| Proposed Wind Farm in Washington D.C. Scrubbed
Posted: 10 Dec 2011 04:48 AM PST Plans to build a 32-turbine wind farm near the coast of Washington in a key breeding area for a threatened seabird have been halted to the relief of conservationists. |
Proposed Wind Farm in Washington D.C. Scrubbed
December 11, 2011
ALLT DUINE: HELP US ACHIEVE AN OBJECTION!
December 11, 2011
PETITION – Wind farms and Planning Inspectors
November 29, 2011
PETITION – Wind farms and Planning Inspectors
Responsible department:
Department for Communities and Local Government
Stop Planning Inspectors summarily overturning the decisions of local planning departments, thus resulting in wind farms being built against the wishes of the local population.
http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/5955
Thank you for your participation.
Best regards,
Dominic Mette
Secretary-General, EPAW
Forward this email to a friend
EPAW Says EU Governments did not do their homework on wind energy
November 13, 2011This press release just out from EPAW.
EU governments did not do their homework on wind energy
It now appears that wind farms may have no benefits at all
According to the European Platform Against Wind Farms (EPAW), which represents over 500 associations from 23 countries, the National Renewable Energy Action Plans adopted by EU States in June 2010 have failed to answer two essential questions: how much will be saved in greenhouse gas emissions by the EU target of 20% renewable energy by 2020, and how much will it cost Society to implement this policy (1). The Platform argues that it is a violation of the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe’s Aarhus Convention on Human and Environmental Rights, which is a mandatory part of EU law. (2)
From a political point of view, remarks EPAW, it is nothing short of irresponsible that billions upon billions of euros of public money would be spent on “green investments” without first conducting feasibility studies showing the expected results in terms of CO2 saved. “After all”, says its CEO Mark Duchamp, “using less fossil fuels is the whole purpose of this pharaonic investment which, on the negative side, destroys 2 – 5 jobs for everyone it creates (3), stalls the recovery of the EU economy, threatens the existence of the euro, destroys the tourism potential of countless natural and cultural assets, causes losses in property value in the billions of euros, affects the health of wind farm neighbours (noise + infrasounds), is driving many species of birds and bats to extinction, etc.”
What is happening now, according to EPAW, is that the public is slowly awakening to the fact that wind farms may not be saving anything at all in terms of fossil fuels burnt and CO2 emitted. That’s mainly because the wind farms’ erratic production force fossil-fuel power plants, which are needed to back them up when wind is not optimal, to spend much more fuel working in stop-and-go mode – much like a car in city traffic as opposed to highway. “As a matter of fact”, recalls Duchamp, “in 2010 the Spanish government paid a little over 1 billion euros to these plants, to compensate them for the impact of wind and solar on their operation.”
The Platform draws attention to ”the Bentek report” (4), which shows that wind farms, when increased emissions from back-up plants are considered, save much less CO2 and other gasses than what is claimed by the wind industry, governments, and green activists. Says Mark: “if you deduct from this much smaller quantity of savings the additional emissions caused by fossil fuels burnt to manufacture, transport, install, and maintain wind turbines and their power lines; if you consider that these come on top of fossil fuels burnt to build gas-fired or coal-fired power plants to regulate and back up the erratic and unreliable production of wind energy; if you deduct the CO2 released into the atmosphere by the oxidisation of peat in countries like the UK or Ireland; if you also deduct lost CO2 savings resulting from the vast quantities of natural carbon sinks (peat, forests, vegetation in general) that are being destroyed by the large footprint of wind farms; if you deduct the transmission loss of electricity produced far away from where it is consumed (about 9%); if you deduct all this from the meager savings evidenced by the Bentek study, then it is quite possible that the overall savings in CO2 and other gasses may in fact be negative – i.e. wind farms would cause overall use of fossil fuels, and CO2 emissions, to increase by a few percentage points. Indeed, a European study by Dr Udo concludes on this possibility (5).”
It is noteworthy, stresses EPAW, that the massive build-up of wind farms in countries like Denmark or Germany has not caused any measurable reduction in CO2 emissions or use of fossil fuels. In Europe, the Irish grid operator EIRGRID shows on its website real data on wind energy production and CO2 emissions, from which similar observations may be drawn. Dr Fred Udo, a distinguished engineer from CERN in Geneva, now retired, did a study based on Eirgrid data. His conclusions put in doubt the very usefulness of wind energy (5).
The North American Platform Against Windpower (NA-PAW) coincides. “In North America” comments her CEO, Sherri Lange, “studies on the efficacy of wind energy are notoriously absent from policy documents on that form of energy. As in other matters, our governments blindly follow influential lobbies, in this case Green Activism and Big Wind. This is not a proper way to determine policy.”
Contacts:
Mark Duchamp +34 693 643 736 (Spain) Skype: mark.duchamp
CEO, EPAW www.epaw.org
save.the.eagles@gmail.com
(1) – EU National Renewable Energy Action Plans: 19 of the 27 countries have left in blank the assessment of estimated costs and benefits of their renewable energy policy support measures, including expected GHG reduction and job creation (Article 5.3). The others have been fudging the issue.
http://ec.europa.eu/energy/renewables/doc/nreap__adoptedversion__30_june_en.pdf
Here is the case of Belgium:
“No such assessment was carried out in the framework of this plan.”
http://ec.europa.eu/energy/renewables/transparency_platform/doc/national_renewable_energy_action_plan_belgium_en.pdf
And the case of Scotland:“ Table 4.1 lists those environmental topics for which data has not been practical to obtain and provides a summary of the approach taken to address the issue.
Box 4.1 SEA Objectives
- Biodiversity, fauna and flora: Avoids damage to, and seek to enhance, designated sites and protected species?
- Conserves and enhances Scotland’s natural heritage?
- Population: Safeguards or enhances the living environments of communities?
- Protects the noise environment of communities?
- Human health: Has no adverse impact on human health?
- Soil: Protects or enhances the quality of soils?
- Water: Protects the water environment?
- Air: Reduces pollution or emissions to air generated by the energy sector and protects air quality?
- Climate factors: Reduces emissions of greenhouse gases, including CO2?
- Material assets: Reduces the proportion of wastes disposed of to landfill?
- Protects Scotland’s assets of economic and recreational value, including those of importance for the tourism industry?
- Reduces/minimises the use of natural resources in the energy sector?
- Cultural heritage: Protects, conserves and enhances, where appropriate, Scotland’s historic environment (including the setting of listed buildings and Scheduled Ancient Monuments)?
- Landscape: Respects and protects the character, diversity and special qualities of Scotland’s landscape?”
http://scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2006/08/14102833/9
In the words of Pat Swords, Fellow of the Institution of Chemical Engineers and a Chartered Environmentalist: “All that expenditure and impact on the landscape and biodiversity for a question mark!”
(2) – Pat Swords takes the EU energy plan to the UNECE Compliance Committee for violations under the Aarhus Convention http://live.unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/env/pp/compliance/C2010-54/Correspondence%20with%20communicant/toCommC54_invitation2discussion.pdf
Next step in the procedure is to take place in December 2011.
(3) – Green jobs destroy other jobs: http://brunoleonimedia.servingfreedom.net/WP/WP-Green_Jobs-May2010.pdf
http://www.juandemariana.org/pdf/090327-employment-public-aid-renewable.pdf
(4) – The Bentek Report: “The research in this report, however, suggests that wind energy, as it has so far been developed by PSCO in Colorado and by numerous utilities in ERCOT, has had minimal, if any, impact on CO2, yet has lead to a significant increase in SO2 and NOX”.
http://www.bentekenergy.com/documents/bentek_how_less_became_more_100420-319.pdf
(5) – The (Dr) Fred Udo study: “The consequence is that an investment of billions of Euros in wind turbines produces not more than a few per cent reduction in CO2 output.
This analysis does not take into account the energy necessary to ramp the conventional generators up and down nor the energy to build wind turbines nor the extra transmission lines with their additional losses.
It is highly probable, that taking all these effects into account will show, that the few per cent gain in CO2 will revert to a loss (i.e. an increase in CO2).”
http://www.epaw.org/documents.php?article=backup11
http://www.epaw.org/documents.php?article=backup11
ALLT DUINE DEMONSTRATION CALLED OFF
November 3, 2011URGENT: ALLT DUINE DEMONSTRATION CALLED OFF
The planned demonstration on 8th November outside the Council Headquarters, Glenurquhart Road, Inverness, has been called off.
Today, the Save Monadhliath Mountains campaign team was informed by council officers that the Allt Duine s.36 application will not come before the Highland Council’s Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey Planning Application Committee, as anticipated.
This allows those supporters who have yet to lodge an objection time to do so. A template letter of objection is available online to send to the relevant councillors and MSPs, all of whom are listed on the campaign website. To contact the Highland Council directly to register your objection go to: www.highland.gov.uk or email planning@highland.gov.uk quoting the application reference 11/00853/S36.
Thank you to all who offered their support and planned to attend the demonstration. Apologies, for the change of plan.
Save Monadhliath Mountains campaign team
Allt Duine – a wind farm too far
Windfarms and mass bird fatality events
October 31, 2011Massive Bird Kill at West Virginia Wind Farm
Posted: 29 Oct 2011 08:22 AM PDT
With the deaths of nearly 500 birds at the Laurel Mountain wind facility earlier this month, three of the four wind farms operating in West Virginia have now experienced large bird fatality events, according to American Bird Conservancy (ABC), the nation’s leading bird conservation organization.
Read full article on FocusingOnWildlife.com
According to the article above, 75% of operational wind farms in West Virginia have been associated with mass killings of birds.
While Canadian studies have established that turbine-related bat deaths are caused by sudden lethal changes in air pressure, people are still wondering why it is that birds collide with wind turbines.
Logic suggests that it is a question of visibility. Night strikes aside, it’s possible that the victims are confused by the apparently slower rotation of the blades nearer the hub, and extrapolating from what they can see, they miscalculate their chances of flying safely through the space of rotor arc closer to the faster moving tips which may appear speed-blurred to a state of reduced visibility for them.
Certainly nothing in nature moves the way turbine blades do, with the exception perhaps of a certain type of spider in Namibia that cart-wheels down sand dunes as a method of rapid transit! You may have seen footage of this creature on BBC’s excellent series Life On Earth.
Conventional evolutionary pressures will not have prepared birds for the range of motion or variation in perceived speed of turbine rotor blades.
Biomass heating, air, ground and water source heat pumps, anaerobic digestion and solar thermal and solar voltaic panels are kinder to the wildlife and to the skyline.
Could planning reforms threaten countryside?
September 29, 2011Thursday 29 September 2011
Log in | Register| Subscribe
Please have a look at this Telegraph.co.uk article with a series of interesting links.
Hands Off Our Land: Why do MPs remain silent over planning reforms?
Time is running out to amend the planning proposals that would desecrate Britain’s countryside.
Hands Off Our Land
