JoMack
Members-
Content Count
364 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
2
JoMack last won the day on February 18
JoMack had the most liked content!
Community Reputation
547 ExcellentAbout JoMack
-
Rank
Veteran
Personal Information
-
First Name
Array
-
Last Name
Array
Recent Profile Visitors
The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.
Enable-
LET'S BE REAL -- RENEWABLE ENERGY TO POWER THE WORLD IS A FANTASY, BUILT ON SUBSIDIES, TAX CREDITS, CARBON SWAP EXHANGES AND BOTTOM LINE: IT'S A TOTAL SCAM. THE CLIMATE CHANGE BULLHORNS OF THE GLOBAL ELITES ARE DEMANDS TO MADE ON THE PEOPLE WITHOUT POWER, WHO THEY MUST CONTROL AT ALL COSTS. IF CLIMATE CHANGE IS REALLY THE EXISTENTIAL THREAT AND A TRUISM BROUGHT TO US BY THE BRIGHTEST BULBS IN THE POLITICAL POWER CIRCLE OF THE COUNTRY, I.E. BARACK OBAMA, THEN WHY DOES HE LIVE ON THE CLIFF OVERLOOKING THE OCEAN, WHILE EXPOUNDING THE FACTS OF THE SEA LEVELS RISING, AND INSTALLS A 2,500 COMMERCIAL PROPANE TANK ON HIS PROPERTY GIVEN BY SPECIAL PERMITTING BY THE STATE OF MASSACHUSETTS SUGGEST A DIFFERENT REALITY. DO THEY REALLY BELIEVE WHAT THEY PREACH, OR ARE THEY JUST CHARLATANS WHO BEG FOR POWER AND FOIST THEIR PROPAGANDA ON THE GULLIBLE WHO BELIEVE THAT THE FANTASY OF A ZERO EMISSION WORLD IS RIGHT AROUND THE CORNER. THEY DELIVER THIS NONSENSE BY HAVING A COMPLICIT MEDIA WITH NO OBJECTIVITY OR INTELLIGENCE AND LIKE A PARROT IN A CAGE WILL CONTINUALLY REPEAT THE MESSAGE THAT IT IS A FOREGONE CONCLUSION THAT ENERGY CAN BE DELIVERED ON A WING AND A PRAYER BY THE STROKE OF A PEN, A REGULATION INSTALLED, A MANDATE TO BE OBEYED, OR MONEY BEYOND THE SCOPE OR WHEREWITHAL OF THE COUNTRY IT LEADS. IT'S TIME TO WAKE UP AND SMELL THE COFFEE SINCE THE BEAUTIFUL TRANSITION TOUTED BY THE POWERS THAT BE IS A SCHEME WHERE WE LOSE AND THEY MOST CERTAINLY WIN.
-
I hope that candle isn't made from paraffin or you're in big trouble.
-
KA-COLLAPSE!
-
TIMBER!!!!
-
It appears that the government of Australia is having an issue with "how carbon credits work". The Guardian: July, 2022 Macintosh, an environmental law and policy scholar, said the system run by the government and Clean Energy Regulator was “largely a sham” and a fraud on taxpayers and the environment. The Clean Energy Regulator and Emissions Reduction Assurance Committee have rejected this, saying they had asked independent experts to test Macintosh’s assertions and found no evidence to support them. They have been supported by industry body the Carbon Market Institute and some companies that run carbon credit projects. On Friday, Macintosh and colleagues released two new papers that argue the “vast majority” of carbon credits awarded for what are known as “human-induced regeneration” projects – which involve regenerating native forests by preventing grazing by livestock and feral animals (and not be tree-planting) – had not drawn more carbon dioxide from the atmosphere than would have happened anyway. Human-induced regeneration is the most popular method to create carbon credits. The academics said the method had “numerous flaws”, including that landholders were issued carbon credits for growing trees in arid and semi-arid rangeland country though the vegetation was already there before the work started.
-
It is not surprising you believe that coercion to build your utopia is just fine while spreading hundreds of thousands of wind turbines on land and sea, hundreds of thousands of solar panels just shining brightly when the sun is out, while some sort of storage will be just around the corner. Please continue since it is interesting to watch and read about how all is well in the land of green energy transition. You know, like Sri Lanka. A prime example of coercion and the utopian dream by the WEF that toppled a government. Just an example of coercion without knowing the consequences. So, this carbon credit scheme is great so that billions are paid by industries, especially oil, gas, coal, airlines, transportation, and passed to the consumer, and end up in the governments coffers but hey, it's good for the planet. Creating some measurements for emissions by a bunch of bureaucrats who give forms for carbon emissions that industry pays into is a sophisticated form of corruption to strip business of profits as they pay to offset some random emissions with zero impact on any emission decline itself. Let's remember, the largest reduction of emissions in the US. was a transition from coal to natural gas. As far as investment is concerned, BlackRock is a trillion dollar firm with a narcissist at the helm. As BlackRock's Larry Fink joins the board of the WEF, ESG becomes a storm trooper to force companies to comply with BlackRock demands for climate change. It seems that Larry isn't doing too well on that front since his threats are hitting the bottom line of Big Oil and the investors who were thrilled to vote in Larry's environmental activists are witnessing the major downturn of their dividends. So, with BlackRocks power on Wall Street and Larry's minions in the Obama and Biden Administrations the ESG dream seems to be floundering, except in BlackRock, as you point out. So, Larry is about to pack his bags and take billions of his bucks to China, but it will not be to coerce Mr Xi, since ESG for China is not on the table yet it is a pollution Godzilla. Funny how that works, but BlackRock still has Biden being handled by Brian Deese, Fink's former right hand man who is Biden's Chief Economic Advisor who tells us we have to suffer since we are entering the liberal world order. Oops. And, I'm sure you love John Kerry, the U.S. Climate Czar, zipping around the world in his private jet polluting everywhere he goes, but hey, he pays for carbon credits so that money is well spent by going into his foundation for climate change. But, he is still making progress to get Iran's nuclear deal done soon and Russia and China are in Tehran today getting ready for Iran to join in their own new world order so glad we haven't banned our nuclear subs and fuel for the military. But there is still hope since the SEC is stepping on to the ESG bandwagon, but the lawsuits have started, since it is arguably not what is required by SEC standards, so again, Mr. Deese and Mr. Fink may be playing hardball, but they can't overcome the wrath of the shareholders and the smackdown of the SEC. So, although they're all trying hard to impose BlackRock's ESG mandates for his green new deal, reality is in play and the charge into the renewable world is seems to not only be faulty on its face, but is also failing across the world.
-
It is a huge Ponzi scheme that is bringing billions into the coffers of governments. The EU was releasing its new CBAM carbon credit, cross border climate change costs between the EU and those low life countries not meeting their climate goals. It's all a house of cards, and the EU will be seeing a backlash, and here, the SEC, starting their BlackRock ESG scheme will see the SCOTUS soon, as did the EPA. THE EU EMISSIONS TRADING SYSTEM AFTER THE ENERGY PRICE SPIKE Policy brief Elisabetta Cornago 04 April 2022 Download PDF Before Putin’s invasion of Ukraine, the EU had planned to expand its emissions trading system (EU ETS) and strengthen the carbon price it generates. The economic recovery from the pandemic has led to an energy crunch, and war in Ukraine has contributed to increasing energy prices and complicated the politics of carbon pricing. This policy brief discusses how to make a higher and more comprehensive EU carbon price both effective and politically feasible. The EU’s existing ETS establishes a carbon price for heavy industry, electricity generation and intra-EU flights. However, to maintain the competitiveness of European industry, many emissions permits are handed out for free, which has so far dimmed the incentives for industries to cut CO2. Carbon emissions from road transport and building heating, so far excluded from the ETS, are priced unevenly across the EU, with energy and carbon taxes varying across countries. The EU’s Fit for 55 climate policy package aims to change this, strengthening the role of carbon pricing in the transition towards carbon neutrality by 2050. As part of this package, the European Commission has proposed a lower cap on emissions, to bring the ETS in line with tougher climate targets, and tighter conditions under which industrial plants can claim free permits. Free permits will be gradually phased out, while a carbon border adjustment mechanism (CBAM) will be introduced to level the playing field between the carbon price faced by EU and foreign producers. The Commission has also proposed that all ETS revenues that member-states receive should go towards climate investment. These reforms go in the right direction, but should be stricter and implemented more rapidly: A gradually increasing price floor, below which the price of emissions permits cannot fall, would provide investors with certainty of the direction of carbon prices. The current proposal envisions the full phase-out of free allowances in 2036, ten years after the CBAM’s full implementation. Scrapping free allowances for heavy industry by 2030 would force producers to innovate more quickly and would not make European industry less competitive. Member-states should devote ETS revenues to climate investment as planned – but more of that should go towards low-carbon innovation. The European Commission wants to introduce a new ETS (ETS2) covering emissions from road transport and buildings, where decarbonisation is lagging. This would impose a larger burden on poorer households and smaller businesses who cannot easily afford to insulate their home or upgrade to more energy efficient production processes. The EU wants to use part of the ETS2 revenues to help such vulnerable energy users and has proposed a Social Climate Fund (SCF) to do so, but it could do more: All revenues from the ETS2 should be devoted to the SCF. The Fund should start as soon as possible: it would provide a good EU-wide response to recent energy price spikes. The EU should clearly communicate that all revenues from ETS2 will be devoted to supporting citizens and businesses in the green energy transition. Without clarity on this link, popular support for carbon pricing may falter. A ‘price corridor’ for ETS2 carbon prices could help avoid excessive carbon price fluctuations. Households and small businesses are not equipped to deal with large fluctuations in their energy and fuel expenses. The EU should align all policies concerning road transport and buildings with climate targets: reform of the energy taxation directive is needed to remove energy subsidies (such as those for aviation) and to ensure that high energy taxes do not put electricity, which will become greener over time, at a cost disadvantage relative to fossil fuels. In the EU, not all CO2 emissions are considered equal: heavy industry and electricity producers face an EU-wide carbon price under the EU Emissions Trading System EU (ETS), but road transport and the heating of buildings do not. All EU member-states tax fuel, but tax rates vary. And some member-states have their own national carbon taxes in addition to the ETS. This is about to change. In July 2021, the European Commission presented the ‘Fit for 55’ climate and energy package, a set of policies to cut carbon emissions by 55 per cent by 2030 relative to 1990 levels. The package proposes reforms to tighten the EU ETS cap on emissions from heavy industry and electricity generation, and to create a new scheme to put a price on carbon emissions from road transport and buildings. Since 2005, the ETS has capped carbon emissions from over 10,500 installations in the European power sector and in energy-intensive industrial sectors such as oil refining, iron and steel, and cement. The cap covers about 36 per cent of total European emissions and is gradually tightened every year to reduce them.1 The cap is enforced via permits to emit, which are traded on carbon markets, leading to a price for carbon emissions. The problem is that, while the energy sector has cut its emissions by 15 per cent since 2005, the carbon price from the ETS has, so far, not driven down carbon emissions from heavy industry in a comparable way. But prices on the European carbon market reached an all-time high of €100 per tonne of CO2 in early February 2022, as Europe’s climate targets – and its policies – have become more ambitious. That is a welcome change from the first 15 years of the EU ETS, when heavy industry found that emitting carbon was so cheap that reducing emissions was not worth the hassle. A carbon price with bite is a necessary tool to reach the EU’s climate goals. But a high price poses a challenge for Europe’s heavy industry, which competes globally with producers who are not (yet) subject to comparable carbon pricing. The proposed ETS reform lowers the cap on emissions to bring the ETS in line with tougher climate targets. It also tightens the conditions under which industrial plants can claim free permits, paving the way for their gradual phase-out. This will be paired with the phase-in of a carbon border adjustment mechanism, which will charge importers of some heavy industry outputs to the EU a fee based on the EU carbon price, effectively levelling the playing field between domestic and foreign producers. The other main policy change related to carbon pricing included in the Fit for 55 package is the proposal to introduce a new system to cap and trade carbon emissions from two major laggard sectors, road transport and buildings, which account for about 25 per cent and 15 per cent of EU-wide greenhouse gas emissions respectively.2 Manufacturing and energy industries, currently covered by the EU ETS, have cut greenhouse gas emissions since 1990 by about 40 per cent, while decarbonisation in the commercial and residential building sector has not been as fast, with emissions reductions below 30 per cent. However, emissions from road transport have increased by almost 30 per cent (see Chart 1). The new ETS aims to reverse this trend in transport emissions and accelerate decarbonisation in buildings, cutting combined emissions from these sectors by 45 per cent by 2030 relative to 2005 levels. So, this should be good and today, the powers that be seem to be rethinking this great regulatory system to further reduce the reliability by installing higher fees, penalties, and business-consumer climate crunch. It may be that crazy ole heat is making their brains fry so they're getting a reality check since they don't own any AC.
-
Just more future forecasting, wrapped in a basket of wishful thinking
-
We'll see in the next "FIVE YEARS", since you know, the wind don't blow, lights out, and voila - energy crises! Relying on wind and solar and transition to this hugely subsided activity that results in negative impact for reliability is the Ponzi scheme created by people who understand zero about anything remotely related to energy and power. Around the world countries are submitting to the WEF, zero-emission insanity. However, as they are feeling the backlash, which is occurring, as they continue their quest for subsdized intermittent generation of electricity. On another front Sri Lanka has collapsed praying at the alter of the Green New Deal and the Netherlands farmers are protesting and delivering warnings to the people of Amsterdam, who will soon have food shortages. So wind and solar is one thing, but now they're creating more crises in the sources that keep their countries stable. The UK has slashed coal use in the past decade as wind power has gained a massive market share in the country’s electricity generation. On Monday, no power generated in Britain came from coal, system operator National Grid ESO said. However, the gas and energy crisis in Europe and the cost-of-living crisis in the UK with soaring energy bills may have prompted the government to not explicitly pledge again an end to coal in two years’ time. Natural gas held the largest share of power generation on Monday, at 35.6%, more than wind with 34.0%, according to National Grid ESO. Although the UK North Sea produces a lot of gas, Britain also relies on imports from Norway and gas imports via interconnectors from Belgium and the Netherlands during the winter months. A worsening of the current gas and energy crisis in mainland Europe would be felt throughout the UK, where customers are already grappling with a surge in the cost of living and the highest inflation in forty years. The UK is also considering cutting off gas supply via two interconnectors to mainland Europe under an emergency plan that would be triggered in case of severe gas shortages in Britain, the Financial Times reported last week. Tyler Durden Thu, 07/14/2022 – 05:00 inflation The post Energy Crisis Could Force The UK To Keep Using Coal appeared first on NXTmine. So, as energy costs escalate, that five year escalation of additional wind in the UK will never be brought forward as the money dries up, and their current drive in costs, doesn't only create a problem with crude, but food and distillate and the multiple amount of products derived from petroleum. These countries in the UK and EU wrap themselves in the untenable Green New Deal, but the leaders will never feel the brunt of it. Let's remember that Herr Schwab, head of the WEF congratulated Sri Lanka's President in 2019 for its experiment from chemical to organic fertilizers. Now, Sri Lanka is in a crises of its own making and the population has revolted in the throes of a famine created by the zero emissions believers such as their President. Of course, as all the green transitions spread, the Netherlands is following suit and the protests have begun. There is one thing in human nature that you cannot change and that is to have stability in energy, and food. Banning fossil fuels and nuclear energy to create some vision of free power and zero emissions is just what is, a vision and a scam. No matter how you wrap this in the great transition as described in the WEF Great Reset, it is never going to deliver the results you continue to forecast, at least not in our life times.
-
Hmmm, interesting that the problem is obviously reliance on fossil fuels and wind is the solution. “Offshore wind decommissioning is going to ramp up very quickly,” Axel Laval, Asset Manager, The Crown Estate, said, speaking at the same event. The first two UK wind turbines, at Blyth, in England, have already been removed. By 2034, close to 3GW of power will reach the end of its design life, Laval says. That amounts to 1000 turbines to be removed. However, just as offshore oil and gas decommissioning costs have been riddled with uncertainty (although that’s now improving), offshore wind decommissioning costs currently vary hugely. The challenge for offshore wind is that this creates uncertainty around the cost of energy for ongoing and future wind farms, says Laval. “It’s difficult to lower the cost of energy if you don’t know the cost of removing it,” he says. Estimates are about £80,000-300,000 per megawatt (MW), he says. The total liability, for the installed base as at 2017, has been estimated at £1.82 billion. Given the wide range of cost estimates per megawatt, that means – to decommission the installed base as at 2017 – the numbers could be between £1.28-£3.64 billion range, he says. Laval says there are currently 2,225 turbines installed in the UK North Sea amounting to 9,953MW of offshore wind. If the goal to reach 30GW of offshore wind power in the UK by 2030 is met, there could be some 5,000 turbines. And, Big Wind will need the engineers in the fossil fuel industry to show them how to decommission their Eco-trash.
-
And there is a significant difference between the offshore drilling platforms and offshore wind. The wind turbine planning is growing into a massive area of construction and sizable foundations on ocean floors around the world. The result is not being studied using existing data and resulting issues surrounding the extent of the negative impact on oceans wind currents, ecosystems, fishing interference, and instability of undersea cables. In the U.S. there is one existing offshore wind farm and last year the cables came up from the seabed on 4 out of the 5 turbines. Of course, electricity was halted and commercial fishing was banned. Taking into account that these turbines are not that old, and the government is not reviewing the problems that the Black Island RI wind farm is having and using some of the issues that have occurred to study the consequences of the current plan around the Atlantic Ocean are unknown. As the EU is facing its biggest energy crises in history, it is the increased use of wind turbines failing that have placed them in their current situation. Those are facts that are currently happening and you cannot deny the biggest downfall of all and that is "if the wind doesn't blow and you are relying on it to generate power, you will be caught in an unreliable and unsustainable electricity deficit. From the article as well: They fear that commercial fishing is becoming sidelined, despite its huge socio-economic value if not absolute cash value to the British economy. Put bluntly, some say the “Last of the Hunters” are themselves becoming an endangered species because of the accelerating competition for space on the UK Continental Shelf. Oil and gas may be a pariah, but its actual footprint has always been quite small. The two industries have learned to co-exist. But Big Wind is different. Windfarms gobble huge areas of the seabed and though symbiotic relationships with the fishing industry should be possible, research reveals frictions and fishermen are unquestionably the fall guys.
-
Not so fast: May, 2022 But the advent of offshore wind farms (OWFs) is changing all that. Already the planting of thousands of turbines by Big Wind over just the past decade, especially in the Southern North Sea, is generating problems as developers muscle in on traditional fishing grounds and shipping routes especially. And it’s going to get worse, exacerbated by poor quality “Marine Spatial Planning” at EU and local UK levels. MSP is still a fresh concept and being tried in about 70 countries. A research paper published by Elsevier late last year highlighted a “myriad” of challenges, including political frameworks, climate change and balancing economic development and marine ecosystem conservation. Meanwhile, an EU briefing to MSPs and updated only last month highlighted big issues including a heightened risk of maritime accidents and diversion of shipping routes. First the risk of accidents, which is aggravated by increased marine traffic, turbine population and reduced sea space, which might lead to the creation of choke points. Certain layouts of offshore wind farms are also riskier in terms of accidents than others, which can become an issue in case there are problems with a ship’s on-board navigation equipment. O&M (operations and maintenance) vessels might also pose a risk – and be at risk themselves – while crossing major shipping routes en-route to an offshore wind farm. These can lead to large financial losses for all parties involved. In the worst- case scenario, such accidents can lead to human casualties or serious environmental damage.
-
UHHHHH?? When did Exxon start building cars?
-
More fish, that's great, but then again, there is this: Offshore wind turbines interfere with ships’ radar, ability to navigate, study finds Credit: David Larson | Carolina Journal | March 9, 2022 | www.carolinajournal.com ~~ Gov. Roy Cooper and the Biden administration want to make North Carolina carbon neutral by 2050, and President Biden’s ambitious plans to combat climate change lean heavily on offshore wind generation. The turbines could be a problem for fishermen. North Carolina’s fishing industry has largely been cautious in criticizing the wind turbines, saying it wants to wait for more information. But a new report on the impact of wind power on fishermen’s ability to navigate and operate radar could throw cold water on that uneasy truce and increase their insistence on keeping wind projects far from their fisheries. The late-February report from the National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine in Washington, D.C., minced no words, saying, “Offshore wind farms can interfere with navigational radar used by ships and smaller vessels to avoid collisions, posing challenges for safe maritime navigation.” Amy Cooke is John Locke Foundation CEO and an energy expert who studies the industry. “Demolition derby on the high seas thanks to offshore industrial wind turbines? she asked. “Add maritime navigation and radar challenges to the long list of reasons – including high cost, unreliability, environmental damage and misleading nameplate capacity – as to why offshore industrial wind is absolutely horrible public policy.” An executive order from Cooper in June 2021 directed state agencies to pursue a goal of 2.8 gigawatts of offshore wind energy by 2030. The goal had been to generate 8 GW by 2040. Afterward, Cooper worked with the legislature to create a compromise clean-energy bill, which he signed on Oct. 13, that will shutter some of the state’s coal plants and move the state toward using more wind and solar-generated power. The bill, H.B. 951, set targets for Duke Energy in reducing carbon dioxide, with a 70% reduction by 2030 and carbon neutrality by 2050. As Cooper was signing the bill, the Biden administration unveiled a wind-energy plan that included the Wilmington area as one of its seven proposed hubs. “Governor Cooper will never achieve his stated goal of zero carbon emissions using offshore wind,” Cooke said. “Using offshore wind is likely to increase emissions with the increased need for backup production. Has anyone stopped to think why the Navy doesn’t power its fleet with industrial wind turbines? People who honestly care about emissions and making sure society has affordable, abundant, clean power champion nuclear energy. Those who advocate for offshore wind are either pandering to their base or profiteering off the backs of North Carolina electric customers.” North Carolina’s large fishing industry has generally signaled they won’t challenge the wind projects as long as they avoid actively fished areas and areas they need to traverse. But with this report showing a clear link between the wind turbines and disruptions to radar and navigation in ships, the industry will likely continue to demand space between their fisheries and any wind-energy hubs. The report continues by explaining that wind-turbine generators “have significant electromagnetic reflectivity” that will “interfere with radar systems operating nearby.” In addition, NAS said, “The rotating blades can also create reflections in Doppler radar systems. In particular, these forms of interference could obfuscate smaller vessels and stationary objects such as buoys on radar, complicating navigation decisions and increasing the risk of collision with larger vessels.” All of this led to serious concerns about search-and-rescue teams’ ability to use radar in their operations, saying this interference would “complicate rescue operations near wind farms.” While the report is unlikely to halt the growth of wind energy on North Carolina’s coast, it does indicate that concerns about its impacts aren’t unfounded. Source: David Larson | Carolina Journal | March 9, 2022 | www.carolinajournal.com « Later Post • News Watch Home • Earlier Post »
-
We can paint em black, blue, yellow, red, put lights on them, reduce their size, increase their size, but they are a blight on their presence on our oceans, and just last month, on a train through Wales, the wind turbines look like they are leaning in different directions. Not a pretty sight. The consequences of seabird habitat loss from offshore wind turbines, version 2 Report Title: The consequences of seabird habitat loss from offshore wind turbines, version 2 Author: van Kooten, T.; Soudijn, F.; Tulp, I.; Chen, C.; Benden, D.; Leopold, M. Publication Date: July 1, 2019 Document Number: C063/19 Pages: 117 Publisher: Wageningen Marine Research Affiliation Wageningen University and Research Centre Sponsoring Organization: Rijkswaterstaat Technology: Wind Energy, Fixed Offshore Wind Stressor: Habitat Change, Displacement, Collision, Avoidance Receptor: Seabirds, Birds Document Access Website: External Link Citation van Kooten, T.; Soudijn, F.; Tulp, I.; Chen, C.; Benden, D.; Leopold, M. (2019). The consequences of seabird habitat loss from offshore wind turbines, version 2(Report No. C063/19). Report by Wageningen University and Research Centre. Report for Rijkswaterstaat. Abstract The planned large-scale development of offshore wind farms (OWFs) in the North Sea has potential consequences for many marine organisms, including seabirds. The response of seabirds to wind farms varies depending on species: some may be attracted to the wind farms leading to risk of collisions, some will avoid them and some do not respond. Those birds that avoid wind farms do not suffer from collisions but may suffer from habitat loss if OWFs are built in areas they use, which may in turn negatively affect the populations of seabirds using the Dutch continental shelf. Adverse effects of offshore wind farms on seabirds potentially lead to a trade-off between societal demands for marine nature conservation and clean energy. Seabirds are important target species in European conservation frameworks. In this report, we develop and apply a method for assessing the effect of habitat loss on five seabird species: red-throated divers (Gavia stellata), northern gannets (Morus bassanus), sandwich terns (Thalasseus sandvicensis), razorbills (Alca torda) and common guillemots (Uria aalge). To our knowledge, this is the first study that calculates effects on the full life cycle and the larger North Sea population.