Arriving at the Lodge, the RSPB’s headquarters in Bedfordshire, I pass a 50 metre high mast in a field. This is a constant reminder of the challenge we face to reduce our carbon emissions in a way that doesn’t harm the wildlife we are here to protect.
This mast has been up for well over a year collecting data on wind speeds, part of our project to construct a wind turbine in partnership with renewable energy company Ecotricity. This week the official planning application for the turbine went in to the district council and we now await its decision.
But is this the right thing for a conservation charity to be doing and why join a debate that has divided opinion across the UK (and further afield)?
Through this blog I want to outline why I think we must continue to engage in the energy debate.
Science has shown that increasing concentrations of greenhouse gas emissions in the atmosphere leads to rising global temperatures. It is expected that forthcoming reports from the Independent Panel on Climate Change will not only increase the confidence of links of these emissions to human activity but also highlight the seriousness of impacts for both humans and the natural world. For example, for every one degree rise in global temperatures it is predicted that 10% of species will be at risk of extinction.
As an organisation whose core mission is to prevent common species becoming rare and threatened species from becoming extinct, working to prevent climate change isn’t optional, it’s essential. To avoid catastrophic climate change, global emissions need to reduce by 50% by 2050 and it is widely accepted that developed nations should take their fair share and decarbonise their economies over the next four decades. This demands a revolution in how we generate and consume energy. We want this revolution to happen, but we also want it to take place in harmony with nature.
Given the known risks to the natural world from different energy technologies, we have no option other than have a view about how we generate and consume energy.
I wrote a few days ago about our decision to object to two fracking proposals in Sussex and Lancashire. A fracking free-for-all could put at risk protected areas like Morecambe Bay which is close to the proposed drilling site at Singleton, Lancashire. Some who have posted comments on this blog have suggested we should continue to assess proposals on a case by case basis. Yet, even if the environmental risks can be mitigated, shale gas is still a fossil fuel. It may be lower carbon than coal but it isn’t low enough for us to use it in large quantities and still decarbonise electricity supply as much as we need to - unless we crack Carbon Capture and Storage, which is still unproven at a commercial scale.
We’re concerned that pursuing a new fossil fuel industry will jeopardise meeting UK emission reduction targets and also broader commitments to keep global climate change to within ‘safe limits’.
But, this doesn’t mean it’s as simple as saying yes to renewables and no to fossil fuels. Renewables can have negative impacts on wildlife too, and that’s why we spend so much time assessing proposals for wind farms, for example, both on land and at sea. I am acutely aware of the strength of feeling on both sides of the wind farm debate. Our position is that we want appropriate development to proceed in the right place, while having a thorough understanding of what does and doesn’t reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
And, the renewable energy debate is not just about wind turbines. Those with a long memory will know that we have been fighting outdated tidal barrage proposals across the Severn for many years because of unacceptable environmental impacts (and unconvincing economics). Biofuels and biomass are also big issues for us and we have objected to regulations that would allow for habitat destruction overseas and, often, an increase in overall greenhouse gas emissions.
The solar panels that are appearing on more and more people’s roofs are a fantastic way of making a difference at home. And energy efficiency – described rather accurately by a colleague as the untrendy dancing dad of the energy debate – is also vital, yet a largely unsung part of the solution.
And that brings me back to wind. Sited away from vulnerable wildlife and at the right scale, we know wind farms can make a significant contribution to generating renewable electricity (for which the UK has binding targets) and helping to reduce our dependency on fossil fuels.
That’s why we are submitting this planning application for a wind turbine at the Lodge. This turbine would produce the equivalent of two thirds of the RSPB’s electricity use across the UK. It will make a massive difference to our carbon footprint (we are committed to reducing our emissions by 3% per year), and I hope it will also be an example for others to follow.
There are are nearly 500 people that work at the Lodge and most are passionate about wildlife. We feel privileged to work in such a fabulous location and there is no way that we would put up with a development that causes harm to wildlife. This is why we have done the necessary tests to determine any potential harm the turbine might bring to The Lodge’s wildlife and why we now have confidence that our planning application can and should proceed.
I understand that our actions will create some debate amongst our members and supporters. So every day next week we will be looking at the issues surrounding this project on our Climate Blog – please come along and join the debate. It would be great to hear your views...
Hi Jane,
You ask some important questions which deserve a full response.
We’ve followed best practice in understanding the potential impacts of the turbine and have only proceeded to the point of submitting an application because we’re confident that there will be negligible impacts on birds and other wildlife. If it does go ahead then we won’t rest on our laurels, we’ll carry out regular monitoring to assess whether our predictions were accurate and if the impacts are greater than anticipated, we’ll take the necessary steps to mitigate for them.
Initial wind speed data suggests the turbine could produce 2.36 million kWh per annum. To put this in context, the RSPB’s total annual UK electricity usage is in the region of 3.5 million kWh/annum. It’s predicted to reduce our carbon emissions by just over 1,000 tonnes of CO2 every year. Based on the RSPB’s 2010/11 carbon emissions, this would equate to a 42% reduction in emissions from our UK buildings and a 13% reduction in the RSPB’s total UK carbon emissions.
Onshore wind has a carbon footprint of around 9gCO2equivalent/kWh - taking into account not only the emissions from generation of electricity but also those incurred during the manufacture, construction and decommissioning phases. This is considerably lower than gas at around 370gCO2/kWh and coal at around 850gCO2/kWh.
Spinning reserve, which is the name given to the back up you talk about, is needed not just for wind but to cope both with unexpected fluctuations in demand and with the fact that large coal-fired and nuclear power stations cannot just be turned on and off at the flick of a switch. They are huge engineering structures, operating at steam temperatures of about 550oC. They can take many hours or even days to run up and down, longer in the case of nuclear. Although wind generation is intermittent and fluctuating, it does displace fossil fuel generation, resulting in lower greenhouse gas emissions overall.
The development of new technologies is going to be critical in the transition to a low carbon economy – such as carbon capture and storage to make power stations cleaner and improved battery storage to enable higher levels of intermittent supply in the system.
Yes, this is a drop in the ocean compared to global emissions but if we only focus on the scale of the challenge then we’ll never get anywhere. We need action that’s top down and bottom up, and that means action from Government, action from business and action from individuals. The RSPB is getting involved at different levels. At an international level we engage with the process of negotiating international climate agreements, at a national level we lobby Government to support the development of renewable technologies that minimise the impacts on nature, and at the local level we’re taking action to minimise our own carbon footprint.
I am very supportive of the line RSPB has taken over this difficult subject: it would have been wrong simply to try and side step it. Similarly, I am not anti wind power. What does concern me deeply - and it is an issue which spreads much wider to planning in general, fracking, HS2 etc - is how we go about this sort of development. I've been involved as a consultant in a couple of wind turbine proposals and understand as a result why such opposition has built up: led by engineers more concerned with links to the grid than anything else, applications are seen as an exercise in blasting through planning by overwhelming opposition rather than thinking about impact on the environment. I suspect this may have been a factor in RSPB's 'divorce' from SSE a couple of years ago. Wind farm applicants have only themselves to blame for what has now built up into an unquenchable 'bow wave' of opposition to onshore wind. Is it a lesson others will learn as the Government tries to erode the planning system ? The message is that in the end public opinion will win regardless of Government support, and people faced with crude, ill considered development are champions of our environment rather than 'nimbies'.
Martin,
You write: "Our position is that we want appropriate development to proceed in the right place, while having a thorough understanding of what does and doesn’t reduce greenhouse gas emissions."
Just how much CO2 will this wind turbine alleviate through its lifetime and what percentage of this countrys' CO2 emmissions would that equate to and what percentage of the worlds'CO2 emmissions would that equate to please?
I would expect the calculations to take into account the CO2 emmissions generated in the manufacture, transportation and installation of this wind turbines,
I realise that all power stations generate CO2 emmissions in their build but the difference here is that those generated for the wind turbine build are additional to those generated for a conventional power station build because we still need the conventional power station to cover for fluctuations in the wind.
Wind turbines are not a substitute or replacement for conventional power stations, they are additional generators to conventional power stations.
We can have a power station in our back yard
or
We can have a power station AND 2,000 x 2MW wind turbines in our back yard.
We can't just have the 2,000 x 2MW wind turbines on their own and keep the lights on.
I would expect these calculated CO2 build emmissions to be doubled as a wind turbine only has half, and indeed maybe only a third of the life span of a conventional power station.
I would also expect the calculations to take into account the CO2 emmissions generated in the maintenance of the turbine e.g. replacement blades.
I would also expect the calculations to take into account the spinning reserve i.e. the reduced electricity generated per unit of fuel burned and therefore the reduced electricity generated per unit of CO2 emmitted when keeping conventional power stations 'hot' so that they can kick in when the wind fluctuates.
I would also expect the calculations to take into account the electricity used to operate the turbine e.g. to start up the turbine blades in low winds and to turn the 60 tonne nacelle head to 'hunt' for the wind, to feather the blades etc
I would also expect the calculations to take into account the CO2 emmissions generated in building the new grid infrastructure to support wind turbines in this country.
Just how did "reducing CO2 emmissions" deform into "build wind turbines"
Which country stands out for having lots of wind turbines and low CO2 emmissions per capita.
And does this 'drop of water in the worlds oceans' saving of CO2 emmissions, if indeed there is one at all, really justify building a wind turbine in a nature reserve.
The tradegy is that the impacts of this wind turbine are unknown, so much so that "Post Construction Research" will take place to monitor bird and bat deaths using dogs and people to find the carcasses in years 2, 3, 5, 10 and 15 of the wind turbine operation.
"Bird mortality surveys will be conducted in parallel with the bat surveys through the summer months using dogs and with humans during the winter months"
See "Post Construction Research" point 6.71 of the Environmental Report part 2 which can be found here:
www.centralbedfordshire.gov.uk/.../searchresult.asp
Your blog refers to wind turbines "Sited away from vulnerable wildlife" - is non of the wildlife at the Lodge 'vulnerable' -
The Lodge web page states "The Lodge is one of the best places for wildlife in the UK."
This wind turbine planning application is insane - what's going on???
This is "a very difficult one" in my view. I fully understand the points that Martin is making in this blog and it is quite right that the RSPB should engage fully in the energy debate, as climate change is vitally important regarding the future of our wildlife. The work that the RSPB does in showing that biofuels are overwhelmingly harmful to wildlife and the environment is superb.
However wind turbines are very highly controversial (I would not want to live close to one and other organisations will not be so scrupulous in their wind developments in avoiding harm to wildlife ). While the RSPB should certainly not avoid controversy when it is necessary to protect nature, I am not sure in this case the controversy which surrounds this issue is really necessary for the RSPB. I would like to see bigger investments in such technology as solar panels and wave power.
Overwhelmingly we need to see climate change on a world scale and what such countries as the USA, China and India do to abate their carbon emissions will very largely determine the degree of world temperature rise.(Persuasion in that direction might well have more effect than building a wind turbine).
Overall therefore I would say I well understand the arguments for the RSPB wind turbine but on balance I think it is to be avoided.