On 8 Jun, 10:13, Old Codger wrote:

A REALITY CHECK PROVES THE SCOTTISH EAGLES DO NOT AVOID WINDFARMS AS
CLAIMED

Gigantic snip


.............. which was a rather long-winded way of confirming the
blindingly obvious fact that we can't have it all.

No matter what the issue is in a closed system, if you change one
thing it has to have a knock-on effect somewhere else. I've been
waiting for the negative ecological effects of wind farms to emerge
for a while now, although I don't feel this is a particularly
significant one of them. I thought the effects of reduced widspeeds
downwind might be the first to show - increased incidences of plant
diseases or pests, or changes in species distribution and I think they
might still do so. From a meteorological point-of-view, you can't
remove energy from a system without it having SOME effect but just how
much and whether the effects are tolerable are open to debate. After
all, the growth of large urban areas over the past century or so has
had far more significant effects on those areas and the surrounding
countryside, but we've felt this has been tolerable - so far.
Leastways, the effects have not been considered "catastrophic".

I think we always have to remember entropy, which tells us that
there's no such thing as a free lunch. And when we think there is,
that free lunch means someone else ends up going hungry.

Regards,


- Tom.