BBC Climate change: Green energy plant threat to wilderness areas

Ready to build another wind farm

Guest essay by Eric Worrall

“If we let these developments go ahead, the biodiversity will be gone long before climate change starts affecting it”

Climate change: Green energy plant threat to wilderness areas

By Matt McGrathEnvironment correspondent

Wind, solar and hydro power installations pose a growing threat to key conservation areas, say researchers. 

Researchers found that over 2,200 green energy plants have been built within the boundaries of the Earth’s remaining wilderness. 

They say that around 17% of renewable facilities globally are located in protected regions. 

A further 900 plants are now being developed in key areas of biodiversity.

The amount of renewable energy facilities in use around the world has essentially tripled over the last 20 years. 

Green energy facilities are often much larger than fossil fuel power plants, with wind and solar needing areas of land up to 10 times greater than coal or gas to produce the same amount of energy.

The authors of the report say that greater care must be taken when planning and permitting renewable facilities. 

“If we let these developments go ahead, the biodiversity will be gone long before climate change starts affecting it,” said Dr Allan. 

“We acknowledge that there is a risk that we will arm some sceptics, but anyone who reads the work will understand that we are not saying that renewables are bad, we just need to put them in the right places.”

Read more:

The abstract of the report;

Renewable energy development threatens many globally important biodiversity areas

Jose A. Rehbein, James E. M. Watson, Joe L. Lane, Laura J. Sonter, Oscar Venter, Scott C. Atkinson, James R. Allan

First published: 04 March 2020

Transitioning from fossil fuels to renewable energy is fundamental for halting anthropogenic climate change. However, renewable energy facilities can be land‐use intensive and impact conservation areas, and little attention has been given to whether the aggregated effect of energy transitions poses a substantial threat to global biodiversity. Here, we assess the extent of current and likely future renewable energy infrastructure associated with onshore wind, hydropower and solar photovoltaic generation, within three important conservation areas: protected areas (PAs), Key Biodiversity Areas (KBAs) and Earth’s remaining wilderness. We identified 2,206 fully operational renewable energy facilities within the boundaries of these conservation areas, with another 922 facilities under development. Combined, these facilities span and are degrading 886 PAs, 749 KBAs and 40 distinct wilderness areas. Two trends are particularly concerning. First, while the majority of historical overlap occurs in Western Europe, the renewable electricity facilities under development increasingly overlap with conservation areas in Southeast Asia, a globally important region for biodiversity. Second, this next wave of renewable energy infrastructure represents a ~30% increase in the number of PAs and KBAs impacted and could increase the number of compromised wilderness areas by ~60%. If the world continues to rapidly transition towards renewable energy these areas will face increasing pressure to allow infrastructure expansion. Coordinated planning of renewable energy expansion and biodiversity conservation is essential to avoid conflicts that compromise their respective objectives.

Read more (paywalled):

It has always seemed a little odd that people who claim to love natural spaces doggedly defend the right of greedy green industrialists to clear fell thousands of acres of their beloved wilderness, to build yet another pointless wind turbine farm or solar installation.

Good to see nature lovers are finally getting fed up with wholesale destruction of important wilderness areas in the name of green progress.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
March 25, 2020 2:26 pm

You don’t save the environment by trashing the countryside


Reply to  Tonyb
March 25, 2020 2:37 pm

they’re just making it more manageable…

Reply to  Latitude
March 25, 2020 4:31 pm

Collecting salaries for causing the problem and, with the writing on the wall, setting up to collect salaries for pretending to fix the problem. This one could go on for a long time.

Reply to  Tonyb
March 25, 2020 4:36 pm

Competent engineers have known these facts since forever. Why is the uber-warmist BBC changing it’s tune now? What are they up to?

Allan M.R. MacRae
Calgary Herald
September 1, 2002

Of course, wind doesn’t blow all the time – wind power works best as a small part of an electrical distribution system, where other sources provide the base and peak power. Although wind power has made recent gains, it will probably remain a small contributor to our overall energy needs. A 1000-Megawatt wind farm would cover a land area of 400 square miles, while the same-size surface coal mine and power plant complex covers about fourteen square miles. Wind farms cover a much bigger area, are visible for miles due to the height of the towers, and kill large numbers of birds.

March 25, 2020 9:41 pm

Seriously – the BBC has been deliberately promoting the false climate scare for decades – what has changed and what are they up to? It is highly improbable that these people have suddenly become intelligent or honest. So what’s up?

March 25, 2020 11:02 pm

The regular BBC staff are on leave over C-19. The stand-ins haven’t yet taken the mandatory reeducation courses.

B d Clark
Reply to  ferdberple
March 26, 2020 4:14 am

Matt magrath is not a stand in, in my opinion he is the worst climate scaremongering journalist the BBC have.

Dennis Sandberg
March 26, 2020 7:22 am

Allen, Perhaps because Boris Johnson supports wind. We would see the same opposition here if Trump suddenly reversed his position on worth less than nothing wind. Greens loved ethanol until they hated it. We’re seeing the same thing with wind . Solar with storage is the new darling. Surplus solar at high noon has negative value so the input cost to storage is negative. The solution is stop building solar, but not to a liberal, to them storage solves the cost and interruptible issues.

Gerry, England
March 26, 2020 8:16 am

Perhaps there is a fear that the sainted licence fee is under threat and they do actually realise that their left-wing agenda is not in tune with the majority of the population so are trying to change. A recent poll did show a majority for scrapping the fee so there has been a slew of media pieces by BBC top brass trying to suggest the UK will be destroyed if the BBC is cutback, or something like that.

March 26, 2020 2:22 am

I would just like to ask: Why do Competent Engineers and their Institutional Media then still promote this agenda?

Reply to  Saighdear
March 27, 2020 3:40 am

“Why do Competent Engineers and their Institutional Media then still promote this agenda?”

Competent engineers do not support this green energy agenda, because it does not work – it destabilizes the grid, causes grid total failures, drives up energy costs and increases winter deaths.

March 27, 2020 6:07 am

Well I just don’t “understand it” …… and I am a Professional Engineer. Subscribing to several Prof. Engineering Magazines under different disciplines – Agri, Civils, Mech & Auto& Heavy Plant -from UK & USA.
1.Why am I so much at odds with their editorials?
2.Why do my Comments get struck off – even when completely Neutral
3. Why do their Representative bodies get the Ear of Gov.
4. WHERE ARE those other COMPETENT Engineers … I know that there are some who read these blogs -occasionally commenting but not offering much more…
5. So WHO designs those artefacts to suit the green Agenda
6. I’m sure someone else would like to Add /Edit this list …. Thanks

March 27, 2020 8:45 am

HI Saighdear.

Chances are your P.Eng. association has been corrupted, like so many other professional associations. It’s”called “The Long March of the Institutions”. Look it up.

By Tom Harris and Dr. Jay Lehr, May 24, 2019

By Allan M.R. MacRae, B.A.Sc., M.Eng., April 14, 2019

March 26, 2020 6:46 am

If you don’t like the BBC, you’ll probably not like this;

“Research from the London School of Economics (LSE) estimated in 2014 that by 2020 there could be anywhere between 9,600 and 106,000 bird deaths a year from wind energy in the UK – in other words, we’re not sure.
It compared this with the estimated 55 million birds killed by domestic cats in the UK each year.”

(BBC News 2019)

Reply to  Ian Kay
March 27, 2020 5:29 am

That’s just a number pulled out of the air Ian, a bit like the billion creatures killed in the Australian fires, total BS. Of course it doesn’t mean that cats don’t kill birds. But they don’t kill large birds of prey or bats. If you really believe the numbers you quote, show me some reference material.

B d Clark
Reply to  Ian Kay
March 27, 2020 11:14 am

But they are a problem Ian the bigger the turbine the greater the damage, and you link to a site that does not hold with a differing opinion , eg no climate sceptics allowed, heres WUWT discussion 2018

It’s interesting that any thing / any organisation that’s pro global warming loses its moral ground to support the agenda, take the RSPB who’s sole function as a organisation is to protect birds, unless of course theres a opportunity to cash in on wind energy, and fleece the UK public so they can buy vast tracks of land abroad.

Reply to  B d Clark
March 27, 2020 3:29 pm

Oh, I’m not partisan to any cause – I just don’t like pet cats.

B d Clark
Reply to  Ian Kay
March 27, 2020 5:11 pm

Your a pussy hater,theres alot of you folk around lately

Reply to  Ian Kay
March 27, 2020 4:08 pm

Ian I read the link to The Conversation that you suggested. More figures pulled out of the air, actually bordering on lies. I read the comments too, an extract of one follows.

“Simon Chapman, Emeritus Professor in Public Health, University of Sydney.
Hmmm..what proportion of all mining activity would be going toward wind turbine construction l wonder. I’ve not seen estimates, but I imagine it might be in the vicinity of 0.000000001% or thereabouts? ”

You see what I mean by pulling figures out of the air, and by an Emeritus Professor no less. I am not educated to anywhere near that level but common sense would tell anyone that that was a ludicrous statement. The article itself was sloppy work too, as indicated within the comments section of that same post. Please read the link that I found in the comments section of the post that you sent me, and scroll down to bird studies. This link also gives you ‘some’ insight into the metals used in wind turbines.

Incidentally, people on that post also love to go on about wind and solar being responsibly recycled. There is no recycling in Australia, only some stockpiling centres for solar panels. One of those centres is ‘classified’ as a recycling company be cause it removes the aluminium frames, the cells are stockpiled for some later date. Even the aluminium frame recycling is outsourced. That is the best case scenario here in Australia. The reality is that apart from Victoria, all other states allow faulty/damaged panels (think fire, wind and hailstorms) it happens more than you know, to go to landfill, so that’s where most of it goes. Oh and the reason that you can’t send it to landfill in Victoria is that it’s been declared toxic waste and presents a risk of contaminating soil and waterways. Makes you think doesn’t it?

Reply to  Megs
March 27, 2020 4:47 pm

What are the true figures then?

Reply to  Ian Kay
March 27, 2020 6:11 pm

If you mean in regard to bird deaths Ian, then I don’t believe that anyone really knows. Short of counting their corpses, which I’m sure has been done to some certain extent except that you just simply don’t know if you are being told the truth. Real science isn’t practiced anymore Ian, figures have been fudged, altered or removed to suit the narrative so much now that the public no longer trusts the so called experts.

No matter how many numbers of birds were quoted as having been killed by wind turbines, AGW ‘scientists’ will always pull a higher number out of the air for FF energy. The facts just don’t matter as is evident by the comment I referred to from your link.

Facts Ian, you need more mines, in addition to coal mines to create your ‘green’ wind and solar energy. The additional mines are toxic, acids and other chemicals are required to extract and separate the rare earth and other materials. The resulting black sludge has to be dealt with in a similar way to nuclear waste.

Wind and solar renewables require obscene amounts of materials, they also take up obscene amounts of land. The blades of wind turbines cannot be recycled. Did you know that there are different types of solar panels? Did you know that some of them require acid baths to fully recycle them, again resulting in a toxic byproduct that is difficult to deal with. That’s why people are reluctant to set up full recycling plants here in Australia. It’s very expensive and there is little to no profit to be made. That’s why they are ending up in landfill. That’s why it was mandated in Germany.

Another lie that keeps on being repeated as though it’s true is also the jobs associated with wind and solar renewables. I can tell you why that isn’t true, certainly not here in Australia. Up to this point in time we import most components from China, so most mining jobs are overseas. The components are manufactured in China, so most of the manufacturing jobs are overseas. After much CO2 created to this point the components are transported to Australia, more CO2, but so far the majority of jobs are overseas. The developers/investors largely come from overseas and the profit that they enjoy is from Australian taxpayer subsidies. Still not alot of benefits for Australians, except the greedy who ‘sold their souls’ and sold out their neighbors for profit.

The solar farm that was built near us taking up 310 hectares of arable farmland was largely built by ‘backpackers’, it was completed in less than eight months and it is operated remotely by a small number of people. Where are all these jobs? The only other possible jobs are recycling, we’ve covered that, and decommissioning, but that’s in the future. Speaking of decommissioning, there is a small additional solar farm planned near us and one of the conditions for this one going through is that the owner of the land decommissions it himself! Do you think that’s going to happen? It will be an in situ dump 600 meters from town leaching toxic materials into the soil and waterways.

Don’t simply repeat misinformation as though it’s true, that just makes it propaganda. Before you heap rubbish on people for their views, make sure you have the facts straight, and be willing to openly admit it if you don’t know the facts.

Read through the comments of the article you sent me, there are those who are willing to correct the comments that were made without thought or verification.

Reply to  Megs
March 28, 2020 2:36 am

You’ve put yourself through a lot of trouble, Megs, but I‘m only interested this time in bird death causes.
As a science graduate, I found the tone of your missive a little disappointing if not insulting so I won’t persist, but I wish you well on your personal journey. 🙂

Reply to  Ian Kay
March 28, 2020 2:49 am

You have already closed your mind.

Jud K
Reply to  Megs
March 27, 2020 2:07 pm

Just read the report cited by Ian. It is questionable to say the least.

Reply to  Tonyb
March 26, 2020 4:37 am

You don’t save the environment by trashing the countryside

They have to burn the village to save the village…

Paul S.
Reply to  Tonyb
March 26, 2020 10:14 am

You don’t save us from a virus by trashing the economy……

March 25, 2020 2:27 pm

The [Anthropogenic] Green Blight? Perhaps they need to boost their sociopolitical inoculation.

John Bell
March 25, 2020 2:30 pm

Consider this: the vary fact that we can build wind mills is evidence that we do not need the wind mills. The amount of resources required shows we do not need the wind mill.

mario lento
Reply to  John Bell
March 25, 2020 3:44 pm

I love taking a liberal to a hill where I can view many hundreds of wind turbines in Rio Vista, or in that area, in which none of the blades are turning. I ask them this rhetorical question:

“If the entire wind farm is producing ZERO, do we actually need or rely on the energy?”
Then I say, you should know, that we can only build wind turbines if we do not need them.

Their eyes cross and their head tilts. “Why do we build them then?”

Glad you asked:
So that when they actually do generate some energy, we can shut down, at great cost, the baseload energy by letting the steam escape to the atmosphere, thereby making the lowest cost energy much more expensive.

Mic’ Drop! Seed planted in a liberals head.

Reply to  mario lento
March 25, 2020 4:41 pm

The first wind turbines at the Altamont Pass in N. California were installed in the early 80s. My father, working for a German company in England worked on the gearing design. When he visited me in the Bay Area and we drove through there to Yosemite, he was pleased to see the results of his handiwork but wondered why they weren’t turning. I couldn’t help him with that at the time, although I could now.

mario lento
Reply to  philincalifornia
March 25, 2020 4:55 pm

Bird friendly turbines is the answer?

Reply to  mario lento
March 25, 2020 5:56 pm

Yeah, I should’ve told my Dad that he should have designed gears that kept everything static instead of turning. Would’ve been less costly all around – especially for the bird population.

mario lento
Reply to  philincalifornia
March 25, 2020 10:06 pm

LOL I think. no energy produced and same ultimate performance and no deaths.

Reply to  mario lento
March 25, 2020 8:35 pm

Want to see their head explode, remind them that kerosene saved the whales. Then ask them what kerosene is made from.
Seems to me fossil fuels feed and save the planet in so many ways.

mario lento
Reply to  RHS
March 25, 2020 10:12 pm

Yes another evil do gooder!

Pat from Kerbob
March 25, 2020 2:34 pm

Here in Alberta i continually argue with those who say we should replace our 5000MW of coal generation with wind.
I ask them how they like the few hundred wind turbines down by Pinscher Creek and they say they are an eyesore but worth it to save the planet.
Then i ask how they will feel about 7500 of them widely distributed across the province to catch the wind, based on AESO stats showing 1/3 availability you need to build 3 times as many to provide the power along with many times as much transmission.
And they frown.
Then i point out we still need 5000mw of gas generation as well for when those big winter high pressure systems drop on the province and you get no wind anywhere for several days of -40C
Frown deepens

Then they say we don’t need the transmission with wind, grid is so 1990’s, and besides “i have solar panels on my roof” so i ask when they will disconnect permanently from the grid, and of course they won’t do that, silly, so the utility must maintain the connection and spinning reserve for them while mostly not selling electricity so that means all the fixed charges go up for the rest of us.


Alan Watt, Climate Denialist Level 7
Reply to  Pat from Kerbob
March 25, 2020 2:58 pm

While you’re at it, ask them when they plan to disconnect their homes from the public water and septic systems. Without power water isn’t getting pumped and sewage isn’t getting processed. Are they willing to wait for the wind to come back before they can flush?

Single-family homes aren’t the issue; some of them actually could survive on rooftop solar (but probably not in Alberta). Multi-family dwellings, office buildings and industrial plants could not.

Reply to  Alan Watt, Climate Denialist Level 7
March 25, 2020 3:53 pm

“Single-family homes aren’t the issue; some of them actually could survive on rooftop solar (but probably not in Alberta). ”

Even though Calgary is fairly far North, due to our excess of sunny days, we are considered favorable for solar. Not sure how that is winter vs. summer. The sun is quite low during the winter.

Pat from kerbob
Reply to  Jeff in Calgary
March 25, 2020 8:07 pm

Any greenhouse operator will tell you the sun has ~8% of its strength on jan1 compared to July 1

Solar produces next to nothing in the dead of winter which is why it’s so useless

AESO states 20% availability over the course of a year
Worse than useless

David Blenkinsop
Reply to  Jeff in Calgary
March 26, 2020 8:06 am

Hehe, yes the sun is quite low in the winter, or not there at all, daylight hours being much less in the winter.

And just when one has the most urgent need to heat one’s home too ..

Reply to  Alan Watt, Climate Denialist Level 7
March 25, 2020 5:20 pm

Neither could hospitals. [gulp] Oh, they point out, they all have emergency generators. Duh! Of course, silly me. I forgot about the diesel fuel banned for all use save hospitals.

Reply to  brians356
March 27, 2020 5:10 am

You want to hear something funny brian, people here in OZ have gone totally nuts. They’ve been hoarding and stockpiling everything from toilet paper to groceries. Freezers have been flying out the door.

We have a growing green, wind and solar industry and the power does that unstable thing. Anyway they want to upgrade the lines or something so that power to the hospitals is more reliable, here’s the funny part, they want to turn the power off in the city for 13 hours. What happens to all that frozen food in a newly purchased freezer after the power has been turned off for 13 hours? After people have been preparing for lockdown so as not to risk potentially infecting others.

Pat from Kerbob
Reply to  Alan Watt, Climate Denialist Level 7
March 25, 2020 8:09 pm

Essentially they are free riders, like those who refuse vaccinations
Works up to a tipping point and then collapse

Reply to  Alan Watt, Climate Denialist Level 7
March 26, 2020 1:53 pm

Alan Watt: I live with a well and a septic tank. I am fully aware of what happens when the power goes out. It’s why I have a generator, 55 gallons of water for toilet flushes, bottled water to drink, etc. I know what happens if I don’t maintain my septic tank. Most people have never lived with a well and septic so they really don’t know how any of these things work. I’ve lived for 46 with a well and septic.

If you are totally off-grid, you can use a solar pump for the well. You have to have storage for water since the sun does not always shine. You can use a generator for backup if the sun hides for many days at a time. The septic is the same, on or off grid.

It’s super easy to freeze water and septic lines if you are off grid. Happens every winter to the people around where our cabin is. I would imagine Alberta would have the same problem. You can heat a house with wood, but water pipes may require heat tape and without reliable power…..We have a battery backup for the heat tape and lots of insulation on our mobile home, in case power goes out.

Reply to  Pat from Kerbob
March 25, 2020 3:00 pm

You can’t fix stupid. Only show them that they’re stupid.

John in Oz
Reply to  Pat from Kerbob
March 25, 2020 3:43 pm

The lack of logic is strong in these ones (h/t Obi-Wan Kenobi)

They never let reality get in the way of their dreams of Nirvana

iain russell
March 25, 2020 2:35 pm

Gosh, who amongst us could have foreseen this horror?? Only anyone with half a brain and no hooks into government pelf for eco-ness!

Ed Bo
March 25, 2020 2:39 pm

What??? There are trade-offs? And they may not be favorable?

Who knew?

Pat Frank
March 25, 2020 2:40 pm

Green energy not only isn’t energy, it isn’t even green.

Such a surprise.

Fossil fuel energy plants have a small footprint, actually provide net energy, and their CO2 emissions green up the world and thereby nurture biodiversity.

Fossil fuels are green energy.

Pat from Kerbob
Reply to  Pat Frank
March 25, 2020 2:58 pm

“Fossil fuels are green energy.”

This should be the message going forward, simple and direct

Reply to  Pat from Kerbob
March 25, 2020 6:01 pm

I think “green energy is neither” rolls off the tongue more easily.

Patrick MJD
Reply to  Pat Frank
March 25, 2020 7:56 pm

Coal is concentrated sunlight and plant matter. Whats not green about that?

Reply to  Pat Frank
March 25, 2020 9:13 pm

Simply: green is naive

[bio]Diversity is a color judgment and green is a popular color inferred from naive models.

D. J. Hawkins
March 25, 2020 3:02 pm

“Up to 10 times greater than coal or gas”!?! I think someone slipped a decimal point to the left by mistake. Not to mention where all the standby batteries are going to be housed.

Coeur de Lion
March 25, 2020 3:26 pm

Golly, is this award winning McGrath of the BBC? I don’t believe it.

March 25, 2020 3:29 pm

Do you where and when that photo was taken. Those old cable blade dozers bring back memories from 50 years ago and they were getting to be dinosaurs then. I’ll have to reread the article- I was trapping gravel for a crusher in Anadonda and paying attention.

Reply to  DMA
March 25, 2020 4:17 pm

Most likely the Soviet Union. Although it could also be from the Third Reich. (Most likely not The Great Leap Forward; Mao had plenty of peasants with shovels and replacements for when they broke down, he didn’t need bulldozers.)

Patrick MJD
Reply to  DMA
March 25, 2020 5:38 pm

I have seen this image before and I would say British. Look at the three buildings in the top left hand corner, very British military/airforce. The look in the centre rear, there is a railway signal.

Reply to  Patrick MJD
March 25, 2020 6:09 pm

Description: This Spring 1944 photo shows bulldozers at the Engineer Depot, Thatcham, England in preparation for the D-Day invasion, 6 June 1944. link

I think the tractors are American. The picture is attributed to the US government.

Reply to  Patrick MJD
March 25, 2020 6:25 pm

You are indeed correct Patrick – Thatcham, Berkshire: is your friend (sometimes).

Patrick MJD
Reply to  philincalifornia
March 25, 2020 7:31 pm

For our non-English English speakers, Berkshire is pronounced Barksher. I used to live a few miles west in Newbury.

Reply to  Patrick MJD
March 25, 2020 10:02 pm

Indeed Patrick – I’m from Yarksher.

Forget that shyer or sheer pronunciation nonsense, and the first part wasn’t a typo either.

Patrick MJD
Reply to  Patrick MJD
March 25, 2020 10:58 pm

“philincalifornia March 25, 2020 at 10:02 pm

Indeed Patrick – I’m from Yarksher.”

Bloody luxureh!

March 25, 2020 3:36 pm

Accompanied with some judicious scrubbers to accommodate higher forms of life, and people, the hydrocarbons are naturally organic sources of reliable energy that reduce, reuse, recycle Gaia’s resources, keep Her green and gay, and keep the Green blight at bay.

Rudolf Huber
March 25, 2020 3:40 pm

My parents live in Northern Austria in an area that’s called the wood-quarter. It’s so-called because it’s particularly forested as compared to the rest of Eastern and Northern Austria. Just 150 years ago this entire region was a hideout for the lawless in Austria and even the military did not dare to go there most of the time. I remember when we went to Vienna as kids. The 120 km trip included long stretches of road with forests on both sides. Last summer when we went there a lot of those forests have either gone or they are much smaller now. Instead, you see windmills everywhere. The first windmill was iconic. Now they are just eyesores. People are pissed – rightly so.

March 25, 2020 4:02 pm

Look at the pictures of the Wind turbine installations on the top of the mountains in Vermont. Far worse that the few scattered ski slopes, these things or are on every mountain and ridge. Cut flat, reminds me of the mountains in WVA around the strip mines/.

Right-Handed Shark
March 25, 2020 4:14 pm

Thank goodness that the responsible, diligent and conscientious investigative journalists of the BBC were so quick to latch on to this, and after only 2 decades of being told that renewable energy is fraught with problems they are bringing this to our attention before we waste huge amounts of money on an impractical boondoggle. Oh, wait..

March 25, 2020 4:19 pm

The joyous thing about the left is that they inevitably turn on each other. I think their basic inability to get along is why they always devolve into tyranny.

Reply to  commieBob
March 25, 2020 4:45 pm

Single/central ideology… there can be only one.

Reply to  n.n
March 25, 2020 6:37 pm

Ha ha yes. What do you mean that I’m not in your club, and why do I need to get up against a wall?

(H/T to Greta Thunberg)

Sweet Old Bob
March 25, 2020 4:32 pm

And in France , they are desecrating war memorial sites …

M Courtney
March 25, 2020 5:19 pm

They say that around 17% of renewable facilities globally are located in protected regions.

This underestimates the problem.

Many pristine environments are not protected because they are Offshore. It was never thought that they needed to be protected.

But new windfarms are now destroying them for thee subsidies.

March 25, 2020 5:35 pm

Biodiversity is an abstract political concept.
Is there any absolute definition or empirical evidence that it even matters?

March 25, 2020 6:37 pm

Never underestimate how little an environmentalist really knows about practical conservation.

March 25, 2020 7:32 pm

The BBC should stop broadcasting Casualty and Holby City and allow those doctors and nurses to get back to the front line.

March 25, 2020 11:15 pm

Having banned fossil fuel, the next obvious step will be to ban wind and solar power.

Because in the end, the real issue all along has been population control.

March 25, 2020 11:58 pm

I mentioned it before, but there were pictures of a forest being bulldozed to put up wind mills

March 26, 2020 12:36 am

From what I can determine, windmills cost about $1.5 million per megawatt installed, and have about a 15 year lifetime on average once maintenance and interest us accounted for.

The value of electricity produced at the US wholesale price of $0.03 kWh over 15 years at 30% capacity factor is: =24*365*15*0.3*0.03*1000 = $1.2 million.

So it would appear that each windmill over its lifetime is able to produce slightly less energy than it takes to produce a windmill. In other words, windmills are not a sustainable source of energy

Bruce of Newcastle
March 26, 2020 2:20 am

It’s very interesting that the environmental lobby are finally realizing that wind farms are a man-made environmental disaster. What has changed? Here in Australia the senior environmental activist in our country came out against them last year.

Yet climate sceptics have pointed out exactly this for a very long time, and also pointed out that nuclear energy is a low enviromental cross-section base load energy source.

It is a strange feeling for me, a CAGW-sceptical scientist who has many friendly wild birds visiting his yard, that environmentalists have been so damaging to the environment for so long.

March 26, 2020 2:44 am

“…we just need to put them in the right places.”

How about Pluto?

Reply to  Disputin
March 26, 2020 11:12 am

Maybe Uranus.

Reply to  Oldseadog
March 26, 2020 7:08 pm

Good one Oldseadog!

These things, wind and solar are being installed globally at a rapid rate with a view to ‘save the world’. More like destroy the world. They should have been told right from the start that they must not be built until ‘recycling’ is proven to be ‘viable’ and in place. They should have been told that they must not be built on a large scale until it has been proven that they work.

It’s our turn to say to them “follow the money”.

The ‘environmentalists’ have no idea how toxic these things are. And of course the slight detail that they don’t produce reliable power. They also think that this technology magically appears, that the ‘nasty, dirty’ coal mines will be shut down once and for all. They don’t get that not only is coal necessary in production of this technology but additional mining is necessary too, and some of those mines make coal look like a clean industry.

Wind and solar is bad enough in situ, the recycling, or lack thereof is what worries me. There are already large amounts going to landfill or being buried. This is truly an environmental disaster.

Wind and solar are the modern day asbestos and no one seems to care.

Sorry, I needed to vent.

Reply to  Megs
March 27, 2020 2:16 am

It’s good to vent!
You raise another very good point which too many of the “In-crowd” ( or should it be ‘In-CLOWNS’ ) simply that and as I always state to anyone I instruct in the Use of any Machinery – How do you STOP it – even before you ever THINK of starting it. We call it SAFETY. What do the Envirogreens call it ? We-eed ? Bill n’Ben where are you?

Reply to  Saighdear
March 27, 2020 5:49 am

That’s a bit flippant Saighdear. Don’t make light of such a serious issue.

Reply to  Megs
March 27, 2020 6:18 am

I am sorry you read it like that, Megs. Consider wearing the Shoes of the Fisherman and then come back and tell me, please.
Meanwhile, when you see and have to do what I have done and know, you may think otherwise. I cannot be held responsible for how you construe my comments – but thanks for reading them. Stay safe.

Reply to  Saighdear
March 27, 2020 5:02 pm

Saighdear I apologise for overreacting to your comment (see below), it was my bad. I should assume respect is due unless I have reason know otherwise. I have only been a regular on this site for around six months and I am not on Facebook or any other form of social media. This is all still a little new to me.

Your name is not familiar to me and I’m still feeling a little sensitive after being ‘trolled’ recently on this site. I can deal with someone having a laugh at my expense but being called a whore and a prostitute by the troll was a little unsettling. Off topic to say the least.

Respectfully Megs

Reply to  Megs
March 27, 2020 5:25 pm

Oh Megs, if only you knew (me) 🙂
NO I am not a troll. and I am a “fireman” ENGINEER – having to sort out folks problems. – and it is not always appreciated. I could go on about attitude etc. I do take my Job seriously and I get VERY ANGRY with the clowns in positions of power. Words fail me tonight, – but you’ll know what I mean where folk are promoted beyond the levels of their Capabilities! thanks for the reply and Stay safe& Healthy ” in the Herd “

Tim Gorman
March 26, 2020 5:40 am

Every country should pass a law that all wind turbines and solar plants should be built in urban and suburban locations, perhaps with homeless shelters at the base of each one. That’s where the highest electricity use is so that’s where the generation units should be in order to lessen transmission costs. It would also serve the public good by housing the homeless.

I assure you it wouldn’t take long before there would be no more wind mills or solar plants built.

Reply to  Tim Gorman
March 26, 2020 7:00 am

I quite agree with you .Indeed I have said that to many before and a long time ago – no new Transmission Pylons in the Highlands of Scotland where there was quite a rumpus about “damage to the Scenery” or to the soil when cables were buried ( in the ‘rock’ ) Nobody batted an eye when during the course of one of these Cable RAISING stints ( Across the Trunk Road, one night) a Red Deer Stag got his Antlers entangled in the Cables as it was being winched up. You can just imagine the consternation etc and the Delay to traffic for a considerable while as the engineers in the Dark tried to fathom out just what was happening to the cable. …..
As for providing shelter homes for the Homeless – a great and Noble idea …. – would they appreciate the “low-level” noise ?

Tim Gorman
Reply to  Saighdear
March 26, 2020 3:42 pm

My guess is that most of them already have “low level” noise in their heads. They wouldn’t notice a little more!

March 26, 2020 7:34 am
Tim Gorman
Reply to  Pflashgordon
March 26, 2020 3:44 pm


Sadly, that probably isn’t enough wind turbines to provide the load for even one of the skyscrapers!

mario lento
Reply to  Tim Gorman
March 26, 2020 3:53 pm

And worse, once you have enough wind turbines, the grid stability collapses. I think when you get close to enough, the system becomes unstable and self destructs. I am oversimplifying, but hey, I am working from home… and wanted to chime in to these great posts!

Reply to  Tim Gorman
March 27, 2020 6:12 am

I haven’t seen mention of , for instance- today’s generation, that Wind has not been large, Demand not that high either in the Morning, yet COAL – that BLACK STUFF was being burnt to supply around 4 or 5% of requirements. ( See Gridwatch variants ) Solar and wind appear o have fallen this pas few days

mario lento
Reply to  Saighdear
March 27, 2020 5:11 pm

Saighdear, “…yet COAL – that BLACK STUFF was being burnt…”

The black stuff, if that is what they burn, is much better than the brown coal.

Could you tell us what your point was, other than the color of a source of energy in all caps?

My point was clear that wind turbines cause grid instability, which gets worse as more of the grid is energized by wind. There are many reasons for why that is true.

Reply to  mario lento
March 27, 2020 5:42 pm

Indeed the Black stuff is better than the Brown stuff – you mean Brown Coal or Peat ? – or OTHER brown stuffs ( Straw etc ) As for Grid instability … Yes I do know a fair bit about those things. WE call it Hysteresis in a different field – at least as far as explaining to the Lay-man. It is a lot more serious in Generation circles ( not true hysteresis )
My Point was ? Observe the performance of the Generators on Gridwatch and other similar sites. For all the Trumpet Blowing of the green brigade and Politco MSM monkeys you would be seeing that over the past few days,Wind & Solar hasn’t produced very much and that COAL – the BLACK STUFF ( = Carbon!) had to be burnt. From Memory . Nuclear also got in on the act. Good job they are all still functional and pity we didn’t have more.
I have to burn Tons of coal because Wood will not dry sufficiently in this part of the country. Steel on my machinery housed indoors is soaked with condensation and we cannot get sufficient Electric power supplied On-Grid since we are at the end of the Line AND yet have Industrial 3-Phase power available on 3 sides of our property but costs £thousands to get in. So it’s Coal and diesel to do what we need. Got it ? 🙂

mario lento
Reply to  Saighdear
March 27, 2020 6:24 pm

Saighdear: You are charming and extremely colorful in your use of words. That was an enjoyable post to read. Ah.. the brown coal is lignite, low quality vs black coal, which produces less pollution. I got it!


Reply to  mario lento
March 28, 2020 2:32 am

Wow Mario! as we say up here, ‘Flattery gets you ‘k’nowhere’ Indeed Brown coal is ( still) what’s open cast mined in Germany. I know all that – and other things too. but FYI, I also referred to fuels such as wood, straw, grasses, and any other ‘Bio’ – was the word I couldn’t find last night.
Although once upon a time, our Teachers kinda spoon-fed us ( rightly or no – based on current thinking / methods etc ) we were still encouraged to look and think for ourselves. We live in a topsy turvy world where Black is white, Up is down and yes means know, No means we are unsure and don’t want you to object etc. and of course there is a solution to the square root of -1 . As for a solution to Idiocy, meantime I fear the only one is Pb with rather drastic effects. I wish they wold come up with a better one than throwing Paper £$ at it. Coins are not much better than Pb. Capito? & Stay safe

March 26, 2020 7:49 am

Here’s what I read just this morning about Scotland, “Now statistics, released by Forestry and Land Scotland, show that 13.9 million trees have been axed to make way for 21 wind farm projects since 2000.”

And then this,” A Scottish conservation charity, which has planted almost two million trees across the Highlands, believes that both wind farms and trees are key to reducing carbon levels. Steve Micklewright, CEO of Trees for Life, said: “It seems deeply ironic that trees are being felled to make way for windfarms when both healthy growing forests and renewable energy are important in resolving the global climate emergency.””


Here’s the link to the article:

March 28, 2020 10:36 am

That picture was from the build up for D-day Normandy. Seen it many times in WW II references.

%d bloggers like this:
Verified by MonsterInsights