|
|
 | | From: | Professor Ludwig | | Subject: | RSPB - A COSY NEST IN THE WIND? | | Date: | Fri, 07 Jan 2005 09:36:05 +0000 |
|
|
 | What a strange hypocritical web the RSPB weave. If money is involved
they are prepared to forfeit the conservation argument.
pinched from
http://tinyurl.com/6m5lr
By Dr John Etherington
Wind turbines have been suspected of killing birds and more recently
it has been found that they kill bats. There has been serious argument
about how many, and whether such killing has impact on population
numbers. At some wind farms mortality has certainly been serious,
particularly among raptors, whose hunting behaviour makes them
particularly vulnerable.....
You can read about golden eagle deaths and a current controversy in my
article, Altamont Pass wind turbines kill birds, elsewhere on this
site. Despite a very high mortality of eagles and other raptors at
Altamont, generating licences are currently being renewed there, for
1500 turbines. Naturally there are howls of environmental protest.
In the UK, the Royal Society for Protection of Birds (RSPB) has argued
that such mortality is unusual and that well-sited wind turbines pose
little threat to birds. The Society treats this as an established
fact, despite the fact that a great deal of research is still being
done, many ornithologists consider the matter sub judice, and some
believe there are significant problems at most sites.
Members of the RSPB will be well aware that the Society strongly
supports renewable energy. Almost every issue of the RSPB, magazine,
Birds contains articles promoting renewable energy and
advertisements for the Societys green electricity marketing
consortium, RSPB Energy.
All things being equal this seems an exemplary activity. The Society
is one of the most trusted science-based environmental organisations
in the world - isnt it? It tells its members repeatedly that climatic
change and sea-level rise threaten bird habitats, all over the globe
and presumably most members accept this is an established scientific
fact.
To combat these threats, RSPB sells green electricity, it gives
support to many renewable technologies and it actively promotes the
deployment of windpower. These activities must be OK - surely? RSPB
will have access to the best scientific and technological advice so we
members have little option but to believe it.
Unfortunately all things are not equal, and the green world is not a
transparent clear sea - more like a thick pea soup concealing
unidentified and unpleasant things.
WHO ADVISES RSPB?
I have been concerned for several years about the RSPBs stand on this
whole matter. I have exchanged several letters and e-mails with RSPB,
Wales, challenging their basic tenet that the building of wind
turbines might, firstly, have a significant effect on global CO2
concentration and secondly, somehow prevent climatic warming and sea
level rise.
This isnt the place to recount chapter and verse of the exchange, but
in one of these letters I asked where the RSPB obtained their
engineering advice. Who counsels them on the saving of CO2-emission by
wind turbines and the proportion of this saving which might be
dissipated (or not) by backup generation?
Most of the advice has come from the British Wind Energy Association
(BWEA) and from the industry itself. The RSPB did give me the name of
one independent power engineering consultant, but five minutes with
Google established that he, also, was a BWEA adviser - later confirmed
by the RSPB (Ref 2).
So much for the trustworthy and balanced science-base which we
naively might have believed underpinned RSPBs stance on this matter!
MONEY AND MARKETING
The RSPB profits from marketing green electricity through its RSPB
Energy consortium with Scottish and Southern Energy.
Scottish and Southern Energy is one of the largest energy companies in
the UK with nearly 5 million customers and an ownership interest in
over 7,000 MW of generation capacity, most of which is fossil fuelled.
As a bizarre twist to the green image of RSPB Energy, its partner,
Scottish and Southern Energy has a fixed contract to buy a great deal
of electricity from Scotland's nuclear stations (Ref.3).
Oddly enough only a tiny 3.33% of RSPB Energys electricity is claimed
to be from windpower. An overwhelming 90% comes from refurbished
hydroelectric facilities. This is because large-scale hydroelectricity
is not eligible for Renewables Obligation [RO] payments but if it has
been refurbished it qualifies as green (Ref. 4).
In 2002, RSPB Energy claimed to supply 10,000 homes (this would be
about 5 MW). The great majority of the electricity comes from
refurbished pre-existing large hydroelectric plant, which has been
in place for many years. Thus RSPB Energys contribution to the
greening of the electricity market is relatively slight, as this
electricity was green before the word was coined, and arguably has
been hijacked to serve a political agenda! For many years it was fed
into the Grid as part of a diverse complement of generation and with
no special recognition - now it belongs to a minority of special
green purchasers.
Because of the RO restriction it is unlikely that any more large-hydro
will be built, and RSPB Energy will have to seek its further supplies
in other ways. If they are to be substantial, it will of necessity be
from wind, and we must remember that many other companies - ten or
more - are also seeking supplies of electricity, which can be labelled
green.
In 2002, the RSPBs Head of Climate Change Policy, John Lanchbery,
wrote ".... our 'investment fund' will be utilised to build renewable
generation on some of our reserves
.so our customers not only have
green electricity, they are also responsible for 'additional' projects
being built that would not happen otherwise. (Ref.5).
Do most RSPB members know that it is intended to build power stations
on RSPB reserves?
The Wales office has attempted to reassure me that such building of
wind or water generation would be of small scale - but what would be
the point of that? Except perhaps as a green advertisement - a
political statement.
WHEN IS SUPPORT JUST TOO MUCH?
Some months ago, the web-site Yes2wind featured the diary of Adam
Twine from the Vale of White Horse in Oxfordshire. It recorded his
struggle to build a wind farm at Watchfield, about five miles from
the magnificent Uffington White Horse.
One entry in Mr Twines diary caught my eye. It read: - RSPB write in
with letter of support.
I never take such things at face value and actually disbelieved that
the RSPB would do such a thing. I e-mailed the RSPB saying that I
assumed Mr Twine had perhaps exaggerated lack of objection into
support. How wrong can you be?
The RSPBs replied that: - The casework officer wrote in November
2002 in support of this, noting that it posed no significant threat to
birds and their habitats and would contribute to the Government's
targets for renewable energy. We have on one other occasion written in
support of a windfarm proposal - in Eastern Britain also over a year
ago (Ref. 1).
The RSPBs e-mail ended by saying: - We can not definitively rule out
the possibility of the RSPB choosing to support a windfarm application
at some point in the future.
I have many other concerns about the RSPBs relationship with the
green electricity industry, but lets just look at Mr Twines
situation and other circumstances in which the RSPB may write letters
of support.
Apparently, in the four years to 2002, the RSPB has assessed 163
windfarm proposals objected to 27 and expressed concerns about another
29. So 107 applications have passed through the system with no
objection from the RSPB - exactly two thirds.
Now, this is where all things are not equal, and there is no level
playing field.
Why did the RSPB not go the whole hog and support all 107 applications
rather than just two of them? What was SO special about the two - one
at Watchfield and the other in E. England? Was there definitive
evidence that they would harm no birds - or other creatures - and that
the remaining 105 might do so?
Of course there wasnt. Science is not like that. The best we can say
is that it is unlikely that the Watchfield turbines will do harm but
does the RSPB believe, by inference, that other 105 will probably do
more damage? If so why not a precautionary objection?
This is a nonsensical decision-process. It is divination, rather than
science and RSPB members deserve a satisfactory explanation of what is
being done in their name.
SUMMING UP
As a member of the RSPB I am deeply disturbed by much that I have
recounted here.
Why have I not taken it up with the Society directly? The short answer
is that I have tried. I have freely been given factual evidence and
help by letter and e-mail. However, any attempt to argue the validity
of this approach to regulating CO2-emission by a ludicrously small
intervention in electricity generation, has been blocked by the mantra
which says, in effect: - we have to do it or face disaster (Mr Blair
once said something like this, I believe).
I have also written four letters to Birds magazine raising these
points, none of which have been published. However there are over a
million members so this is hardly surprising and Im not complaining.
My intention in writing this article is to alert RSPB members to
problems of which they may be unaware.
Did you - fellow members - know that the Society, for quite arbitrary
reasons, writes letters of support for windpower planning
applications? I didnt.
Did you know it rejects virtually all evidence that wind turbines
significantly harm birds? Until recently I didnt. Indeed until
recently I had doubts about significant numbers of bird-deaths, but
the growing record of bird carnage all over the world, particularly
large raptors, and the very recent addition of bat-deaths in
substantial numbers has convinced me that there is a problem. This
must be addressed BEFORE, not after, we build huge drift nets of
these inappropriate machines with blade-tips whirling at 200 to 300 km
per hour..
Did you know that Scottish and Southern Energy, half of the RSPB
Energy consortium, is buying more than 5 TWh of nuclear-generated
electricity per year? Until recently I didnt. This far exceeds the
green electricity used by its 10,000 customers, which must be less
than 0.1 TWh (Ref. 6)! I would not comment on this, only the greens
keep smearing me as pro-nuclear cos I dislike wind turbines and the
RSPB has brushed aside my comments on the engineering institutions
views on fossil-fuel backup to wind, because they are interested in
promoting a new generation of nuclear power stations!
Is it sensible for a wildlife organisation to recommend the building
of wind turbines when we dont know enough about their extended and
unknown environmental impact - what about bats at Watchfield for
example? Did anyone look? Rural Oxfordshire is more likely to be bat
habitat than a Scottish mountainside?
Has the RSPB ever ONCE asked members if they have a concern for the
landscape of Britain and whether the supposed benefits of windpower
will offset the dreadful damage it will do? Or whether the memebrs
agree that there are benefits at all?
I cannot refrain from citing a letter, which won the star rating and a
Ł109 prize in the current Winter Issue of Birds.
Written by Juliet Hole, about beauty and windpower, it ends: - The
countryside won't be needed and it will not matter what it looks or
sounds like, for technology will provide 'alternative' means of
preserving species. Is this what we want? If not, we come back to the
realisation that beauty is what conservation is for.
The Editor replied: - Perhaps Juliet Hole has a point. What do you
think?
Well friends and fellow members of the RSPB, what do you all think?
You had better tell the Society quickly or it will no longer matter.
© John Etherington 2003
REFERENCES
1. E-mail from RSPB Wales, Cardiff, dated 21.11.03. Copy available.
2. I will not name the consultant here, but can give his name to
anyone who requires further evidence.
3. Scottish Hydro-Electric Transmission Ltd. "Seven Year Statement
2002", Page 11: -
"As part of the Nuclear Energy Agreement, SSE Energy Supply Ltd
(SSEESL) has contracts for 25.1% of the output from the nuclear power
stations at Torness and Hunterston which are owned and operated by
British Energy."
4. RSPB Energy Review Issue 2 (2002) presents the breakdown of supply
between different renewable sources. New large hydro is not eligible
for the RO because the environmental impact of impoundment is believed
to outweigh the benefits of saving fossil fuel and CO2-emission. Only
run-of-the-river small hydro, which attracts RO, is likely to be
built in future
5. RSPB Energy Review Issue 2 (2002), page 12. Article by J. Lanchbery
6. Hunterston (1190 MW) and Torness (1250 MW) between them can
generate more than 20 TWh/y. If S & S E buys 25%, this will be at
least 5 TWh/y. RSPB Energy supplied 10,000 homes in 2002 - a total of
about 5 MW running consumption, which will total much less than 0.1
TWh/y, an insignificant amount of electricity beside the nuclear
component!
|
|
| | From: | Fred Bear | | Subject: | Re: RSPB - A COSY NEST IN THE WIND? | | Date: | Fri, 07 Jan 2005 13:23:44 +0000 |
|
|
| On Fri, 07 Jan 2005 09:36:05 +0000, Professor Ludwig
wrote:
>What a strange hypocritical web the RSPB weave. If money is involved
>they are prepared to forfeit the conservation argument.
>
>pinched from
>
>http://tinyurl.com/6m5lr
>
> By Dr John Etherington
>
>Wind turbines have been suspected of killing birds and more recently
>it has been found that they kill bats. There has been serious argument
>about how many, and whether such killing has impact on population
>numbers. At some wind farms mortality has certainly been serious,
>particularly among raptors, whose hunting behaviour makes them
>particularly vulnerable.....
>
>You can read about golden eagle deaths and a current controversy in my
>article, âAltamont Pass wind turbines kill birdsâ, elsewhere on this
>site. Despite a very high mortality of eagles and other raptors at
>Altamont, generating licences are currently being renewed there, for
>1500 turbines. Naturally there are howls of environmental protest.
>
>In the UK, the Royal Society for Protection of Birds (RSPB) has argued
>that such mortality is unusual and that well-sited wind turbines pose
>little threat to birds. The Society treats this as an established
>fact, despite the fact that a great deal of research is still being
>done, many ornithologists consider the matter sub judice, and some
>believe there are significant problems at most sites.
>
>Members of the RSPB will be well aware that the Society strongly
>supports renewable energy. Almost every issue of the RSPB, magazine,
>âBirdsâ contains articles promoting renewable energy and
>advertisements for the Societyâs âgreenâ electricity marketing
>consortium, RSPB Energy.
>
>All things being equal this seems an exemplary activity. The Society
>is one of the most trusted science-based environmental organisations
>in the world - isnât it? It tells its members repeatedly that climatic
>change and sea-level rise threaten bird habitats, all over the globe
>and presumably most members accept this is an established scientific
>fact.
>
>To combat these threats, RSPB sells âgreen electricityâ, it gives
>support to many renewable technologies and it actively promotes the
>deployment of windpower. These activities must be OK - surely? RSPB
>will have access to the best scientific and technological advice so we
>members have little option but to believe it.
>
>Unfortunately all things are not equal, and the âgreenâ world is not a
>transparent clear sea - more like a thick pea soup concealing
>unidentified and unpleasant things.
>
>WHO ADVISES RSPB?
>
>I have been concerned for several years about the RSPBs stand on this
>whole matter. I have exchanged several letters and e-mails with RSPB,
>Wales, challenging their basic tenet that the building of wind
>turbines might, firstly, have a significant effect on global CO2
>concentration and secondly, somehow prevent climatic warming and sea
>level rise.
>
>This isnât the place to recount chapter and verse of the exchange, but
>in one of these letters I asked where the RSPB obtained their
>engineering advice. Who counsels them on the saving of CO2-emission by
>wind turbines and the proportion of this saving which might be
>dissipated (or not) by backup generation?
>
>Most of the advice has come from the British Wind Energy Association
>(BWEA) and from the industry itself. The RSPB did give me the name of
>one âindependentâ power engineering consultant, but five minutes with
>Google established that he, also, was a BWEA adviser - later confirmed
>by the RSPB (Ref 2).
>
>So much for the trustworthy and balanced âscience-baseâ which we
>naively might have believed underpinned RSPBâs stance on this matter!
>
>MONEY AND MARKETING
>
>The RSPB profits from marketing âgreenâ electricity through its RSPB
>Energy consortium with Scottish and Southern Energy.
>
>Scottish and Southern Energy is one of the largest energy companies in
>the UK with nearly 5 million customers and an ownership interest in
>over 7,000 MW of generation capacity, most of which is fossil fuelled.
>As a bizarre twist to the âgreenâ image of RSPB Energy, its partner,
>Scottish and Southern Energy has a fixed contract to buy a great deal
>of electricity from Scotland's nuclear stations (Ref.3).
>
>Oddly enough only a tiny 3.33% of RSPB Energyâs electricity is claimed
>to be from windpower. An overwhelming 90% comes from ârefurbishedâ
>hydroelectric facilities. This is because large-scale hydroelectricity
>is not eligible for Renewables Obligation [RO] payments but if it has
>been ârefurbishedâ it qualifies as âgreenâ (Ref. 4).
>
>In 2002, RSPB Energy claimed to supply 10,000 homes (this would be
>about 5 MW). The great majority of the electricity comes from
>refurbished pre-existing âlargeâ hydroelectric plant, which has been
>in place for many years. Thus RSPB Energyâs contribution to the
>greening of the electricity market is relatively slight, as this
>electricity was âgreenâ before the word was coined, and arguably has
>been hijacked to serve a political agenda! For many years it was fed
>into the Grid as part of a diverse complement of generation and with
>no special recognition - now it belongs to a minority of special
>âgreenâ purchasers.
>
>Because of the RO restriction it is unlikely that any more large-hydro
>will be built, and RSPB Energy will have to seek its further supplies
>in other ways. If they are to be substantial, it will of necessity be
>from wind, and we must remember that many other companies - ten or
>more - are also seeking supplies of electricity, which can be labelled
>âgreenâ.
>
>In 2002, the RSPBâs Head of Climate Change Policy, John Lanchbery,
>wrote ".... our 'investment fund' will be utilised to build renewable
>generation on some of our reservesâŠ.so our customers not only have
>green electricity, they are also responsible for 'additional' projects
>being built that would not happen otherwise.â (Ref.5).
>
>Do most RSPB members know that it is intended to build power stations
>on RSPB reserves?
>
>The Walesâ office has attempted to reassure me that such building of
>wind or water generation would be of small scale - but what would be
>the point of that? Except perhaps as a âgreenâ advertisement - a
>political statement.
>
>WHEN IS SUPPORT JUST TOO MUCH?
>
>Some months ago, the web-site Yes2wind featured the diary of Adam
>Twine from the Vale of White Horse in Oxfordshire. It recorded his
>struggle to build a wind âfarmâ at Watchfield, about five miles from
>the magnificent Uffington White Horse.
>
>One entry in Mr Twineâs diary caught my eye. It read: - âRSPB write in
>with letter of support.â
>
>I never take such things at face value and actually disbelieved that
>the RSPB would do such a thing. I e-mailed the RSPB saying that I
>assumed Mr Twine had perhaps exaggerated lack of objection into
>âsupportâ. How wrong can you be?
>
>The RSPBâs replied that: - âThe casework officer wrote in November
>2002 in support of this, noting that it posed no significant threat to
>birds and their habitats and would contribute to the Government's
>targets for renewable energy. We have on one other occasion written in
>support of a windfarm proposal - in Eastern Britain also over a year
>agoâ (Ref. 1).
>
>The RSPBs e-mail ended by saying: - âWe can not definitively rule out
>the possibility of the RSPB choosing to support a windfarm application
>at some point in the future.â
>
>I have many other concerns about the RSPBs relationship with the
>âgreenâ electricity industry, but letâs just look at Mr Twineâs
>situation and other circumstances in which the RSPB may write letters
>of support.
>
>Apparently, in the four years to 2002, the RSPB has assessed 163
>windfarm proposals objected to 27 and expressed concerns about another
>29. So 107 applications have passed through the system with no
>objection from the RSPB - exactly two thirds.
>
>Now, this is where all things are not equal, and there is no level
>playing field.
>
>Why did the RSPB not go the whole hog and support all 107 applications
>rather than just two of them? What was SO special about the two - one
>at Watchfield and the other in E. England? Was there definitive
>evidence that they would harm no birds - or other creatures - and that
>the remaining 105 might do so?
>
>Of course there wasnât. Science is not like that. The best we can say
>is that it is unlikely that the Watchfield turbines will do harm but
>does the RSPB believe, by inference, that other 105 will probably do
>more damage? If so why not a precautionary objection?
>
>This is a nonsensical decision-process. It is divination, rather than
>science and RSPB members deserve a satisfactory explanation of what is
>being done in their name.
>
>
>SUMMING UP
>
>As a member of the RSPB I am deeply disturbed by much that I have
>recounted here.
>
>Why have I not taken it up with the Society directly? The short answer
>is that I have tried. I have freely been given factual evidence and
>help by letter and e-mail. However, any attempt to argue the validity
>of this approach to regulating CO2-emission by a ludicrously small
>intervention in electricity generation, has been blocked by the mantra
>which says, in effect: - âwe have to do it or face disasterâ (Mr Blair
>once said something like this, I believe).
>
>I have also written four letters to âBirdsâ magazine raising these
>points, none of which have been published. However there are over a
>million members so this is hardly surprising and Iâm not complaining.
>
>My intention in writing this article is to alert RSPB members to
>problems of which they may be unaware.
>
>Did you - fellow members - know that the Society, for quite arbitrary
>reasons, writes letters of support for windpower planning
>applications? I didnât.
>
>Did you know it rejects virtually all evidence that wind turbines
>significantly harm birds? Until recently I didnât. Indeed until
>recently I had doubts about significant numbers of bird-deaths, but
>the growing record of bird carnage all over the world, particularly
>large raptors, and the very recent addition of bat-deaths in
>substantial numbers has convinced me that there is a problem. This
>must be addressed BEFORE, not after, we build huge âdrift netsâ of
>these inappropriate machines with blade-tips whirling at 200 to 300 km
>per hour..
>
>Did you know that Scottish and Southern Energy, half of the RSPB
>Energy consortium, is buying more than 5 TWh of nuclear-generated
>electricity per year? Until recently I didnât. This far exceeds the
>âgreenâ electricity used by its 10,000 customers, which must be less
>than 0.1 TWh (Ref. 6)! I would not comment on this, only the âgreensâ
>keep smearing me as pro-nuclear âcos I dislike wind turbines and the
>RSPB has brushed aside my comments on the engineering institutionsâ
>views on fossil-fuel backup to wind, because they are âinterested in
>promoting a new generation of nuclear power stationsâ!
>
>Is it sensible for a wildlife organisation to recommend the building
>of wind turbines when we donât know enough about their extended and
>unknown environmental impact - what about bats at Watchfield for
>example? Did anyone look? Rural Oxfordshire is more likely to be bat
>habitat than a Scottish mountainside?
>
>Has the RSPB ever ONCE asked members if they have a concern for the
>landscape of Britain and whether the supposed benefits of windpower
>will offset the dreadful damage it will do? Or whether the memebrs
>agree that there are benefits at all?
>
>I cannot refrain from citing a letter, which won the star rating and a
>ÂŁ109 prize in the current Winter Issue of âBirdsâ.
>
>Written by Juliet Hole, about beauty and windpower, it ends: - âThe
>countryside won't be needed and it will not matter what it looks or
>sounds like, for technology will provide 'alternative' means of
>preserving species. Is this what we want? If not, we come back to the
>realisation that beauty is what conservation is for.â
>
>The Editor replied: - âPerhaps Juliet Hole has a point. What do you
>think?â
>
>Well friends and fellow members of the RSPB, what do you all think?
>You had better tell the Society quickly or it will no longer matter.
>
>© John Etherington 2003
>
>
>REFERENCES
>
>1. E-mail from RSPB Wales, Cardiff, dated 21.11.03. Copy available.
>
>2. I will not name the consultant here, but can give his name to
>anyone who requires further evidence.
>
>3. Scottish Hydro-Electric Transmission Ltd. "Seven Year Statement
>2002", Page 11: -
>"As part of the Nuclear Energy Agreement, SSE Energy Supply Ltd
>(SSEESL) has contracts for 25.1% of the output from the nuclear power
>stations at Torness and Hunterston which are owned and operated by
>British Energy."
>
>4. RSPB Energy Review Issue 2 (2002) presents the breakdown of supply
>between different renewable sources. New âlargeâ hydro is not eligible
>for the RO because the environmental impact of impoundment is believed
>to outweigh the benefits of saving fossil fuel and CO2-emission. Only
>run-of-the-river âsmallâ hydro, which attracts RO, is likely to be
>built in future
>
>5. RSPB Energy Review Issue 2 (2002), page 12. Article by J. Lanchbery
>
>6. Hunterston (1190 MW) and Torness (1250 MW) between them can
>generate more than 20 TWh/y. If S & S E buys 25%, this will be at
>least 5 TWh/y. RSPB Energy supplied 10,000 homes in 2002 - a total of
>about 5 MW running consumption, which will total much less than 0.1
>TWh/y, an insignificant amount of electricity beside the nuclear
>component!
The RSPB are rapidly turning into the largest CONservation group in
the UK, add to this news the fact that they slaughter millions of
animals each year and you have a serious CON going on, RSPB members
should rebel.
|
|
| | From: | Brian Ludwig | | Subject: | Re: RSPB - A COSY NEST IN THE WIND? | | Date: | Fri, 07 Jan 2005 21:25:08 GMT |
|
|
| "Professor Ludwig" wrote in message
news:lplst0h5vcep8uc5ldgob1rahrpmougbef@4ax.com...
> What a strange hypocritical web the RSPB weave. If money is involved
> they are prepared to forfeit the conservation argument.
>
> pinched from
>
> http://tinyurl.com/6m5lr
>
> By Dr John Etherington
>
> Wind turbines have been suspected of killing birds and more recently
> it has been found that they kill bats. There has been serious argument
> about how many, and whether such killing has impact on population
> numbers. At some wind farms mortality has certainly been serious,
> particularly among raptors, whose hunting behaviour makes them
> particularly vulnerable.....
>
> You can read about golden eagle deaths and a current controversy in my
> article, "Altamont Pass wind turbines kill birds", elsewhere on this
> site. Despite a very high mortality of eagles and other raptors at
> Altamont, generating licences are currently being renewed there, for
> 1500 turbines. Naturally there are howls of environmental protest.
>
> In the UK, the Royal Society for Protection of Birds (RSPB) has argued
> that such mortality is unusual and that well-sited wind turbines pose
> little threat to birds. The Society treats this as an established
> fact, despite the fact that a great deal of research is still being
> done, many ornithologists consider the matter sub judice, and some
> believe there are significant problems at most sites.
>
> Members of the RSPB will be well aware that the Society strongly
> supports renewable energy. Almost every issue of the RSPB, magazine,
> "Birds" contains articles promoting renewable energy and
> advertisements for the Society's 'green' electricity marketing
> consortium, RSPB Energy.
>
> All things being equal this seems an exemplary activity. The Society
> is one of the most trusted science-based environmental organisations
> in the world - isn't it? It tells its members repeatedly that climatic
> change and sea-level rise threaten bird habitats, all over the globe
> and presumably most members accept this is an established scientific
> fact.
>
> To combat these threats, RSPB sells 'green electricity', it gives
> support to many renewable technologies and it actively promotes the
> deployment of windpower. These activities must be OK - surely? RSPB
> will have access to the best scientific and technological advice so we
> members have little option but to believe it.
>
> Unfortunately all things are not equal, and the 'green' world is not a
> transparent clear sea - more like a thick pea soup concealing
> unidentified and unpleasant things.
>
> WHO ADVISES RSPB?
>
> I have been concerned for several years about the RSPBs stand on this
> whole matter. I have exchanged several letters and e-mails with RSPB,
> Wales, challenging their basic tenet that the building of wind
> turbines might, firstly, have a significant effect on global CO2
> concentration and secondly, somehow prevent climatic warming and sea
> level rise.
>
> This isn't the place to recount chapter and verse of the exchange, but
> in one of these letters I asked where the RSPB obtained their
> engineering advice. Who counsels them on the saving of CO2-emission by
> wind turbines and the proportion of this saving which might be
> dissipated (or not) by backup generation?
>
> Most of the advice has come from the British Wind Energy Association
> (BWEA) and from the industry itself. The RSPB did give me the name of
> one "independent" power engineering consultant, but five minutes with
> Google established that he, also, was a BWEA adviser - later confirmed
> by the RSPB (Ref 2).
>
> So much for the trustworthy and balanced "science-base" which we
> naively might have believed underpinned RSPB's stance on this matter!
>
> MONEY AND MARKETING
>
> The RSPB profits from marketing 'green' electricity through its RSPB
> Energy consortium with Scottish and Southern Energy.
>
> Scottish and Southern Energy is one of the largest energy companies in
> the UK with nearly 5 million customers and an ownership interest in
> over 7,000 MW of generation capacity, most of which is fossil fuelled.
> As a bizarre twist to the 'green' image of RSPB Energy, its partner,
> Scottish and Southern Energy has a fixed contract to buy a great deal
> of electricity from Scotland's nuclear stations (Ref.3).
>
> Oddly enough only a tiny 3.33% of RSPB Energy's electricity is claimed
> to be from windpower. An overwhelming 90% comes from 'refurbished'
> hydroelectric facilities. This is because large-scale hydroelectricity
> is not eligible for Renewables Obligation [RO] payments but if it has
> been 'refurbished' it qualifies as 'green' (Ref. 4).
>
> In 2002, RSPB Energy claimed to supply 10,000 homes (this would be
> about 5 MW). The great majority of the electricity comes from
> refurbished pre-existing "large" hydroelectric plant, which has been
> in place for many years. Thus RSPB Energy's contribution to the
> greening of the electricity market is relatively slight, as this
> electricity was 'green' before the word was coined, and arguably has
> been hijacked to serve a political agenda! For many years it was fed
> into the Grid as part of a diverse complement of generation and with
> no special recognition - now it belongs to a minority of special
> 'green' purchasers.
>
> Because of the RO restriction it is unlikely that any more large-hydro
> will be built, and RSPB Energy will have to seek its further supplies
> in other ways. If they are to be substantial, it will of necessity be
> from wind, and we must remember that many other companies - ten or
> more - are also seeking supplies of electricity, which can be labelled
> 'green'.
>
> In 2002, the RSPB's Head of Climate Change Policy, John Lanchbery,
> wrote ".... our 'investment fund' will be utilised to build renewable
> generation on some of our reserves..so our customers not only have
> green electricity, they are also responsible for 'additional' projects
> being built that would not happen otherwise." (Ref.5).
>
> Do most RSPB members know that it is intended to build power stations
> on RSPB reserves?
>
> The Wales' office has attempted to reassure me that such building of
> wind or water generation would be of small scale - but what would be
> the point of that? Except perhaps as a 'green' advertisement - a
> political statement.
>
> WHEN IS SUPPORT JUST TOO MUCH?
>
> Some months ago, the web-site Yes2wind featured the diary of Adam
> Twine from the Vale of White Horse in Oxfordshire. It recorded his
> struggle to build a wind "farm" at Watchfield, about five miles from
> the magnificent Uffington White Horse.
>
> One entry in Mr Twine's diary caught my eye. It read: - "RSPB write in
> with letter of support."
>
> I never take such things at face value and actually disbelieved that
> the RSPB would do such a thing. I e-mailed the RSPB saying that I
> assumed Mr Twine had perhaps exaggerated lack of objection into
> "support". How wrong can you be?
>
> The RSPB's replied that: - "The casework officer wrote in November
> 2002 in support of this, noting that it posed no significant threat to
> birds and their habitats and would contribute to the Government's
> targets for renewable energy. We have on one other occasion written in
> support of a windfarm proposal - in Eastern Britain also over a year
> ago" (Ref. 1).
>
> The RSPBs e-mail ended by saying: - "We can not definitively rule out
> the possibility of the RSPB choosing to support a windfarm application
> at some point in the future."
>
> I have many other concerns about the RSPBs relationship with the
> 'green' electricity industry, but let's just look at Mr Twine's
> situation and other circumstances in which the RSPB may write letters
> of support.
>
> Apparently, in the four years to 2002, the RSPB has assessed 163
> windfarm proposals objected to 27 and expressed concerns about another
> 29. So 107 applications have passed through the system with no
> objection from the RSPB - exactly two thirds.
>
> Now, this is where all things are not equal, and there is no level
> playing field.
>
> Why did the RSPB not go the whole hog and support all 107 applications
> rather than just two of them? What was SO special about the two - one
> at Watchfield and the other in E. England? Was there definitive
> evidence that they would harm no birds - or other creatures - and that
> the remaining 105 might do so?
>
> Of course there wasn't. Science is not like that. The best we can say
> is that it is unlikely that the Watchfield turbines will do harm but
> does the RSPB believe, by inference, that other 105 will probably do
> more damage? If so why not a precautionary objection?
>
> This is a nonsensical decision-process. It is divination, rather than
> science and RSPB members deserve a satisfactory explanation of what is
> being done in their name.
>
>
> SUMMING UP
>
> As a member of the RSPB I am deeply disturbed by much that I have
> recounted here.
>
> Why have I not taken it up with the Society directly? The short answer
> is that I have tried. I have freely been given factual evidence and
> help by letter and e-mail. However, any attempt to argue the validity
> of this approach to regulating CO2-emission by a ludicrously small
> intervention in electricity generation, has been blocked by the mantra
> which says, in effect: - "we have to do it or face disaster" (Mr Blair
> once said something like this, I believe).
>
> I have also written four letters to "Birds" magazine raising these
> points, none of which have been published. However there are over a
> million members so this is hardly surprising and I'm not complaining.
>
> My intention in writing this article is to alert RSPB members to
> problems of which they may be unaware.
>
> Did you - fellow members - know that the Society, for quite arbitrary
> reasons, writes letters of support for windpower planning
> applications? I didn't.
>
> Did you know it rejects virtually all evidence that wind turbines
> significantly harm birds? Until recently I didn't. Indeed until
> recently I had doubts about significant numbers of bird-deaths, but
> the growing record of bird carnage all over the world, particularly
> large raptors, and the very recent addition of bat-deaths in
> substantial numbers has convinced me that there is a problem. This
> must be addressed BEFORE, not after, we build huge "drift nets" of
> these inappropriate machines with blade-tips whirling at 200 to 300 km
> per hour..
>
> Did you know that Scottish and Southern Energy, half of the RSPB
> Energy consortium, is buying more than 5 TWh of nuclear-generated
> electricity per year? Until recently I didn't. This far exceeds the
> 'green' electricity used by its 10,000 customers, which must be less
> than 0.1 TWh (Ref. 6)! I would not comment on this, only the 'greens'
> keep smearing me as pro-nuclear 'cos I dislike wind turbines and the
> RSPB has brushed aside my comments on the engineering institutions'
> views on fossil-fuel backup to wind, because they are "interested in
> promoting a new generation of nuclear power stations"!
>
> Is it sensible for a wildlife organisation to recommend the building
> of wind turbines when we don't know enough about their extended and
> unknown environmental impact - what about bats at Watchfield for
> example? Did anyone look? Rural Oxfordshire is more likely to be bat
> habitat than a Scottish mountainside?
>
> Has the RSPB ever ONCE asked members if they have a concern for the
> landscape of Britain and whether the supposed benefits of windpower
> will offset the dreadful damage it will do? Or whether the memebrs
> agree that there are benefits at all?
>
> I cannot refrain from citing a letter, which won the star rating and a
> Ł109 prize in the current Winter Issue of "Birds".
>
> Written by Juliet Hole, about beauty and windpower, it ends: - "The
> countryside won't be needed and it will not matter what it looks or
> sounds like, for technology will provide 'alternative' means of
> preserving species. Is this what we want? If not, we come back to the
> realisation that beauty is what conservation is for."
>
> The Editor replied: - "Perhaps Juliet Hole has a point. What do you
> think?"
>
> Well friends and fellow members of the RSPB, what do you all think?
> You had better tell the Society quickly or it will no longer matter.
>
> © John Etherington 2003
>
>
> REFERENCES
>
> 1. E-mail from RSPB Wales, Cardiff, dated 21.11.03. Copy available.
>
> 2. I will not name the consultant here, but can give his name to
> anyone who requires further evidence.
>
> 3. Scottish Hydro-Electric Transmission Ltd. "Seven Year Statement
> 2002", Page 11: -
> "As part of the Nuclear Energy Agreement, SSE Energy Supply Ltd
> (SSEESL) has contracts for 25.1% of the output from the nuclear power
> stations at Torness and Hunterston which are owned and operated by
> British Energy."
>
> 4. RSPB Energy Review Issue 2 (2002) presents the breakdown of supply
> between different renewable sources. New "large" hydro is not eligible
> for the RO because the environmental impact of impoundment is believed
> to outweigh the benefits of saving fossil fuel and CO2-emission. Only
> run-of-the-river "small" hydro, which attracts RO, is likely to be
> built in future
>
> 5. RSPB Energy Review Issue 2 (2002), page 12. Article by J. Lanchbery
>
> 6. Hunterston (1190 MW) and Torness (1250 MW) between them can
> generate more than 20 TWh/y. If S & S E buys 25%, this will be at
> least 5 TWh/y. RSPB Energy supplied 10,000 homes in 2002 - a total of
> about 5 MW running consumption, which will total much less than 0.1
> TWh/y, an insignificant amount of electricity beside the nuclear
> component!
And who said you could use my name ?
Regards
Brian Ludwig
|
|
|
