Protesters take on bird charity over plans for village turbine

Campaigners have objected to plans for a new seabird centre at Bempton after failing to win backing for their own campaign against a nearby wind turbine.

A group called Bempton Residents Against Turbines is fighting plans for three turbines, including one 150ft tall just half a mile from the RSPB centre at Bempton.

They have written to the Heritage Lottery Fund, which has so far given the RSPB £33,000 to develop plans to extend the centre, to object, claiming the RSPB has lost sight of its conservation role by not joining the fight against the turbine, which will supply electricity to a pig unit at Norway Farm. The RSPB insists there is no evidence that there will be an impact on seabirds or birds in surrounding farmland.

But David Hinde, who lives in Bempton, and a spokesman for the group, said there were fears that the development could lead to a slew of similar applications on the coast. He said: “Bird lovers will be amazed to find RSPB conservation officers saying that they are intending not to object to a 150ft turbine, the largest single commercial turbine in the Yorkshire Wolds at Cliff Lane, Bempton, less than half a mile from the RSPB Visitor Centre on the Flamborough Heritage Coast.

“This is the first to threaten and open the floodgates on the Flamborough Heritage Coast through precedent, to even more at this height and above. And it will be visible from Filey Brigg and Filey Country Park and The Bay of course.

“The Flamborough Heritage Coast, that RSPB are supposed to be a protective partner in, a tourism partner too, obtain a large amount of their income from RSPB members who proudly display their member sticker on their porch window.

“When the RSPB migration recorder at Buckton tells you that 100,000 migratory birds will be passing in the line of the turbine proposed on their way to Buckton and Bridlington Bay, including whooper swans and the rare pink-footed geese too, as they shortcut across this part of the headland, one questions how this organisation with royal patronage deserves to have a P in its name – or an R for that matter.”

However, site manager at Bempton Ian Kendall said there was no evidence that turbines impacted on birds – be they seabirds or farmbirds.

Mr Kendall said: “As a scientific organisation which we largely are, we can only state facts; the facts are that it is not going to affect the seabird colony at all because they don’t feed on the fields, they feed on the sea.

“We have eight species of seabirds here and they are completely and utterly oceanic. Guillemots, razorbills and puffins are hardly capable of walking on the land; these birds have developed over the millennia to be completely and utterly dependent on the sea.

“Pink-footed geese pass down the coast and they can quite easily see turbines.

“The fact is birds avoid turbines in the same way that they avoid buildings.”

A report by ecologists on behalf of the applicants for the turbine says over 72 species of birds could use the field, including 51 of conservation concern, but says potential impacts through collisions “are limited by the small scale of the development”.

The Heritage Lottery Fund finance has allowed the charity to work up detailed plans for a major extension of its facilities along with Beverley-based Salt Architects.

The aim is to make it an attractive year-round visitor destination with a dedicated learning space and areas for research.

The RSPB will be putting in a bid to the HLF for around £640,000 in June. Mr Kendall said: “We are not at this stage about growing visitor numbers, it is about giving existing visitors a better experience. The aspiration is to create a community space. At the moment if people come to Bempton and the weather is bad there is absolutely no classroom space whatsoever.”

The HLF said the objection had been noted.

http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/around-yorkshire/local-stories/protesters_take_on_bird_charity_over_plans_for_village_turbine_1_4172153

Wind turbine blades fly off in storm

The blades, measuring almost 7ft, were blown across a busy road and could have hurt wildlife or caused damage to property as well as endangering life.

The huge turbine blades flew off three structures including one on the aptly-named Windmill Lane in Huddersfield, West Yorks.

The firm who made the damaged turbines in the Hepworth and Upper Cumberworth areas of the town has promised a full investigation.

Concerned villagers in Hepworth warned: "Someone could have been killed," after one of the blades was flung across a road.

Ryan Gill, of manufacturers Evoco, blamed the exceptionally strong winds for the damage.

The Evoco website claims the 10kw turbine has been "specifically designed to reliably deliver high generation performance in harsh wind conditions".

The windmill in Hepworth was ripped apart in the gale force winds. The blades on the 50ft mast are over 6ft long and one flew across a road.

Frances Barnes, who has 10 acres of grazing land for horses close to the Hepworth turbine, said: "It is worrying.

"People objected to the plans when they first went in - not because it is a windmill but because it is so close to a busy road.

"It is frightening to think what may have happened had one of the blades flown into the road and hit a car, or indeed if the wind turbine had come down."

The smaller turbines are increasingly popular as the Government is offering households and communities subsidies to build the structures.

Both large and small turbines have caused problems recently in high winds.

A 330ft £2m turbine burst into flame in Ayrshire last month in storms although it was not even spinning and thought to be an electrical fault.

Another structure the same size came crashing down in Coldingham in the Scottish borders during the December storms.

However Fraser McLachlan, the chief executive of GCube, a wind turbine insurer, said no one has been injured by a turbine in the last decade, when most of the wind farms were built.

“It does happen but by the very nature of where wind farms are - they are usually in very sparsely populated spots and therefore the risk of damage to property or to people risk is very very low,” he said.

Renewable UK, the trade association for the wind industry, said incidents of turbines causing damage are very, very rare around the world.

Slight change in wind turbine speed significantly reduces bat mortality

While wind energy has shown strong potential as a large-scale, emission-free energy source, bat and bird collisions at wind turbines result in thousands of fatalities annually. Migratory bats, such as the hoary bat, are especially at risk for collision with wind turbines as they fly their routes in the forested ridges of the eastern U.S. This loss not only impacts the immediate area, but is also detrimental to ecosystem health nationwide—that is, bats help with pest management, pollination and the dispersal of numerous plant seeds.


Since turbine towers and non-spinning turbine blades do not kill bats, some scientists have proposed shutting off or reducing the usage of wind turbines during peak periods of migration in the late summer and early fall months when bat activity and fatalities are highest.

In a study to be published online November 1, 2010 in Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment (e-View), a journal of the Ecological Society of America, Edward Arnett from Bat Conservation International in Austin, Texas and colleagues examined the effects of changes in wind turbine speed on bat mortality during the low-wind months of late summer and early fall.

Currently, most wind turbines in the U.S. are programmed to begin rotating and producing power once wind speed has reached approximately 8 to 9 miles per hour (mph)—the wind speed at which turbines begin generating electricity to the power grid is known as the cut-in speed. Wind turbines with a low cut-in speed run more frequently than those set at higher cut-in speeds since they begin rotating at lower wind speeds.

The researchers found that, by raising the cut-in speed to roughly 11 mph, bat fatalities were reduced by at least 44 percent, and by as much as 93 percent, with an annual power loss of less than one percent. That is, programming the turbines to rotate only when the wind reached approximately 11 mph or higher caused the turbines to rotate less frequently and, therefore, killed significantly fewer bats. Because this was performed during months with seasonably low wind speeds already, the overall energy loss was marginal when the researchers calculated the annual power output.

"This is the only proven mitigation option to reduce bat kills at this time," said Arnett. "If we want to pursue the benefits associated with wind energy, we need to consider the local ecological impacts that the turbines could cause. We have already seen a rise in bat mortality associated with wind energy development, but our study shows that, by marginally limiting the turbines during the summer and fall months, we can save bats as well as promote advances in alternative energy."

Arnett and colleagues monitored 12 of the 23 turbines at the Casselman Wind Project in Somerset County, Pennsylvania in the Appalachian Mountain region and recorded bat fatalities for 25 summer and fall nights in both 2008 and 2009. The researchers analyzed the fatalities following nights when the turbines were fully operational and when the turbines were set to the less sensitive cut-in speeds of roughly 11 mph and 14.5 mph. In both years, the researchers found at least one fresh bat carcass every night that the turbines were fully operational. Specifically, the researchers reported a mortality rate that was, on average, 3.6 to 5.4 times higher at the fully functioning turbines compared with the turbines set to the altered cut-in speeds.

According to John Hayes, co-author of the study from the University of Florida, "the findings are important step forward in building a comprehensive energy strategy with reduced environmental impacts."

"Rarely do you see such a win-win result in a study," said Arnett. "There is a simple, relatively cost-effective solution here that could save thousands of bats. This is good news for conservation and for wind energy development."

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2010-11/esoa-sci110110.php

Slight change in wind turbine speed significantly reduces bat mortality

While wind energy has shown strong potential as a large-scale, emission-free energy source, bat and bird collisions at wind turbines result in thousands of fatalities annually. Migratory bats, such as the hoary bat, are especially at risk for collision with wind turbines as they fly their routes in the forested ridges of the eastern U.S. This loss not only impacts the immediate area, but is also detrimental to ecosystem health nationwide—that is, bats help with pest management, pollination and the dispersal of numerous plant seeds.


Since turbine towers and non-spinning turbine blades do not kill bats, some scientists have proposed shutting off or reducing the usage of wind turbines during peak periods of migration in the late summer and early fall months when bat activity and fatalities are highest.

In a study to be published online November 1, 2010 in Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment (e-View), a journal of the Ecological Society of America, Edward Arnett from Bat Conservation International in Austin, Texas and colleagues examined the effects of changes in wind turbine speed on bat mortality during the low-wind months of late summer and early fall.

Currently, most wind turbines in the U.S. are programmed to begin rotating and producing power once wind speed has reached approximately 8 to 9 miles per hour (mph)—the wind speed at which turbines begin generating electricity to the power grid is known as the cut-in speed. Wind turbines with a low cut-in speed run more frequently than those set at higher cut-in speeds since they begin rotating at lower wind speeds.

The researchers found that, by raising the cut-in speed to roughly 11 mph, bat fatalities were reduced by at least 44 percent, and by as much as 93 percent, with an annual power loss of less than one percent. That is, programming the turbines to rotate only when the wind reached approximately 11 mph or higher caused the turbines to rotate less frequently and, therefore, killed significantly fewer bats. Because this was performed during months with seasonably low wind speeds already, the overall energy loss was marginal when the researchers calculated the annual power output.

"This is the only proven mitigation option to reduce bat kills at this time," said Arnett. "If we want to pursue the benefits associated with wind energy, we need to consider the local ecological impacts that the turbines could cause. We have already seen a rise in bat mortality associated with wind energy development, but our study shows that, by marginally limiting the turbines during the summer and fall months, we can save bats as well as promote advances in alternative energy."

Arnett and colleagues monitored 12 of the 23 turbines at the Casselman Wind Project in Somerset County, Pennsylvania in the Appalachian Mountain region and recorded bat fatalities for 25 summer and fall nights in both 2008 and 2009. The researchers analyzed the fatalities following nights when the turbines were fully operational and when the turbines were set to the less sensitive cut-in speeds of roughly 11 mph and 14.5 mph. In both years, the researchers found at least one fresh bat carcass every night that the turbines were fully operational. Specifically, the researchers reported a mortality rate that was, on average, 3.6 to 5.4 times higher at the fully functioning turbines compared with the turbines set to the altered cut-in speeds.

According to John Hayes, co-author of the study from the University of Florida, "the findings are important step forward in building a comprehensive energy strategy with reduced environmental impacts."

"Rarely do you see such a win-win result in a study," said Arnett. "There is a simple, relatively cost-effective solution here that could save thousands of bats. This is good news for conservation and for wind energy development."

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2010-11/esoa-sci110110.php