is brought into service . . . each boat is different.
And please do stop all this ‘we hear rumours’ rubbish. No-one believes you. Come up with facts and their sources like a real journalist or stop smearing doom and gloom. Less fuel is less fuel. And the new ferries are also designed to have lower maintenance costs.
Now, here’s some more potential good news on the ship technology front for Scotland . . . CMAL has been commissioned to carry out a feasibility study for Scottish Enterprise to evaluate the technical and commercial possibilities of using hydrogen fuel cells to power zero emission ferries. If this goes ahead it could put Scotland at the forefront of another new technology, with the consequent design, development and manufacturing of hybrid engines being located here. Great news – though I expect ForArgyll will want to talk it down.
- New Mobile Theme for ForArgyll.com
The mobile version isn’t triggered by my iPad, which is a good thing – but it does come up in an iPhone emulator I tried.Strangely enough specific mobile versions of websites (as opposed to apps – which are here to stay) may be a relatively short-lived phenomenon. As bandwidth on phones increases dramatically and most displays become HD 1024 pixels wide or more so standard websites become more and more useable. I don’t come across many that don’t display well on the iPad.
A mobile version was far more essential on older 320 pixel devices like Nokias, but these will die out. The non-mobile version of this site (for example) is quite useable on a new smartphone once it is rotated horizontally.
Apps that do specific things on mobile devices are another matter – they are definitly here to stay. And for blog sites like this the mobile version definitley increases useability (but see below).
Some feedback – I couldn’t view the comments on the mobile version, but I was using an emulator rather than an actual smartphone. Can other people view and post comments OK on the new mobile site using an iPhone or Andriod phone?
- Clyde shipyards at risk – news by year end
Just testing the comments function on the mobile version of the site.(Using an online iPhone emulator)
- Scottish Conservatives underline common ownership of Saltire
It is Scottish Labour that really needs to up its game dramatically if it wants to keep a credible presense in Holyrood in the 2016 election. What Ruthie and the Scottish Conservative Party do is of little relevance.According to Newsnet Scotland a recent poll shows Westminster voting intentions in Scotland as:
SNP 39%
Labour 33%
Conservative 16%
LibDem 6%
Others 7%If this doesn’t ring alarm bells for Labour nothing will.
powered by SEO Super Comments
I think RSPB need to have a good look at themselves before slinging mud in this way. Having attended both public inquiries, it was clear to me that the impacts on golden eagles should this wind farm go ahead were shown to be negligible or non-existant.
If RSPB are so concerned, why didn’t they appear at EITHER of the public inquiries?
It seems that RSPB have got a bee in their bonnet on this particular wind farm and are consequently unable to see or understand the rational arguments which went before the inquiries. Read the evidence that was submitted to the inquiries before releasing comments like this. Shame on you RSPB.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Hi,
I whole heartedly support the RSPB’s attitude to this windfarm proposal. I know that the RSPB go to great lengths to be pro-active in all EIA’s using objectivety rather than subjective speal.
The objectors on Tiree to the Argyll Array defer to RSPB’s expertise in regards to the horrors that await Tiree’s coastline…The crofters have a long history working alongside the RSPB in regards to the corncrakes and have always admired both their practical solutions and when nessassary their intervention etc…
This windfarm nonsense has gone on far too long…It is time to stop.
Bothan nam Fear
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Sorry Simon, I disagree. I fully support the RSPB’s comments. It’s time that those of us who understand the destructive issues associated with renewable development stood their ground.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Considering that the RSPB is generally very pro-wind – and has made a great deal of money out of the wind industry through its ‘RSPB Energy’ deal with Scottish and Southern Energy (SSE) – it is rather silly to claim that any anti-wind prejudice.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
There clearly is prejudice in this instance and for the record it was not that many moons ago that every development was objected to as a matter of course and this case is well old, believe me. I also attended every public meeting associated with this development. There was no danger shown to Eagles at the public hearings, even the old age pensioner that lives in the area that has not had any off spring in many a year was going to be looked after with a free feed from Argyll Estates. Further there has never been an instance of any Eagles ever being killed by a Turbine in the UK. This area was also designated a protected area after the developers had received planning permission from Argyll & Bute Council as a means to stop the developer at any cost by SNH. When the RSPB chap did turn up at an early planning meeting he had not even visited the proposed site but objected on general grounds. At a later meeting he had still not visited the site and to my knowledge has still never visited the sight but the developer provided an in depth impact statement, which cost a significant amount of money to compile.
I do wish that those that those post comments on this board would at least know the facts of the case. If you don’t support wind that’s fine but don’t get behind a trumped up charge just to support your own general prejudice against wind or believe that RSPB are doing themselves any favours with comments on this development. This case was full of doggy dealings by SNH & Co that leave our government’s adviser in a very poor light indeed. They got a bee in their bonnet when Argyll & Bute Council rejected their poorly prepared argument at the planning stage and spent a ton of public money having it called in. There is no mention of the huge cost to the developer. Recall that the developer was awarded planning permission and it was then SNH that had it called in, it is SNH that has spent all the public money not the developer.
For the record I have no association what so ever with the developer but I was the chairman of the Inveraray Community Council and represented my communities interests at every meeting. I am speaking from position of knowledge unlike the RSPB and most of the posters on this page.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
John Patrick may say that he is “speaking from [a] position of knowledge” unlike, he appears to claim, everyone else, but his knowledge fails him when he claims that “This area was also designated a protected area after the developers had received planning permission from Argyll & Bute Council as a means to stop the developer at any cost by SNH”. The Special Protected Area designation which covers the area is not one that is put in place by SNH, unlike, for example, SSSIs, but a European designation. The proposal for the suite of six Golden Eagle SPAs came from the Scottish Government (who were informed by the EU that they hadn’t given enough protection to the Golden Eagle) and the government asked SNH, as is usual for European designations (SPAs and SACs), to carry out the necessary consultations. The results of the consultations on such designations are passed by SNH to the government who then take the decision to declare (or sometimes not declare, or sometimes amend) the designated areas. John Patrick’s attacks on SNH are therefore inaccurate and based on a lack of knowledge.
As to whether or not the RSPB representative had visited the site, what, exactly, was a visit meant to show him? That it was a windy hilltop? The necessary assessment regarding the proximity of the proposed wind turbines to the eagles’ nesting and hunting grounds can be done without a visit. The RSPB and SNH have a depth of knowledge on the siting of windfarms in relation to birds and other wildlife throughout Scotland which no single developer, or indeed, their environmental consultant, can possibly match.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
If you don’t support wind that’s fine but don’t get behind a trumped up charge just to support your own general prejudice against wind
Hear hear. I understand that some people don’t like looking at wind turbines and worry about their property prices, but the constant reiteration of mythical environmental, economical and health issues gets very wearing.
As for the RSPB and their much vaunted corncrake programme -I recommend reading ‘Isles of the West’ by Ian Mitchell for another perspective. Or you can read an article by Ian for Country Illustrated magazine at http://www.countryclubuk.com/ci/ci79-corncrake.pdf
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Don’t expect to read either Mitchell’s book or that article and to learn the truth. Both contain misleading statements, exaggerations and not a few errors of fact. Mitchell seems to think that just because there are lots of corncrakes elsewhere in Europe, we shouldn’t bother to try and save our own small population. If we went down that route, you could argue that we shouldn’t bother to protect a majority of Britain’s birds, wild flowers and much else because there are far more of them elsewhere in Europe. Mitchell carefully doesn’t mention anywhere that the Rio Biodiversity Convention to which the UK government is a signatory, and which the Scottish government strongly supports, requires countries to maintain or enhance the variety of species (biodiversity) within their boundaries including both the populations *and* their ranges. Why should we lose iconic species like corncrakes just because there are many elsewhere? This question has been put to Mitchell, but I’ve not heard an answer from him.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
OK, show me a dead eagle killed by a wind turbine in the UK.
The RSPB are a cosy middle class club of twitchers. They pretty much single-handedly stopped the Severn barrage because a few waders might have been discomforted, leaving us with the necessity to build 8-10 nuclear power stations instead. (Which also isn’t going to happen btw).
If we are serious about stopping the destruction of our environment then it is time we realised that uncontrolled CO2 emissions are going to kill a lot more cuddly things than wind turbines are.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I can’t. As far as anyone knows, no eagle has been killed by a wind turbine in the UK, though relatively small numbers of other birds have. And the obvious reason (to me if not to you) why no eagle has been killed by a turbine is because, thanks to the efforts of the conservation bodies, but also through the cooperation of the more responsible developers, windfarms in the UK (unlike in several other countries, e.g. USA and Norway) have not been put up in places where they pose major threats to eagles. And that is the situation which the opposition to Stacain wishes to continue.
As for the Severn Barrage, I’m sure the RSPB would be flattered by your claim that they had that much influence. They certainly objected – mentioning the 69,000 waders that use the estuary (slightly more than your “a few”), but if you examine the proposal carefully as well as the reasons for its cancellation, you will find that the economic situation was what killed it off. Indeed, the government announcement at the time said that it could well be looked at again if market conditions improved.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Webcraft,we all know your perspective on the wind industry.
So when will the power companies release the CO2 footprint of their turbine developments…both onshore and offshore…including concrete, steel,composite construction and fabrication…peat land damage and CO2 emissions generated…and then the CO2 generated by the conventional powerstations providing the base load.
How can you say on one hand that these behmoths of industry are here to save the planet and on the other hand support their construction at all costs…It is not a sustainable argument.
All turbines and Arrays have to go through a planning process…this involves their impact on the environment they are been placed in (this process itself is currently a make it up as you go along farce)…some go ahead, some don’t…the democratic process has to be applied. There are the extreme anti windfarm people and the extreme pro lobby.
Somwhere in the middle is common sense and often the folks who generate the so called NIMBY stand point, these are the people who apart from being the guardians of their home area (the affected area) are also the folk who act as the catalist for debate.
Some you win/ some you loose.
From a personal standpoint I welcome all the displaced (Sea) eagles who need a new hunting area to Tiree…all the great northen divers, all the migratory species, the Sulair, the Petrel, all the basking sharks, all the cold water coral etc, etc, etc…to the Skerryvore reef, where currently there is a safe refuge from the commercial carpet baggers.
Bothan nam Fear
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
UK or Norway ? USA or elswhere…? the populations in the UK are lower than the aforementioned it’s not a case of if it will happen…just when it will happen.
Interesting to note that both a Sea Eagle and a Golden eagle spent a few months on Ceann a Mhara last year…as well as another few thousand other birds.
Thats 5km from the lease area of the AA.
Hoping they return this year.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
A neighbour of mine put in a 2.5KW wind turbine on his property. The first week there were three dead blackbirds, cut to ribbons lying on the road in direct line with his turbine.
Prior to the turbine being erected we used to hear lots of geese flying overhead in the dark during the winter months. Now we never hear any.
Recently I have read in the press that the number of blackbirds has greatly reduced and the experts do not know why. I will give them a reason. The blackbirds are being killed by the spinning blades of the numerous wind turbines errected throughtout Scotland and beyond.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Treblet’s comments pose several questions. Has he considered that the blackbirds might have been killed by traffic on the road? Or if not can he explain what they were doing flying 10 m or so above the ground? Why does he think geese are going to be disturbed by a small domestic turbine? And isn’t every point around the turbine “in a direct line” with it?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Alex McKay.
I walked down the road every day prior to the wind turbine being put in and NEVER saw any dead blackbirds cut to ribbons lying on the road. On the day in question it was misty and breezy and only several days after the wind turbine started operation. The blackbirds probably did not see the blades until it was too late.
This is not a small wind turbine as it is about 15 metres high although at 2.5KW it does not generate sufficient power to boil a kettle of water! When our dogs went out last thing at night after midnight we used to see and hear the geese flying low overhead. Since this wind turbine has been erected we no longer hear or see low flying geese in the dark. The geese are not stupid.
I would be interested to know if anyone checks to see how many dead birds are lying in close proximity to wind turbines, however the wind turbine owners will be reluctant to let any responsible person check.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I think geese are pretty stupid actually. I’ve never met an intelligent one in any case, although I confess that they are probably more intelligent than the poster of the above comment.
Why don’t you go and see how many dead birds you can find underneath a wind farm? Nobody’s stopping you, as you claim – you have a right to roam up to any wind farm. I’m guessing you won’t find any.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
In the USA it is estimated that wind turbines kill 10,000 – 40,000 birds a year.
Compare this with:
Feral and domestic cats: Hundreds of millions
Power lines: 130 million – 174 million
Windows (residential and commercial: 100 million – 1 billion
Pesticides: 70 million
Automobiles: 60 million – 80 million
Lighted communication towers: 40 million – 50 million
Kind of puts it in perspective I think . . .
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Webcraft…Perspective,
Yes..It kind of puts wind turbines in perspective when the only pro argument is if you pigeon hole it with other notable problems. Thx
Expanding…so,if we kill all the poor old moggies or at least have them wear bells/bury the Beauly Powerlines/brick up all the windows (good insulation didn’t the Georgians do this or TAX ?)/ Grow and buy Green organic food/get priced off the roads in our V8 American cadillacs/turn off all the lighted communication towers (or use just red lights ?) Yes it puts things in perspective…there will be only one major killer of avian speices except for maltese hunters….WINDTURBINES
Bothan nam Fear
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Hi Karl,
I see that at least the NTA group has now removed the statement from the NTA site about being pro-renewables. Like all groups directly ‘threatened’ by wind turbines you are now prepared to resort to any old argument, myth or tabloid article to condemn the entire technology out of hand.
The death of 40,000 birds in the US due to wind turbines when compared to up to a billion or more through other man-made sources IS insignificant – particularly if you believe that the decarbonisation of the world economy is essential to preserve this planet for our children. It seems certain that many more birds will die and many whole species will become extinct if we allow CO2 emissions to continue on their current path.
In the NTA’s own words:
We do not inherit the land from our ancestors; we borrow it from our children
It would be interesting to be able to hear what our children have to say in 50 years time when they find that we preserved our cherished back yard views at the expense of their quality of life.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Treblet
Thanks for the additional information. I’m still puzzled why, and how, three blackbirds should apparently be flying 15 m above the ground and all get chopped up by a domestic turbine. When I said it was small, I was referring to the diameter of the blades which for a 2.5Kw unit are about 2 to 2.5m. Rotating blades of this size are pretty visible to a flying bird, I would have thought. And how far were the corpses from the turbine?
As to monitoring casualties under turbines, there have been several studies in the UK, some lasting many years.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
The RSPB should be just as concerned about damage to its reputation from its support of wind-farms.
We should all be aware of how little wind-power is contributing compared to what is claimed.
Analysis of government figures (available on-line)shows that between 2002 and 2009 (latest figures) the UK fleet of wind-turbines saved, on average, around 623 tonnes of CO2 emissions per annum per megawatt of installed capacity.
Installed capacity in 2010 was 5,378 megawatts giving a total saving of around 3.35 million tonnes of CO2 per annum. Total CO2 UK emissions are currently around 600 million tonnes per annum. This saving represents just over half of one percent of UK CO2 emissions. We can quickly calculate, therefore, that to save just 5% of our total CO2 UK emissions with wind-power will take a ten-fold increase in the UK wind-turbine fleet. This will cause immense damage to our landscapes and cost the electricity consumer hundreds of billions of pounds.
A little research leads me to the conclusion that investing this money in the insulation of buildings and improving the fuel efficiency of transport would yield far greater CO2 savings. And as these measures are generally self-financing, i.e. they yield a positive return on the investment, all of the money wasted on wind-energy could be creating large numbers of jobs in the economy.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0