Well now we have it: the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds have stated that we definitely must have more on shore wind farms. They state that there is a small percentage of possible sites that they would have to oppose on wildlife grounds but they would not object to the great majority of planning proposals. I can understand that the risk to birds, particularly the rarer species, is far bigger in some places than others. It seems that, never mind about a relatively small number of birds that might get chewed up by the whirling blades at sites that have their approval, it's their contention that the loss of bird life from climate change could be so huge that building more wind farms has to be a way of trying to ameliorate the problem.
I've made my stance on wind farms clear before, my primary objection being that the amount of power generated from them is unpredictable as the wind velocity in this country at least is so variable. Nothing irritates me more than to be told that a certain wind farm will provide the energy for a population of so many; the industry are assuming the ideal wind speeds for maximum output - what a con! As I see it back up has to be available if the wind is either too strong or non-existent and I have yet to see any convincing refutation of this argument.
The upshot of the RSPB statement is a green light for more wind farm construction from one of the major conservation charities. What would be interesting to see is how their huge membership would respond if they had a chance to vote on the viewpoint expressed by the organisation, not that they would ask the question.