The first 100 days.

Wwm2 tell it to the birds ….

Honestly ronib: you sound more like Vicky Pollard crossed with Kevin the teenager these days…

MayBee70 well who’s Vicky Pollard?
I am one of the many who did not vote for this government. I do not want this government.
I take the threat to birds very seriously why don’t you?

I think it's an insult ronib
(No, don't look her up!)

A horrible insult.

I agree with ronib. I didn’t want this government either. I’m surprised that wwm, with her love of wildlife, isn’t concerned at the harm which wind turbines cause to birds.

Callistemon213 let’s not derail this thread … but concentrate on the harm that wind turbines cause in nature. Ed Milliband clearly unaware. Also very intermittent power supply…,

Gsm 80 per cent of the electorate did not vote for Labour.

ronib

Callistemon213 let’s not derail this thread … but concentrate on the harm that wind turbines cause in nature. Ed Milliband clearly unaware. Also very intermittent power supply…,

No, I agree.

I typed a post then lost it.

estimates suggest that between 10,000 and 100,000 birds are killed by turbine blade strikes annually in the UK.

That’s a lot, but it’s worth noting that approximately 55 million birds are killed in the UK each year by domestic cats.

www.sciencefocus.com/science/how-many-birds-are-killed-by-wind-turbines-in-the-uk

DH suggested getting rid of cats might be a first step.
Apologies to all moggy-lovers out there. As you can tell, my DH is not one but they do seem to love him 🐱

Callistemon213 Just remember that the figures have to be guesses … exactly who is counting dead birds in a rigorous way?

Ed Milliband clearly unaware

Oh dear! I wrote to him when be was Minister for Climate Change and Energy in 2008? but never got a reply.
Perhaps he'll find it in his "pending" tray and reply.

RSBP

“People would be forgiven for thinking that the RSPB doesn’t like wind farms. However, while the RSPB does object to some proposals due to the wildlife risks (approximately 7-10% of applications), we are in favour of wind turbines that are well located and designed to avoid harming local wildlife. After all, climate change is one of wildlife's biggest threats.

We want to see a future where we get much of our energy from renewable sources, that helps reduce our carbon emissions, and ensures a flourishing environment for wildlife and people.

Windfarms are a part of that future, and there is still lots of potential for wildlife-friendly onshore wind energy generation. However, to achieve a truly sustainable future, we all need to look at what else is being disrupted by our actions to halt climate change and plan strategically to make the most of the low-impact opportunities available to us. This will help to avoid harmful options.

We need renewable energy in order to save nature”

ronib

Callistemon213 Just remember that the figures have to be guesses … exactly who is counting dead birds in a rigorous way?

Chris Packham?
Or the BBC Science correspondent?

Perhaps they count the dead birds around a couple of wind farms and multiply? It is a vague estimate.

Callistemon213 My DH wrote a few times to our Conservative mp about the need for increasing the number of reservoirs - that was a waste of time and resources!

ronib

David49 wind energy is unreliable and unpredictable. It causes harm to wildlife. 24 per cent of electricity generated from wind power at present. As wind can’t be controlled I am guessing that wind combined with other sources is where we should be.

Global warming kills more wildlife of every kind than do windfarms.

Having said that, I agree about the unreliability of wind as a resource. Some days it provides 40% plus of our energy, other times, mainly in winter less than 5%.

With safe large battery technology proving always to be 10 years aahead, like fusion power, the best way forward is nuclear, probably using the small station technology developed by Rolls Royce and others.

Wave power .....
volver was always in favour of that.

Cambridge university press

In energy policy debates we sometimes hear the complaint that because wind energy is intermittent, it can’t be ‘reliable’. Is this a fair criticism? It all depends on your timescale. Taking a short term view, it is true that the amount of energy generated by a wind turbine on a particular day can’t be predicted far ahead with accuracy. Taking a longer term view, however, we know that as long as the sun shines and the earth turns, there will be wind energy generated – and on an annual basis, it is more predictable than you may realise.

Data shows however, that the wind resource is extremely reliable – guaranteed, even – on an annual basis.

Wave power is even more predictable.

Yes ronib, it is.

Should every new building have solar panels?

ronib

Wwm2 tell it to the birds ….

I think that is something that has to be considered and compared with other sources of renewable energy.

GB Energy is an investment vehicle which will act as the focus for businesses who are in the renewable energy business.

This includes wind, wave and sun.

Approx. 20% of our energy could be harvested from wave energy in the U.K.

Good.

Progress with the junior doctors and very excited about transport plans. Let's hope we can turn plans to progress!

Approx 26.8% of our energy was got from wind a couple of years ago, and as technology moves forward this will certainly increase.

Wwm2 DH has reminded me that wind turbines do not function when there’s too much wind. We all know that don’t we?