I haven't checked the source (bias noted) but this seems daft...

http://www.thinkscotland.org/thinkpolitics/articles.html?read_full=11588&article=www.thinkscotland.org

"Europe's largest onshore wind farm, Whitelee Wind Farm, was not only built on the deep peatland of Eaglesham Moor, south of Glasgow, but the Forestry Commission revealed that over 1,500 acres of forest were felled to facilitate the project. The irreparable damage caused to natural carbon sinks means that more CO2 was released into the atmosphere than would ever be saved by turbines."

Posted By: windy lambbut not replanted as Forestry Commission can earn more money from renting land to the turbine company than growing trees

That does indeed mean

Posted By: CWattersdamage caused to natural carbon sinks means that more CO2 was released into the atmosphere than would ever be saved by turbines

It's not legit.

Here is a better source than my original post. It's a study on C emissions from the Whitelee Wind Farm..

http://www.geos.ed.ac.uk/homes/kheal/SHG.pdf

Conclusions so far

• C, N and P concentrations and export can be enhanced by wind farm development on peatlands

• Most likely related to deforestation

• Important as wind farm planning applications are now in forested areas

Aside: Another source says that 86kM of access roads were required across the site together with over 900km of cable (burried?)

JMS 452 -“It seems like there could be a good case for the equivalent of a life cycle analysis that compares a renewable development to a gas power station”
When considering the fundamental concern of GHG impact the comparison depends on choice of renewable. We know wind turbines claim a minimum 350kg GHG saving per MWh against gas but data from biomass projects illustrates GHG burden from biomass energy can be up to 1500kg per MWh which is 4 times higher than equivalent gas. Biomass import requirement is detailed to be 90% compared with current 50% for gas so requires comparison between transport impact of high energy gas against low energy density biomass, there is also need to consider additional health impact costs due to the far higher air quality degradation caused by biomass combustion and the possible impact of gas fracking .
The capital cost per MW of capacity favours gas against renewables but the bottom line is surely need to embrace indigenous energy sources for a variety of reasons .
Life cycle comparison appears to depend on prioritising our concerns and deciding the parameters for impact consideration.
With reference to GHG impact created by disturbance of peat we know it takes 10 years of growth to sequestrate the GHG created by tree planting process in this medium.

Fron the link:
"The irreparable damage caused to natural carbon sinks means that more CO2 was released into the atmosphere than would ever be saved by turbines."

I'd like to see a calculation for this. My wife works in the renewable sector and frequently has to deal with the Forestry Commission. The way this usually works is that a section of woodland will have fell date that may or may not have to be changed to facilitate implementation of the renewable. Furthermore, the wood felled has to be replaced elsewhere if it isn't going to be regrown there, so any calculation that seeks to look at leaching of Carbon over decades must also look at increased rates of carbon fixation elsewhere. A decent proportion of the carbon embodied in the wood felled will largely remain embodied over the next few decades. Removal of peat is a big problem if it can't be resited in a place with suitable hydrology that prevent drying and rapid leaching of peat carbon, and as I understand it this is one of the biggest problems in carbon release for implementation of any renewable, not just turbines with their large bases, e.g. roads can significantly change hydrology of an area of land and could potentially alter carbon leaching. Nevetheless, I seriously doubt the statement in that first link.

I suppose that's a possible explanation. Interestingly it seems to be the Natural gas contribution that goes down if you increase the amount of onshore wind in the mix. The contribution from Oil and other sources stays the same.

Posted By: CWattersInterestingly it seems to be the Natural gas contribution that goes down if you increase the amount of onshore wind in the mix. The contribution from Oil and other sources stays the same.

I have a vague memory that the model has the notion of a 'standby' or 'reserve' or somesuch word fuel that takes up any slack in requirements. Can't remember any detail though so all I can suggest is RTFM :)

So presumably it's also ok to cut down trees to build a housing estate ?