A surprise loser in the wind farms game - bats.

pljudge321 wrote: »

I've read similar claims with regards birds. Problem is that most of the time they don't quote the number of fatalities caused by other human activities like driving and buildings so there's no context.

Perhaps more relevant would be a wildlife impact comparison with other forms of energy generation - it's not like birds, for example, don't collide with structures other than wind turbines.

Comparing the avian mortality per GW/hr for differing generators is fair enough in itself except that it has to be remembered that wind generators are not a substitute for fossil fuel or nuclear generators so by installing wind turbines we are still increasing avian mortalities.

This thread was about bats though.

Re the idea that correctly located wind turbines don't kill bats; the other side to the story is that where bats are found near wind turbines proposals, the wind developers simply apply for a licence that allows them to kill bats.

So building wind turbines increases avian and bat mortality.

(The Bat Conservation Trust might not be calling for an end to the development of wind energy but there's a great big "BUT" in their statement regarding wind turbine installations.)

Gurgle wrote: »

surely that's exactly what they are?

Sadly not. Even the hardiest supporters of wind turbines will tell you that wind turbines are additional to our other generators. I won't go into depth here because this thread is about bats and there are plenty of other threads on this board about this matter. Suffice to say that if we had 20% of our generating capacity supplied soley by wind and the wind isn't blowing or isn't blowing enough or is blowing too much (i.e. turbines shut down for safety reasons), we could find ourselves unable to meet demand.

Gurgle wrote: »

I've never heard of a bat killing license, and I believe that all types are protected here. Are you sure such a license is available?
Do you have any link to back this up?

Yes certainly, a quick google search has thrown up these:
http://www.defra.gov.uk/wildlife-pets/protecting-wildlife/legislation-licenses-protect-wildlife/ Scroll down on this page
Also:
http://www.bats.org.uk/pages/threats_to_bats.html
http://www.bats.org.uk/pages/threats_to_bats.html
http://www.naturalengland.org.uk/ourwork/regulation/wildlife/species/epslicensing.aspx
http://www.naturalengland.org.uk/ourwork/regulation/wildlife/default.aspx

Gurgle wrote: »

That's spin and nonsense, but as you said this is a bat thread.

How do you think demand can be met if the wind isn't turning the turbines? Can you provide evidence to support your statement above because unfortunately wind turbines are additional to a grid as explained by EON UK here http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200708/ldselect/ldeconaf/195/8061708.htm and they're being optimistic; generally the capacity credit of wind turbines is treated as zero in order to ensure a supply to meet demand. This thread is about bats but I respond to this point so that we are not left in a situation whereby we can say that wind turbines are a better option when they are not a substiute to other generators but additional to them and this means a net result of increased bat mortality.
Back to bats:

Gurgle wrote: »

The UK have always put development and industry over agriculture
and environment, have you any information that relates to Ireland?

www.dublincity.ie/.../Pages/BatMitigationGuidelinesforIreland.aspx
"2.2.1 When is a licence required?
The National Parks and Wildlife Service is frequently asked by consultants whether a derogation licence is required for a particular activity. Ultimately, however, this is a decision to be made by the consultant or client. A licence simply permits an action that is otherwise unlawful. To ensure that no illegal activities are undertaken, it is recommended that a licence is applied for if, on the basis of survey information and specialist knowledge, it appears that:
• the site in question is a breeding site or resting place for bats
• the proposed activity could result in an offence"
www.npws.ie/publications/IWM25.pdf

Gurgle wrote: »

I don't know what you think I'm claiming, and I'm not getting into it here.

That 'wind generators are a substitute for fossil fuel or nuclear generators' which they are not. Back to the bats themselves:

Gurgle wrote: »

You made this claim:
I've yet to see anything to back it up.
All the licensing info relates to disturbing bats and their habitats for study or development or any other reason. In all cases, any harm or damage must be mitigated by providing suitable alternative habitats.
There is no suggestion anywhere that bats are fair game if you have a license.

The document I linked to isn't very clear but their statement "• the proposed activity could result in an offence"" is not exclusive to roosts, it is illeagle to kill a bat deliberately or accidently and they do refer to wind turbines briefly, saying they pose a collision risk, mention of barotrauma is ommitted. In their mitigation section, they also mention habitats beyond the roost sites.

Here's a reference to needing a bat licence even when not touching the roost itself:
www.ceramicxwindfarmsucks.com/ Ceramicx%20Wind%20Turbine%20Bat%20Assessment%20Report.doc
"A development such as that planned, sited so close to a bat roost, with high potential to pose a risk to the bat colony, requires a derogation licence application under Regulation 23 of the EU Habitats Regulations 1997 to be submitted to the local authority as part of the planning application as described in the National Parks and Wildlife Service Circular Letter NPWS 2/07 reproduced in Appendix 4."

The problem is that wts (wind turbines) are proposed - surveys are done - bats are detected - mitigation is proposed - a licence is sought (so as not to be breaking the law if bats are killed by the wts) - wts are put up - post development survey done to see if bats killed / if mitigation works / if bat population suffers...
But what if the bat population has suffered - it's too late by then!

This is why the Bat Conservation Trust have a big "BUT" (see earlier link in thread) and the same concern is expressed here and is well worth a read:
http://www.seai.ie/Renewables/Wind_Energy/Wind_Energy_2011_Conference/Bats_and_Wind_Farms,_State_of_the_Art_and_Best_Practice_Guide.pdf

"How are bats affected
1. Collision & barotrauma;
2. Changes to landscape including feeding habitat loss and loss of connectivity;
3. Loss of roosts."

"What we don’t know
– Mortality rates in Ireland;
– Whether mortality rates affect population viability;
– The extent to which bats migrate in Ireland;
– The potential risk posed to different species;
– How different bats react to change;
– How turbines interact with landscape;
– The potential effectiveness of mitigation measures."
etc

"What should we be doing NOW?
• Local authorities/An Bord Pleanala: Ensure that potential impacts on bats are fully and appropriately addressed in EIA studies – seek advice from NGOs or NPWS if not sure.
• Wind Energy Sector: Help to determine the extent of the impact in Ireland so that survey effort can be better focussed (CIBR Research)."

Macha wrote: »

It amazes me that people so dedicated to the protection of bats that they set up NGOs and trusts to promote awareness and policy change don't use bats as a scape goat to halt the development of wind turbines.

But they do halt the development of some wind turbine sites and they may or not come out more forecefully when the effects of wts on bats is better understood.
I'm sure the remainder of your comment was not intended as a snipe in my direction, but just in case it was, I would like to point out that I may be dedicated to protecting bats and have simply jumped on all the reasons that people are not in favour of wind turbines to reach my end goal of protecting bats.
Anyway, back to the topic of bats - do you have a point re bats and wind turbines other than the fact that some quite big organisations don't outright oppose wind turbines (yet).

Macha wrote: »

The reality is that 99% of biodiversity focused NGOs are in favour of the development of renewable energy, including wind turbines. No doubt someone will claim that they know better than the biodiversity NGOs, exaggerate the precautions they call for and drag up a few of the 1%ers. But the inescapable reality is that most, including big ones like RSBP and BirdWatch Ireland are all in favour of wind development.

Maybe - but the same orgs have objected to a number of wind-farm developments that are obviously badly sited and a threat to rare or endangered birds. Something the industry would need to address instead of the their current sense of arrogant entitlement that sees planning applications going in for developments on designated SAC, NHA sites here and their equivalent in the UK:(

Chloe Pink wrote: »

Do you have some examples of where developers sought to put wind turbine developments in Natura 2000 sites please and if so, were they successful in doing so?

Are you serious? LOL Part of the reason wind development has been slowed down, and rightly so, was the proliferation of applications and grants for wind farms in many of our SPA's around the country. I suggest you take a look at Stack's to Mullaghareirk Mountains, West Limerick Hills and Mount Eagle SPA 004161 for a start and I can tell you this from firsthand experience of working on a number of wind farm developments in this area.

Furthermore I can also tell you that bats form a large part of EIS work for most wind farms since at least 2009 and that in Ireland many of the wind farms are sited in upland sites which offer little or no suitable roosting and foraging habitats. Bats are also less of an issue in Ireland as we have less species than the rest of Europe and we do not host species which are known to migrate. The jury is still out on migration of Irish species but as it stands this is the consensus with the proviso that further studies are needed to learn more about Irish bats and their movements. The impact of a wind farm on the bats is also assessed in relation to distance from the site to the nearest known roost site, suitability of the site for foraging and roosting, the species likely to be found in the habitats present and the sensitivity of species to collision or barotrauma. In Ireland Leislers bats tend to be the species of greatest concern due to the distances they fly and how they utilise the landscape.

Obviously in the situation with the roost 160m from a turbine it is a given that there is a significant risk which is evidenced by the report from the excellent Conor Kelleher. However, 160m is an unlikely scenario in relation to wind farms as turbines must be situated at least 500m from the nearest house. In the case of wind farms should a roost or flight path be found close to a turbine then the developer can adjust the turbine position to avoid the impact on bats. The BCT guidelines on best practice have recently (Feb 2012) been revised to include a chapter on wind farms and bats Bat Surveys: Good Practice Guidelines, 2nd edition. This is a really useful document and bases its approach on a risk assessment.

joela wrote: »

Furthermore I can also tell you that bats form a large part of EIS work for most wind farms since at least 2009 and that in Ireland many of the wind farms are sited in upland sites which offer little or no suitable roosting and foraging habitats. Bats are also less of an issue in Ireland as we have less species than the rest of Europe and we do not host species which are known to migrate. The jury is still out on migration of Irish species but as it stands this is the consensus with the proviso that further studies are needed to learn more about Irish bats and their movements. The impact of a wind farm on the bats is also assessed in relation to distance from the site to the nearest known roost site, suitability of the site for foraging and roosting, the species likely to be found in the habitats present and the sensitivity of species to collision or barotrauma. In Ireland Leislers bats tend to be the species of greatest concern due to the distances they fly and how they utilise the landscape.

Obviously in the situation with the roost 160m from a turbine it is a given that there is a significant risk which is evidenced by the report from the excellent Conor Kelleher. However, 160m is an unlikely scenario in relation to wind farms as turbines must be situated at least 500m from the nearest house. In the case of wind farms should a roost or flight path be found close to a turbine then the developer can adjust the turbine position to avoid the impact on bats. The BCT guidelines on best practice [/SIZE]have recently (Feb 2012) been revised to include a chapter on wind farms and bats Bat Surveys: Good Practice Guidelines, 2nd edition. This is a really useful document and bases its approach on a risk assessment.

I know bats form a large part of EIS work - they have to - if the EIS is not thorough enough, that in itself can be reason to turn down the planning application.
You say "Bats are also less of an issue in Ireland as we have less species than the rest of Europe" - having less species doesn't make bats less of an issue, you may currently have a haven for a large percentage of the world population of a particular bat.
You then say categorically "we do not host species which are known to migrate" and then admit that the "jury is still out on migration of Irish species"
You say "However, 160m is an unlikely scenario in relation to wind farms" - well the link I provided was for a wind turbine so while it may be unlikely, it has been proposed.
The 500m separation distance is only a guideline; it can be less.
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2012/0413/1224314683057.html
Furthermore bats will forage further than 500m from their roosts and they roost in caves and trees and underground not just in buildings.
As you say "further studies are needed to learn more about Irish bats and their movements." which is exactly what I pointed out in my post at 18.10 on 02/05 - meanwhile derogation licences are sought to allow activities that would otherwise be illegal.

joela wrote: »

We don't host species KNOWN to migrate although there are some who feel that further research is required to identify exactly how bats move in Ireland but they are not migratory species as those studied in Europe and the US.

Thank you for clarfying

joela wrote: »

Never said bats didn't forage further than 500m from roost but foraging and roosting are two completely different things when it comes to impacts and mitigation.

So, to be clear, siting wind turbines 500m from houses doesn't necessarily help bats as they may travel beyond 500m of peoples houses and it doesn't necessarily help bats as some may be roosting in places other than houses e.g. outbuildings, barns, caves, trees, underground

joela wrote: »

Derogation licenses are sought not to allow bats to be killed but to allow appropriate steps to be taken to mitigate for any proposed development..

But is mitigation working?
http://www.wildlifesurveys.net/
Wind farms have formed a major aspect of the survey work in recent years. Detector surveys of proposed wind farms can be undertaken as can bat corpse searches using a sniffer dog.

And are environmental assessments protecting wildlife?
http://raptorpolitics.org.uk/2012/01/17/spanish-wind-farms-kill-6-to-18-million-birds-bats-a-year/