Resource Library Category: Scotland (13 items)
Documents presented here are not the product of nor are they necessarily endorsed by National Wind Watch. This resource library is provided to assist anyone wishing to research the issue of industrial wind power and the impacts of its development. The information should be evaluated by each reader to come to their own conclusions about the many areas of debate.
Aberdeenshire turbine location map
Source: Cuminestown Against Wind Turbines
As part of our group’s campaign to stop 50m+ sized turbines being erected in our locality, we have prepared a Google Map of all known erected, planned, refused and pre-planned 50m+ turbine developments in Aberdeenshire. The coordinates are taken from Aberdeenshire Council planning applications (publicly available from their website). There are approx. 200 turbines planned for this area. The map is a work-in-progress, but the majority of known developments are plotted already.
click image to go this Google Maps project
Cuminestown Against Wind Turbines
Open Letter to Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH)
Source: Bellamy, David; and Duchamp, Mark
It is disturbing to wildlife conservationists such as ourselves, and we know it is equally disturbing to our numerous Scottish friends, that you should assist in the destruction of Scotland’s remarkable and precious wilderness. Your raison d’être is to preserve this natural heritage ; yet you are time and again endorsing the installation of wind farms in unspoilt landscapes of great beauty, or in natural habitats that are essential to the conservation of endangered birds.
Bird reserves are not even spared from this destruction. On the Isle of Lewis, for instance, a wind farm is to be built in a designated Important Bird Area ( Park UK224 ), and another in the Lewis Peatlands Special Protection Area ( the Pentland Road road windfarm project ).
Your modus operandi is to object at first, then to withdraw your objection based on scientifically worthless “revised” bird mortality predictions. More disturbing still : you are helping developers to come up with these lower estimates by suggesting that they use a slightly modified variable that has the effect of minimising mortality predictions well below current available evidence of such mortality.
The precautionary principle is one of the cornerstones of wildlife conservation ; but you systematically ignore it and by and large espouse the interest of developers. You tell them they can use an “avoidance factor” set so high that the resulting mortality prediction is but 10% of what it should be if real-life mortality at wind farms were taken into account.
We first became aware of this during Mark’s resistance against the approval of the Edinbane wind farm project, in one of Europe’s most strikingly beautiful islands : the Isle of Skye. The location was in itself a crime against Scotland’s natural heritage, but neither you nor your political masters thought anything of it.
Opposition was fierce because of the danger to the eagles, another of Skye’s treasures besides a stunning landscape. The developer’s first eagle mortality prediction was too high for comfort, so you invited him to do more studies and to review his copy, especially the mortality prediction. You too did some work, and modified a key parameter for the mortality calculations : from 95% the “avoidance factor” was increased to 98%, which has the effect of reducing mortality predictions exponentially. You also indicated that the predicted mortality should be no bigger than a certain number : this was tantamount to showing the fox how to get into the hen house.
Helped by your clue and by the new avoidance factor you had decreed, the developer presented his new prediction and you lifted your objection, which allowed the project to be approved. Yet the viability of the nearby Cuillins SPA, a nature reserve for golden eagles, is at stake in this tragedy.
Not only did you discard the precautionary principle in this exercise : you applied it in reverse. What conservationist in his right mind would tell a businessman something that may be summarized as follows : you predict your machines will kill too many eagles, so I´ll help you reduce your prediction by manipulating the numbers — and for cosmetics, I´ll ask you to do some more field studies.
Based on mortality evidence available from other countries, of which you are well aware, wind turbines at Edinbane are likely to kill ~150 golden eagles over 25 years, not ~15 as predicted by the developer under your guidance. The wind farm location is a hill where young eagles are seen flying daily, at a rate of about one sighting per hour. Edinbane is known to be a “dispersion area” for eagles, i.e. one where immature birds come to hunt, soar, and interact. It is also located on a commonly used eagle flightpath from one side of the island to the other. Placing lethal wind turbines on their route is not just an aberration : it is a crime against wildlife.
Some will say : when a bird is killed by a wind turbine, it is an accident. There is no intent of killing, so there is no crime. But you are guilty of gross negligence, to put it mildly. Numbers have been manipulated in order to minimise mortality prediction by an order of magnitude ( from 150 eagle-kills down to 15 ) ; the precautionary principle has been laughed at ; and the Wild Birds and Habitats Directives of the EU are being violated since there are alternative locations for the project.
Eagles don’t avoid wind turbines : they are attracted to them. In California, Dr Smallwood has observed that golden eagles fly twice as often near wind turbines than they would by chance. This explains why so many collide with the blades, which travel at up to 300 km/h at the tip. Two thousand three hundred golden eagles have been killed that way in California, and you know that : an official report confirms it.
You strayed even further with the white-tailed sea eagles. With your consent, at Edinbane the risk for sea eagles has been estimated to be near zero whereas it is likely that dozens will be killed during the useful life of the wind farm. Indeed, many of these magnificent birds are being stricken dead every year by wind turbines in Norway, Sweden, Germany, and Japan. Ornithologists from these countries have sent us the statistics and the pictures.
In the autumn of 2003, a sea eagle was found dead next to a wind turbine on the Scottish island of Pabay, a couple of miles from Skye. An alleged autopsy report appeared on Internet saying that the bird in question had an unusually large heart, and that its death could have been caused by a heart failure in mid air ( sic! ).
Again in Scotland, golden eagles have been disappearing at or around the Beinn Ghlas wind farm, yet we are asked to believe that Beinn Ghlas is a success story regarding cohabitation with eagles. Beinn an Tuirc is another “success story” being cited in the press as evidence that eagles and wind farms, in Scotland, can live together in close contact. Yet in 2006 the male of the golden eagle breeding pair disappeared from its range at Beinn an Tuirc.
All of this is documented, and it is false to say that wind farms do not kill eagles in Scotland. It’s just that the public is not aware of the eagles that die or disappear near wind farms.
More eagles, and other birds from protected species, will be colliding with power lines linking wind farms to the grid, resulting in more deaths. You, SNH, never requested that this added risk be assessed for Edinbane or any other wind farm project. Yet you do know that many birds, including eagles, are maimed or killed by overhead cables when they collide with them in poor visibility conditions. For instance, a scientific study has estimated that high tension lines kill on average 200 birds per kilometre/year ( Koops – 1987 ). In migration zones, the toll is higher at 400-500 birds/km/yr ( Convention on the Conservation of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats, BirdLife International 2003 ).
Based on the Koops study, it was estimated that high tension lines in the US could be killing 150 million birds a year, according to Mick Sagrillo of the American Wind Energy Association (2003). The same figure is also reported in Avian Collisions with Wind Turbines, a Summary of Existing Studies and Comparisons to Other Sources of Avian Collision Mortality in the United States — Western EcoSystems Technology Inc. (2001) .
How many more eagles and other protected birds will die on Skye and across Scotland on account of new transmission lines built to accommodate wind farms ? You have not commissioned any study on this added hazard, as far as we know. Yet the Scottish golden eagle population is already in demographic difficulty ( Whitfield et al. 2006 ), and the sea eagles are even less numerous.
It was clearly irresponsible of you to withdraw your objection to Edinbane, and Mark denounced it many times. You are now applying the same tactics to the Eisgein and Pairc projects on the Isle of Lewis. If approved, these wind farms may kill over one hundred eagles, plus the migrating birds who stopover for food and rest before the long journey to Iceland and Greenland. And on the subject of migrating birds : you seem to be minded to endorse a large wind farm project on Shetland, an island that is a staging post for thousands of migrating birds on their route to and from the Arctic. How irresponsible of you if you do.
The Eisgein turbines will be erected in and around a designated Important Bird Area that arguably harbours the most important concentration of adult eagles in the whole of Scotland. But everything indicates that you are about to remove your objection to this project as you did for Edinbane. Indeed, you have now further increased your avoidance factor to 99%, which will have the result of reducing the developer’s mortality prediction, even though with 98% it is already smaller than real life by an order of magnitude.
These manipulations are being done under the cover of science. But the famous mathematician John von Neuman once wrote : “Give me four adjustable parameters and I can simulate an elephant. Give me one more and I can wag its tail.”
- Your avoidance factor is what wags the tail.
Besides the predictable slaughter of eagles, swans, geese and other birds protected by EU and UK legislations, the Eisgein wind farm may have a detrimental effect on a National Scenic Area, and even possibly on other important tourist attractions such as the Callanish Stones and a unique cultural event : the “Birth of the Moon”.
Several hundred wind farms are to be built in Scotland, yet no cumulative study of their effects on protected bird species has been made. Eagles stand to be wiped out, but you have ignored Mark’s request to consider the cumulative impact of thousands of wind turbines on their vulnerable population. You support the case-by-case approach, but it is a recipe for disaster. It makes a mockery of the cumulative effect principle, which is another cornerstone of wildlife conservation.
In the circumstances, we cannot but conclude that you are doing the opposite of what the Scottish people, who pay your salaries, are expecting you to do : that which is embedded in your name.
You are also projecting a degraded image of Scotland worldwide. In the international community of wildlife conservation, your country has gained a new reputation, where spin and the reckless destruction of pristine wilderness rise above anything else.
Your press releases often end with this line : “Scottish Natural Heritage is the Scottish Executive’s statutory advisor in respect to the conservation, enhancement, enjoyment, understanding and sustainable use of the natural heritage.”
- We think your slogan needs editing.
Co-signed :
Professor David Bellamy
Mark Duchamp
Europe, France, Germany, Health, Human rights, New Zealand, Noise, Nova Scotia, Ontario, Property values, Regulations, Safety, Scotland, Sweden, U.K. •
Changes in Wind Turbine Setbacks
Source: Palmer, William
Note that Setbacks can have both physical safety rationale — for reasons of potential injury — and noise rationale — for reasons of annoyance and health effects
United Kingdom
Derek Taylor, 1991, “How to Plan the Nuisance Out of Wind Energy”, suggested setback from wind turbines with a 30 metre rotor to roadways and lot lines, of 50 metres adequate to a lightly traveled road, 100 metres to a heavily traveled road, and 120 to 170 metres to a home [4-5.7 times rotor diameter].
UK Noise Association, 2006, states, “It would be prudent that no wind turbine should be sited closer than 1 mile (1600 metres) from the nearest dwellings … Wind farms should only be located in areas where the “swish, swish, swish” of the turbines will not cause noise problems for people.”
United Kingdom – Scotland
From the limits identified above …
Scottish Planning Policy SPP6 – Renewable Energy (2007)
France
From no limits for safety setbacks …
Original setbacks were that noise at night should not exceed 3 dBA above background sound at night (background may be 25 to 30 dBA at night in rural areas)
Administrative Court of Appeal, Lyon, April 2006, determined a “zone of protection of 500 metres” from wind turbines to areas where people can be.
Academy of Medicine, March 2006, recommended a setback of 1500 metres from wind turbines to homes until an epidemiological study could be carried out to determine health effects.
Nova Scotia
Pubnico Point Wind Farm – No standard resulted in setback from turbine to home of 370 metres, and sound up to 13 dbA above the Ontario limit of 40 dBA.
Glen Dhu Wind Farm, October 2008, established setbacks of 1200 metres from homes of participating residents, and 1440 metres from non-participating residences.
Safe setbacks: How far should wind turbines be from homes?
In 2000 used sound limits with a rising limit as ground level wind speed rose. Limit was 40 dBA at 1 m/s and increased to 50 dBA at 12m/s.
(Ontario used this as a model to develop its sound limits, although Ontario limits allowed 53 dBA at 12 m/s, and continue to allow 51 dBA at 11 m/s even after revision).
In 2007, the Netherlands changed to a fixed upper limit for wind turbine sound of 40 dBA – recognizing the change in wind profile at night. The Netherlands is currently investigating a new monitoring method based on Lden. This is a rating of community noise exposure that differentiates between daytime, evening and nighttime noise exposure, and penalizes nighttime noise.
Germany
Rural noise from wind turbines is limited to 35 dBA at night.
Compare Ontario’s 51 dBA nighttime limit and Germany’s 35 dBA limit -note that every 6 dBA (e.g. 35 vs 41 dBA) difference means the turbines in Germany will be twice as far away as in Ontario – a 12 dBA difference (e,g, 35 vs 47 dBA) means they are 4 times further away in Germany than Ontario.
Sweden
Limits noise to 35 dBA in recreational areas in evening and at night, and to 40 dBA in residential areas at night. The measurement must be done with 10 metre wind speeds of 8 m/s. Ontario regulations permit 45 dBA at 8 m/sec.
European Union
Within the European Union the Commission has made a proposal for common noise immission level descriptions and evaluation methods. It is primarily intended for traffic noise but can be expanded to include other areas, such as wind power noise. It suggests an equivalent annual average sound level (Lden) where the night level has a penalty of 10 dBA and the evening level of 5 dBA. The day is in this case is 12 hours, the evening 4 hours and the night 8 hours.
New Zealand
NTS6808:1998, “The Assessment and Measurement of Sound From Wind Turbines”, requires the calculation of a background noise level prior to construction of a wind farm. NTS68001:1991 limits sound from all activity except wind turbines to 35 dBA from 8:00 PM to 7:00 AM. NTS6808 limits sound from wind turbines to 40 dBA or 5dBA over background sound. Sounds with a “special audible characteristic” (clearly audible tones, impulses, or modulation of sound level) shall have a 5 dBA penalty.
The Environmental Court of New Zealand issued a decision July 20, 2007, that required that when the background sound conditions are at 25 dBA or less, the noise from a wind farm shall not exceed 35 dBA at any dwelling as an absolute limit.
Sound levels in rural Ontario are typically less than 35 dBA at night. Yet, Ontario continues to have guidelines that allow up to 51 dBA, and rejects applying a penalty for cyclic noise as New Zealand does.
Hydro One, System Networks
2005 to Dec 2007 – setback of overall height of turbine (tower plus blade radius) to edge of right of way. Dec 2007 to July 2008 – increased setback to greater of 150 metres or overall height of turbine.
As of July 2008 increased setbacks to edge of right of way for 500 kV assets (critical assets) of 500 metres, to 230 kV (redundant assets) of 250 metres, and to 115 kV assets (for which loss tends to be an inconvenience but not a significant one) of 150 metres.
CanWEA, Proposed By-Laws for Rural Municipalities in Ontario
Recommends setbacks to lot lines of non-participating property, road right of ways, or non residential buildings on a participating property need not exceed blade length plus 10 metres (typically 51 metres)
Recommends setbacks to residential buildings should not be less than 200 metres (or as required to meet MOE CofA requirements)
Interesting to compare the 51 metres that CanWEA reconnnds to protect the lives of people, compared to the 500 metre safety setback that Hydro One calls for to protect its critical assets.
From this should one conclude that the lives of people do not matter as much as a hydro line?
Download original document: “Changes in Wind Turbine Setbacks”
Impacts of Wind Farms on Upland Habitats: The Environmental Cost of Scotland’s Renewable Revolution
Source: John Muir Trust
Executive Summary:
The John Muir Trust is one of the United Kingdom’s leading guardians of wild land and wildlife. As a prominent membership organization we carry out our charitable role through the ownership of land, the promotion of education and volunteer conservation activities. In order to protect wild land, the Trust campaigns against threats to wild land and for wild places to be valued by society.
The Trust recognizes the unprecedented threat that we all face from the impact of climate change and the essential role that renewable energy, including wind power, has to play in combating it. The Trust is working to ensure that on-shore wind power is appropriately placed and developed with a minimal impact on vulnerable upland habitats. Uplands contain priority habitats identified by the Convention on Biological Diversity and the EU Habitats Directive, specifically biodiverse grasslands and blanket bog (peatland).
These priority habitats support a diverse community of plant and animal life. They also provide an important element in supplying freshwater to river systems. In addition, they have been identified as important stores of carbon stocks. In effect, the peatlands and biodiverse grasslands are the part of a mosaic of habitats which act as the rainforests of the northern latitudes.
Climate change is likely to impact on uplands by:
• Increased erosion and siltation due to intense storm events;
• Drying out of soils due to changes in precipitation patterns;
• Accelerated decomposition of peaty soils further fuelling climate change; and
• Increased loss of soil through water and wind erosion.
Given the global importance of peatland and biodiverse grasslands (such as upland heathland), both in terms of biodiversity and as stores of carbon stocks, the EU and Member States have an international responsibility for protecting these habitats from the impact of climate change and development.
Unfortunately, a poorly planned, unsuitably located or inadequately operated renewable energy development and infrastructure could damage and destroy habitats, cause wildlife disturbance and fatalities and, if inappropriately placed, decrease the ability of ecosystems to store carbon stocks.
The John Muir Trust has reviewed various Environmental Statements for wind turbine developments in upland areas. The Trust is concerned to note that wind turbine projects require the removal of considerable areas of upland habitat. This is cleared for turbines, construction areas and infrastructure (such as roads, drainage ditches, buildings, distribution lines, etc.).
Review of development proposals and actual sites indicates that the habitat destruction and land take for a 16 to 53 wind turbine installation is 6.57 to 44.16 hectares. However, the modification of natural drainage by the construction of turbine infrastructure could cause impacts over a much wider area of upland habitat. Modification of peatland drainage by the use of ditch systems associated with wind turbine developments is likely to lead to the drying of peatlands, ultimately resulting in erosion of habitats over a wide area. The size of area is comparable to the land take for the agricultural production of biofuels or construction of an industrial facility (power station, factory, etc.), shopping centre, airport, etc. The habitat damage is also similar to the effects of climate change on upland areas.
The Trust is concerned that:
• Habitats are not being successfully restored after construction;
• Restored habitats do not have the same biodiversity value and carbon storage potential; and
• Clearance of vegetation, compaction of soils, re-profiling of slopes, etc. result in erosion damage and associated siltation within river catchments similar to predicted climate change impacts.
Research by Stirling University indicates that peatlands impacted by construction lose 25 to 50% of the carbon that would normally be taken up each year “and so adds significantly to the potential impacts of climate change”. In addition, independently peer reviewed research by the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds is now also indicating that the impacts of wind turbine developments may not be limited to direct impacts from construction and operation. The research proposes a number of potential causes for lower bird numbers at wind turbine sites. These include avoidance by birds causing displacement of populations to other sites and increased adult bird mortality due to collision with turbines. The research concludes that bird “populations that are under stress from wind farm development are likely to be more susceptible to additional pressures from climate change.”
Previous research which could help safeguard our uplands has also been selectively misquoted to suggest wind turbine development on peatlands does not result in significant carbon release, this is particularly with regard to the University of Aberdeen and the Macaulay Institute research report concerning: Calculating Carbon Savings From Wind Farms On Scottish Peat Lands — A New Approach. This report recognised that “Wind farms tend to be sited on peat lands which hold large stocks of poorly protected carbon and so have the potential to greatly increase overall carbon losses.” The report developed a formula which needs to be applied to each individual site to calculate losses.
Protection of non-statutory upland sites is being weakened due to inconsistencies in EU Policy and the development, by the Scottish Government, of a “fast track” planning system which risks paying little attention to protecting habitats outside international or European statutory sites which have stronger legal safeguards due to treaty obligations. The John Muir Trusts believes that unprotected upland areas are now at risk from damage or destruction, resulting in the loss of ecosystems which maintain our wilderness areas, provide habitat for wildlife and act as natural stores of carbon stocks. The EU should reform its renewable energy policy to provide better environmental protection from the construction of wind turbines. The Scottish Government should act now to implement advice it was given in 2006 by the Strategic Environmental Assessment of the Scotland Rural Development Programme to develop a National Renewable Energy Strategy. This paper sets out the problems posed by industrial scale wind turbine developments, together with recommendations on how to safeguard the upland habitats.
Download original document: “Impacts of Wind Farms on Upland Habitats”
