| Giant windfarm in a bird sanctuary - Impact on bird mortality to be severe. |
(2030) |
| THE WIND INDUSTRY TARGETS NATURAL RESERVES. |
As countryside residents oppose windfarms because of noise, visual impact, negative effect on tourism etc, the wind industry is now hell-bent on making Natura 2000 reserves, RAMSAR wetlands, Important Bird Areas and other protected areas fair-game for its developers.
Environmental statements are presented that minimize predicted bird mortality to absurd levels, well below reality. Following is the analysis of one of these studies.
It is presented as it was submitted to the Scottish government, in form of objections to one of these scandalous windfarm projects: 234 giant 3-MW wind-turbines to be erected on the island of Lewis, 190 of them within the Lewis peatlands SPA SAC RAMSAR bird reserve. |
OBJECTIONS TO THE LEWIS WIND POWER PROPOSAL FOR ERECTING WIND TURBINES ON THE BARVAS MOOR, NORTH LEWIS.
1.0 --- Objection is lodged that Lewis Wind Power and their consultants did not adequately assess the collision risk.
Yet ornithologists W. Band, M. Madders, & D. P. Whitfield think the collision risk is as important as disturbance:
" most potential problems for birds posed by wind farms involve the risks of post-construction disturbance and collision mortality" (Developing Field and Analytical Methods to Assess Avian Collision Risk at Wind Farms).
1.1 Flawed model.
The Lewis Wind Power environmental statement ("the ES" - see note 8) assesses the collision risk to birds using a model based on the following parameters: length & width of the bird; length, width and pitch of the blade; and speed of both - ref. Appendix 12C paragraphs 41, 49, 70.
But that model is fatally flawed: it considers birds as if they were inanimate objects projected towards the wind turbines randomly as to time and as to space.
Birds behave differently from a stone that would be thrown at a turbine, or from a bullet shot through the rotor. We know that a bullet fired through the propeller of a World War II aircraft will not hit a blade, provided engineers synchronize the machine-gun with the propeller. But birds are another matter.
Crossing the wind-swept area of a wind turbine involves a minimum of decision-making on their part, which may cause hesitation. And that in turn would reduce considerably the time-window for a safe crossing, and the speed of the bird.
Other behavioural aspects also invalidate the model, which fails to factor-in a number of important variables.
1-1-1 Avian creatures rarely cross randomly as to time.
To pass through safely, birds (or bats) must cross between the passage of one blade and that of the next. But an ingredient never considered in models comes into play: that´s when the passage of the first blade causes a reaction in the animal´s nervous system.
That sweep, with its accompanying noise and air turbulence, causes anything from panic, to refusal to cross, to simple hesitation (1). The creature may have the time to veer off and save its life before the arrival of the second blade, which travels at a surprising mean rotational speed of 303 kph at the tip (2). It may alternatively get struck while attempting avoidance.
The third alternative is this one: the bird slows-down, then decides to attempt crossing. This hesitation is crucial. For while the creature hesitates, the second blade is fast approaching. And when the decision to cross is made, the second blade may be just about to swat.
So it appears that, through hesitation, in a number of cases birds would decide to cross at what happens to be the worse possible moment: when the second blade is about to strike.
All of this, the collision model of the ES does not take into consideration: it takes as a given that the birds are crossing at a random moment in time.
The time window is calculated to be 1.2 seconds - ref. Appendix 12C parag. 41: 3.73 seconds divided into 3. And birds are deemed to be crossing from 1/1000000000000th of a second after the first blade has passed, to 1/100000000000th of a second before the next blade sweeps in front of the bird. And this is where the model is fatally flawed, for that does not account for the realities of animal behaviour.
This invalidates all models established on the basis of random crossings, such as the SNH model used in the Farr windfarm project (3), or the one used by Lewis Wind Power in the present ES.
1.1.1.1 Aggravating factor.
The birds rarely see the danger coming, as the blade that kills them approaches from above or from below, where their vision is poor unless they twist their heads.
And in case they do see the blade that will strike them:
a) - The fact that it travels on an orbit makes it difficult to realize it is coming at them.
b) - As the rotor appears to revolve slowly, they are fooled and do not realize each blade-tip is actually moving at 303 kph mean rotational speed (2) - even humans are deceived by their apparent leisurely pace.
c) - When they realize the blade may strike them, it is often too late to perform successful avoidance. In this particular aspect some birds are more at risk than others, for their relative lack of manoeuvrability: swans, geese, ducks, bustards, storks, cranes, vultures, eagles, kites, harriers, divers, etc.
1.1.2 Avian creatures rarely cross the swept area randomly as to space.
Unlike bullets, animals exhibit some degree of wariness towards moving objects such as cars, planes, etc. - even if that does not always saves them. A cat or a bird crossing a highway will choose a window between the passages of 2 vehicles, rarely guessing correctly how fast the next one is approaching.
This err factor is greater in the case of birds and wind turbines, as the blades are moving faster than cars, on an orbit, and the time window for crossing safely is only 1.2 seconds on average (see 1.1.1 above).
It results from this degree of wariness that birds will normally choose a crossing point that is as distant as can be from the hub of the rotor, where the appearance of danger is the greatest. Indeed, the space window gets bigger as it is further away from the hub.
This increases considerably the mortality risk, as it is also there that the blade speed is the greatest.
The model does not take this into consideration, approaching as it does the space-window on the basis of random crossing.
This is yet another decisive flaw.
1.1.3 Avian creatures will often cross at low speed.
The model used in the ES assesses the collision risks assuming that birds cross at a 90º angle, with an average crossing speed of 13 ms (47 kph) for the golden eagles and 17 ms (61 kph) for the red-throated divers - ref: Appendix 12C paragraphs 68 and 49, respectively.
This is improbable, especially for the eagles:
It is self-evident that birds are not always flying perpendicularly through the blades.
It is furthermore improbable that they do it at the high average speeds chosen by the consultant. Taking golden eagles as an example, we know from behavioural observations that much of the time they will glide on the wind, travel at an angle, even sideways at times, mark time at the same spot, moving very slowly as they surf the wind.
Their displacements are not always voluntary either, dependent as they are on the wind direction, speed, and unforeseeable gusts. - All of which considerably increases the risk to those birds. Indeed they will have to surf often-strong winds among 702 x 50 meter-long blades revolving at 303 kph at the tip (2).
The premises used by the ES model, which considers that eagles will cross the blade-swept areas at a 90º angle and an average speed of 47 kph, only reflects a very small fraction of actual golden eagle behaviour.
Once more, the model proves to be unrealistic in its assumptions.
1.1.4 Wakes, vortices, and other air turbulences.
As the 50-meter long blades sweep through the air at speeds of 170 kph to 358 kph at the tip (2), they create air turbulence. Some of the vortices may be powerful enough to throw a bird, or bat, to the ground, injuring them or knocking them unconscious to the benefit of predators.
Larger birds may resist, but it could impair their flight and make it more difficult to avoid the next blade. This further invalidates the model, whose value as a decision-making tool turns out to be negative: it actually produces baseless mortality estimates.
1.1.5 Weather introduces infinity of variables.
None of them (wind, rain, poor visibility) are factored into the model.
Yet there is ample evidence from a variety of reports that, from time to time, weather conditions cause birds to collide with obstacles in large numbers, whatever the nature of the obstacle.
Example: "On 23 September 1982, 1,265 birds (30 species from an estimated kill of 3,000) were collected below chimneys at the Crystal River Generating Facility, Citrus County, Florida etc…. On 24 September, an estimated 2,000 birds were involved in chimney collisions". - Maehr, D.S., A.G. Spratt, and D.K. Voigts. 1983. Bird casualties at a central Florida power plant. Florida Field Naturalist 11:45-68. (available upon request).
If the smokestacks of a power plant can kill by collision 5,000 birds in 2 nights, how are we to believe a promoter who pretends that 234 wind turbines lined across a migration pathway used by countless birds, sometimes at night, and running for 30 kilometres down the middle of an internationally important bird sanctuary, will only kill "several hundred" birds a year? - Yet this is what claims the ES.
Is poor visibility a weather condition never occurring on Lewis?
The same could be said about wind and rain, which impairs flying.
1.2 The avoidance factor was chosen arbitrarily.
Chapter12, parag. 231:
"Following discussions with SNH, an avoidance rate of 95% has been used to reflect species thought to be most sensitive to collisions."
Comments: there it is said that a 95% avoidance factor was recommended by SNH for species most sensitive to collisions. And eagles are: over 1,000 already died at the Altamont Pass windfarm in California, 14 of them in Germany, dozens in Spain, 3 in Australia - just those that we know of. We suspect some died in Argyll as well, but public officials and ornithologists under contract will deny this.
But when it comes to the Lewis golden eagles, which are the birds to be most negatively impacted by the windfarm, the consultant arbitrarily uses a different percentage:
" Avoidance rates of over 99% are, however, used where there are reasonable grounds for this, for example golden eagle."
Is "golden eagle" a "reasonable ground"? - This argumentation is more than shallow: it is meaningless. A child of 12 would write more coherent sentences. Not surprisingly, it attempts to cover up something: the choice of an inappropriate avoidance factor.
More shallow arguments are added:
"Whilst there is no specific guidance underlying these figures (avoidance rates over 99%), they are typically based on experience gained by ornithologists who have studied individual species over a number of years and have become familiar with their behaviour (pers comm. Madders, 2004)."
So, in effect, we don´t know the grounds for the choice of "rates over 99%". Is it a "personal comment" from Mike Madders, another hired consultant, who produced numerous reports for the wind industry? or is it the undisclosed personal opinion of yet another (unnamed) ornithologist? - All this is quite irregular, and highlights the degree of subjectivity that permeates the ES.
Yet the choice of an avoidance factor has a considerable impact on a given species´predicted mortality rate. In this case:
1.82 eagle/year if we use 99% as avoidance factor (the one used by the promoter) 9.08 eagle/year if we use 95% as avoidance factor (the one recommended by SNH)
In choosing 99% over the recommended 95%, the promoter arbitrarily reduces the predicted eagle mortality from 9 per year to less than 2 per year.
The SNH guidelines are used for all birds, but not for the most politically sensitive one: the golden eagle. Its predicted mortality is thus reduced by a factor superior to 4 times.
This is totally unacceptable, all the more when we are dealing with a legally protected bird reserve.
2.0 Objection is lodged that the mortality predictions of the ES are distant from reality by at least one, and possibly two orders of magnitude.
The ES makes use, and abuse, of the reductionist method to the point where only 2 species out of 53 are assessed as to collision risk: golden eagles and red-throated divers.
As a result of the deficient nature of the collision model used (see objection 1.0 above), and of assessing only 2 species out of 53 present in the Lewis peatlands Special Protection Area ("SPA"), the mortality predictions of the consultant are grossly misrepresented. They are:
- 2 golden eagles a year
- 4 red-throated divers every five years
- "several hundreds" of golden plover (presumably yearly)
- and smaller numbers of greenshank (presumably yearly), "especially if they cross the wind turbine groups at night to feed off-site on agricultural fields".
- plus an unknown number of merlins and black-throated divers, that he admits to but won´t estimate.
In the circumstances, we have no other remedy but to try and assess the mortality risk ourselves.
A simple but realistic method is to apply mortality rates from various credible monitoring studies at our disposal (6).
Researchers Everaert in Belgium and Lekuona in Spain both estimated at 20 birds/turbine/year the mortality at the windfarms they surveyed. They added that their estimates were conservative - and indeed other studies found higher rates (6).
In the case of the Lewis Wind project, this would translate into:
20 x 234 turbines = 4,680 dead birds a year.
Moving closer to reality, and applying the Cordelia yardstick of 54 birds/turbine/year (6): 54 x 234 = 12,636 dead birds a year.
But the bird activity at Cordelia is rather low in comparison to the Lewis bird reserve, which is also a migration hotspot. And Cordelia is a solitary turbine, easy for a bird to avoid, as opposed to a long string of 234 turbines intermixed with tension lines.
The Lewis windfarm will in effect constitute a 30-km-long bird-hazard barring an important migratory flyway. It will also kill migrating birds as they land and take-off. For breeding birds and visitors alike, flying from the bird sanctuary (SPA) to coastal foraging areas and back will become dangerous. Half of the island will be split by a lethal barrier, and birds flying from one side to the other will be risking their lives while doing so.
To reflect the much higher degree of bird-hazard efficiency of the Lewis project over Cordelia, it is fair to estimate a near-doubling of the mortality rate is in order: say 100 birds/turbine/year.
To prove this is not an exaggeration:
From the PIER Study of the California Energy Commission 2002 (7):
"In a summary of avian impacts at wind turbines by Benner et al. (1993) bird deaths per turbine per year were as high as 309 in Germany and 895 in Sweden."
This being said, 100 x 234 turbines = 23,400 dead birds per annum.
From "several hundred" golden plovers, 2 eagles and 1 diver to 23,400 dead birds of all species, annually: the difference is close to 2 orders of magnitude.
Conclusion:
With probable annual bird mortality in the 5 figures, the 234 wind turbines of the project will severely compromise the conservation objectives of the Lewis Peatlands SPA and RAMSAR wetland, in breach of EU Habitats and Birds Directives and the UN RAMSAR Convention.
3.0 Objection is lodged that among the 51 bird species (or more) whose collision risk was improperly disregarded by the ES, no assessment was made of impact on the white-tailed sea eagle, an endangered species with only 30 pairs in the UK. Nor were any made for hen harriers, peregrine falcons, corncrakes, golden plovers, whooper swans, barnacle geese, white-fronted geese - all 8 species being designated in Annex I of the Birds Directive 79/409/EEC, which confers them the highest protection status.
Table 12.10 establishes that 20 flights of white-tailed sea eagles were observed from September to March on the STL / Galson Estate. This compares with 93 flights of golden eagles, 10 of hen harriers, 8 of peregrines, and 7 of merlins. In the same winter months 3 more flights of hen harriers, 11 of golden eagles and 2 of merlins were observed on the Barvas Estate.
All of these raptors belong to species that are prone to be victimized by wind turbines:
In Germany, 14 white-tailed sea eagles fell victims to the rotors already - as shown by official records (5). The body of a Montagu´s harrier was also reported to the authorities in that country, and a peregrine falcon was found to have been killed by a turbine in Belgium (Everaert, 2001).
Ch.12 parag. 122 states, about the white-tailed eagle: "Data from the 20 recorded flights, indicate that an average of 59% of the flight time of this species during each observation was spent between 10-100 m."
This site-specific behaviour puts them clearly at risk. And so it does for the hen harriers, as per this remark:
"On average the birds spent less than half of their time during each observation at a height of between 10-100 m."
And about peregrine falcons: "The nearest wind turbine will be approximately 2 km to the north west of a Peregrine site." - ref. Ch.12 parag. 161
Knowing how extended is the territory of peregrine falcons, the life of this breeding pair will be at risk. And so will their young and those from other nests as they roam over the Western Isles in search of prey, mates, and breeding sites.
As for golden plovers, although the ES recognizes the probable death of "several hundreds" of them (presumably each year), the fact that the 3-km buffer zone was not surveyed for this species invalidates that estimate. The variance from reality could be by an order of magnitude.
The collision risk of the merlins is vaguely, improperly assessed. This merits an objection of its own, which will be submitted after the revised ES is published.
Picture above: white-tailed sea eagle
4.0 Objection is lodged that the ES is terminally deficient. As a consequence, there is more than reasonable doubt that the project will compromise the conservation objectives of the Lewis peatlands SPA and Ramsar site.
We have demonstrated, in objections 1, 2, and 3 above, that the ES fails to adequately assess the likely effects of the project on bird mortality within the SPA. And as this Natura 2000 site includes seven bird species as its qualifying interests, there is considerable doubt that the site´s conservation objectives will be met if the project is approved.
Article 6.3 of the Council of Europe´s Habitats Directive 92/43/EEC states: "the competent national authorities shall agree to the plan or project only after having ascertained that it will not adversely affect the integrity of the site concerned…"
This has not been ascertained.
5.0 Objection is lodged that Scottish Natural Heritage ("SNH"), by its failure to oppose the project, is in denial of its mission to protect the natural heritage of Scotland. Its passive support of Lewis Wind Power is to be construed as politically-motivated, and is not admissible as an argument in a debate about conservation and biodiversity.
A natural reserve protected by Scottish, UK and European legislations, set within the national boundaries, is by definition a natural and social treasure that forms part of Scotland´s natural heritage.
And a rich and exceptional site it is: 58,984 hectares of near-continuous mantle of deep blanket peat liberally dotted with small pools and lochs, similar in character to the peatlands of Caithness and Sutherland which were extensively damaged by coniferous afforestation in the 1980s. The hyper-oceanic, extremely humid upper boreal bioclimatic zone that predominates here to an extent found nowhere else in Europe is an ideal breeding ground for many endangered bird species:
· Red-throated Diver..........6.4% of UK breeding population
· Black-throated Diver.......6.9% of UK breeding population
· Golden Plover.................8.8% of UK breeding population
· Greenshank..................10.0% of UK breeding population
· Dunlin...........................32.2% of Baltic/UK/Ireland breeding population
· Merlin............................1.5% of UK breeding population
· Golden Eagle................1.5% of UK breeding population
· Peregrine falcon...........less than 1%
· Short-eared owl............less than 1%
· Hen Harrier....................less than 1%
These populations of listed species are the "qualifying interests" of the SPA, i.e. the raison d´être of this wildlife sanctuary - all except the last 3, whose percentage of UK population is under 1%.
The Lewis peatlands SPA is also home to other important species like the greylag goose . With 500-700 birds, the Outer Hebrides has one of the largest concentrations of these birds in the UK.
The Lewis peatlands SPA lies on two migration routes: one to Iceland and Greenland, the other to Norway and the Arctic. It is visited annually by countless migrating birds including whooper swans, barnacle geese, white-fronted geese, pink-footed geese, corncrakes, and many species of waders. As a first (or last) port of call on the trans-oceanic route to Iceland, it is a mandatory stopover for birds undertaking that long journey.
Some of the birds are active at night, which makes the wind turbines especially dangerous to them as impaired visibility increases collision risk. Says the ES:
"especially those (birds) where nocturnal movements are known or considered likely (for example, foraging golden plover, migrating whooper swan and migratory corncrake)." - CH.12 parag. 299.
Finally, the SPA is also a sanctuary for the endangered white-tailed sea eagle. The Western Isles represent the best chance for the recuperation of this species, of which there are only 32 pairs in the whole UK - all of them in Scotland. This in itself should be reason enough to spare the SPA from lethal wind turbines; for otherwise it will become a population sink for that most vulnerable of species.
All of this qualifies the Lewis peatlands SPA and Ramsar wetland to be considered one of Scotland´s first and foremost natural reserves, whose importance for the conservation of species transcends national boundaries. Furthermore, within the SPA is included a Special Area for Conservation ("SAC") designated for the value of its peatlands:
"The site qualifies under Criterion 1 by supporting one of the largest and most intact known areas of blanket bog in the world" - UNITED NATIONS RAMSAR CONVENTION
The SPA is also habitat to the otter (see objection 11.0 below)
In this context, the decision by SNH not to oppose the project is irresponsible. - It is indeed ironic that the name of this public institution be "Scottish Natural Heritage".
This is not new, however: such failure to accomplish duty preserving the natural heritage was already apparent during previous windfarm application sagas, e.g. Pentland Road (4) , Edinbane, Ben Aketil, Beinn an Tuirc, Beinn Ghlas, Farr, Inverliever.
How cynically disrespectful is SNH of its mission may be ascertained by looking at how, under false pretences, it lifted its objection to the Pentland Road windfarm (4).
With the Lewis SPA, the hypocrisy of SNH is reaching a new climax.
6.0 Objection is lodged that the RSPB have publicly stated their opposition to the project. This speaks of the negative impact the Lewis Wind "farm" will have on the Lewis Peatlands SPA, SAC and RAMSAR wetland, and is reason enough for this application to be denied approval.
Quotes from "Lewis and Wind Farms" - RSPB:
" Poorly sited wind farms can damage the very things which they are being built to protect."
"RSPB Scotland made it clear to the developers that locating a large scale
industry in such a fragile and important landscape was not a good idea."
"Exceptionally large numbers of some of our scarcer breeding birds
are found on the moor. Together with the rare plants and mammals found there, it makes the moor a very important place."
"The construction of a large scale wind farm would mean the permanent loss of plants and other wildlife - there’s also the risk of disturbance and collision - which combined could have a devastating effect on the area’s wildlife."
"Lewis is one of the best sites in Europe for breeding golden plovers, and one in ten of the UK’s greenshanks make the moor their home."
"Much of the north of Lewis is designated because it’s spectacularly important for birds (and is internationally recognised for this) - and the proposed development would do irreversible damage to the moor and the wildlife that depends on it."
If the RSPB opposes the project, saying that the windfarm could have a "devastating effect on the area´s wildlife", where does that put the credibility of SNH, who passively supports the project?
7.0 Objection is lodged that the damage to the active peat bog blanket was not objectively assessed.
The earth-moving activity that is necessary to implant the concrete bases for 234 wind turbines plus more power line pylons, and to build access roads, electrical sub-stations and other infrastructure, will do severe and permanent damage to the peat blanket.
"Peatlands take thousands of years to form and once damaged, it is incredibly difficult - and often impossible - to restore them fully. Though turbines can be taken down, the supporting roads and foundations would cause irreversible damage to the area, altering the water pattern and soil make-up." - RSPB, "Lewis and Wind Farms".
Besides, peatland carbon reservoirs are protected by UN Kyoto Protocol 2(1)(a)(ii). It is indeed counterproductive to destroy carbon sinks for a project whose only purpose is to save CO2 from going into the atmosphere.
The justifications of the project based on climate change, global warming, and the savings of greenhouse gases are invalidated by the choice of a carbon reservoir for erecting this windfarm - one designated as a Special Area for Conservation at that.
This is indeed a most inappropriate location for a windfarm, as more CO2 than necessary will be released into the atmosphere in order to prepare the infrastructure, and a valuable carbon sink will be lost forever, in breach of the UN Kyoto protocol.
8.0 Objection is lodged that the project is contrary to public interest.
Article 6.3 of the Council of Europe´s Habitats Directive 92/43/EEC states " If, in spite of a negative assessment of the implications for the site and in the absence of alternative solutions, a plan or project must nevertheless be carried out for imperative reasons of overriding public interest…"
I will comment upon that when all pending studies are made available, and the revised ES is published.
9.0 Objection is lodged that, even if the project was erroneously deemed by the decision-makers to be of overriding public interest, it should not be carried out because alternative solutions do exist.
Article 6.3 of the Council of Europe´s Habitats Directive 92/43/EEC states " If, in spite of a negative assessment of the implications for the site and in the absence of alternative solutions, a plan or project must nevertheless be carried out for imperative reasons of overriding public interest…"
But alternative solutions do exist:
9.1 - Wavepower is more efficient than windpower, water being 800 times denser than air. The technology is there, ready to be exploited. And the seas around Scotland offer a huge, untapped potential for sourcing that energy.
9.2 - If windpower is chosen, for political reasons that are out of touch with the long term interests of the country, its people, its landscape, its wildlife, and its tourism industry, then there are many locations where it may be sited, other than a natural reserve designated under Natura 2000 European Directives and the Ramsar convention.
These locations are:
- Offshore, subject to adequate environmental impact assessment.
- Inland, subject to adequate environmental impact assessment, in areas that are not designated as natural reserves or other such protected areas.
9.3 Conclusion
Damage to the Lewis Peatlands SPA, SAC and RAMSAR natural reserves is not necessary, because there are alternatives to the project itself, as well as many alternative locations.
10.0 The ES contains errors and misrepresentations that further debilitate its value as an impact assessment, let alone a useful tool for decision-making. It is grossly deficient, and is certainly not an appropriate assessment under the European Habitats Directive 92/43/EEC.
I reserve the right to comment upon that when all pending studies are made available, and the revised ES is published.
11.0 Objection is lodged that otters will be affected by the pollution of the pristine hydrology resources of the SPA, loss of habitat, and disturbance by construction and maintenance crews.
I reserve the right to comment upon that when all pending studies are made available, and the revised ES is published.
.
12.0 Objection is lodged that the damage to the landscape was not objectively assessed.
I reserve the right to comment upon that when all pending studies are made available, and the revised ES is published.
13.0 Objection is lodged that the damage to the tourism industry was not objectively assessed.
I reserve the right to comment upon that when all pending studies are made available, and the revised ES is published.
14.0 CONCLUSION
For all of the above, I submit that the application for the Lewis Wind Power project on the isle of Lewis must be rejected. Failing that, a public inquiry should be called.
Mark Duchamp ..........................................December 12th, 2004
REFERENCES
(1) - Lekuona report, in Spanish - J.M. Lekuona report.
Also available here: www.iberica2000.org/documents/EOLICA/LEKUONA_REPORT.pdf
- Translation of executive summary
Also available here: www.iberica2000.org/documents/EOLICA/Lekuona_report_English_translation.doc
- Birds and windfarms - Bird Genocide at windfarm sites - Comments on the Lekuona report, in English.
Also available here: www.iberica2000.org/Es/Articulo.asp?Id=1188
(2) - Blade tip speed may be calculated from turbine specifications given in the ES Appendix 12C parag. 41:
- wind turbine type: 3 MW with a rotor diameter of 100 meters
- mean rotational speed = 16.1 rpm
- maximum rotational speed = 19 rpm ("range 9-19 rpm")
- minimum rotational speed = 9 rpm ("range 9-19 rpm")
Calculating the mean rotational speed:
50 meters x 2 x 3.14 (π R2) = 314 meters of circumference x 16.1 rpm = 5,055 meters per minute x 60 minutes = 303 kph at the tip.
Calculating the maximum speed:
50 meters x 2 x 3.14 (π R2) = 314 meters of circumference x 19 rpm = 5,966 meters per minute x 60 minutes = 358 kph at the tip.
Calculating the minimum speed:
50 meters x 2 x 3.14 (π R2) = 314 meters of circumference x 9 rpm = 2,826 meters per minute x 60 minutes = 170 kph at the tip.
(3) - Farr windfarm collision model - Avian Collision Risk Assessment, Farr windfarm - inspired from SNH collision risk modelling.
Also available here:
www.iberica2000.org/documents/EOLICA/REPORTS/Farr_ES_%203.pdf
(4) - Objection Pentland Road SEE SECTION E: Objection hastily removed by SNH
M. Duchamp (2004), Objection to the Beinn Mholach (aka Pentland Road windfarm) - Also available here:www.iberica2000.org/documents/eolica/Objection_Lewis_SPA.doc
(5) German mortality records - these only reflect dead birds that were reported by the public to the authorities of the länder of Brandeburg.They are the tip of the iceberg: more than 1 million birds are thought to be dying yearly from German wind turbines: see: Chilling Statistics (also in (6) below).
Also available here. www.iberica2000.org/documents/eolica/casual_bird_mortality_record_germany.xls
(6) - Chilling Statistics - Chilling Statistics, M. Duchamp (2004)
Also available here: www.iberica2000.org/Es/Articulo.asp?Id=1875
(7) - Sterner Report
SEE PAGE 12 (D. Sterner, for the California Energy Commision (Dec. 2002) - A Roadmap for PIER Research on Avian Collisions with Wind Turbines in California). Also available here: www.iberica2000.org/documents/EOLICA/REPORTS/Dave_Sterner_2002.pdf
(8) - LWP Environmental Statement
| Insertado
por: Mark Duchamp (13/12/2004) |
| Fuente/Autor:
Marc Duchamp |
Valoración
Comentarios
Your website, iberica2000.org, could be reaching so many more people! On average, sites like yours lose over a thousand potential visitors daily. That |
| Nombre: Nichol Como (12/12/2024) |
E-mail: nichol.como@msn.com |
| |
What if your website iberica2000.org experienced a significant boost in traffic starting today? Many sites unknowingly overlook hundreds |
| Nombre: Paige Chiu (16/12/2024) |
E-mail: paige.chiu@msn.com |
| |
Every day, websites like iberica2000.org fail to capture valuable opportunities to attract visitors. Don |
| Nombre: Barbara Gall (17/12/2024) |
E-mail: barbara.gall@gmail.com |
| |
Every day, websites like iberica2000.org miss valuable opportunities to attract visitors. Don |
| Nombre: Darrel Coxen (19/12/2024) |
E-mail: darrel.coxen@msn.com |
| |
Your website, iberica2000.org, could be reaching so many more people! On average, sites like yours lose over 1K visitors per day. That |
| Nombre: Willis Duesbury (21/12/2024) |
E-mail: duesbury.willis@hotmail.com |
| |
Did you know that your website iberica2000.org might not be connect with its audience? With our advanced AI traffic system, you may gain access to thousands of additional visitors each day.
We |
| Nombre: Milford Angliss (22/12/2024) |
E-mail: milford.angliss@gmail.com |
| |
What if your website iberica2000.org was guaranteed a significant boost in traffic starting today? Many sites unknowingly lose hundreds |
| Nombre: Ned Simson (24/12/2024) |
E-mail: ned.simson@outlook.com |
| |
|
