Wind farm wildlife fears (From Daily Echo)

If bats can fly in the dark, amongst trees etc and not collide, I think that they would be able to detect a bleedin great wind turbine.

Similarly with migrating birds. If they have flown in from Scandinavia, across the North Sea, they will have missed all of the wind turbines that are sited off-shore, all along the East Coast, and I have no doubt that those arriving from North of the border would have had a similar experience.

I think that Wonston Parish Council's Vice Chairman, John Holt is just another NIMBY.

The land around wind turbines in Norfolk didn't get downgraded to brownland, it's still farmland and as Linesman said, if bats and birds were likely to hit them, then you would see it in Scandinavia and you would see piles of birds at the bottom of the ones we already have providing us power.

Ginger_cyclist wrote:
The land around wind turbines in Norfolk didn't get downgraded to brownland, it's still farmland and as Linesman said, if bats and birds were likely to hit them, then you would see it in Scandinavia and you would see piles of birds at the bottom of the ones we already have providing us power.

any carcasses are probably quickly taken care of by foxes, badgers etc who probably increase the density of population locally to these structures in the same way that a cash machine handing out free cash will quickly attract a lot of human activity. the fact they are useless is reason enough not to build them. the fact that the recent not so honourable member for eastleigh is one of the leading proponents of these things says it all really.With the world population increase it makes sense to keep our agricultural land as that as in the future we may not be able to rely on imports

derek james wrote:

Ginger_cyclist wrote:
The land around wind turbines in Norfolk didn't get downgraded to brownland, it's still farmland and as Linesman said, if bats and birds were likely to hit them, then you would see it in Scandinavia and you would see piles of birds at the bottom of the ones we already have providing us power.

any carcasses are probably quickly taken care of by foxes, badgers etc who probably increase the density of population locally to these structures in the same way that a cash machine handing out free cash will quickly attract a lot of human activity. the fact they are useless is reason enough not to build them. the fact that the recent not so honourable member for eastleigh is one of the leading proponents of these things says it all really.With the world population increase it makes sense to keep our agricultural land as that as in the future we may not be able to rely on imports

I agree about keeping farmland and yes, to an extent turbines are not long term due to parts wearing out and being expensive to replace BUT they do NOT have a great impact on farmland plus farmers get PAID rent for those turbines being on their land and they DO reduce our dependance on fossil fuels, even only by a little bit and until they come up with an energy source CLEANER than using stuff like plutonium, turbines and other such "renewable" energy sources are our only option, at the moment they are working on fusion reactors to replace the current fission reactors, basically, think of a fusion reactor, as an enclosed, man-made sun, plus fusion IS a truly clean and renewable power source since the Hydrogen required is abundant on our planet with the only waste products being hot water, steam from the cooling system and what drives the generators and Helium which can all be split back down to the base element of Hydrogen.