Navitus Bay wind farm underground cable could leave 'scar' on New Forest

Navitus Bay wind farm underground cable could leave 'scar' on New Forest

Navitus Bay wind farm underground cable could leave 'scar' on New Forest

First published in News by

CHAIRMAN of the New Forest National Park Authority, Pat Wyeth, claims that an underground cable linking the national grid to the Navitus Bay wind farm would leave a “permanent scar” across the Forest.

The New Forest National Park Authority (NPA) has hit out at the visual impact of the wind turbines in the controversial plan for the Hampshire coast.

Members have also raised concerns about an underground cable linking the wind farm with a national grid sub-station north of Ferndown in Dorset.

Bosses at the Navitus Bay Development Ltd (NBDL) coast have launched a £1million study of the sea bed, drilling bore holes and extracting material in a bid to devise the most suitable foundations for the 194 turbines.

A specialist survey vessel called Horizon GeoBay is fitted with water jets that keep it stationary, helping the crew to perform more accurate drilling.

Bore holes of various depths will enable experts to obtain 15 different sets of samples and compile a detailed analysis of the sea bed.

It comes after NBDL had its application for a Development Consent Order (DCO) accepted for examination by Government planners.

Project director Mike Unsworth said: “In parallel with seeking consent for the project, it’s vital that we continue to gather additional information about the site conditions to help inform our detailed design of the proposed offshore wind park.

“This latest investigation is the next step in the process of engineering an optimum design for the wind turbine foundations.”

The proposed wind farm will occupy a 60 square mile site west of the Isle of Wight and will generate enough low carbon electricity to power around 710,000 homes, offsetting approximately 1,290,000 tonnes of CO2 emissions every year.

The Government’s planning inspectorate will spend the next eight months examining the proposals before submitting its recommendation to the Secretary of State for Energy.

If planning permission is granted, construction work is likely to begin in 2017, with the first turbines starting to generate electricity two years later.

Comments (18)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

10:22am Sat 23 Aug 14

The Wickham Man says...

So is NAvitus Bay guaranteeing that those 710,000 homes will get all their electricity needs all the time from them? The truth is there will be times when NAvitus Bay isn't producing any electricity at all. What happens then? What if it happens at night? In winter? (which it will). Where then? Why do so many amateurs in Friends of the Earth suddenly think they are quialified to run Britain's electricity supply industry? They aren't qualified.Most of them can't even do basic arithmetic. THey just quote edited nonsense from their favourite websites. If we follow FoE's "advice" many many people are going to be very cold, hungry dark and shivering in winters to come. And FoE will just turn round and tell them we must do it "save the planet"? Tie dyed Morons.
So is NAvitus Bay guaranteeing that those 710,000 homes will get all their electricity needs all the time from them? The truth is there will be times when NAvitus Bay isn't producing any electricity at all. What happens then? What if it happens at night? In winter? (which it will). Where then? Why do so many amateurs in Friends of the Earth suddenly think they are quialified to run Britain's electricity supply industry? They aren't qualified.Most of them can't even do basic arithmetic. THey just quote edited nonsense from their favourite websites. If we follow FoE's "advice" many many people are going to be very cold, hungry dark and shivering in winters to come. And FoE will just turn round and tell them we must do it "save the planet"? Tie dyed Morons. The Wickham Man
  • Score: -6

10:37am Sat 23 Aug 14

Tictock says...

Would this be the same 'scars' left by the pipelines

Oil is piped from Wytch Farm (about 91 kilometres (57 mi) via Fawley to a terminal on the far side of Southampton Water at Hamble, for export by tanker. Natural Gas (methane) is piped to Sopley, north of Christchurch, for use in the national domestic gas supply network.

The one you cannot see now due to nature and mans simple endeavours?

Wake up, wind energy is not the only answer to our needs but it helps and is better than fossil fuel generation.
Would this be the same 'scars' left by the pipelines Oil is piped from Wytch Farm (about 91 kilometres (57 mi) via Fawley to a terminal on the far side of Southampton Water at Hamble, for export by tanker. Natural Gas (methane) is piped to Sopley, north of Christchurch, for use in the national domestic gas supply network. The one you cannot see now due to nature and mans simple endeavours? Wake up, wind energy is not the only answer to our needs but it helps and is better than fossil fuel generation. Tictock
  • Score: 20

10:38am Sat 23 Aug 14

mooninpisces says...

Of all the possible reasons for opposing Navitus Bay, that attributed to Pat Wyeth, the new chair of the New Forest Park Authority, must be one of the most ridiculous.

The cable route goes along a tiny portion of the south west edge of the National Park. It goes underground to avoid the visual intrusion of additional overhead cables, and trenchless techniques will be employed in the most sensitive areas.

Reinstatement does not leave a permanent scar. Back in the 1980s, BP built an underground pipeline that went right through the New Forest on its way from Wytch Farm to Southampton Water. Construction was disruptive, but fears expressed at the time about long term damage proved groundless.
Of all the possible reasons for opposing Navitus Bay, that attributed to Pat Wyeth, the new chair of the New Forest Park Authority, must be one of the most ridiculous. The cable route goes along a tiny portion of the south west edge of the National Park. It goes underground to avoid the visual intrusion of additional overhead cables, and trenchless techniques will be employed in the most sensitive areas. Reinstatement does not leave a permanent scar. Back in the 1980s, BP built an underground pipeline that went right through the New Forest on its way from Wytch Farm to Southampton Water. Construction was disruptive, but fears expressed at the time about long term damage proved groundless. mooninpisces
  • Score: 16

11:00am Sat 23 Aug 14

saynomore says...

Far better to have underground cable which nobody will see,the so called Scar caused by the early stages will soon be covered with natures help,far better than ugly electricity pylons which have blighted the countryside for years the anti wind farm people don't complain about " blocked views" by these monstrosities do they.
Far better to have underground cable which nobody will see,the so called Scar caused by the early stages will soon be covered with natures help,far better than ugly electricity pylons which have blighted the countryside for years the anti wind farm people don't complain about " blocked views" by these monstrosities do they. saynomore
  • Score: 18

11:17am Sat 23 Aug 14

ferndownguy19 says...

mooninpisces wrote:
Of all the possible reasons for opposing Navitus Bay, that attributed to Pat Wyeth, the new chair of the New Forest Park Authority, must be one of the most ridiculous.

The cable route goes along a tiny portion of the south west edge of the National Park. It goes underground to avoid the visual intrusion of additional overhead cables, and trenchless techniques will be employed in the most sensitive areas.

Reinstatement does not leave a permanent scar. Back in the 1980s, BP built an underground pipeline that went right through the New Forest on its way from Wytch Farm to Southampton Water. Construction was disruptive, but fears expressed at the time about long term damage proved groundless.
My thoughts exactly, a few access points are the only 'scars' left of the oil pipeline, give a few years and nature will have covered it over without a trace of any work left! Much better than the massive pylons.
[quote][p][bold]mooninpisces[/bold] wrote: Of all the possible reasons for opposing Navitus Bay, that attributed to Pat Wyeth, the new chair of the New Forest Park Authority, must be one of the most ridiculous. The cable route goes along a tiny portion of the south west edge of the National Park. It goes underground to avoid the visual intrusion of additional overhead cables, and trenchless techniques will be employed in the most sensitive areas. Reinstatement does not leave a permanent scar. Back in the 1980s, BP built an underground pipeline that went right through the New Forest on its way from Wytch Farm to Southampton Water. Construction was disruptive, but fears expressed at the time about long term damage proved groundless.[/p][/quote]My thoughts exactly, a few access points are the only 'scars' left of the oil pipeline, give a few years and nature will have covered it over without a trace of any work left! Much better than the massive pylons. ferndownguy19
  • Score: 11

11:54am Sat 23 Aug 14

Ray Bright says...

i would suggest that those who object to this project should maybe feel that when looking at the turbines the feeling should be I this is for my children and their children and feel happy, not whinging that a little bit of the sea has a turbine in it, look the other way and get a life and try to help the life's of others to come.
i would suggest that those who object to this project should maybe feel that when looking at the turbines the feeling should be I this is for my children and their children and feel happy, not whinging that a little bit of the sea has a turbine in it, look the other way and get a life and try to help the life's of others to come. Ray Bright
  • Score: 6

12:26pm Sat 23 Aug 14

TheDistrict says...

It is good to see only Wickham Man is the companies and most comments are not against the Navies Project. The project is needed and will not interfere with sea views or forest views. I am somewhat intrigued to the matter of wind farm failure in the winter. I believe with stronger winds and regular maintenance, the project will supply a regular input of electricity.

It is time that the negative people look into the figures themselves and see the good that this will bring.

I do not normally agree with FoE, but on this occasion I stand by there theories.
It is good to see only Wickham Man is the companies and most comments are not against the Navies Project. The project is needed and will not interfere with sea views or forest views. I am somewhat intrigued to the matter of wind farm failure in the winter. I believe with stronger winds and regular maintenance, the project will supply a regular input of electricity. It is time that the negative people look into the figures themselves and see the good that this will bring. I do not normally agree with FoE, but on this occasion I stand by there theories. TheDistrict
  • Score: 5

12:37pm Sat 23 Aug 14

saynomore says...

The Wickham Man wrote:
So is NAvitus Bay guaranteeing that those 710,000 homes will get all their electricity needs all the time from them? The truth is there will be times when NAvitus Bay isn't producing any electricity at all. What happens then? What if it happens at night? In winter? (which it will). Where then? Why do so many amateurs in Friends of the Earth suddenly think they are quialified to run Britain's electricity supply industry? They aren't qualified.Most of them can't even do basic arithmetic. THey just quote edited nonsense from their favourite websites. If we follow FoE's "advice" many many people are going to be very cold, hungry dark and shivering in winters to come. And FoE will just turn round and tell them we must do it "save the planet"? Tie dyed Morons.
The usual mantra not based on any fact,if there are any morons here you are right up there clutching at straws to discredit any future plans does not help your case my friend,neither do childish insults.
[quote][p][bold]The Wickham Man[/bold] wrote: So is NAvitus Bay guaranteeing that those 710,000 homes will get all their electricity needs all the time from them? The truth is there will be times when NAvitus Bay isn't producing any electricity at all. What happens then? What if it happens at night? In winter? (which it will). Where then? Why do so many amateurs in Friends of the Earth suddenly think they are quialified to run Britain's electricity supply industry? They aren't qualified.Most of them can't even do basic arithmetic. THey just quote edited nonsense from their favourite websites. If we follow FoE's "advice" many many people are going to be very cold, hungry dark and shivering in winters to come. And FoE will just turn round and tell them we must do it "save the planet"? Tie dyed Morons.[/p][/quote]The usual mantra not based on any fact,if there are any morons here you are right up there clutching at straws to discredit any future plans does not help your case my friend,neither do childish insults. saynomore
  • Score: 6

12:57pm Sat 23 Aug 14

twynham says...

"It is time that the negative people look into the figures themselves and see the good that this will bring".

The figures at the moment are wind power is producing 3.68% of national energy needs.
Not a lot of good there!
http://www.gridwatch
.templar.co.uk/
"It is time that the negative people look into the figures themselves and see the good that this will bring". The figures at the moment are wind power is producing 3.68% of national energy needs. Not a lot of good there! http://www.gridwatch .templar.co.uk/ twynham
  • Score: 2

1:28pm Sat 23 Aug 14

Marty Caine says...

twynham wrote:
"It is time that the negative people look into the figures themselves and see the good that this will bring".

The figures at the moment are wind power is producing 3.68% of national energy needs.
Not a lot of good there!
http://www.gridwatch

.templar.co.uk/
Might be a better idea for people to look at the past and see why America ditched wind for fracking
[quote][p][bold]twynham[/bold] wrote: "It is time that the negative people look into the figures themselves and see the good that this will bring". The figures at the moment are wind power is producing 3.68% of national energy needs. Not a lot of good there! http://www.gridwatch .templar.co.uk/[/p][/quote]Might be a better idea for people to look at the past and see why America ditched wind for fracking Marty Caine
  • Score: 1

4:48pm Sat 23 Aug 14

S,Bowes says...

Where is the scar that was left after the pipeline from Whych farm to Fawley
Where is the scar that was left after the pipeline from Whych farm to Fawley S,Bowes
  • Score: 2

4:55pm Sat 23 Aug 14

saynomore says...

Marty Caine wrote:
twynham wrote:
"It is time that the negative people look into the figures themselves and see the good that this will bring".

The figures at the moment are wind power is producing 3.68% of national energy needs.
Not a lot of good there!
http://www.gridwatch


.templar.co.uk/
Might be a better idea for people to look at the past and see why America ditched wind for fracking
Here we go another anti with no factual case to put forward,America has a great booming wind energy industry,just read this .Never let the facts get in the way of a good story,Eh.
Fron=m the US DoE.
Home Analysis EnergyWind
US government hails booming wind energy industry, as mid-west states near grid-parity
Major new report reveals some utilities turning to wind power as a 'cost-saving option'
By James Murray 19 Aug 2014 More from this author 0 Comments GDF SUEZ Scotia wind farm
The US wind energy industry is poised for solid growth in the next few years, as costs continue to fall and the technology approaches grid parity in many parts of the country. But uncertainty about the sector's medium-term prospects remain as looming policy changes threaten to derail the industry's expansion plans.
That is the key conclusion of a major new report from the US Department of Energy (DoE), which this week detailed how the country remains the second-largest wind energy market in the world and is on track to double renewable electricity generation by the end of this decade. The Wind Technologies Market Report assesses the state of the US wind industry in 2013 and concludes that despite a tough year, the sector is now well placed for several years of solid growth.
[quote][p][bold]Marty Caine[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]twynham[/bold] wrote: "It is time that the negative people look into the figures themselves and see the good that this will bring". The figures at the moment are wind power is producing 3.68% of national energy needs. Not a lot of good there! http://www.gridwatch .templar.co.uk/[/p][/quote]Might be a better idea for people to look at the past and see why America ditched wind for fracking[/p][/quote]Here we go another anti with no factual case to put forward,America has a great booming wind energy industry,just read this .Never let the facts get in the way of a good story,Eh. Fron=m the US DoE. Home Analysis EnergyWind US government hails booming wind energy industry, as mid-west states near grid-parity Major new report reveals some utilities turning to wind power as a 'cost-saving option' By James Murray 19 Aug 2014 More from this author 0 Comments GDF SUEZ Scotia wind farm The US wind energy industry is poised for solid growth in the next few years, as costs continue to fall and the technology approaches grid parity in many parts of the country. But uncertainty about the sector's medium-term prospects remain as looming policy changes threaten to derail the industry's expansion plans. That is the key conclusion of a major new report from the US Department of Energy (DoE), which this week detailed how the country remains the second-largest wind energy market in the world and is on track to double renewable electricity generation by the end of this decade. The Wind Technologies Market Report assesses the state of the US wind industry in 2013 and concludes that despite a tough year, the sector is now well placed for several years of solid growth. saynomore
  • Score: 0

5:41pm Sat 23 Aug 14

saynomore says...

And just to add to that report here is Wikipedia's report.Facts people Facts not woolyheaded guessing.

Wind power in the United States
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Brazos Wind Ranch in Texas.


Mendota Hills Wind Farm in northern Illinois


Wind farm in Southeastern Washington
Wind power in the United States is a branch of the energy industry, expanding quickly over the last several years. As of the end of 2013 the capacity was 61,108 MW. This capacity is exceeded only by China. Projects totalling 12,000 MW of capacity were under construction at the end of 2013, including 10,900 MW that began construction in the 4th quarter.

For the 12 months through April 2014, the electricity produced from wind power in the United States amounted to 174.7 terawatt-hours, or 4.25% of all generated electrical energy.

A 2012 report by a clean energy consulting group concluded that new wind farms can produce electricity in the 5-8 cents per kWh range, making wind power cost-competitive with fossil fuels in many areas. As of 2013, the US Energy Information Administration estimates the "levelized cost" of wind energy from new installations as 7 to 10 cents per kWh, depending on the geographic area, but cautioned that levelized costs of non-dispatchable sources such as wind should be compared to the avoided energy cost rather than the levelized cost of dispatchable sources such as fossil fuels or geothermal. Sixteen states have installed over 1,000 MW of wind capacity with Michigan just breaking the mark in the 4th quarter of 2013. Texas, with 12,355 MW of capacity, has the most installed wind power capacity of any U.S. state, followed by California and Iowa with 5,830 MW and 5,178 MW respectively. The Alta Wind Energy Center in California is the largest wind farm in the United States with a capacity of 1320 MW of power. GE Energy is the largest domestic wind turbine manufacturer.

The U.S. Department of Energy’s report 20% Wind Energy by 2030 envisioned that wind power could supply 20% of all U.S. electricity, which included a contribution of 4% from offshore wind power. On January 1, 2013 the production tax credit was extended for another year. Uncertainty about future tax benefits for wind power has led some companies to relocate or close their production facilities.
And just to add to that report here is Wikipedia's report.Facts people Facts not woolyheaded guessing. Wind power in the United States From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Brazos Wind Ranch in Texas. Mendota Hills Wind Farm in northern Illinois Wind farm in Southeastern Washington Wind power in the United States is a branch of the energy industry, expanding quickly over the last several years. As of the end of 2013 the capacity was 61,108 MW.[1] This capacity is exceeded only by China.[2] Projects totalling 12,000 MW of capacity were under construction at the end of 2013, including 10,900 MW that began construction in the 4th quarter.[1] For the 12 months through April 2014, the electricity produced from wind power in the United States amounted to 174.7 terawatt-hours, or 4.25% of all generated electrical energy.[3] A 2012 report by a clean energy consulting group concluded that new wind farms can produce electricity in the 5-8 cents per kWh range, making wind power cost-competitive with fossil fuels in many areas.[4] As of 2013, the US Energy Information Administration estimates the "levelized cost" of wind energy from new installations as 7 to 10 cents per kWh, depending on the geographic area, but cautioned that levelized costs of non-dispatchable sources such as wind should be compared to the avoided energy cost rather than the levelized cost of dispatchable sources such as fossil fuels or geothermal.[5] Sixteen states have installed over 1,000 MW of wind capacity with Michigan just breaking the mark in the 4th quarter of 2013.[1] Texas, with 12,355 MW of capacity, has the most installed wind power capacity of any U.S. state, followed by California and Iowa with 5,830 MW and 5,178 MW respectively.[1] The Alta Wind Energy Center in California is the largest wind farm in the United States with a capacity of 1320 MW of power.[6] GE Energy is the largest domestic wind turbine manufacturer.[7] The U.S. Department of Energy’s report 20% Wind Energy by 2030 envisioned that wind power could supply 20% of all U.S. electricity, which included a contribution of 4% from offshore wind power. On January 1, 2013 the production tax credit was extended for another year.[8] Uncertainty about future tax benefits for wind power has led some companies to relocate or close their production facilities.[9] saynomore
  • Score: 1

9:48pm Sat 23 Aug 14

boscombefan2 says...

saynomore wrote:
Marty Caine wrote:
twynham wrote:
"It is time that the negative people look into the figures themselves and see the good that this will bring".

The figures at the moment are wind power is producing 3.68% of national energy needs.
Not a lot of good there!
http://www.gridwatch



.templar.co.uk/
Might be a better idea for people to look at the past and see why America ditched wind for fracking
Here we go another anti with no factual case to put forward,America has a great booming wind energy industry,just read this .Never let the facts get in the way of a good story,Eh.
Fron=m the US DoE.
Home Analysis EnergyWind
US government hails booming wind energy industry, as mid-west states near grid-parity
Major new report reveals some utilities turning to wind power as a 'cost-saving option'
By James Murray 19 Aug 2014 More from this author 0 Comments GDF SUEZ Scotia wind farm
The US wind energy industry is poised for solid growth in the next few years, as costs continue to fall and the technology approaches grid parity in many parts of the country. But uncertainty about the sector's medium-term prospects remain as looming policy changes threaten to derail the industry's expansion plans.
That is the key conclusion of a major new report from the US Department of Energy (DoE), which this week detailed how the country remains the second-largest wind energy market in the world and is on track to double renewable electricity generation by the end of this decade. The Wind Technologies Market Report assesses the state of the US wind industry in 2013 and concludes that despite a tough year, the sector is now well placed for several years of solid growth.
saynomore correctly states From the US DoE.

”Home Analysis EnergyWind
US government hails booming wind energy industry, as mid-west states near grid-parity. Major new report reveals some utilities turning to wind power as a 'cost-saving option'”

However the American Natural Resources Defense Council a pro-wind energy organisation, which encourages wind farms, have the following statement on their website.

http://www.nrdc.org/
energy/renewables/wi
nd.asp

“Certain sensitive lands -- such as parks, monuments and wildlife conservation areas -- and ecologically sensitive marine areas are not appropriate for energy development. In some of these places, energy development is prohibited or limited by law or policy, and in others it would be highly controversial. NRDC does not endorse locating energy facilities or transmission lines in such areas. Siting decisions must always be made extremely carefully, with impacts mitigated and operations conducted in an environmentally responsible manner.”

They do not allow their beautiful places to be damaged without looking at the other location options so why should we.

The argument against Navitus, is not whether wind farms are useful, economical (which they are patently not) save the planet, (which is doubtful) solve our desperate energy crisis brought about by Government mis-management (which they won’t), etc, it is that this is NOT THE RIGHT LOCATION for a wind farm, when there are many other locations available in the Round 3 plan that would not destroy tourism and cost jobs, damage the only UNESCO Coastal Heritage Site in the UK, endanger shipping to this degree, cause damage to our New Forest National Park, etc etc.
[quote][p][bold]saynomore[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Marty Caine[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]twynham[/bold] wrote: "It is time that the negative people look into the figures themselves and see the good that this will bring". The figures at the moment are wind power is producing 3.68% of national energy needs. Not a lot of good there! http://www.gridwatch .templar.co.uk/[/p][/quote]Might be a better idea for people to look at the past and see why America ditched wind for fracking[/p][/quote]Here we go another anti with no factual case to put forward,America has a great booming wind energy industry,just read this .Never let the facts get in the way of a good story,Eh. Fron=m the US DoE. Home Analysis EnergyWind US government hails booming wind energy industry, as mid-west states near grid-parity Major new report reveals some utilities turning to wind power as a 'cost-saving option' By James Murray 19 Aug 2014 More from this author 0 Comments GDF SUEZ Scotia wind farm The US wind energy industry is poised for solid growth in the next few years, as costs continue to fall and the technology approaches grid parity in many parts of the country. But uncertainty about the sector's medium-term prospects remain as looming policy changes threaten to derail the industry's expansion plans. That is the key conclusion of a major new report from the US Department of Energy (DoE), which this week detailed how the country remains the second-largest wind energy market in the world and is on track to double renewable electricity generation by the end of this decade. The Wind Technologies Market Report assesses the state of the US wind industry in 2013 and concludes that despite a tough year, the sector is now well placed for several years of solid growth.[/p][/quote]saynomore correctly states From the US DoE. ”Home Analysis EnergyWind US government hails booming wind energy industry, as mid-west states near grid-parity. Major new report reveals some utilities turning to wind power as a 'cost-saving option'” However the American Natural Resources Defense Council a pro-wind energy organisation, which encourages wind farms, have the following statement on their website. http://www.nrdc.org/ energy/renewables/wi nd.asp “Certain sensitive lands -- such as parks, monuments and wildlife conservation areas -- and ecologically sensitive marine areas are not appropriate for energy development. In some of these places, energy development is prohibited or limited by law or policy, and in others it would be highly controversial. NRDC does not endorse locating energy facilities or transmission lines in such areas. Siting decisions must always be made extremely carefully, with impacts mitigated and operations conducted in an environmentally responsible manner.” They do not allow their beautiful places to be damaged without looking at the other location options so why should we. The argument against Navitus, is not whether wind farms are useful, economical (which they are patently not) save the planet, (which is doubtful) solve our desperate energy crisis brought about by Government mis-management (which they won’t), etc, it is that this is NOT THE RIGHT LOCATION for a wind farm, when there are many other locations available in the Round 3 plan that would not destroy tourism and cost jobs, damage the only UNESCO Coastal Heritage Site in the UK, endanger shipping to this degree, cause damage to our New Forest National Park, etc etc. boscombefan2
  • Score: 0

11:06pm Sat 23 Aug 14

The Wickham Man says...

Tictock wrote:
Would this be the same 'scars' left by the pipelines

Oil is piped from Wytch Farm (about 91 kilometres (57 mi) via Fawley to a terminal on the far side of Southampton Water at Hamble, for export by tanker. Natural Gas (methane) is piped to Sopley, north of Christchurch, for use in the national domestic gas supply network.

The one you cannot see now due to nature and mans simple endeavours?

Wake up, wind energy is not the only answer to our needs but it helps and is better than fossil fuel generation.
Too much of it doesn't help at all. And the number of people voting this post up up just illustrates the number of people who simnply do not understand. You can have around 5-10% renewables at the very most. Beynd that you have to keep other formats on standby for reasons that should be obvious - only of course these other stations that were once able to sell their product for 200+ days a year now sit on hot standby but only sell their product for around 100 days a year, so they are far more expensive to operate and those costs are passed onto theconsumer. THe very people moaning about the cost of electricity are probably the same deluded fools voting yes to Navitus Bay and having absolutely no idea why power now costs 4 times more than it used to. Voting this down just means voting for expensive bills and power cuts - and the biggest laugh is in the end it makes no difference at all to climate change.
[quote][p][bold]Tictock[/bold] wrote: Would this be the same 'scars' left by the pipelines Oil is piped from Wytch Farm (about 91 kilometres (57 mi) via Fawley to a terminal on the far side of Southampton Water at Hamble, for export by tanker. Natural Gas (methane) is piped to Sopley, north of Christchurch, for use in the national domestic gas supply network. The one you cannot see now due to nature and mans simple endeavours? Wake up, wind energy is not the only answer to our needs but it helps and is better than fossil fuel generation.[/p][/quote]Too much of it doesn't help at all. And the number of people voting this post up up just illustrates the number of people who simnply do not understand. You can have around 5-10% renewables at the very most. Beynd that you have to keep other formats on standby for reasons that should be obvious - only of course these other stations that were once able to sell their product for 200+ days a year now sit on hot standby but only sell their product for around 100 days a year, so they are far more expensive to operate and those costs are passed onto theconsumer. THe very people moaning about the cost of electricity are probably the same deluded fools voting yes to Navitus Bay and having absolutely no idea why power now costs 4 times more than it used to. Voting this down just means voting for expensive bills and power cuts - and the biggest laugh is in the end it makes no difference at all to climate change. The Wickham Man
  • Score: 1

11:09pm Sat 23 Aug 14

The Wickham Man says...

TheDistrict wrote:
It is good to see only Wickham Man is the companies and most comments are not against the Navies Project. The project is needed and will not interfere with sea views or forest views. I am somewhat intrigued to the matter of wind farm failure in the winter. I believe with stronger winds and regular maintenance, the project will supply a regular input of electricity.

It is time that the negative people look into the figures themselves and see the good that this will bring.

I do not normally agree with FoE, but on this occasion I stand by there theories.
You don;t know what you are talking about. The wind does not always blow whether or not FoE tell you it does. THink for yourself for Gods sake. There will be a long windless anticyclones lasting days and sometimes weeks, as there have been every winter. Try looking round and taking note of the world you live in.
[quote][p][bold]TheDistrict[/bold] wrote: It is good to see only Wickham Man is the companies and most comments are not against the Navies Project. The project is needed and will not interfere with sea views or forest views. I am somewhat intrigued to the matter of wind farm failure in the winter. I believe with stronger winds and regular maintenance, the project will supply a regular input of electricity. It is time that the negative people look into the figures themselves and see the good that this will bring. I do not normally agree with FoE, but on this occasion I stand by there theories.[/p][/quote]You don;t know what you are talking about. The wind does not always blow whether or not FoE tell you it does. THink for yourself for Gods sake. There will be a long windless anticyclones lasting days and sometimes weeks, as there have been every winter. Try looking round and taking note of the world you live in. The Wickham Man
  • Score: 1

9:35am Sun 24 Aug 14

yet_another_one says...

The Wickham Man wrote:
TheDistrict wrote:
It is good to see only Wickham Man is the companies and most comments are not against the Navies Project. The project is needed and will not interfere with sea views or forest views. I am somewhat intrigued to the matter of wind farm failure in the winter. I believe with stronger winds and regular maintenance, the project will supply a regular input of electricity.

It is time that the negative people look into the figures themselves and see the good that this will bring.

I do not normally agree with FoE, but on this occasion I stand by there theories.
You don;t know what you are talking about. The wind does not always blow whether or not FoE tell you it does. THink for yourself for Gods sake. There will be a long windless anticyclones lasting days and sometimes weeks, as there have been every winter. Try looking round and taking note of the world you live in.
I wonder if all these NIMBY's realised that energy produced from "natural" wind resource alone contributed something like 23% of total demand last weekend compared to just 15% from that produced by burning fossil fuels, i.e. coal, oil or gas.
A mix between solar & wind is required - the more wind farms we have, both on or off shore, will increase the contribution they make & they are things of beauty. I'd rather see them than chimneys belching out smoke & pollution or nuclear where that poses a real environmental problem in years to come.
[quote][p][bold]The Wickham Man[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]TheDistrict[/bold] wrote: It is good to see only Wickham Man is the companies and most comments are not against the Navies Project. The project is needed and will not interfere with sea views or forest views. I am somewhat intrigued to the matter of wind farm failure in the winter. I believe with stronger winds and regular maintenance, the project will supply a regular input of electricity. It is time that the negative people look into the figures themselves and see the good that this will bring. I do not normally agree with FoE, but on this occasion I stand by there theories.[/p][/quote]You don;t know what you are talking about. The wind does not always blow whether or not FoE tell you it does. THink for yourself for Gods sake. There will be a long windless anticyclones lasting days and sometimes weeks, as there have been every winter. Try looking round and taking note of the world you live in.[/p][/quote]I wonder if all these NIMBY's realised that energy produced from "natural" wind resource alone contributed something like 23% of total demand last weekend compared to just 15% from that produced by burning fossil fuels, i.e. coal, oil or gas. A mix between solar & wind is required - the more wind farms we have, both on or off shore, will increase the contribution they make & they are things of beauty. I'd rather see them than chimneys belching out smoke & pollution or nuclear where that poses a real environmental problem in years to come. yet_another_one
  • Score: 0

11:39am Sun 24 Aug 14

Tictock says...

The Wickham Man wrote:
TheDistrict wrote:
It is good to see only Wickham Man is the companies and most comments are not against the Navies Project. The project is needed and will not interfere with sea views or forest views. I am somewhat intrigued to the matter of wind farm failure in the winter. I believe with stronger winds and regular maintenance, the project will supply a regular input of electricity.

It is time that the negative people look into the figures themselves and see the good that this will bring.

I do not normally agree with FoE, but on this occasion I stand by there theories.
You don;t know what you are talking about. The wind does not always blow whether or not FoE tell you it does. THink for yourself for Gods sake. There will be a long windless anticyclones lasting days and sometimes weeks, as there have been every winter. Try looking round and taking note of the world you live in.
Quote;
'Germany's renewable energy sector is among the most innovative and successful worldwide. The share of electricity produced from renewable energy in Germany has increased from 6.3 percent of the national total in 2000 to about 30 percent in the first half of 2014'

So they got it wrong have they?

And as the lights go out over Dorset and the region, the NIMBY's rubbed their hands with glee and looked for the next project to take us back to a primitive state.
[quote][p][bold]The Wickham Man[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]TheDistrict[/bold] wrote: It is good to see only Wickham Man is the companies and most comments are not against the Navies Project. The project is needed and will not interfere with sea views or forest views. I am somewhat intrigued to the matter of wind farm failure in the winter. I believe with stronger winds and regular maintenance, the project will supply a regular input of electricity. It is time that the negative people look into the figures themselves and see the good that this will bring. I do not normally agree with FoE, but on this occasion I stand by there theories.[/p][/quote]You don;t know what you are talking about. The wind does not always blow whether or not FoE tell you it does. THink for yourself for Gods sake. There will be a long windless anticyclones lasting days and sometimes weeks, as there have been every winter. Try looking round and taking note of the world you live in.[/p][/quote]Quote; 'Germany's renewable energy sector is among the most innovative and successful worldwide. The share of electricity produced from renewable energy in Germany has increased from 6.3 percent of the national total in 2000 to about 30 percent in the first half of 2014' So they got it wrong have they? And as the lights go out over Dorset and the region, the NIMBY's rubbed their hands with glee and looked for the next project to take us back to a primitive state. Tictock
  • Score: 0

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