Anger over Navitus Bay payment offers

The developer behind the Navitus Bay wind farm has defended offered payments to marine firms

The developer behind the Navitus Bay wind farm has defended offered payments to marine firms

First published in News by , Chief Reporter

THE developer behind the controversial Navitus Bay wind farm has offered payments to marine companies, the Daily Echo can exclusively reveal.

Navitus Bay Development Ltd has denied that it is an attempt to win favour with firms, insisting that it is “standard good practice”.

But opposition groups say the confidential letter, seen by the Echo, is an admission by NBDL that its operations will have a negative impact.

It is now being questioned as to why businesses in other sectors – such as tourism and hospitality – have not been offered similar deals.

The Echo has previously reported concerns from Bournemouth Borough Council over the impact on the town’s tourism trade.

Mike Francis, president of Bournemouth Tourism Management Board, said: “From the tourism point of view their own figures of what we will lose in tourism were 14 per cent – and that’s their figures.

“My personal opinion is they will take it on the low side, but the tourism from Swanage to Poole and Bournemouth and along is £1.46 billion income per annum.

If they took five years (to build) and they say 14 per cent per annum, you’ve got, over five years, £1 billion.

“Are they going to compensate us with £1 billion?”

Bruce Grant-Braham, chairman of Poole Tourism Partnership, added: “Navitus’ own figures have demonstrated that they believe there will be a drop off in tourism in the construction phase and maybe in the operational phase.

“They have made it clear that there will be mitigation finances to the tourism sector, but what that will be I don’t know.

“We plan to hold them to that.

“They say the impact will be minimal, but we understand they may be more than minimal.

“They are not hiding behind a smoke screen as far as we’re concerned.”

Tony Williams, chief executive of Bournemouth Borough Council, said it was an “interesting development” but that he could not comment specifically on the letter.

“However, when we are invited to comment on the application by the Planning Inspectorate, in considering our response we will weigh up the national benefits of the scheme against its impacts, making sure that we protect jobs and the Bournemouth economy,” he added.

Come to meeting

OPPOSITION groups have blasted the payments.

Poole and Christchurch Bays Association spokesman Philip Dewhurst said: “We are shocked, but not surprised by this admission. It shows, yet again, that NBDL recognises the catastrophic damage this industrialisation will cause to our economy.

“We urge people to come along to the public meeting at the BIC at 2pm on May 10 to make their feelings known.”

David Lloyd from Challenge Navitus said: “It’s good to hear NBDL confirm that their plans will have a devastating impact on businesses. But why only offer to compensate diving companies when they represent only a tiny percentage of businesses that will suffer?”

‘We are a responsible developer’

MIKE Unsworth, project director of Navitus Bay, which has now submitted its planning application, said: “As a responsible developer, we aim to work with businesses we have identified.

“This includes informing them of our likely works timetable, establishing if construction will impact on their business and, if so, mitigating any impacts on them.

“I would like to stress this is certainly not an attempt to win favour with local companies.

“It is standard good practice for a developer to consider if they can mitigate impacts on businesses which may be disrupted directly as a result of the development.

“Discussions are confidential because these businesses will need to share with us commercially sensitive information to establish whether they stand to lose money as a result of our activities.”

He said a “small number” had identified that they could be impacted and NBDL was talking to them.

“The potential for financial support applies solely to businesses whose offshore operations will be directly affected by particular construction operations, so it is not something that will be extended to other businesses that do not operate in those offshore areas,” Mr Unsworth added.

Comments (50)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

6:50am Mon 5 May 14

yet_another_one says...

Get real - why make such fuss about what goes on in government & business?
We need to be self sufficient & not rely on others to provide the generation of energy which we all use. We need to harness natural resource to generate energy or would those objectors prefer an on land power station - that would really be a blot on the landscape & will create pollution.
Get real - why make such fuss about what goes on in government & business? We need to be self sufficient & not rely on others to provide the generation of energy which we all use. We need to harness natural resource to generate energy or would those objectors prefer an on land power station - that would really be a blot on the landscape & will create pollution. yet_another_one
  • Score: -21

6:56am Mon 5 May 14

PUZZLED ONE says...

yet_another_one says...We need to be self sufficient & not rely on others to provide the generation of energy.
So you believe in fairies and also that the wind blows constantly at the proposed location so that energy is generated at the time that it is required?
yet_another_one says...We need to be self sufficient & not rely on others to provide the generation of energy. So you believe in fairies and also that the wind blows constantly at the proposed location so that energy is generated at the time that it is required? PUZZLED ONE
  • Score: 19

7:17am Mon 5 May 14

Edna Cheese (Mrs) says...

I'd rather have this thing miles offshore than a nuclear power station in my back yard. We need energy.
I'd rather have this thing miles offshore than a nuclear power station in my back yard. We need energy. Edna Cheese (Mrs)
  • Score: -12

7:37am Mon 5 May 14

N Smith says...

The majority of people are getting fed up with nimbys complaining all the time.
The majority of people are getting fed up with nimbys complaining all the time. N Smith
  • Score: -5

7:37am Mon 5 May 14

Watchful_Eye says...

Coastal Communities Fund grants are funded by the Crown Estate. The Crown Estate derives its funds from, amongst other things, licences for wind farms. That means that CCF grants in the area may well have been funded, albeit indirectly, by wind farm companies.
Has anyone complained about this? Is the Echo going to investigate this too?
Coastal Communities Fund grants are funded by the Crown Estate. The Crown Estate derives its funds from, amongst other things, licences for wind farms. That means that CCF grants in the area may well have been funded, albeit indirectly, by wind farm companies. Has anyone complained about this? Is the Echo going to investigate this too? Watchful_Eye
  • Score: 27

8:07am Mon 5 May 14

mooninpisces says...

Watchful_Eye wrote:
Coastal Communities Fund grants are funded by the Crown Estate. The Crown Estate derives its funds from, amongst other things, licences for wind farms. That means that CCF grants in the area may well have been funded, albeit indirectly, by wind farm companies.
Has anyone complained about this? Is the Echo going to investigate this too?
Yes. Local tourism-related recipients of CCF grants include Europe's first Coastal Tourism Academy in Bournemouth (£2million), and re-instatement of the Wareham-Swanage rail service (£1.5million). Where is the anger about these "payment offers"?
[quote][p][bold]Watchful_Eye[/bold] wrote: Coastal Communities Fund grants are funded by the Crown Estate. The Crown Estate derives its funds from, amongst other things, licences for wind farms. That means that CCF grants in the area may well have been funded, albeit indirectly, by wind farm companies. Has anyone complained about this? Is the Echo going to investigate this too?[/p][/quote]Yes. Local tourism-related recipients of CCF grants include Europe's first Coastal Tourism Academy in Bournemouth (£2million), and re-instatement of the Wareham-Swanage rail service (£1.5million). Where is the anger about these "payment offers"? mooninpisces
  • Score: 12

8:27am Mon 5 May 14

Dave SW says...

One man's “standard good practice”. is another man's 'Bribe'
One man's “standard good practice”. is another man's 'Bribe' Dave SW
  • Score: 35

8:48am Mon 5 May 14

Ivy says...

How come the Dorset LEP are supporting offshore wind if it's going to have such a negative effect on business. For goodness stop this head in the sand nonsense, climate change & rising sea levels will have a far greater impact on the economy and ecology if we don't start serious investment in renewable technologies.
How come the Dorset LEP are supporting offshore wind if it's going to have such a negative effect on business. For goodness stop this head in the sand nonsense, climate change & rising sea levels will have a far greater impact on the economy and ecology if we don't start serious investment in renewable technologies. Ivy
  • Score: 6

8:52am Mon 5 May 14

Townee says...

Why is it that when ever the Echo does a piece on the Navitus bay wind farm it is a negative piece? We need these and the majority of people in this area believe the same but the Echo never prints that fact only their NIMBY VIEWS.
The sooner these are built the better.
Why is it that when ever the Echo does a piece on the Navitus bay wind farm it is a negative piece? We need these and the majority of people in this area believe the same but the Echo never prints that fact only their NIMBY VIEWS. The sooner these are built the better. Townee
  • Score: -5

8:57am Mon 5 May 14

BmthNewshound says...

Tourism has been on the decline in Bournemouth for the past few decades. The impact of a wind farm 12-13 miles offshore, which will be barely visible from shore on a large number of days of the year, pales into insignificance compared to negative impact of Bournemouth Councils tourism policy , rip off “attractions” , poor quality and expensive hotels, and draconian parking policies which make visitors as easy prey by traffic wardens.
.
The opposition to the wind farm is text book Nimbyism. The opponents to Navitus have presented no alternatives to generate the electricity we need to produce to meet increased demand and fill the gap left by the older coal fired power stations which are reaching the end of their working life.
Tourism has been on the decline in Bournemouth for the past few decades. The impact of a wind farm 12-13 miles offshore, which will be barely visible from shore on a large number of days of the year, pales into insignificance compared to negative impact of Bournemouth Councils tourism policy , rip off “attractions” , poor quality and expensive hotels, and draconian parking policies which make visitors as easy prey by traffic wardens. . The opposition to the wind farm is text book Nimbyism. The opponents to Navitus have presented no alternatives to generate the electricity we need to produce to meet increased demand and fill the gap left by the older coal fired power stations which are reaching the end of their working life. BmthNewshound
  • Score: 2

9:00am Mon 5 May 14

Ophilum says...

OK then lets get rid of all the subsidies for renewables and let them stand on there beliefs, watch them melt away like summer snow, UKIP have the best answers to this, So i will vote for them.
OK then lets get rid of all the subsidies for renewables and let them stand on there beliefs, watch them melt away like summer snow, UKIP have the best answers to this, So i will vote for them. Ophilum
  • Score: 22

9:09am Mon 5 May 14

KLH says...

Think there were a load of Navitus Bay bigwigs on Barfleur going to Cherbourg on the 28th April, I had to really stop myself telling them what I think of their windmills... And where to stick them!!
Think there were a load of Navitus Bay bigwigs on Barfleur going to Cherbourg on the 28th April, I had to really stop myself telling them what I think of their windmills... And where to stick them!! KLH
  • Score: 12

9:27am Mon 5 May 14

Ophilum says...

This Link if it is allowed and not censored is a comment from the world renowned WUWT site and it is well Worth a read to see how the world see it.
http://wattsupwithth
at.com/2014/04/28/go
ne-with-the-wind-eng
lands-most-important
-coastline/
Tells the lot to the Greens.
This Link if it is allowed and not censored is a comment from the world renowned WUWT site and it is well Worth a read to see how the world see it. http://wattsupwithth at.com/2014/04/28/go ne-with-the-wind-eng lands-most-important -coastline/ Tells the lot to the Greens. Ophilum
  • Score: 16

9:41am Mon 5 May 14

ShuttleX says...

N Smith wrote:
The majority of people are getting fed up with nimbys complaining all the time.
Totally agree. I am sick of hearing all these NIMBYs and their arguments. Build the bl00dy things now, stop messing around. I wonder how many of the NIMBYs will change side if there is a chance of a few quid in the pocket? It will be interesting to see how many stick to their beliefs once the chequebook is open. Bournemouth/Poole and Christchurch Councils can make any comments they like, for or against the scheme, but the reality is the Government will do what they want.
[quote][p][bold]N Smith[/bold] wrote: The majority of people are getting fed up with nimbys complaining all the time.[/p][/quote]Totally agree. I am sick of hearing all these NIMBYs and their arguments. Build the bl00dy things now, stop messing around. I wonder how many of the NIMBYs will change side if there is a chance of a few quid in the pocket? It will be interesting to see how many stick to their beliefs once the chequebook is open. Bournemouth/Poole and Christchurch Councils can make any comments they like, for or against the scheme, but the reality is the Government will do what they want. ShuttleX
  • Score: -13

9:44am Mon 5 May 14

mooninpisces says...

Ophilum wrote:
This Link if it is allowed and not censored is a comment from the world renowned WUWT site and it is well Worth a read to see how the world see it.
http://wattsupwithth

at.com/2014/04/28/go

ne-with-the-wind-eng

lands-most-important

-coastline/
Tells the lot to the Greens.
Lord Monckton of Brenchley, the 'author' of the WUWT piece, could legitimately be described as one of the world's greatest fantasists.

But I don't think even he claims that he is "the world".
[quote][p][bold]Ophilum[/bold] wrote: This Link if it is allowed and not censored is a comment from the world renowned WUWT site and it is well Worth a read to see how the world see it. http://wattsupwithth at.com/2014/04/28/go ne-with-the-wind-eng lands-most-important -coastline/ Tells the lot to the Greens.[/p][/quote]Lord Monckton of Brenchley, the 'author' of the WUWT piece, could legitimately be described as one of the world's greatest fantasists. But I don't think even he claims that he is "the world". mooninpisces
  • Score: -18

10:31am Mon 5 May 14

TheUnfortunateTruth says...

Bournemouth is seriously lacking in its entire marine sector considering its location. This project will create jobs, and could bring increased trade to the area... for example local people could be working on the safety boats in the area, or maming money from the workers eating/sleeping when back on shore? Additionally has nobody heard of ecotourism - tourists are attracted to places that are more environmentally friendly!! The echo really needs to write a positive article on this as the negative press is damaging the campaign which will enable Bournemouth to have much more reliable energy and avoid being part of national blackouts in a few years time as the energy demand is constantly increasing faster than developments in production.

Fun fact to make people think about climate change that the council doesn't like people knowing. .. with the current rate of sea level rise and lack of coastal defences, Christchurch will be underwater very frequently (if not permanently) in less than 100 years time (FYI I am currently studying sea level rise Vs coastal defences at university)
Bournemouth is seriously lacking in its entire marine sector considering its location. This project will create jobs, and could bring increased trade to the area... for example local people could be working on the safety boats in the area, or maming money from the workers eating/sleeping when back on shore? Additionally has nobody heard of ecotourism - tourists are attracted to places that are more environmentally friendly!! The echo really needs to write a positive article on this as the negative press is damaging the campaign which will enable Bournemouth to have much more reliable energy and avoid being part of national blackouts in a few years time as the energy demand is constantly increasing faster than developments in production. Fun fact to make people think about climate change that the council doesn't like people knowing. .. with the current rate of sea level rise and lack of coastal defences, Christchurch will be underwater very frequently (if not permanently) in less than 100 years time (FYI I am currently studying sea level rise Vs coastal defences at university) TheUnfortunateTruth
  • Score: -10

11:26am Mon 5 May 14

Ebb Tide says...

ShuttleX wrote:
N Smith wrote:
The majority of people are getting fed up with nimbys complaining all the time.
Totally agree. I am sick of hearing all these NIMBYs and their arguments. Build the bl00dy things now, stop messing around. I wonder how many of the NIMBYs will change side if there is a chance of a few quid in the pocket? It will be interesting to see how many stick to their beliefs once the chequebook is open. Bournemouth/Poole and Christchurch Councils can make any comments they like, for or against the scheme, but the reality is the Government will do what they want.
But the government is about to change !!
[quote][p][bold]ShuttleX[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]N Smith[/bold] wrote: The majority of people are getting fed up with nimbys complaining all the time.[/p][/quote]Totally agree. I am sick of hearing all these NIMBYs and their arguments. Build the bl00dy things now, stop messing around. I wonder how many of the NIMBYs will change side if there is a chance of a few quid in the pocket? It will be interesting to see how many stick to their beliefs once the chequebook is open. Bournemouth/Poole and Christchurch Councils can make any comments they like, for or against the scheme, but the reality is the Government will do what they want.[/p][/quote]But the government is about to change !! Ebb Tide
  • Score: -5

11:29am Mon 5 May 14

Ebb Tide says...

BmthNewshound wrote:
Tourism has been on the decline in Bournemouth for the past few decades. The impact of a wind farm 12-13 miles offshore, which will be barely visible from shore on a large number of days of the year, pales into insignificance compared to negative impact of Bournemouth Councils tourism policy , rip off “attractions” , poor quality and expensive hotels, and draconian parking policies which make visitors as easy prey by traffic wardens.
.
The opposition to the wind farm is text book Nimbyism. The opponents to Navitus have presented no alternatives to generate the electricity we need to produce to meet increased demand and fill the gap left by the older coal fired power stations which are reaching the end of their working life.
The proponents have produced no convincing case that UK Plc can afford the price levels of electricity that they wish to guarantee - may have already guaranteed !
[quote][p][bold]BmthNewshound[/bold] wrote: Tourism has been on the decline in Bournemouth for the past few decades. The impact of a wind farm 12-13 miles offshore, which will be barely visible from shore on a large number of days of the year, pales into insignificance compared to negative impact of Bournemouth Councils tourism policy , rip off “attractions” , poor quality and expensive hotels, and draconian parking policies which make visitors as easy prey by traffic wardens. . The opposition to the wind farm is text book Nimbyism. The opponents to Navitus have presented no alternatives to generate the electricity we need to produce to meet increased demand and fill the gap left by the older coal fired power stations which are reaching the end of their working life.[/p][/quote]The proponents have produced no convincing case that UK Plc can afford the price levels of electricity that they wish to guarantee - may have already guaranteed ! Ebb Tide
  • Score: -3

11:32am Mon 5 May 14

Ebb Tide says...

Ivy wrote:
How come the Dorset LEP are supporting offshore wind if it's going to have such a negative effect on business. For goodness stop this head in the sand nonsense, climate change & rising sea levels will have a far greater impact on the economy and ecology if we don't start serious investment in renewable technologies.
"Rising sea levels" ! Ah, is that the reason the proposed towers are to be so tall ?
[quote][p][bold]Ivy[/bold] wrote: How come the Dorset LEP are supporting offshore wind if it's going to have such a negative effect on business. For goodness stop this head in the sand nonsense, climate change & rising sea levels will have a far greater impact on the economy and ecology if we don't start serious investment in renewable technologies.[/p][/quote]"Rising sea levels" ! Ah, is that the reason the proposed towers are to be so tall ? Ebb Tide
  • Score: 4

11:39am Mon 5 May 14

BIGTONE says...

We will defo get them.
Dave and the posh boys have their fingers deep in these pies.
We will defo get them. Dave and the posh boys have their fingers deep in these pies. BIGTONE
  • Score: 4

11:50am Mon 5 May 14

Ebb Tide says...

Since we all are likely to be affected by the construction work and the necessary maintenance and eventual removal work, I suppose it is understandable that Navitus (or their successors, if they sell on their responsibilities after 'milking' enough of the current subsidies) don't want to be overwhelmed by claims for "mitigation" money. Perhaps we could start an orderly queue, or are the effects we will experience ignorable - let alone our views about wise investments ?

No doubt every enterprise in the conurbation has its statistics about recent trade patterns and profitability that they can compare with the situation during and after the work threatened by Navitus. Must get some shares in a firm if lawyers !!
Since we all are likely to be affected by the construction work and the necessary maintenance and eventual removal work, I suppose it is understandable that Navitus (or their successors, if they sell on their responsibilities after 'milking' enough of the current subsidies) don't want to be overwhelmed by claims for "mitigation" money. Perhaps we could start an orderly queue, or are the effects we will experience ignorable - let alone our views about wise investments ? No doubt every enterprise in the conurbation has its statistics about recent trade patterns and profitability that they can compare with the situation during and after the work threatened by Navitus. Must get some shares in a firm if lawyers !! Ebb Tide
  • Score: -4

12:09pm Mon 5 May 14

Suedehead says...

Let us assume for a moment the the overwhelming majority of climate scientists are wrong and that man-made climate change is not happening. The case for greater use of renewable energy would still be compelling.

We currently import a large amount of energy form unstable countries such as Russia and various Middle Eastern countries with unpleasant regimes. Recent events in Ukraine and the political unrest in the Middle East over the last few years pose threats to that energy supply. Therefore, it is in our long-term interests to reduce our dependency on energy from these countries.

Now let's return to reality and accept that the overwhelming majority of climate scientists are almost certainly correct. The case for renewable energy sources now becomes greater still. All parts of the country should contribute to this. Dorset and Hampshire can make a contribution by allowing this development to go ahead.
Let us assume for a moment the the overwhelming majority of climate scientists are wrong and that man-made climate change is not happening. The case for greater use of renewable energy would still be compelling. We currently import a large amount of energy form unstable countries such as Russia and various Middle Eastern countries with unpleasant regimes. Recent events in Ukraine and the political unrest in the Middle East over the last few years pose threats to that energy supply. Therefore, it is in our long-term interests to reduce our dependency on energy from these countries. Now let's return to reality and accept that the overwhelming majority of climate scientists are almost certainly correct. The case for renewable energy sources now becomes greater still. All parts of the country should contribute to this. Dorset and Hampshire can make a contribution by allowing this development to go ahead. Suedehead
  • Score: -6

12:40pm Mon 5 May 14

muscliffman says...

Ivy wrote:
How come the Dorset LEP are supporting offshore wind if it's going to have such a negative effect on business. For goodness stop this head in the sand nonsense, climate change & rising sea levels will have a far greater impact on the economy and ecology if we don't start serious investment in renewable technologies.
I am sure an increasing number of us have realised the only folk with their heads in the sand are those 'green' fanatics who still fall for all the opportunistic financially and politically driven hype about man made climate change and rising sea levels. This fast growing public cynicism about all matters 'green' is probably behind the reports in this article, the overseas wind farm developers can see the writing is on the wall for these ridiculous off shore UK installations (UK on-shore is already finished) and are getting just a bit desperate - in fact this story maybe only scratches the surface of what is now happening as the wheels evidently fall right off the last remaining part of the UK 'green' wind farm band wagon.
[quote][p][bold]Ivy[/bold] wrote: How come the Dorset LEP are supporting offshore wind if it's going to have such a negative effect on business. For goodness stop this head in the sand nonsense, climate change & rising sea levels will have a far greater impact on the economy and ecology if we don't start serious investment in renewable technologies.[/p][/quote]I am sure an increasing number of us have realised the only folk with their heads in the sand are those 'green' fanatics who still fall for all the opportunistic financially and politically driven hype about man made climate change and rising sea levels. This fast growing public cynicism about all matters 'green' is probably behind the reports in this article, the overseas wind farm developers can see the writing is on the wall for these ridiculous off shore UK installations (UK on-shore is already finished) and are getting just a bit desperate - in fact this story maybe only scratches the surface of what is now happening as the wheels evidently fall right off the last remaining part of the UK 'green' wind farm band wagon. muscliffman
  • Score: 12

1:47pm Mon 5 May 14

coster says...

If the Wind Farms were made to operate on normal commercial principles then the Navitus farm would never be built. It relies upon the naive acceptance of a false premise and the theft of public money for its operation. If you wish to see alternative viewpoints you may find the Non Governmental International Committee on Climate Change useful (you see, the statement that 97% of climate scientists support IPCC views is incorrect, as many more oppose them) .
If the Wind Farms were made to operate on normal commercial principles then the Navitus farm would never be built. It relies upon the naive acceptance of a false premise and the theft of public money for its operation. If you wish to see alternative viewpoints you may find the Non Governmental International Committee on Climate Change useful (you see, the statement that 97% of climate scientists support IPCC views is incorrect, as many more oppose them) . coster
  • Score: 11

2:54pm Mon 5 May 14

Ophilum says...

TheUnfortunateTruth says...

Bournemouth is seriously lacking in its entire marine sector considering its location. This project will create jobs, and could bring increased trade to the area... for example local people could be working on the safety boats in the area, or maming money from the workers eating/sleeping when back on shore? Additionally has nobody heard of ecotourism - tourists are attracted to places that are more environmentally friendly!! The echo really needs to write a positive article on this as the negative press is damaging the campaign which will enable Bournemouth to have much more reliable energy and avoid being part of national blackouts in a few years time as the energy demand is constantly increasing faster than developments in production.

Fun fact to make people think about climate change that the council doesn't like people knowing. .. with the current rate of sea level rise and lack of coastal defences, Christchurch will be underwater very frequently (if not permanently) in less than 100 years time (FYI I am currently studying sea level rise Vs coastal defences at university)
My you must have a indoctrinated tutor i would do some reading if i were you, sea levels are not rising at an alarming rate so stop scare mongering and keep an open mind, be happy and good luck it looks like you will need it if you think this garbadge.
TheUnfortunateTruth says... Bournemouth is seriously lacking in its entire marine sector considering its location. This project will create jobs, and could bring increased trade to the area... for example local people could be working on the safety boats in the area, or maming money from the workers eating/sleeping when back on shore? Additionally has nobody heard of ecotourism - tourists are attracted to places that are more environmentally friendly!! The echo really needs to write a positive article on this as the negative press is damaging the campaign which will enable Bournemouth to have much more reliable energy and avoid being part of national blackouts in a few years time as the energy demand is constantly increasing faster than developments in production. Fun fact to make people think about climate change that the council doesn't like people knowing. .. with the current rate of sea level rise and lack of coastal defences, Christchurch will be underwater very frequently (if not permanently) in less than 100 years time (FYI I am currently studying sea level rise Vs coastal defences at university) My you must have a indoctrinated tutor i would do some reading if i were you, sea levels are not rising at an alarming rate so stop scare mongering and keep an open mind, be happy and good luck it looks like you will need it if you think this garbadge. Ophilum
  • Score: 12

3:03pm Mon 5 May 14

Ophilum says...

Reposted

Reply to the unfortunate truth


My you must have a indoctrinated tutor i would do some reading if i were you, sea levels are not rising at an alarming rate so stop scare mongering and keep an open mind, be happy and good luck it looks like you will need it if you think this garbage.
Reposted Reply to the unfortunate truth My you must have a indoctrinated tutor i would do some reading if i were you, sea levels are not rising at an alarming rate so stop scare mongering and keep an open mind, be happy and good luck it looks like you will need it if you think this garbage. Ophilum
  • Score: 2

5:00pm Mon 5 May 14

muscliffman says...

Ophilum wrote:
Reposted

Reply to the unfortunate truth


My you must have a indoctrinated tutor i would do some reading if i were you, sea levels are not rising at an alarming rate so stop scare mongering and keep an open mind, be happy and good luck it looks like you will need it if you think this garbage.
You have a good point, those youngster first taught 'imminent man made global warming' as a fact in the earlier days of this scam are now adults and understandably passing their unquestioned beliefs automatically onto the next generation.

It is one of the reasons some people have referred to a 'green' UK religion, because even our modern education system has been presenting as facts 'green' man made climate opinions which were not proven - and now quite evidently appear to have been completely wrong.

Like the commentator you refer to who is "currently studying sea level rise Vs coastal defences at university" it would hardly be a good career move to observe that neither the climate nor sea levels are changing to any meaningful extent and most certainly not in the way so many younger folk were 'educated' to believe only a short while ago.
[quote][p][bold]Ophilum[/bold] wrote: Reposted Reply to the unfortunate truth My you must have a indoctrinated tutor i would do some reading if i were you, sea levels are not rising at an alarming rate so stop scare mongering and keep an open mind, be happy and good luck it looks like you will need it if you think this garbage.[/p][/quote]You have a good point, those youngster first taught 'imminent man made global warming' as a fact in the earlier days of this scam are now adults and understandably passing their unquestioned beliefs automatically onto the next generation. It is one of the reasons some people have referred to a 'green' UK religion, because even our modern education system has been presenting as facts 'green' man made climate opinions which were not proven - and now quite evidently appear to have been completely wrong. Like the commentator you refer to who is "currently studying sea level rise Vs coastal defences at university" it would hardly be a good career move to observe that neither the climate nor sea levels are changing to any meaningful extent and most certainly not in the way so many younger folk were 'educated' to believe only a short while ago. muscliffman
  • Score: 9

5:24pm Mon 5 May 14

Ebb Tide says...

Ebb Tide wrote:
Since we all are likely to be affected by the construction work and the necessary maintenance and eventual removal work, I suppose it is understandable that Navitus (or their successors, if they sell on their responsibilities after 'milking' enough of the current subsidies) don't want to be overwhelmed by claims for "mitigation" money. Perhaps we could start an orderly queue, or are the effects we will experience ignorable - let alone our views about wise investments ?

No doubt every enterprise in the conurbation has its statistics about recent trade patterns and profitability that they can compare with the situation during and after the work threatened by Navitus. Must get some shares in a firm if lawyers !!
The claims advice goes something like "advise Navitus of your current business status and expectations (without a wind park) and also advise them that they are on notice to compensate (or substantially mitigate ! ) any losses likely to arise from any actual installation, operation and/or removal of the wind park facilities".

Hope the developers get inundated with such notices of potential claims and that their subsidies and other financial resources are robust enough to deal with all their liabilities without any dependency upon Crown Estates (85% tax payers !). Evidence of developer cooperation in such matters will be expected.
[quote][p][bold]Ebb Tide[/bold] wrote: Since we all are likely to be affected by the construction work and the necessary maintenance and eventual removal work, I suppose it is understandable that Navitus (or their successors, if they sell on their responsibilities after 'milking' enough of the current subsidies) don't want to be overwhelmed by claims for "mitigation" money. Perhaps we could start an orderly queue, or are the effects we will experience ignorable - let alone our views about wise investments ? No doubt every enterprise in the conurbation has its statistics about recent trade patterns and profitability that they can compare with the situation during and after the work threatened by Navitus. Must get some shares in a firm if lawyers !![/p][/quote]The claims advice goes something like "advise Navitus of your current business status and expectations (without a wind park) and also advise them that they are on notice to compensate (or substantially mitigate ! ) any losses likely to arise from any actual installation, operation and/or removal of the wind park facilities". Hope the developers get inundated with such notices of potential claims and that their subsidies and other financial resources are robust enough to deal with all their liabilities without any dependency upon Crown Estates (85% tax payers !). Evidence of developer cooperation in such matters will be expected. Ebb Tide
  • Score: 0

5:48pm Mon 5 May 14

Yankee1 says...

Is Navitus in it for the environment?

No.

It is in it for a big profit.

Here is a suggestion to Navitus:

Offer every energy user in sight of its windmills a 500 quid energy credit as long as they are there.

That would be fair.

Instead they offer us.................n
othing. Zip. Nada. Except a deception that we will have 'clean energy'.
Is Navitus in it for the environment? No. It is in it for a big profit. Here is a suggestion to Navitus: Offer every energy user in sight of its windmills a 500 quid energy credit as long as they are there. That would be fair. Instead they offer us.................n othing. Zip. Nada. Except a deception that we will have 'clean energy'. Yankee1
  • Score: 7

6:11pm Mon 5 May 14

Suedehead says...

Yankee1 wrote:
Is Navitus in it for the environment?

No.

It is in it for a big profit.

Here is a suggestion to Navitus:

Offer every energy user in sight of its windmills a 500 quid energy credit as long as they are there.

That would be fair.

Instead they offer us.................n

othing. Zip. Nada. Except a deception that we will have 'clean energy'.
Why should they? Does everyone who can see an electricity pylon (far uglier than a wind turbine) from their home get a rebate?

Of course they are in it for a profit. That's what businesses do. And are you really questioning whether energy from wind turbines is cleaner than that from fossil fuels? Perhaps you could explain how that works.
[quote][p][bold]Yankee1[/bold] wrote: Is Navitus in it for the environment? No. It is in it for a big profit. Here is a suggestion to Navitus: Offer every energy user in sight of its windmills a 500 quid energy credit as long as they are there. That would be fair. Instead they offer us.................n othing. Zip. Nada. Except a deception that we will have 'clean energy'.[/p][/quote]Why should they? Does everyone who can see an electricity pylon (far uglier than a wind turbine) from their home get a rebate? Of course they are in it for a profit. That's what businesses do. And are you really questioning whether energy from wind turbines is cleaner than that from fossil fuels? Perhaps you could explain how that works. Suedehead
  • Score: -3

6:31pm Mon 5 May 14

muscliffman says...

Suedehead wrote:
Yankee1 wrote:
Is Navitus in it for the environment?

No.

It is in it for a big profit.

Here is a suggestion to Navitus:

Offer every energy user in sight of its windmills a 500 quid energy credit as long as they are there.

That would be fair.

Instead they offer us.................n


othing. Zip. Nada. Except a deception that we will have 'clean energy'.
Why should they? Does everyone who can see an electricity pylon (far uglier than a wind turbine) from their home get a rebate?

Of course they are in it for a profit. That's what businesses do. And are you really questioning whether energy from wind turbines is cleaner than that from fossil fuels? Perhaps you could explain how that works.
Electricity pylons do their intended job 24/7 every year unlike a wind turbine and nobody pretended they were 'green', or would solve a now increasingly dubious man made change of climate and nor paid huge sums of UK public money to private overseas firms to erect them upon that basis. In other words no comparison!

People may care to check the 'carbon footprint' created in the manufacture of wind turbines, because like 'green' electric cars it won't make very comfortable research!
[quote][p][bold]Suedehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Yankee1[/bold] wrote: Is Navitus in it for the environment? No. It is in it for a big profit. Here is a suggestion to Navitus: Offer every energy user in sight of its windmills a 500 quid energy credit as long as they are there. That would be fair. Instead they offer us.................n othing. Zip. Nada. Except a deception that we will have 'clean energy'.[/p][/quote]Why should they? Does everyone who can see an electricity pylon (far uglier than a wind turbine) from their home get a rebate? Of course they are in it for a profit. That's what businesses do. And are you really questioning whether energy from wind turbines is cleaner than that from fossil fuels? Perhaps you could explain how that works.[/p][/quote]Electricity pylons do their intended job 24/7 every year unlike a wind turbine and nobody pretended they were 'green', or would solve a now increasingly dubious man made change of climate and nor paid huge sums of UK public money to private overseas firms to erect them upon that basis. In other words no comparison! People may care to check the 'carbon footprint' created in the manufacture of wind turbines, because like 'green' electric cars it won't make very comfortable research! muscliffman
  • Score: 2

7:17pm Mon 5 May 14

kalebmoledirt says...

A few points ,turbines I live a couple km from turbines and can assure you they're is no cause for distress .never heard them ,We travelled the entire coastline of the UK last year ,the most interesting were the one's with turbines .turning a black horizon into something more interesting than looking 3` up a donkies bottom.And a lot better than a Nuclear plant overlooking Old Harry
A few points ,turbines I live a couple km from turbines and can assure you they're is no cause for distress .never heard them ,We travelled the entire coastline of the UK last year ,the most interesting were the one's with turbines .turning a black horizon into something more interesting than looking 3` up a donkies bottom.And a lot better than a Nuclear plant overlooking Old Harry kalebmoledirt
  • Score: -3

1:01am Tue 6 May 14

ldc says...

If the people don't wake up to the fracking planned for swanage or fracking anywhere for that matter the tourism industy will be the least of our problems. But no go ahead you fight the wind farm!!
If the people don't wake up to the fracking planned for swanage or fracking anywhere for that matter the tourism industy will be the least of our problems. But no go ahead you fight the wind farm!! ldc
  • Score: -9

7:47am Tue 6 May 14

yet_another_one says...

Yankee1 wrote:
Is Navitus in it for the environment?

No.

It is in it for a big profit.

Here is a suggestion to Navitus:

Offer every energy user in sight of its windmills a 500 quid energy credit as long as they are there.

That would be fair.

Instead they offer us.................n

othing. Zip. Nada. Except a deception that we will have 'clean energy'.
I would advise you engage brain, if you have one, before writing such rubbish.
Any organisation involved in renewable energy installations is concerned for the environment & our future generations, i.e. your children & theirs is time to come.
Businesses exist to make profit, period - it pays wages to cretins all over the world.
Remember, the world doesn't owe anybody a living - it has to be earnt.
[quote][p][bold]Yankee1[/bold] wrote: Is Navitus in it for the environment? No. It is in it for a big profit. Here is a suggestion to Navitus: Offer every energy user in sight of its windmills a 500 quid energy credit as long as they are there. That would be fair. Instead they offer us.................n othing. Zip. Nada. Except a deception that we will have 'clean energy'.[/p][/quote]I would advise you engage brain, if you have one, before writing such rubbish. Any organisation involved in renewable energy installations is concerned for the environment & our future generations, i.e. your children & theirs is time to come. Businesses exist to make profit, period - it pays wages to cretins all over the world. Remember, the world doesn't owe anybody a living - it has to be earnt. yet_another_one
  • Score: -2

9:18am Tue 6 May 14

Marty Caine UKIP says...

ldc wrote:
If the people don't wake up to the fracking planned for swanage or fracking anywhere for that matter the tourism industy will be the least of our problems. But no go ahead you fight the wind farm!!
They have been fracking at Wytch Farm for over twenty years without any problems, the Americans have now abandoned Wind Farms for Fracking simply because the Wind Farms did not supply the required energy and Fracking obviously does. On that basis which do you think is the better road to go down ?
[quote][p][bold]ldc[/bold] wrote: If the people don't wake up to the fracking planned for swanage or fracking anywhere for that matter the tourism industy will be the least of our problems. But no go ahead you fight the wind farm!![/p][/quote]They have been fracking at Wytch Farm for over twenty years without any problems, the Americans have now abandoned Wind Farms for Fracking simply because the Wind Farms did not supply the required energy and Fracking obviously does. On that basis which do you think is the better road to go down ? Marty Caine UKIP
  • Score: 5

9:19am Tue 6 May 14

forest-dweller says...

BmthNewshound wrote:
Tourism has been on the decline in Bournemouth for the past few decades. The impact of a wind farm 12-13 miles offshore, which will be barely visible from shore on a large number of days of the year, pales into insignificance compared to negative impact of Bournemouth Councils tourism policy , rip off “attractions” , poor quality and expensive hotels, and draconian parking policies which make visitors as easy prey by traffic wardens.
.
The opposition to the wind farm is text book Nimbyism. The opponents to Navitus have presented no alternatives to generate the electricity we need to produce to meet increased demand and fill the gap left by the older coal fired power stations which are reaching the end of their working life.
Why does so many people think that the turbines won't be visible if they are 12 miles off shore? The turbines are going to be hundreds of feet high, and no doubt at night time will have a flashing light or two on them, Say the turbines are 450 ft tall (excluding the max arc of the blades) then the theoretical horizon is about 25 miles. Also, you can see the IoW from more than 12 miles away, and the centre of that is about the same height as the turbines.
[quote][p][bold]BmthNewshound[/bold] wrote: Tourism has been on the decline in Bournemouth for the past few decades. The impact of a wind farm 12-13 miles offshore, which will be barely visible from shore on a large number of days of the year, pales into insignificance compared to negative impact of Bournemouth Councils tourism policy , rip off “attractions” , poor quality and expensive hotels, and draconian parking policies which make visitors as easy prey by traffic wardens. . The opposition to the wind farm is text book Nimbyism. The opponents to Navitus have presented no alternatives to generate the electricity we need to produce to meet increased demand and fill the gap left by the older coal fired power stations which are reaching the end of their working life.[/p][/quote]Why does so many people think that the turbines won't be visible if they are 12 miles off shore? The turbines are going to be hundreds of feet high, and no doubt at night time will have a flashing light or two on them, Say the turbines are 450 ft tall (excluding the max arc of the blades) then the theoretical horizon is about 25 miles. Also, you can see the IoW from more than 12 miles away, and the centre of that is about the same height as the turbines. forest-dweller
  • Score: 9

9:42am Tue 6 May 14

TheDistrict says...

I am all for the wind farm. The rest of you should get use to it, because it will happen. It is needed, and as already said, the alternatives are nuclear or coal powered power stations.
I am all for the wind farm. The rest of you should get use to it, because it will happen. It is needed, and as already said, the alternatives are nuclear or coal powered power stations. TheDistrict
  • Score: -10

9:49am Tue 6 May 14

Ebb Tide says...

kalebmoledirt wrote:
A few points ,turbines I live a couple km from turbines and can assure you they're is no cause for distress .never heard them ,We travelled the entire coastline of the UK last year ,the most interesting were the one's with turbines .turning a black horizon into something more interesting than looking 3` up a donkies bottom.And a lot better than a Nuclear plant overlooking Old Harry
Winfrith knows about nuclear facilities. Old Harry should not be bothered with such things.
[quote][p][bold]kalebmoledirt[/bold] wrote: A few points ,turbines I live a couple km from turbines and can assure you they're is no cause for distress .never heard them ,We travelled the entire coastline of the UK last year ,the most interesting were the one's with turbines .turning a black horizon into something more interesting than looking 3` up a donkies bottom.And a lot better than a Nuclear plant overlooking Old Harry[/p][/quote]Winfrith knows about nuclear facilities. Old Harry should not be bothered with such things. Ebb Tide
  • Score: 4

11:10am Tue 6 May 14

Suedehead says...

forest-dweller wrote:
BmthNewshound wrote:
Tourism has been on the decline in Bournemouth for the past few decades. The impact of a wind farm 12-13 miles offshore, which will be barely visible from shore on a large number of days of the year, pales into insignificance compared to negative impact of Bournemouth Councils tourism policy , rip off “attractions” , poor quality and expensive hotels, and draconian parking policies which make visitors as easy prey by traffic wardens.
.
The opposition to the wind farm is text book Nimbyism. The opponents to Navitus have presented no alternatives to generate the electricity we need to produce to meet increased demand and fill the gap left by the older coal fired power stations which are reaching the end of their working life.
Why does so many people think that the turbines won't be visible if they are 12 miles off shore? The turbines are going to be hundreds of feet high, and no doubt at night time will have a flashing light or two on them, Say the turbines are 450 ft tall (excluding the max arc of the blades) then the theoretical horizon is about 25 miles. Also, you can see the IoW from more than 12 miles away, and the centre of that is about the same height as the turbines.
Nobody has said they won't be visible. However, it is true to say that the visual impact will be small. No doubt there will be days when general poor visibility means they cannot be seen at all. On clear days they will be visible but not exactly intrusive.

Still, if you want our energy supply to continue to be at the whim of the likes of Putin, go ahead and oppose it.
[quote][p][bold]forest-dweller[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BmthNewshound[/bold] wrote: Tourism has been on the decline in Bournemouth for the past few decades. The impact of a wind farm 12-13 miles offshore, which will be barely visible from shore on a large number of days of the year, pales into insignificance compared to negative impact of Bournemouth Councils tourism policy , rip off “attractions” , poor quality and expensive hotels, and draconian parking policies which make visitors as easy prey by traffic wardens. . The opposition to the wind farm is text book Nimbyism. The opponents to Navitus have presented no alternatives to generate the electricity we need to produce to meet increased demand and fill the gap left by the older coal fired power stations which are reaching the end of their working life.[/p][/quote]Why does so many people think that the turbines won't be visible if they are 12 miles off shore? The turbines are going to be hundreds of feet high, and no doubt at night time will have a flashing light or two on them, Say the turbines are 450 ft tall (excluding the max arc of the blades) then the theoretical horizon is about 25 miles. Also, you can see the IoW from more than 12 miles away, and the centre of that is about the same height as the turbines.[/p][/quote]Nobody has said they won't be visible. However, it is true to say that the visual impact will be small. No doubt there will be days when general poor visibility means they cannot be seen at all. On clear days they will be visible but not exactly intrusive. Still, if you want our energy supply to continue to be at the whim of the likes of Putin, go ahead and oppose it. Suedehead
  • Score: -5

11:15am Tue 6 May 14

forest-dweller says...

TheDistrict wrote:
I am all for the wind farm. The rest of you should get use to it, because it will happen. It is needed, and as already said, the alternatives are nuclear or coal powered power stations.
And what happened between early December 2008 and late January 2009? A huge anti-cyclone sitting over the UK meaning that wind turbine capacity ran at 2% over that period, Personally, am all in favour of green power sources if they are efficient, not hugely subsidised and do not have a huge impact on the landscape. Solar panels usually have a much more localised impact, and what about tidal?
[quote][p][bold]TheDistrict[/bold] wrote: I am all for the wind farm. The rest of you should get use to it, because it will happen. It is needed, and as already said, the alternatives are nuclear or coal powered power stations.[/p][/quote]And what happened between early December 2008 and late January 2009? A huge anti-cyclone sitting over the UK meaning that wind turbine capacity ran at 2% over that period, Personally, am all in favour of green power sources if they are efficient, not hugely subsidised and do not have a huge impact on the landscape. Solar panels usually have a much more localised impact, and what about tidal? forest-dweller
  • Score: 6

11:19am Tue 6 May 14

Suedehead says...

forest-dweller wrote:
TheDistrict wrote:
I am all for the wind farm. The rest of you should get use to it, because it will happen. It is needed, and as already said, the alternatives are nuclear or coal powered power stations.
And what happened between early December 2008 and late January 2009? A huge anti-cyclone sitting over the UK meaning that wind turbine capacity ran at 2% over that period, Personally, am all in favour of green power sources if they are efficient, not hugely subsidised and do not have a huge impact on the landscape. Solar panels usually have a much more localised impact, and what about tidal?
As far as I am aware, tidal power is still not viable in most places. Clearly it would be an ideal source as, unlike solar and wind, it is highly predictable and reliable.
[quote][p][bold]forest-dweller[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]TheDistrict[/bold] wrote: I am all for the wind farm. The rest of you should get use to it, because it will happen. It is needed, and as already said, the alternatives are nuclear or coal powered power stations.[/p][/quote]And what happened between early December 2008 and late January 2009? A huge anti-cyclone sitting over the UK meaning that wind turbine capacity ran at 2% over that period, Personally, am all in favour of green power sources if they are efficient, not hugely subsidised and do not have a huge impact on the landscape. Solar panels usually have a much more localised impact, and what about tidal?[/p][/quote]As far as I am aware, tidal power is still not viable in most places. Clearly it would be an ideal source as, unlike solar and wind, it is highly predictable and reliable. Suedehead
  • Score: 5

11:24am Tue 6 May 14

Wageslave says...

BmthNewshound wrote:
Tourism has been on the decline in Bournemouth for the past few decades. The impact of a wind farm 12-13 miles offshore, which will be barely visible from shore on a large number of days of the year, pales into insignificance compared to negative impact of Bournemouth Councils tourism policy , rip off “attractions” , poor quality and expensive hotels, and draconian parking policies which make visitors as easy prey by traffic wardens.
.
The opposition to the wind farm is text book Nimbyism. The opponents to Navitus have presented no alternatives to generate the electricity we need to produce to meet increased demand and fill the gap left by the older coal fired power stations which are reaching the end of their working life.
What about wave power
[quote][p][bold]BmthNewshound[/bold] wrote: Tourism has been on the decline in Bournemouth for the past few decades. The impact of a wind farm 12-13 miles offshore, which will be barely visible from shore on a large number of days of the year, pales into insignificance compared to negative impact of Bournemouth Councils tourism policy , rip off “attractions” , poor quality and expensive hotels, and draconian parking policies which make visitors as easy prey by traffic wardens. . The opposition to the wind farm is text book Nimbyism. The opponents to Navitus have presented no alternatives to generate the electricity we need to produce to meet increased demand and fill the gap left by the older coal fired power stations which are reaching the end of their working life.[/p][/quote]What about wave power Wageslave
  • Score: 4

11:41am Tue 6 May 14

Wageslave says...

The compensation payment will be 30 pieces of silver
The compensation payment will be 30 pieces of silver Wageslave
  • Score: 1

1:00pm Tue 6 May 14

speedy231278 says...

yet_another_one wrote:
Get real - why make such fuss about what goes on in government & business?
We need to be self sufficient & not rely on others to provide the generation of energy which we all use. We need to harness natural resource to generate energy or would those objectors prefer an on land power station - that would really be a blot on the landscape & will create pollution.
Are you aware of the vast amount of pollution created in the manufacture of rare earth magnets used in these things? All these ugly and reliable things do is shift the pollution of electricity generation to another point in the process, or indeed, to another part of the world!
[quote][p][bold]yet_another_one[/bold] wrote: Get real - why make such fuss about what goes on in government & business? We need to be self sufficient & not rely on others to provide the generation of energy which we all use. We need to harness natural resource to generate energy or would those objectors prefer an on land power station - that would really be a blot on the landscape & will create pollution.[/p][/quote]Are you aware of the vast amount of pollution created in the manufacture of rare earth magnets used in these things? All these ugly and reliable things do is shift the pollution of electricity generation to another point in the process, or indeed, to another part of the world! speedy231278
  • Score: 3

1:20pm Tue 6 May 14

Flusters says...

This wind farm is funded by French and Dutch company. Power will go onto the National grid and could well be sent to the continent not to local users at all and giving the French and Dutch free powers to use our coastline... a coastline that has been defended for thousands of years.

The French Channel not the British may be a more accurate name in the future.

At a time when EEC membership is in question is it wise to build this eyesore?

Our World Heritage site will be physically damaged, hampering wildlife and migrating birds especially. Sailing and boating in this exclusive world renowned area will be curtailed and the whole aura and view of this uniquely beautiful area will be spoiled.

In offering to pay, even Navitus itself admits there is a serious problem. The problem is more than a financial one. Once ruined our area will never be the same again.

Surely there are many less special areas where the wind farm can be placed? I'm amazed this site was even considered and it's a nightmare that it's being taken seriously.
This wind farm is funded by French and Dutch company. Power will go onto the National grid and could well be sent to the continent not to local users at all and giving the French and Dutch free powers to use our coastline... a coastline that has been defended for thousands of years. The French Channel not the British may be a more accurate name in the future. At a time when EEC membership is in question is it wise to build this eyesore? Our World Heritage site will be physically damaged, hampering wildlife and migrating birds especially. Sailing and boating in this exclusive world renowned area will be curtailed and the whole aura and view of this uniquely beautiful area will be spoiled. In offering to pay, even Navitus itself admits there is a serious problem. The problem is more than a financial one. Once ruined our area will never be the same again. Surely there are many less special areas where the wind farm can be placed? I'm amazed this site was even considered and it's a nightmare that it's being taken seriously. Flusters
  • Score: 3

2:11pm Tue 6 May 14

Dave SW says...

Flusters wrote:
This wind farm is funded by French and Dutch company. Power will go onto the National grid and could well be sent to the continent not to local users at all and giving the French and Dutch free powers to use our coastline... a coastline that has been defended for thousands of years.

The French Channel not the British may be a more accurate name in the future.

At a time when EEC membership is in question is it wise to build this eyesore?

Our World Heritage site will be physically damaged, hampering wildlife and migrating birds especially. Sailing and boating in this exclusive world renowned area will be curtailed and the whole aura and view of this uniquely beautiful area will be spoiled.

In offering to pay, even Navitus itself admits there is a serious problem. The problem is more than a financial one. Once ruined our area will never be the same again.

Surely there are many less special areas where the wind farm can be placed? I'm amazed this site was even considered and it's a nightmare that it's being taken seriously.
Interesting to note that the Dutch would not allow them to build it off their own coast. Now that really is being a 'NIMBY'.
[quote][p][bold]Flusters[/bold] wrote: This wind farm is funded by French and Dutch company. Power will go onto the National grid and could well be sent to the continent not to local users at all and giving the French and Dutch free powers to use our coastline... a coastline that has been defended for thousands of years. The French Channel not the British may be a more accurate name in the future. At a time when EEC membership is in question is it wise to build this eyesore? Our World Heritage site will be physically damaged, hampering wildlife and migrating birds especially. Sailing and boating in this exclusive world renowned area will be curtailed and the whole aura and view of this uniquely beautiful area will be spoiled. In offering to pay, even Navitus itself admits there is a serious problem. The problem is more than a financial one. Once ruined our area will never be the same again. Surely there are many less special areas where the wind farm can be placed? I'm amazed this site was even considered and it's a nightmare that it's being taken seriously.[/p][/quote]Interesting to note that the Dutch would not allow them to build it off their own coast. Now that really is being a 'NIMBY'. Dave SW
  • Score: 5

2:45pm Tue 6 May 14

yet_another_one says...

Suedehead wrote:
forest-dweller wrote:
TheDistrict wrote:
I am all for the wind farm. The rest of you should get use to it, because it will happen. It is needed, and as already said, the alternatives are nuclear or coal powered power stations.
And what happened between early December 2008 and late January 2009? A huge anti-cyclone sitting over the UK meaning that wind turbine capacity ran at 2% over that period, Personally, am all in favour of green power sources if they are efficient, not hugely subsidised and do not have a huge impact on the landscape. Solar panels usually have a much more localised impact, and what about tidal?
As far as I am aware, tidal power is still not viable in most places. Clearly it would be an ideal source as, unlike solar and wind, it is highly predictable and reliable.
A combined solution would be ideal though not sure if this would be practical or make sound economic sense - maybe this needs consideration by those who make the considerable investments necessary.
Surely, as previously mentioned, the Navitus Bay development could benefit our local tourist industry if handled in the correct manner.
As for the NIMBY's, trains that run past the end of your garden or planes that fly over roof tops become less of a problem after a very short while & the arguments these people come up with will have no foundation whatsoever.
[quote][p][bold]Suedehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]forest-dweller[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]TheDistrict[/bold] wrote: I am all for the wind farm. The rest of you should get use to it, because it will happen. It is needed, and as already said, the alternatives are nuclear or coal powered power stations.[/p][/quote]And what happened between early December 2008 and late January 2009? A huge anti-cyclone sitting over the UK meaning that wind turbine capacity ran at 2% over that period, Personally, am all in favour of green power sources if they are efficient, not hugely subsidised and do not have a huge impact on the landscape. Solar panels usually have a much more localised impact, and what about tidal?[/p][/quote]As far as I am aware, tidal power is still not viable in most places. Clearly it would be an ideal source as, unlike solar and wind, it is highly predictable and reliable.[/p][/quote]A combined solution would be ideal though not sure if this would be practical or make sound economic sense - maybe this needs consideration by those who make the considerable investments necessary. Surely, as previously mentioned, the Navitus Bay development could benefit our local tourist industry if handled in the correct manner. As for the NIMBY's, trains that run past the end of your garden or planes that fly over roof tops become less of a problem after a very short while & the arguments these people come up with will have no foundation whatsoever. yet_another_one
  • Score: -1

4:00pm Tue 6 May 14

yet_another_one says...

speedy231278 wrote:
yet_another_one wrote:
Get real - why make such fuss about what goes on in government & business?
We need to be self sufficient & not rely on others to provide the generation of energy which we all use. We need to harness natural resource to generate energy or would those objectors prefer an on land power station - that would really be a blot on the landscape & will create pollution.
Are you aware of the vast amount of pollution created in the manufacture of rare earth magnets used in these things? All these ugly and reliable things do is shift the pollution of electricity generation to another point in the process, or indeed, to another part of the world!
Almost everything including the manufacture & transportation of groceries or goods creates pollution so why are you highlighting just the magnets used to generate electricity here ?
OK, let us dig a little deeper - why do you not mention the pollution created by so many vehicles on our roads, particularly local journeys that are maybe totally unnecessary, & not to forget that produced by aircraft which takes us off to the sun on holiday ?
I think you would be fairly close to the head of the queue of complainants if we suffered many power outages as a result of insufficient amounts of current fuel types currently used to generate energy - fossil fuels, including oil, coal & gas also creates pollution in getting it delivered to power stations.
[quote][p][bold]speedy231278[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]yet_another_one[/bold] wrote: Get real - why make such fuss about what goes on in government & business? We need to be self sufficient & not rely on others to provide the generation of energy which we all use. We need to harness natural resource to generate energy or would those objectors prefer an on land power station - that would really be a blot on the landscape & will create pollution.[/p][/quote]Are you aware of the vast amount of pollution created in the manufacture of rare earth magnets used in these things? All these ugly and reliable things do is shift the pollution of electricity generation to another point in the process, or indeed, to another part of the world![/p][/quote]Almost everything including the manufacture & transportation of groceries or goods creates pollution so why are you highlighting just the magnets used to generate electricity here ? OK, let us dig a little deeper - why do you not mention the pollution created by so many vehicles on our roads, particularly local journeys that are maybe totally unnecessary, & not to forget that produced by aircraft which takes us off to the sun on holiday ? I think you would be fairly close to the head of the queue of complainants if we suffered many power outages as a result of insufficient amounts of current fuel types currently used to generate energy - fossil fuels, including oil, coal & gas also creates pollution in getting it delivered to power stations. yet_another_one
  • Score: 0

3:14pm Thu 8 May 14

nobodyexpectedthat says...

Rising sea levels ? maybe , maybe not!
Rising temperatures, maybe, mabe not!
Man made climate change, maybe maybe not!

Is there are 'truth' in any of these? depends on who you believe.

What is true and is indisputable, is that the 'old' methods of generating electricity rely on finite resources or resources that the UK has no control over. Coal, Oil, Gas, Uranium are all running out. Yes there may be loads of gas through Fracking but it too one day will run out.

So the real issue here is thet we (UK plc) need to generate our own energy to guarantee our way of life and security. If we dont then the lights will go out one day.

So we HAVE to look into alternative renewables. So this is not just about the cost of electricity as many opponents of wind, tidal, bio fuel power would have you believe.

A balanced local, logical, sustainable, renewable energy policy is the only sensible way forward. If you dont support this, where do you believe we will get our power from in 10, 20 50 years?

Yes these renewable energy technologies come at a price, but what price the alternatives.
Rising sea levels ? maybe , maybe not! Rising temperatures, maybe, mabe not! Man made climate change, maybe maybe not! Is there are 'truth' in any of these? depends on who you believe. What is true and is indisputable, is that the 'old' methods of generating electricity rely on finite resources or resources that the UK has no control over. Coal, Oil, Gas, Uranium are all running out. Yes there may be loads of gas through Fracking but it too one day will run out. So the real issue here is thet we (UK plc) need to generate our own energy to guarantee our way of life and security. If we dont then the lights will go out one day. So we HAVE to look into alternative renewables. So this is not just about the cost of electricity as many opponents of wind, tidal, bio fuel power would have you believe. A balanced local, logical, sustainable, renewable energy policy is the only sensible way forward. If you dont support this, where do you believe we will get our power from in 10, 20 50 years? Yes these renewable energy technologies come at a price, but what price the alternatives. nobodyexpectedthat
  • Score: -1

6:34pm Thu 8 May 14

Dorset Logic says...

May I just say as a baby boomer, I have a very good pension, I've worked for the same company for 45 years, and I only got an orange for Christmas, so don't tell me your hard done by.

My house if worth £750,000 on paper, I don't intend to move, but I do not wish you to devalue it in anyway. Young people are always so angry and I don't know why. I'm not going to worry about the place anyway in a few years so worry about it when I'm gone.

Yours
Brigadier General Fortescue Smyth Wilkinson (desc)
May I just say as a baby boomer, I have a very good pension, I've worked for the same company for 45 years, and I only got an orange for Christmas, so don't tell me your hard done by. My house if worth £750,000 on paper, I don't intend to move, but I do not wish you to devalue it in anyway. Young people are always so angry and I don't know why. I'm not going to worry about the place anyway in a few years so worry about it when I'm gone. Yours Brigadier General Fortescue Smyth Wilkinson (desc) Dorset Logic
  • Score: 2

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree