-
You are viewing the forum as a Guest, please login (you can use your Facebook, Twitter, Google or Microsoft account to login) or register using this link: Log in or Sign Up
Just Stop Oil Protesters
- Thread starter PARAGUAY
- Start date
- Status
simon_the_plant_nerd
Member
There is a lot of news articles about wind developments harming bird populations and while it is true, birds have collided with wind turbines and (may) have been displaced or lost habitat directly, it doesn’t really give a full picture.
The RSPB say that “climate change is the greatest long-term threat to nature and people” and that “climate change poses the single biggest threat to birds and other wildlife.”
They recognise the significance of wind farms in the transition to net-zero but also the impact of poorly planned and constructed wind farms. Generally, in Scotland bird collisions with wind farms are occasional but relatively rare events. A condition of planning permission for wind turbine sites normally includes surveying locations to avoid protected sites for birds, nest sites and other areas of high flight activity.
They have notably criticised developments which have been given permission and may cause harm to bird populations.
It is, in my opinion, a responsible approach based on balance.
EDIT: I believe this is also the view of NatureScot. I appreciate I haven’t quoted sources here. I’m on mobile and not so easy. Should you want sources, I’ll do it tomorrow when I’m at the laptop.
EDIT2: While I wasn’t going to draw comparisons too much in this as we can all appreciate that pretty much every construction project in Scotland has impacted nature in some way, it’s interesting reading to look at the RSPB BirdCrime analysis from last month. It’s disheartening to see that endangered birds are illegally poisoned, trapped or shot throughout the UK with no signs of the problem slowing down or stopping based on 15 years of data.
Last edited:
G
Guest
Guest
It takes a great deal of oil to make the petrochemicals needed to manufacture, and transport the components to make wind turbines and to keep them lubricated throughout their lifespan. They have a lifespan of around 20 years and will barely compensate for the CO2 and damaging emissions given off during their manufacture and installation.
Especially since the line between their potential energy yield and actual yield is often blurred or glossed over. In other words they only operate at their optimum efficiency some of the time. And typically operate at only around 25% of their theoretical maximum, maybe around 45% offshore, for the duration of their lifespan.
And then there's the problem of disposing of them at the end of that lifespan. It's claimed that many of the components are recyclable. But recycling is way down the waste management hierarchy after "Prevent, Reduce, and Reuse". And recycling also takes energy, usually in the form of fossil or hydrocarbon fuels. The turbines themselves present another problem and will inevitably end up in landfill.
Green energy is not environmentally friendly.
Check out another article I posted earlier in the conversation. Or not, as is obviously the case.
Green energy ain’t so green. Compared to oil and gas it’s a dilute source of energy, and therefore has a greater impact on the environment.
I think what is often lacking in our understanding of these issues is wholistic joined up thinking. Or, it's easy to take a myopic view and not really consider the universal picture. And I also think it's convenient and easier to accept what were told on face value without thinking critically. I always made a point of telling my students to question everything, especially if it's a majority view.
"Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to reform (or pause and reflect)."
Mark Twain
Last edited by a moderator:
PARAGUAY
Member
Not sure if climate change and global warming was a thing when Jacques Cousteau warned of how we had to treat the seas and oceans with respect because back in the 70s and 80s .Because goverments and commercial operators were spending billions exploiting them for oil, minerals and the emergence of the factory ship which could catch the fish and prepare and can them before returning to shipyards putting local fishermen all over the globe redundant as fish stocks dwindled. There is Heiko Bleher exploring habitats ,l remember his recreation aquarium of a biotope were he visited ,when asked about it said he thought he would do it because l doubt the habitat will be in existence in a couple of years
Anyone whose seen it Sir David Attenboroughs narration of Penguins returning to breed where they had bred for centuries from a few thousand to less than a hundred ,were there was snow it's now just rain and many just perished in the rain
Anyone whose seen it Sir David Attenboroughs narration of Penguins returning to breed where they had bred for centuries from a few thousand to less than a hundred ,were there was snow it's now just rain and many just perished in the rain
Maf 2500
Member
Yes indeed, I think you just described the typical mindset of a climate change denier....
simon_the_plant_nerd
Member
This is demonstrably false. The specific branch of environmental research is called “life cycle assessment” and while it is difficult to fully determine the impact decommissioning may have (too many unknowns when determining end of life), it is typically recognised that the lifecycle of a wind turbine will have substantially lower co2 outputs per MWh than most legacy energy generation sources.
That said, the solution isn’t to simply construct lots of wind farms. Wind shall play a part in a diversified portfolio of energy generation and storage to reach net zero targets. Other parts of that portfolio may be nuclear or gas, grid scale batteries and suitable infrastructure for the construction, maintenance and decommissioning.
And yes, oil is required in the production of wind farms, as it is required in the manufacturing of just about everything.
G
Guest
Guest
You're right in some respects @simon_the_plant_nerd. But not all externalities are always taken in to account when calculating the cost of green energy and specifically wind turbines. Either way it’s important to acknowledge that green energy is not a panacea for climate change. And you quite rightly mention diversification of the energy generation portfolio. As unpopular as it it is, I think nuclear energy will have a huge role to play going forward.
www.mdpi.com
The Cost of Wind: Negative Economic Effects of Global Wind Energy Development
This paper provides a structured literature review of the negative economic effects associated with the development of wind energy and synthesized the evidence at an abstract level. We then developed an analytical framework to systematically review economic issues such as volatility, electricity...
www.mdpi.com
Last edited by a moderator:
simon_the_plant_nerd
Member
I’m not involved in the economics of energy transition. I leave that for people much more qualified than me in that field. That’s why I didn’t mention it.You're right in some respects @simon_the_plant_nerd. But not all externalities are always taken in to account when calculating the cost of green energy and specifically wind turbines. Either way it’s important to acknowledge that green energy is not a panacea for climate change. And you quite rightly mention diversification of energy portfolio. As unpopular as it it is, I think nuclear energy will have a huge role to play going forward.
The Cost of Wind: Negative Economic Effects of Global Wind Energy Development
This paper provides a structured literature review of the negative economic effects associated with the development of wind energy and synthesized the evidence at an abstract level. We then developed an analytical framework to systematically review economic issues such as volatility, electricity...
I only addressed the fallacy in your post regarding the “damaging emissions given off during their manufacturing and installation”. Considering a full lifecycle analysis of wind turbines purely on the environmental impact compared with a coal fired power plant for example, it has a substantially lower carbon emissions per MWh generated.
The infrastructure and the technology are still young so if I were to speculate, it’s more expensive per MWh than a coal plant but like I said, not my area.
G
Guest
Guest
Thanks Simon. I've read that, and i know most the CO2 emissions are supposedly front loaded. But I'm not sure it takes in to account all the operations involved in constructing, erecting and maintaining a wind turbine. That is mining and refining the necessary minerals, transport, construction, infrastructure, erection, maintenance and decommissioning. And is that calculation based on the theoretical maximum energy output? And does that take in to account manufacturing emissions of other pollutants such as methane etc? Methane is a greenhouse gas many times more potent than CO2
Last edited by a moderator:
Have you seen the wind turbine blade graveyards as they cannot be recycled?
Wind Turbine Blades Can’t Be Recycled, So They’re Piling Up in Landfills
Companies are searching for ways to deal with the tens of thousands of blades that have reached the end of their lives.
www.bloomberg.com
Again, wind turbines are made of common materials, no different to oil rigs, or nuclear reactors, the only difference is they don't leech anything harmful. It's useful to apply arguments across the board rather than picking on one type of device. I am willing to listen to arguments for any way of producing energy that actively ends climate breakdown: it may be that one form of generation will emerge, but it seems more likely that a been will work best, depending on climate. Orkney produces over 100% of its energy and the turbines there integrate well with standing stones and hydrogen energy and cows. But you wouldn't necessarily focus on solar there. On Orkney you see the remains of windmills from the 1950s and 1970s, and it's bearable, even a kind of archaeology.
Agreed that nuclear power is key to keeping our energy hungry world spinning.
Also, while mainstream in some significant political quarters, contrarian climate change denialism is beginning to look rather quaint in 2024. It's well argued here that the real climate change deniers of the day might well be some of the scientists holding back on telling the complete story of the pace of accelerating change and it's likely consequences:
The science-based institutions on which we depend to address this crisis have comprehensively failed us. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is incapable of telling the whole truth about accelerating climate change; the Conference of the Parties (under the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change) has been co-opted by the fossil fuel lobby to the point of total corruption...By not calling out these incontrovertible realities, mainstream scientists are at risk of becoming the new climate deniers.
Also, while mainstream in some significant political quarters, contrarian climate change denialism is beginning to look rather quaint in 2024. It's well argued here that the real climate change deniers of the day might well be some of the scientists holding back on telling the complete story of the pace of accelerating change and it's likely consequences:
The science-based institutions on which we depend to address this crisis have comprehensively failed us. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is incapable of telling the whole truth about accelerating climate change; the Conference of the Parties (under the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change) has been co-opted by the fossil fuel lobby to the point of total corruption...By not calling out these incontrovertible realities, mainstream scientists are at risk of becoming the new climate deniers.
Hi all,
I honestly have no idea whether you think that these "references" really are relevant, or they are all you've got? And you know they are worse than "junk bonds", but don't care.
cheers Darrel
That is the real issue.
Here we go again, just once can you cite a genuine piece of research? <"About">Green energy ain’t so green. Compared to oil and gas it’s a dilute sources of energy, and therefore has a greater impact on the environment.
This is science - <"Just Stop Oil Protesters">, that isn't.
I honestly have no idea whether you think that these "references" really are relevant, or they are all you've got? And you know they are worse than "junk bonds", but don't care.
cheers Darrel
Last edited by a moderator:
G
Guest
Guest
Green energy perhaps has its place amongst a portfolio of alternative energy, and @simon_the_plant_nerd CO2 emissions per MWh are lower especially considering economy of scale. But like I mentioned above, I don't think it'll ever provide a viable alternative to burning hydrocarbons. Nuclear is the only other viable option if burning hydrocarbons is so abhorrent.
Aside from posting accessible articles that deliver an alternative point of view, I've also presented peer reviewed literature that categorically shows that anthropogenic climate change is difficult to separate from natural forcers.
And like i said right from the get go
Perhaps the science is starting to tell a different story. And there is no anthropogenic climate change to deny.
Aside from posting accessible articles that deliver an alternative point of view, I've also presented peer reviewed literature that categorically shows that anthropogenic climate change is difficult to separate from natural forcers.
And like i said right from the get go
mort
Member
- Joined
- 15 Nov 2015
- Messages
- 2,406
I'm a fan of birds and what most people don't consider is how they see the world. We have forward looking vision but can't see people sneaking up on us, whereas birds have better side vision and find it harder to see forwards. This is the reason for many birdstrikes and why wind farms are problematic (it's also because they put many in migratory routes or where the wind is funnelled). It is now possible to buy glass with an almost imperceptible inlay which birds can see but we generally can't and it's reduced birds strike massively. In windfarms it seems simply painting the blades to make them more visible works wonders, reducing strikes by up to 70% and that before using any other methods such as acoustic warning calls.
This shows a simple experiment and write up from a Norwegian research group
Or from the mainstream media
This shows a simple experiment and write up from a Norwegian research group
Or from the mainstream media
Black turbine blade 'can cut bird deaths'
Painting one blade of a wind turbine black could cut wind farms' fatal bird strikes by up to 70%.
www.bbc.co.uk
G
Guest
Guest
Artist designs camouflage wind turbine, still waiting to get one made....I'm a fan of birds and what most people don't consider is how they see the world. We have forward looking vision but can't see people sneaking up on us, whereas birds have better side vision and find it harder to see forwards. This is the reason for many birdstrikes and why wind farms are problematic (it's also because they put many in migratory routes or where the wind is funnelled). It is now possible to buy glass with an almost imperceptible inlay which birds can see but we generally can't and it's reduced birds strike massively. In windfarms it seems simply painting the blades to make them more visible works wonders, reducing strikes by up to 70% and that before using any other methods such as acoustic warning calls.
This shows a simple experiment and write up from a Norwegian research group
Or from the mainstream media
Black turbine blade 'can cut bird deaths'
Painting one blade of a wind turbine black could cut wind farms' fatal bird strikes by up to 70%.www.bbc.co.uk
Attachments
- Status
