We like to keep up a steady stream of bird stories on The Engineer. Whether it is warning systems to prevent aircraft birdstrikes, or engineers seeking inspiration for new wing geometries, or even miniaturised cameras for wildlife filming and zoology research, our feathered friends provide a constant source of technology projects. The latest to hit the headlines involves the RSPB and windfarms. The society has called for an increase in the number of windfarms to be built, on the basis that the danger that wind turbines pose to bird life is outweighed by the havoc that global warming could play on feeding, migration and breeding habits.
The points put forward by the RSPB are interesting for engineers, as they involve bringing together a variety of technologies, including advanced mapping techniques, to pinpoint the areas where bird life would be most at risk; grid infrastructure, to transport the electricity from the safest locations to dense and dispersed populations; and a system of tariffs to ensure that communities near windfarms have access to cheaper power. Ruth Davies, head of climate change policy at the RSPB, said: ‘If we get it right, the UK can produce huge amounts of clean energy without time-consuming conflicts and harm to wildlife. Get it wrong, and people could reject windpower. That would be disastrous.’
Meanwhile, off the coast of Portugal, another renewable energy technology is in trouble. Persistent technical problems, including leaks, have disabled the Pelamis wave-energy converters in Europe’s first wave farm. The three 140m-long flexing ‘sea-snakes’ have been towed back to shore, and the engineering firm that owns 77 per cent of the wave farm, Babcock and Brown, has gone bust, putting the future of the project in doubt. Pelamis Wave Power, the Edinburgh firm that builds the generators, has signed an agreement to build an even larger converter for E.On, and both companies say the deal will go ahead, but doubts are inevitable.
Both stories are a reminder of the difficulties of generating power from the weather, especially in financially uncertain times. And both are bound to generate more scepticism; the anti-wind lobby will argue that there are just too many constraints on windfarms, for too small a return; wave power sceptics might say that the marine environment is just too hazardous and uncertain for such vital infrastructure. And doubtless many readers will think that our coverage of renewable technologies shows that we have been taken in by some ‘green con’, and that we should devote our attention to clean fossil fuels and nuclear.
The fact is that we don’t endorse one technology over any other, and for a very good reason. We’re only now beginning to understand the perils of relying on only one source of energy for our electricity generation, and it is becoming crystal clear that we cannot carry on like that. Every time the government puts funding in place for one form of generation, critics cry ‘what about the others?’, when inevitably another announcement follows soon after, favouring a different technology.
Many of our opinion pieces call for the funders of technology development to hold their nerve and keep the investment coming, but this is true for the field of electricity generation more than any other. Technologies will fail, especially in the marine sector, yet wave and tidal have the potential not only to generate a significant proportion of UK power, but to provide valuable IP to generate income for British companies — a chance we missed out on when wind technology went to Germany and Denmark. But all the technologies — wave, wind and solar, clean fossil fuels, carbon capture, biofuels and advanced nuclear — require continued funding and development. We’re not going to be able to cope without access to all of them.
All energy questions are going to be hard, because every technology has pros and cons, none of which are trivial. We applaud the RSPB for its realism. Others should follow suit.
Stuart Nathan
Special Projects Editor
This is a very interesting development and shows that the environmental lobby is thinking about issues and not just jumping on bandwagons. I recall a case where (I think it was in Japan) where an airline painted a huge “Hawk” on the front of their aircraft to scare birds away. Perhaps a simple solution of this nature is needed in this case.
The RSPB were probably being a bit political but I applaud their neutral stance. Bird deaths are comparatively low and their carcases will be food for other species. Greater risks are damage to turbine blade from ice build-up and injury to people from ice flying off the blades or from disintegrating blades hitting adjacent turbines. The greatest risk to bird life is surely near or at the eastern coastal locations. But turbines in shallow waters will create huge marine life sanctuaries. However, the time is fast approaching when readers will ask The Engineer to provide some articles on actual operational experience for common renewable technologies.
Problems for birds are not purely from windfarms, it is more significant from people removing natural habitats from their own properties. Many people cannot be bothered cutting lawns or hedges, or occasionally trimming trees and other shrubs which provide many birds with habitats to live and breed. I have a reasonable sized garden, although large by today’s standards; it contains several trees, numerous shrubs, and a large privet hedge. Many people are going for the quarry look, this is usually block paving, various stone and slabs, and fencing panels; this guarantees no habitat for birds. They can redress the balance by providing a natural habitat for birds and other wildlife by planting and offering them a chance to live and breed. Many people do not know what they are missing out on, after a stressful day at work there is nothing nicer than sitting on the lawn watching the wildlife.
I have a tame blackbird who is hilarious. We also have numerous tits – blue, coal, and long tailed varieties – woodpeckers, robins, thrushes, wrens, sparrows, two pairs of owls, and many more.
A little effort will be rewarded with so much stress relief, and for very little effort and outlay.
This article really misses the point in a big way about wind turbines.
A study carried out in Denmark and described in David MacKay’s “Without Hot Air” showed that for every bird killed by a wind turbine, more than 1800 were killed by cats. Birds and wind turbines are a non issue, so let’s stop wasting time talking about it.
Do we need or want wind turbines? Consider the following:
The plan is that we should install about 10 times the number we have at present (how long will that take?) to achieve 30% of electrical generation capacity.
In 2007, electricity consumption in the UK was 393TWh, which is 18kWh/day per person.
David MacKay has shown that our total energy consumption is 125kWh/day per person (and that excludes the energy built in to our imports).
This means that all the wind farms we ever build will only be able to supply 4.3% of our present energy needs. When are people going to start talking about the other 95% of energy. Where is it going to come from?
The only realistic ways that appear to be available are either a few hundred nuclear power stations, or solar heating schemes (such as the Gemasolar scheme being built near Seville) – but here we are talking about hundreds of square km of installations in N African deserts.
Please, let us start talking realistically about how we are going to produce all the energy we use now without fossil fuels.
The RSPB should be congratulated for recognising the big environmental picture and having the courage to speak up. Too often micro-environmental concerns are used to justify prolonged procrastination and inaction, instead of focusing on tackling the looming macro-environmental changes orders of magnitude more destructive.
Anyone who attended the Energy and Environment 09 event at Westminster on the 26th and heard Kevin Anderson (Tyndall Centre) speak, knows the score…
I think I see a totally verifiable and non-reversible CDM in Biochar soils. This could be the largest biofuel wedge of clean energy.
Our farming for over 10,000 years has been responsible for two-thirds of our excess greenhouse gases. This soil carbon, converted to carbon dioxide, Methane & Nitrous oxide began a slow stable warming that now accelerates with burning of fossil fuel.
Wise Land management; Organic farming and afforestation can build back our soil carbon,
Biochar allows the soil food web to build much more recalcitrant organic carbon, (living biomass & glomalins) in addition to the carbon in the biochar.
Biochar, the modern version of an ancient Amazonian agricultural practice called Terra Preta (black earth, TP), is gaining widespread credibility as a way to address world hunger, climate change, rural poverty, deforestation, and energy shortages… SIMULTANEOUSLY!
Modern pyrolysis of biomass is a process for Carbon Negative Bio fuels, massive Carbon sequestration,10X Lower Methane & N2O soil emissions, and 3X Fertility Too.
Every 1 ton of Biomass yields 1/3 ton Charcoal for soil Sequestration, Bio-Gas & Bio-oil fuels, so is a totally virtuous, carbon negative energy cycle.
UNCCD Submission to Climate Change/UNFCCC AWG-LCA 5
“Account carbon contained in soils and the importance of biochar (charcoal) in replenishing soil carbon pools, restoring soil fertility and enhancing the sequestration of CO2.”
http://www.unccd.int/publicinfo/AWGLCA5/menu.php
This new Congressional Research Service report (by analyst Kelsi Bracmort) is the best short summary I have seen so far – both technical and policy oriented.
http://assets.opencrs.com/rpts/R40186_20090203.pdf .
Given the current “Crisis” atmosphere concerning energy, soil sustainability, food vs. biofuels, and Climate Change what other system addresses them all?
Biochar viewed as soil infrastructure; the old saw, “Feed the Soil Not the Plants” become “Feed, Cloth and House the Soil, utilities included!” Free Carbon Condominiums, build it and Wee-Beasties will come.
As one microbiologist said on the Biochar list; “Microbes like to sit down when they eat”. By setting this table we expand husbandry to whole new orders of life.
Carbon to the soil, the only ubiquitous and economic place to put it.
Cheers,
Erich J. Knight
Interesting article and I agree that instead of trying to focus on one type of energy production, we should consider a poly-generation strategy and not put all of our eggs in one basket!
Alongside this we should be putting resources and technology into saving energy and reducing use of energy and non-renewable fuels. There are big players on industrial scale down to the individual (who the government seem more than happy to hammer at any given occasion with yet another pointless green strategy – going for votes rather than real long-term survival). I won’t even start on the waste of time and energy that constitutes most household recycle schemes. The relation to birds and wildlife in general though does raise interesting points with one of the most energy/fuel hungry industries in the world – farming. The intensive western ‘civilised’ methods of farming are hugely wasteful, fighting nature instead of working with it. Our habit to intensively farm vast acreages of single crops ensures a systematic raping of the soil’s natural nutrients and beneficial micro-cultures – which is then “remedied” by the application of thousands of tons of fertilizer produced from petrochemical sources. Yet not very many people seem to be worried about this yet? Alternatives such as permaculture exist but as yet don’t seem to have the full focus they need and deserve to ensure the human population can sustain itself. Aside from anything else, permaculture would give back a lot more habitat to native wildlife (they are essential to ensure high yields for minimal maintenance), making lots of people happy.
Personally, I’m far more concerned about not being able to produce food in the near future than not being able to spend eight hours a day stuck on a PC!
I am an electrical engineer, and been of an engineering mind i have no doubt that given enough money, the engineers of the world could solve all our energy needs in less than ten years using natural resources like wind water and sun and hydrogen. However the world today is driven by profit, not need, and until oil, coal and gas actually run out there will likely be little more than a token gesture done to fund non-carbon based fuels, the oil companies have to much money in carbon fuels. No one, however, has yet pointed out the fundamental cause of our planets problems THERE ARE TO MANY OF US. Nature can, given time, fix the problems we cause, provided we don’t create the problems at a faster rate than nature can correct them. So fossil fuels or not, less people means less pollution and more room for trees and nature’s other pollution fixers. Maybe world leaders would be better off tackling population growth first.
I am in agreement withs most of the comments from Stuart Monkton. Maybe bird flu will solve that?
Deborah Norris is right that we should not put our eggs in one basket. What they all miss is the potential of our grandchildren. This summer I hope to build VAWT with mine, to turn them on to engineering and lateral thinking . Stuart Goode 2nd May 09