"Some folks will campaign to stop anything!"

I'm sure they will. Or might. ;)

But it's a question of whether certain locations are just too special isn't it?
We need gravel -but from Thornborough? And we need wind power - but from Callanish? If we're willing to screw those two up, where isn't expendable?

One post, from many about wind farms, on BirdForum.net

"After California, Spain, Germany and Australia, news of eagles being killed by wind turbines are coming to us from Japan. It is all the more worrying because white-tailed sea eagles are involved, of which that country has only 150. But there is more: a windfarm is to be built on a migration route used by half the world population of these magnificent birds, which are bigger than the golden eagle.

We already knew that windfarms killed white-tailed sea eagles: 14 bodies have been recovered in Germany, in addition to those of 41 red kites, plus a number of buzzards, harriers, falcons, hawks, geese, swans, storks etc. And we were worried about the cumulative effect this would have on the European population, for in addition to Germany, windfarms are being built on sea eagle territories in Scandinavia and Scotland.

But now, we learn that the species itself may become extinct because of our rush-to-wind policies. And it is not the only one: elsewhere, wind turbines are a threat to at least 6 different eagle species, the rare Bonelli's eagle being one of them. And so it is with storks, bustards, cranes etc.

The sad truth is that, by siting their windfarms in sparsely populated areas, where opponents can be counted in mere hundreds, and where community compensation packages come that much cheaper, the wind industry ends up erecting its bird killing machines where it impacts wildlife most."

Here's a thread about the Lewis Wind Farm proposals

http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=26715&highlight=wind+farm

"Wind Farms? Personally I think the Mother would approve!"
Perhaps you should do some research before asking why people would object to such "environmentally" friendly energy sources. Personally I think the Mother would be crying at the loss of her fabulous "children".

Wind" farms" are such a recent phenomenon that it is hard to be certain of their long-term ecological impact. However, the Flaight Hill Opposition Group at Hebden Bridge, Yorkshire, commissioned an hydrologist and a number of engineers to examine the neighbouring Ovenden Moor wind "farm". They found that the erection of turbines 200 feet high had cracked the bedrock of this upland moorland and diverted natural watercourses. Around the turbines and along the cable trenches the thin layers of peat were drying out rapidly and it is likely that these sections of peat bog will simply blow away. Moreover, tracks to and between turbines have acted as dams and formed deep pools of peat "soup" - fetid surface water which cannot run or drain away. There is certain to be a knock-on effect on flora, insects and birds which depended on the ecological status quo before the turbines were built.

The hole excavated for a turbine's foundation has a volume equivalent to a 25m swimming bath. The extracted material has to be put somewhere else. The hole is filled with sand, aggregate and cement which has to come from somewhere else and has to be transported by heavy lorries. Several miles of service roads and cable trenches need to be constructed at a large wind "farm" site. If the site is at any distance from the grid, there will be pylons and overhead transmission lines to form the necessary connection. Wind enthusiasts admit that they need huge quantities of concrete for foundations and roads and are on record as claiming that many jobs are created or safe-guarded thereby. Yet the concrete industry is the biggest man-made source of CO2 on the planet - about 7% of the world's total. Wind turbines produce significant amounts of CO2 - they merely do it in advance. If the emissions created during manufacture and erection are averaged over the units of electricity generated during the lifetime of a turbine, the CO2 cost is 50g per unit (Algemeen Dagblad - Netherlands - 8.2.2000). What was once inaccessible upland becomes accessible for more intensive agriculture. Applications for further development can use the argument that the landscape is already degraded by wind turbines: this has happened in an application for a landfill site at Llanidloes in Powys, where the Llandinam turbines have been cited in the landscape assessment.

Dr John Hedger at the Institute of Biological Sciences at the University of Wales, Aberystwyth, has written: <b>"Wind energy is not as clean as its proponents would have us believe. It is an industrial development and as such causes degradation of the environments where turbines are sited. </b>The result is a loss of habitat for wildlife. The proposed environmental benefits of windfarming...will only come from the very large-scale use of turbines. One environmental problem will simply be replaced by another."

Paul Gipe, the California-based wind enthusiast, has recently taken the American wind industry to task for ignoring the serious problem of soil erosion found at wind "farm" sites.

Not as straightforward a case as the proponents would have you believe.

http://www.countryguardian.net/case.htm

Totally with you 4W, these are no bigger than trees. Do we object to trees?