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...
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???