Misinformation about wind farms

Alfred E. Zammit has written a truly amazing letter (April 7). Virtually every statement he made is wrong, yet he prefaced his letter with the accusation that "correspondence on wind energy in The Times has so far been peppered with falsehoods and misinformation".

Contrary to what Mr Zammit says, the combination of wind and fossil fuel generators is a very efficient combination. His statement: "... generators will burn fuel less efficiently (like cars in heavy traffic) so that more greenhouse gases will be emitted... so as to be able to increase production when the wind drops or ceases..." is pure nonsense. Diesel-powered gas turbines can be switched on instantly when needed and used as dictated by the varying supply of wind-generated electricity and thus provide continuity of power. The gas-wind turbine combination will therefore reduce fossil oil consumption even when the wind turbines generate electricity intermittently. What Mr Zammit says only applies to our steam turbines which are used to provide the base-load electricity supply.

Wind-generated electricity is absolutely clean. Therefore the predicted avoidance of emission into our atmosphere of 16,500 tons of greenhouse gases and 50 tons of sulphur and 10 tons of nitrogen dioxide by the proposed wind farm is a scientific reality consequent upon the reduction in fossil fuel consumption.

There is no "increasing evidence" that tourists will avoid "turbinised" landscapes. Friends of the Earth criticised the VisitScotland survey, quoted by Mr Zammit, saying it was at odds with other reports. In a recent Mori poll (Mori /18037) in a larger sample of tourists visiting Argyll, a part of Scotland which actually has wind farms, over 80 per cent said it made no difference to their decision to return, that they had received a positive impression and that they would be interested in visiting and subsequently finding out more on wind farms. In Denmark there are organised boat trips which take visitors to see the offshore wind farms.

Whether or not wind farms are "eyesores" etc, is a matter of opinion. They are certainly a more pleasing sight than oil-powered electricity generating stations. Plans to install wind turbines often encounter initial resistance, once they are on site they are accepted and even become a source of wonder.

Mr Zammit's statement that the US is "giving up on wind energy... " is totally false. The US increased its wind-generated electricity producing capacity by 36.1 per cent between 2002 and 2003 and will maintain increases of that magnitude during the coming years. The UK and Japan also increased wind energy capacity massively (by 33.1 per cent and 56.6 per cent).

What Mr Zammit calls "energy efficiency and the application of clean hydrogen" is still a new (and astronomically expensive) concept. It is seen as an interim measure to reconcile continuing dependence on fossil fuels until 2020-2030 and will only be applicable to giant power stations. One relevant point here is that the price of crude oil is set to increase massively by 2025 (Malta business weekly, 15 - 21 April). Wind comes free.

Mr Zammit cites (unreferenced) "reports prepared by scientists in Belgium, Germany, Spain and the United Kingdom" which conclude that one million wind turbines would kill 20 million birds per annum worldwide. Firstly: Mr Zammit omits all reference to the fact that tens, if not hundreds, of millions of birds collide with numerous other obstacles, both natural and of human manufacture. The review by Western Ecosystems Technology, 2001, for the National Wind Coordinating Committee found that: 60 to 80 million birds die from collisions with motor vehicles, at least 98 million from collisions with plate glass windows and buildings (some put it nearer to 1,000 million!), 174 million die from collisions with power lines and between four and 50 million with communication towers. These results agree broadly with an earlier study (Kenetech Windpower Avian Research Programme).

Secondly: To the above figures must be added the millions of avian casualties from oil pollution and oil spills. A single oil shipping accident can cause more than half a million birds to perish. Coal fired electricity plants can also cause massive bird deaths. Other significant sources of bird loss are insecticides, hunters and (feral and domestic) cats. This does not include the greatest threat of all to birds (and other animals) from human-induced climate change which is decreasing the habitats of birds worldwide.

Finally, the benefits to wildlife from increasing use of alternative renewable sources of energy (and therefore less fossil fuel) will probably compensate the small threat to birds posed by wind turbines. Not using renewable energy (including wind turbines) will ultimately pose a greater threat to bird life.

Thus (modern) wind turbines are not the threat Mr Zammit makes them out to be. The facts are these, provided the wind farm is placed correctly: (1) On the average, about two birds per year (0.23 to 2.9) will collide with the rotating blades of a turbine and (2) in the US wind turbines were considered responsible for only 0.01 to 0.02 of the mortality from bird collisions with other man-made structures.

Misconceptions on the bird issue date back to the 1970s and 1980s. They are now known to have been exaggerated. It is now accepted that wind turbines do not pose the threat to bird life that had been previously suggested. Modern wind turbines have a solid pillar (the earlier lattice work pylons attracted birds, especially raptors, to perch on them). If a wind farm is placed correctly, namely, not in a migration path or directly on birds' traditional feeding/roosting grounds and not between feeding and roosting grounds, then the impact on birds is minimal and acceptable.

As to noise, Mr Zammit exaggerates. Modern wind turbines are required to meet strict noise standards. Thanks to advances in wind turbine technology and improvements in aerofoil section of the rotor blades, modern gearless turbines are no longer noisy and cause no disturbance to people living just a few hundred metres away. At these distances, any noise they do make is usually drowned out by the natural noise of the wind itself.

Mr Zammit's vivid description of a "400-ton concrete base" is a wild exaggeration, especially in the local context. The size and weight of the turbine foundations depend on the type of terrain upon which the tower is built. Our towers will be built on solid rock; the size and weight of the tower foundations will be minimal.

To talk about 400 litres of oil and oil dripping from rotor blades is nonsense. The wind turbines which would be installed at Marfa ridge are gearless and have only one main rotating shaft. There is no gear box containing gear oil. The amount of liquid oil needed by these turbines is insignificant...

"Kilometres of high tension cables" will not be necessary. The wind farm is sited next to the Enemalta distribution grid. Only short small diameter cables will be needed for each tower. These will be buried, as far as possible, in narrow gutters on existing tracks and roads.

The RSPB commented as follows on Mr Zammit's pathetic insinuation that the RSPB accepts bribes for "looking with favour on the bird-killing wind industry" and "supporting and promoting an industry that kills birds by the million":

"With regard to the specific assertion made, the RSPB does have a partnership with Scottish and Southern Energy, marketing a green energy scheme called RSPB Energy. Wind power accounts for less than five per cent of the energy generated under this scheme. The society receives at least £10 for each customer who joins the scheme. This money is used to help purchase land as nature reserves and to fund some small scale renewable energy projects - e.g. solar panels - on existing RSPB reserves.

"Our relationship with SSE does not compromise our stance on individual wind farm developments, which is based on an objective assessment of the facts. The RSPB will object to wind farm proposals that are a threat to important bird populations and habitats. To date we have objected to 27 wind farms on- and offshore and lodged written concerns about a further 29.

"The RSPB recognises the threat posed by climate change and that generating energy from renewables is key to mitigating this, alongside greater efficiency and reducing demand. Therefore, the RSPB supports wind farms provided they do not threaten important bird populations and habitats. We believe it is entirely feasible for the UK government to meet its aspirations for wind energy generation without causing serious problems for birds - it would be irresponsible of the RSPB not to help ensure it does so."

There has been no "unwarranted pressure" whatsoever from 'individuals' to build a wind farm. The only "pressure" so far has been against wind farms. The wind farm project under discussion will be built entirely at the expense of a private company and not the taxpayer's. There will be no government subsidies. The electricity generated by the wind farm will be sold to Enemalta, presumably at a price decided by the Malta's Resources Authority.

Malta (and therefore the taxpayer) stand to gain financially as the wind-generated electricity will supply Gozo and the north directly by joining the national grid at Marfa, thus averting significant long distance transmission losses which can amount to 10 per cent. If Mr Zammit has a particular reason for opposing the wind farm project, he should come clean and say why rather than resort to misinformation.

Finally, the fundamental issue is not one of money. The important point is that if we become less dependent on fossil fuel, the winner will be our environment and, ultimately, our health.