Germans Horrified That Forests, “Strictly Protected” Species, Being Cleared Away For Wind Parks

In Germany forests are almost considered sacred, and are powerfully anchored into the German cultural psyche. Disturbing them is absolutely frowned upon, to put it mildly. This is all the more reason why Germans nationwide have been horrified by the mass deforestation taking place to make way for industrial wind parks.

The latest (shocking) example comes from south Germany, just north of Heidelberg, where the deforestation of the Wald Michelbach (along with the destruction of the homes of strictly protected species and biotope) is taking place.

German SWF public televisions recently reported on a protest mounted by concerned and shocked citizens who could not believe that the untouched forest was being chopped down.

Since Germany opted to shut down its nuclear power capacity in the wake of the Fukushima disaster in Japan, southern Germany has been looking for other sources of energy — and wind industry lobbyists seized the opportunity and have been pushing hard for wind power ever since.

Unfortunately the few ideal locations where wind power has any chance to perform are forested hilltops that make up the region’s idyllic landscape. Most feasibility studies show that the wind even at these locations is still not in great enough supply to make it worthwhile. Yet, that isn’t stopping the powerful wind industry from getting its way. Approvals in protected areas have been muscled and cajoled, against the will of the people and the common good.

The SWF report shows local protesters mobilizing soon after having heard that deforestation machinery had started clearing trees and destroying the habitat of many “strictly” protected species like the red kite hawk, owls and bats.

One upset protester commented:

The senselessness is incomprehensible. […] That you can rescue the climate by destroying the forest – I cannot understand it.”

The police were called in to remove the protesters.

Guido Carl of German of BUND (Friends of the Earth Germany), a leading environmental protection organization in the country (one that has long been accused of caving in to the wind industry) however thinks that the destruction of the forest is the right thing to do and that it “simply has to be accepted” in order to protect the climate.

Another protester points out that it is a fact the amount of wind in that part of the country is not enough and that it cannot make any real contribution to the Energiewende. He then adds that “you hardly can get by the mafia, you could say, the brainwashing that’s been put out to the people. As soon as you say you’re against wind turbines, you get labelled sick, which is complete nonsense.”

Ironically, in earlier times, most of the protesters had bought into the green energy promises. Today they stand shocked to see the destruction that it’s in fact wreaking. Unfortunately the project is only the very beginning of what the politicians and wind industry hope to achieve.

Here’s a shot of the forested hills where 5 industrial turbines are to be installed, despite the “strictly protected birds” inhabiting the area:

Image cropped from SWF.

The SWF reports that it is “incomprehensible” how a building permit could have been awarded. But everyone knows why: There’s big industrial wind money in the game paying off any bureaucratic obstacles and annoyances in the way — and all with the help of the BUND Friends of the Earth Germany, of course. BUND’s Guido Carl:

You have to expect that people at first will be upset about it, which is their personal right. How they cope over the long term is another issue. Studies show as a rule that people who live in the vicinity of wind turbines find a way of getting along with them over time.”

In this particular case, judging by the people’s outrage, I wouldn’t bet on it.

74 responses to “Germans Horrified That Forests, “Strictly Protected” Species, Being Cleared Away For Wind Parks”

  1. Kurt in Switzerland

    “Germans horrified…” And rightly they should be.

    Not just because birds of prey are losing their habitat, either.

    Wind turbines require on average two orders of magnitude more land area than nuclear, coal or gas plants to provide the same nameplate capacity.
    But coal, gas and nuclear plants achieve capacity factors of near unity (conservatively, 0.85 – 0.90), whereas ‘wind farms’ struggle to achieve an average of 0.20.

    As more wind and solar farms are constructed, they increasingly provide power when it is least needed (already depressed prices). This of course competes with hydro-electric power; so you subsidize one “green” electricity source so you can destroy the market for another, established source.

    And these clowns claim to be champions of sustainability.

  2. Kurt in Switzerland

    Will sod defend this madness?

    1. John

      I think he is busy chopping down trees for windmills.
      Because destroying nature is the best thing to ‘rescue the climate’.
      These greens are utterly stupid!

      1. AndyG55

        And really quite evil, in a sickening, hypocritical sort of way.

        1. Newminster

          Or put another way, Andy, “we had to destroy the planet to save it.”

  3. John F. Hultquist

    as a rule that people who live in the vicinity of wind turbines find a way of getting along with them over time

    Further, people that lose an arm find a way … etc. etc…
    Parents that lose a child find a way … etc. etc…

    A red kite hawk that gets hit by a spinning blade can find a way … Oops!

  4. sod

    “Will sod defend this madness?2

    let us see.

    will you defend the Fukushima disaster?

    Do you think people living next to that Hill would prefer to live in Shanghai?

    1. TedM

      What has the Fukishima disaster got to do with power in Germany. Oh the logic of the alarmists.

      1. gbees

        Shanghai is polluted because of industry not because of CO2.

    2. Kurt in Switzerland

      sod,

      Try to focus. I know it can be difficult.

      subject: building more wind farms.

      1. sod

        “Try to focus. I know it can be difficult.

        subject: building more wind farms.”

        I bet the people in Fukushima would exchange the disaster site fore a wind park any day.

        Coal and nuclear does much more damage than wind farms. fact.

        1. AndyG55

          “Coal and nuclear does much more damage than wind farms. ”

          MASSIVE LIE. !!!

        2. NoFreeWind

          The total power of the 4 Fukushima reactors was 4,000 MW

          That would be some wind “farm” to equal the output of Fukushima!
          You would need about 5300 2.5MW turbines with a 30% output to create the same amt of MW hrs. (and 30% output is being generous)

          And here is the funny part. You would still need the nuclear plant or some other type of backup because sometimes the wind wouldn’t blow at all, unless you wanted all the lights to go out.

          1. SebastianH

            According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration natural gas power plants cost 1488 $/kW and wind 1754 $/kw in 2014. Wind has no fuel costs, gas does have fuel costs (http://www.eia.gov/electricity/generatorcosts/).

            If wind has a capacity factor of 0.2 the capital costs for a wind power gird with gas backup would be 10258 $/kW. If you’d power it with gas alone and assume a capacity factor of 0.9 you’d have capital costs of 1653 $/kW (difference: 8605 $/kW)

            So wind + gas backup would be cheaper than gas alone if the fuel costs are higher than that capital cost difference, right?

            In reality a gas power plant would not reach a capacity factor of 0.9 because it doesn’t need to produce at full power at night, same goes for wind power which would produce too much electricity from time to time, resulting in a lower capacity factor … so let’s ignore daily load changes and assume a constant load of 1 kW.

            That’s 8760 kWh per year and if the gas backup is running 10% of the time 876 kWh are produced by the backup. Correct?

            In the wind powered system 7884 kWh were produced by wind, in the gas only system those were produced by the gas power plants. The difference in capital costs (8605 $/kw) devided by 7884 kWh results in a price of windpower of $1.09 per kWh produced in one year. Correct?

            If the system lasts 20 years this results in a price of $0.0546 per kWh for the wind power system (30 years: $0.0364). That is pretty close to the actual fuel costs of a gas power plant: http://www.eia.gov/electricity/annual/html/epa_08_04.html

            So the fuel saving already almost makes up for the increased capital costs of wind + gas backup. Correct?

          2. DirkH

            Then why do the warmunist crooks demand ever more billions of subsidies.
            Chase them to Somalia.

          3. SebastianH

            Because of the word “almost”? It’s not yet cost competetive.

        3. Bryan

          Have to agree here with sod.

          Being a climate skeptic does not need to imply being pro nuclear.

          If a nuclear power plant has a significant failure, the value of property(land and buildings) around the installation will be wiped out.
          The area directly affected would be very large.
          Using Chernobyl or Fukushima as a guide; 50km radius around the installation
          This situation is only true for nuclear power plants.

          1. AndyG55

            When a country has plenty of access to coal, gas.. there is no need for Nuclear.

            Japan certainly aren’t going to destroy their country with wind turbines, but they do have willing and able suppliers of coal in both Indonesia and Australia.

          2. John

            No you don’t. All nuclear disasters, lets count them, oh wait 2 (Tsjernobyl and Fukushima), have been the result of human failure.
            Numerous other power plants have been operating without any failure. Should we move on to Thorium the problems are even less.

    3. AndyG55

      “Do you think people living next to that Hill would prefer to live in Shanghai?”

      Until its filled with wind turbines, probably not.

      Then and a again, how many people choose to live in Shanghai, sob?

      You are already in an inner-city ghetto, so what need or desire have you for nature, birds.

      Just destroy it all on the basis of an unsupportable scam religion, hey, you worthless ***

    4. DirkH

      sod 19. February 2017 at 8:23 PM | Permalink | Reply
      ““Will sod defend this madness?2

      let us see.

      will you defend the Fukushima disaster?”

      Sod lives in the Freiburg area, south of the Rhein-Main area where the wind turbines are being built to kill Red Kites.

      So sod! Important! STOP WORRYING ABOUT THE TSUNAMIS. Even the US Tsunami Bomb can’t cause one that reaches your area.

      Also, I see sod has switched from trying to scare people from a TINY bit of warming to scaring them from EVIL ATOMS. (plus Tsunamis)

      So… We have won. He has given up on warmunism.

    5. Josh

      Fukushima was a significant accident, but not a disaster. The decision to do away with all nuclear power in the wake of this is throwing the baby out with the bath water. On the other hand the reckless expansion of so-called green energy is paving the road to a disaster of a much grander scale.

  5. TedM

    Take away a carbon sink (forests) in order to reduce atmospheric CO2. Oh the logic of the alarmists.

  6. Johannes Herbst

    I see… Sod is the Griff (WUWT) of notrickszone. Makes reading more interesting. And being in the opposition, one always gets attention…

    BTW, I just read the Magazine of Bund Naturschutz in Bayern (Which I am member of – yet): Save Die Energiewende.

    Brainless folks – or not able to use brain properly.

    1. AndyG55

      “Sod is the Griff ”

      Now you are really scraping the bottom of the barrel !

      Dumber and dumbest.. and they are constantly vying for place.

    2. sod

      “BTW, I just read the Magazine of Bund Naturschutz in Bayern (Which I am member of – yet): Save Die Energiewende.

      Brainless folks – or not able to use brain properly.”

      i read the same magazin. also “still” a member, but i will also leave them, BECAUSE of their weak position on energiewende.

      1. DirkH

        Well, we need a TOTALE ENERGIEWENDE, don’t we.

      2. DirkH

        You’re quite the fan of the REICHSKRAFTTUERME, sod, aren’t you.

  7. Rud Istvan

    Sod, you cannot have it both ways. Your attempt to try is laughable. Choose.
    Naturschutz oder Energiewende. Biede koennen Sie nicht gleichzeitig haben.

    1. sod

      “Sod, you cannot have it both ways. Your attempt to try is laughable. Choose.
      Naturschutz oder Energiewende. Biede koennen Sie nicht gleichzeitig haben.”

      Of course i can have both. We are protecting the climate by changing to renewables and we are directly protecting nature by protecting the climate. We also protect nature by phasing out coal and by stopping Fukushima type accidents from happening.

      1. AndyG55

        ROFLMAO.

        Renewables in Germany have made ZERO difference to CO2 emissions, they have devastated huge areas of land, devastated avian wildlife.

        Coal has never done that, Coal provides MUCH NEEDED CO2 to the atmosphere, it is THE BEST, MOST NATURAL, MOST ENVIRONMENTALL BENEFICIAL power supply available.

        And please sob, how many of Germany’s nuclear stations are liable to tsunami damage????

        sob, you live in a anti-science, anti-nature, anti-human FANTASY world

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x2npZLdxkZQ

      2. SebastianH

        Sod, don’t feed the troll (AndyG55). Let him live in his alternative reality where releasing carbon into the atmosphere is “environmentally beneficial”. Slapping the back of the head is also beneficial to the thought process, maybe someone slapped his head too often too hard because of that 😉

        1. Kenneth Richard

          SebastianH: “Let him live in his alternative reality where releasing carbon into the atmosphere is ‘environmentally beneficial’”.

          Apparently many scientists live in this “alternative reality” too. Because they continue to publish papers that say” Higher CO2, Global Warming Increases Crop Yields, Greens The Earth, Reduces Weather Extremes, Extends Human Life … but perhaps you can tell us why this is not beneficial.

          http://notrickszone.com/2016/10/20/20-new-papers-higher-co2-global-warming-increase-crop-yields-green-the-earth-reduce-weather-extremes-extend-human-life

          1. SebastianH

            “many” … and the overhelming rest?

            Higher CO2 increases ocean acidification. Which leads to less plankton with all its consequences.

          2. John
          3. SebastianH

            Sure, one study of one organism in one place voids every other study about ocean acidification.

          4. Kenneth Richard

            “One study of one organism in one place”

            Actually, we have dozens of studies, a growing body of evidence, that indicate that the ocean “acidification” so-called “trend” of -0.1 pH lowering over 200 years has increasingly become recognized as “groupthink”.

            http://notrickszone.com/2016/12/29/the-ocean-acidification-narrative-collapses-under-the-weight-of-new-scientific-evidence

        2. AndyG55

          “Let him live in his alternative reality where releasing carbon into the atmosphere is “environmentally beneficial” ”

          Poor seb.. you really do want to live in the Dark Ages don’t you, you.

          You have NEVER proven that CO2 does any harm WHATSOEVER at any level it can possible reach in a whole of atmosphere concentration.

          Heck you can’t even prove that it provides even a small amount of beneficial warming. That is how PATHETIC your arguments are.

          EVERY bit of REAL SCIENCE tells us that CO2 is a massive benefit, if fact, one of the two MAJOR BUILDING BLOCKS or ALL LIFE ON EARTH.

          YES, even cockroaches absolutely depend on atmospheric CO2 !

          I DARE you to de-carbonise your life.

          We have now seen that as well as skipping maths and chemistry during your whole school life, you also skipped biology.

          You have proven yourself to be ignorant, as absolutely desperate to stay that way.

          [Pls hold back on the name-calling. They do not make the arguments stronger, but instead weaker. -PG]

        3. AndyG55

          “Higher CO2 increases ocean acidification. ”

          It does not. The ocean is far too buffered to change pH from a minor change in atmospheric CO2.

          Its just another anti-science propaganda LIE put forward to con gullible buffoons, (and it worked on seb)

          There is no way that pH level in the whole ocean can be established with any accuracy now, and there was certainly no way it could have been measure back before the industrial revolution.

          CO2 levels have been far, far higher in the past, and the oceans were never and will never be acidic.

          Every river that has flowed into the ocean over millions and millions of years has been on the lower side of pH7, sometimes as low as pH5, but the ocean remains steadfastly around ph 8.1+/- a bit.

          Only someone living in a total FANTASY world would think that a very minor change in atmospheric CO2 could cause even the slightest change in pH.

          Probably the same sort of gullible, ill-education person who has an irrational, anti-science, unprovable “belief” in the total FANTASY that CO2 can somehow cause warming in a convective atmosphere.

          Yes, my world is REALITY, an alternate to that FANTASY, HALLUCINOGENIC realm where only the most gullible brain-washed AGW minds can exist.

          1. SebastianH
          2. AndyG55

            Amazing that they only measure at 3 sites around the world.

            I wonder why all the other sites have been left out 😉

            Please provide location and pictures of these three cherry-picked sites, as well as rainfall, temperature, runoff, industrial and agricultural expansion figures. These must be in the paper if it is a proper science paper so should be easy to produce.

            Please also provide link to actual papers, not some bogus EPA report.

          3. SebastianH

            “bogus EPA report” … sure, if it contradicts you opinion claim the source is compromised. The usual AndyG55 strategy.

            Here is a link to more examples: http://lmgtfy.com/?q=ocean+acidification

          4. AndyG55

            So the best you can come up with is a link to Google…. really.

            I take that as an abject inability of you to back up anything you say with required data and papers.

            Nothing unusual there.

            Let’s repeat the request and see if we get the same result

            “Please provide location and pictures of these three cherry-picked sites, as well as rainfall, temperature, runoff, industrial and agricultural expansion figures. These must be in the paper if it is a proper science paper so should be easy to produce.”

            Produce these… or as everybody expects.. DON’T

            Weasel and squirm your way out, just like you have about producing one single paper that proves that CO2 causes warming in a convective atmosphere.

          5. AndyG55

            Oh, and isn’t it good the hear, be it true or not, that oceans are becoming marginally LESS CAUSTIC !!

          6. AndyG55

            https://stevengoddard.files.wordpress.com/2011/07/monterey_bay_ph.png?w=1956

            Monterey Bay pH.. no change at all

            Ocean pH has been both lower and higher over thousands of years, with no correlation to atmospheric CO2 levels.

          7. AndyG55

            oh and add to that… I assume they also measured changes in salinity at the three cherry picked sites.

            Must be in the paper they produced….. Right ? !!.

        4. Robert Folkerts

          Nothing “alternative” about the benefit of co2 regarding the ability of plants to grow. Surely Sebastion H you understand how this works, that co2 is the sustainer of all life on planet earth? You do, don’t you?

          1. AndyG55

            “CO2 is the sustainer of all life on planet earth? You do, don’t you?”

            No, he very obviously doesn’t.

          2. SebastianH

            As water is important for life, but have you every tried to drink a gallon of water in one sitting and survived it?

          3. AndyG55

            Have you ever drunk quarter of a glass of water, then taken another tiny sip.

            That is a much more REALISTIC analogy.

            For a very long time there has been only just enough CO2 to keep the planet going, humans have added just that little bit of a sip..

            And the planet’s biosphere is LOVING IT. !! 🙂

            Release CO2, increase the carbon cycle… FEED THE WORLD.

  8. Graeme No.3

    sod….”i will also leave them”,

    Order your gala celebration edition of the Magazine of Bund Naturschutz in Bayern now. Don’t miss out.
    Includes sod as the centrefold.

  9. m e emberson

    Not being nasty to anyone, and not to poor ‘sod’ , but have any of you seen this?

    https://www.lifewire.com/types-of-internet-trolls-3485894

    It is very interesting and I think anyone may have a good subject for a research paper looking for examples on blogs you frequent and classifying them.
    ( add Climate Change to the title and see if you can get a grant)

  10. m e emberson

    I added that this is a joke but the post was truncated.

  11. m e emberson

    This time British type relating to joke was cut out. This must be self censoring by the blog.:-)

  12. L J Jenkins

    Are these greenies stupid? Where is their logic? Wind energy is so TRIVIAL it cannot possibly power a nation of 80 million people with massive car factories making Mercedes, BMW, Opel, Volkswagen, Audi, Porsche etc….nor farm machinery like Claas and Deutz. You need MASSIVE energy 24/7 to do that! Wind energy is trivial, unreliable and PATHETIC !! Chopping down trees is crazy!It won’t achieve anything…apart from forest destruction !

    1. Josh

      True, but will the greens understand or care?

  13. Joe Public

    In the UK, nuclear power generation has caused no deaths; there have been 126 wind turbine -related *fatal* accidents

    http://www.caithnesswindfarms.co.uk/accidents.pdf

    1. sod

      “In the UK, nuclear power generation has caused no deaths; there have been 126 wind turbine -related *fatal* accidents2

      The idea that Sellafield has caused no deaths is utterly absurd.

      The simple problem is this: a person falling from a wind turbine will be listed as a death by windpower in your fake news scheme. But people dying of cancer will not be directly added to the nuclear (or coal) list. Fake news rule!

      1. AndyG55

        Name of anyone that died from Sellafield.

        And it was how many years ago ?

        OMG you really are grasping for soggy straws, aren’t you!

        PATHETIC!!

      2. Joe Public

        Sod, “The idea that Sellafield has caused no deaths is utterly absurd.”

        You claiming it’s ‘absurd’ just because it doesn’t fit with your preconceptions is …. absurd.

        1. SebastianH

          Everything has a death rate attached to it. Some things are more obvious, e.g. you probably die when someone shoots you. Some are less obvious, e.g. premature death because of air pollution.

          Nuclear power might be a viable source of energy for a country (see France), but you can’t combine it well with renewables. Every country can chose what they want there power grid to look like, right? If you want a high percentage of renewables you can’t have lots of nuclear power plants. Costs might be another thing preventing new nuclear power plants from being built. See my wind + backup calculation above … new nuclear can’t really compete, can it? (example Hinkley Point C)

          1. Joe Public

            If you truly have a balance-sheet, then societal-costs of having no power when the wind ain’t blowing & the sun ain’t shining have to be factored-in.

            Likewise, the costs of rarely-used dependables to maintain services when intermittents can’t.

          2. Robert Folkerts

            Seb,
            One probably wouldn’t die if one were to shoot one self “in the foot” , as you regularly do!!

  14. Owen Abrey

    par for the course. This anthropogenic global warming myth has distorted reality resulting in self destruction. I hate to say it, but expect more of the same.

    1. sod

      “par for the course. This anthropogenic global warming myth has distorted reality resulting in self destruction.”

      You are simply wrong. Look at a sea ice graph:

      https://cdn0.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/zi6Y6LBgANkCdjO3OKJpcSzQFPc=/0x0:519×346/1310×873/cdn0.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_image/image/51890089/Screen_Shot_2016_11_17_at_12.36.33_PM.0.png

      1. AndyG55

        This year Arctic sea ice is above last year, and climbing. It is at the bottom of the 60 year cycle.
        And it is FAR higher than most of the 3/4 of the Holocene.

        Or are you joining the ranks of “Climate Change Denier” who refuses to accept that fact?

        Antarctic is climbing on the long term, current is part of a 2-3 year cycle.

        LEARN SOMETHING, because you are really making a MOCKERY of yourself with you continued IGNORANCE.

  15. ev425128

    This will sort the genuine greens from the reds in green clothing.

  16. AndyG55

    Arctic sea ice update

    2017 day 50 is now higher than 2016 and 2006.

    And still climbing

    2016 – 14.175
    2006 – 14.277
    2017 – 14.328

    1. SebastianH

      For anyone who wants to follow the development of the sea ice extent:
      http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/charctic-interactive-sea-ice-graph/

      Artic has indeed reached 2016 levels (not yet 2006 levels and far away from the 1981-2010 median), Antarctic is still way below 2016.

      1. AndyG55

        Arctic is WAY, WAY above levels of the first 3/4 of the Holocene. With drop from the extreme 1979 levels because of the AMO cycle, the period from 1981-2000 is one massive cherry pick for the average.

        Do you deny that 1979 was an extreme level up there with the LIA?

        https://s19.postimg.org/bkgbf2prn/Icelandic_sea_ice_index_2.png

        Do you deny that the AMO exists and we are currently at the rather flat top of the cycle?

        Or are you joining the ranks of those denying natural climate change?

        1. sod

          Yeah, the warm is always just outside the data that we have in the same way that the future cold is always coming up in the very near future (TM).

          keep your eyes open for new news any moment…

  17. sod

    Very interesting developments in Japan. Communities decide that they need a new approach to electricity. This is the future.

    http://www.atimes.com/article/beyond-nuclear-power-japans-smart-energy-communities-mushroom/

    PS: meanwhile, TEPCO has lost another robot in the depths of the Fukushima ruins to radiation damage.

  18. Climate “Science” on Trial; Clear-Cutting Forests to Save the Trees – CO2 is Life

    […] Case in point, how many people would support Wind Farms if they knew you often have to clear cut old growth forests to build them? Well, it turns out, not many. Just recently that fact was brought to light over in Germany, and the people were horrified. […]