I am sorry to hear that you have to provide a bat survey. I didnt, and I havent heard of others needing to.

Sadly I guess it is your planners trying to put obstacles in your way.

I have bats in my garden and as far as i am aware they dont have any problems with the Turbine.

It stands to reason that if they can navigate through the branches of trees in motion with the wind they will be OK with wind turbines.

Perhaps others know of a survey?
--
Stuart

ted

I have never heard of anyone else ever having found anything that once flew, dead near a turbine (neither bats nor birds!), and neither big turbines, nor small ones!
--
Windy Miller

http://www.nationalwind.org/publications/wildlife/wildlife_factsheet.pdf

ted

looks like the latest airborne version of the Crested Newt form of Nimbyism.

“Because of English Natures Standard Planning Advice - I will require 4 copies of a protected species survey of the site to be submitted. Which in pays ? particular attention to bats and birds and includes any required mitigation measures,”

jameshoare

I was not asked for any such surveys when I went through planning, but I had a supportive department.
--
Stuart

I would imagine the long term prosperity in UK of Bats is more at risk from climate change than a turbine situated away from the hedgerow.

slightly hypocritical....

Im not giving up without a fight
--
jameshoare

I suppose I should make my poosition clear. I am heavily involved in bat conservation, and am a consultant ecologist who has worked on several windfarm and turbine projects (for large producers, councils etc) and have been involved with various steering groups looking at bats and turbines in the UK.

Some might say I am a little biased. Which if by "biased" you mean I do not wish to see unnecessary disturbance to a family of animals which are hanging on by their fingernails - then, guilty as charged.

Here are some point for consideration:

1. Turbines have been proved to kill bats, both abroad and in the UK. This is all sizes of rotary bladed turbines.

2. Bats are a very difficult group to survey for, and as such there is still a knowledge gap regarding the full effects of turbines. For instance, we don't really know that much about flying at altitude (above 50m).

3. All bats are protected by UK and European law, and councils are actually supposed to ask for a bat survey in every instance where disturbance may be caused - it is just that some haven't figured this out yet. If a particular scheme has gone through without one, this should not be taken as an example to others of how it should be done.

4. Bats can fly through branches, are indeed very good at flying around obstacles. They are not quite as good at avoiding rotating blades, or the turbulance thus caused. One Windfarm in the US recorded 400 casualties per week.

5. The consultant ecologist employed by anyone should be suitably experienced and qualified to undertake a proper assessment. For guidance look at IEEM (www.ieem.org.uk)or the Bat Conservation Trust (www.bats.org.uk), or discuss it with your local planning ecologist or Natural England Conservation Officer.

6. If you want to see how our european friends do it, look at Eurobats (www.eurobats.org).

If you are asked for a bat survey in relation to a scheme, don't think of it as some way of blocking your application. It isn't. Its a legal response to your application, needed to fully assess the impacts of your application in relation to a european protected species. The right ecologist will not only assess the impacts, but may also help you to position the turbine in a position which makes everyone happy.

Many thanks

Nick Bonsall
--
nick

This is a fundamental difference between UK & USA, so much of your post is related to migratory bat characteristiics.

My point is a £few,000 cost of a survey wont stop a wind farm project development but a mandatory bat survey may stop a totally valid smalll scale project as ROI would decrease by 25-90%, even if there are no bats at risk. That cannot be right.

--
jameshoare

It does appear that UK bats are migratory to some extent. Recent work by Dr John
Altringham has shown that in some areas certain species of bats do travel to upland sites in Autumn to "swarming" sites. The area Dr Altringham studied was in North Yorkshire, and he has evidence of bats travelling 50km+ to get tothese sites.

Through my work on larger windfarm sites I have recorded massive increases in activity in other upland areas during late summer and early autumn. Unfortunately, at this point in time we do not know enough to make an informed decision on many of the possible impacts.

I do take your point reagrding the financial implications of bat surveys on smaller projects. However, why should turbines be exempt from the same scrutiny as other development projects. Even though I can see the benefit of such projects, at the same time I see the need for such schemes to be designed and placed properly.

The majority of turbine projects I have been involved with look to locate the turbine on the edge of a site, to minimise land loss elsewhere on site, usually in, or adjacent to hedgerows. If this hedgerow is in close proximity to a roosting site it could be used by a large percentage of bats present.

I always recommend the early involvement of an ecologist in a scheme, as it is considerably more cost effective, and sometimes a simple change of placement can be decisive. I know this can effect turbine effciency sometimes, but these things are always a trade off. I've also looked at habitat modfication as a method of mitigating.

I suppose my last point is this. How do you know bats will be unaffected by a scheme unless a survey is carried out by a suitably experienced individual ?

In this situation it may be necessary for wider research to be carried out on the impacts of turbines. The question is, who will pay for it?

Regards

Nick Bonsall
--
nick

Is there any work that examines the potential impacts of climate change on Bat populations.
I imagine that a warming world posses a far greater threat than wind turbines.

--
Stuart

I would imagine, and this is not based on anything other than my own judgment, that UK bats would benefit from a rise in tempreture. As their activity seasons, i.e. the times of year when they are not hibernating, would increase. As would, for some species, their food source - midges, mossies, etc.

However, I imagine it would not be as straightforward as saying global warming - good for bats, as from what i understand it would coincide with wetter weather, loss of some our natural flora (i'm thinking tree species) and an increase in bat parasites.

I can't imagine that global warming would be good for any species within its natural range, as the speed of change would be too fast for adaptation to keep up. I do know, with a degree of certainty, that an incorrectly placed turbine could seriously damage the efficacy of a bat colony.

However, are we to ignore the needs of one species group to facilitate the adoption of one new technology? Its not even a question of either/or, merely that the needs of bats be taken into account in the design stage. It needn't be expensive.

nick

Environmentalists and industry must work together to secure a low carbon future

17 June 2008

Environmentalists, the energy industry, and government must work together to find ways of responding to climate change, said Natural England today as it launched new policies to promote sustainable energy and help tackle climate change.

Speaking on the day of an Energy and Environment conference in London, Sir Martin Doughty, Chair of Natural England, said: "The challenge is to work with the energy industry, and government, to find the right places for the right technologies."

Natural England wants the Government to undertake a strategic assessment of the environmental impact of different renewable and clean energy developments in order to better inform long-term decisions by policy makers and investors.

Natural England wants greater support for developers to enable them to make high quality applications which minimise impacts on the environment and maximise the potential for the UK to successfully move to a low carbon economy.

Natural England today also calls for:

* The Government to implement a UK-wide environmental assessment of renewable energy. We need to know what will work long-term to inform decisions made by policymakers and investors.
* Greater government and industry support and incentives for communities to deliver micro and community scale renewables projects, such as domestic wind turbines and greater access to the national grid.
* A national adaptation framework to ensure that our national response to climate change is co-ordinated, based on agreed principles and, critically, effective. We need to avoid making decisions in one area that will adversely affect another.
* A planning system, on land and at sea, which anticipates climate change and delivers adaptation opportunities.
* Better environmental standards applied to bioenergy so consumers can be sure that the biofuels they purchase have a net benefit to the environment.
* Land managers, especially in upland peat areas, should be incentivised to manage their land in a way which delivers environmental benefits such as flood management, nature conservation and carbon management.
* Practical action to demonstrate what responding to climate change looks like across a range of habitats so as a society we learn how to react to the changes which will happen.

Natural England is committed to reducing its own greenhouse gas pollution by 50% by 2010.

--
jameshoare

Even though the study of bat echolocation has come along way, we still haven't got to the stage of being able to communicate, even on such a rudiemtary level.

A recent study from scotland did identify radar as possible being a possible tool for excluding bats form an area.

(A paper written by Professor Racey and Dr Nicholls' entitled "Bats Avoid Radar Installations: Could Electromagnetic Fields Deter Bats from Colliding with Wind Turbines?" appears today (March 14) in Public Library of Science Journal PLoS ONE.)

However, the problem here is not just one of death by turbine blade. Because no-one is 100% sure why bats use certain sites, depriving them of a key feeding habitat (say by excluding bats from an area around an upland wind farm) could be more damaging
for the colony than losing one, or two (or twenty, or two hundred) individuals.

I could see some advantages for less sensitive locations. it would still need to be part of a proper impact assesment though.

Cheers

Nick

--
nick

It is just not a problem I am glad to say! ;-)
--
Stuart

Further to this a little while ago, i am an MSc Biodiversity Surveying University student (and volunteer ecologist) at Nottm Trent, and i'm conducting some research into bats and wind farms.

I have located several papers myself but not that many regarding UK research in comparison. Please could anyone point me in the direction of any (at all). I would be most grateful.

Kind regards

Matt Cook

--
cookster