Wind farm protests: thousands have say on Navitus Bay - with vast majority against plans

SCHEME: The Navitus meeting at the BIC

SCHEME: The Navitus meeting at the BIC

First published in News
Last updated
by , Chief Reporter

THE vast majority of the thousands of people who have registered to have their say on the Navitus Bay wind farm are opposing the plans.

The controversial proposals could see as many as 194 wind turbines as high as 200m placed off the coast – 12 miles from Christchurch, 13 from Bourne-mouth and Poole and nine from Swanage.

The deadline to become an interested party with the Planning Inspectorate, which will make the decision on the plans, has now passed.

Around 2,700 registrations have been made, thought to be far higher than for any other offshore wind project, including the abandoned Atlantic Array off the south coast of Wales, and all are now available to view on the Planning Inspectorate’s website.

Roy Pointer, chairman of the Poole and Christchurch Bays Association, which represents a host of residents’ groups, said: “What is striking when you look at the comments is that the vast majority of businesses, individ-uals, MPs and NGOs are strongly against the project.

“Our analysis shows that 90 per cent of those who registered are opposed to this giant inshore industrial project for a variety of valid reasons.”

A wide range of organisation and individuals – including Bournemouth Borough Council and Borough of Poole – have raised worries over a raft of issues – including the visual impact, threats to boating and fishing and the potential impact on the area’s tourism industry.

But some of those registered are supporting the project, including East Dorset Friends of the Earth.

Angela Pooley, co-ordinator of East Dorset FoE, which is a member of BH Green, an umbrella group that includes the Green Party, Greenpeace, Poole Agenda 21, Transition Bournemouth, Transition Christchurch and Transition Poole, said it believed that the “negativity is misguided and based on anecdotal information and, sadly, a degree of ‘nimbyism’.”

She added: “The BH Green Group, including East Dorset FoE, believes that if we don’t move to more sustainable forms of energy, the negative effects of climate change will have a far greater impact locally and globally than the wind farm.

“Wind farms aren’t the total answer to providing sustainable energy, but they are part of the solution. Therefore we hope that Navitus Bay wind farm gets approval.”

And Christine Hanny, another supporter, said: “I am in favour of the windfarm as Dorset needs a source of local, green energy. It is 12 miles offshore into the Channel and will be barely visible to the naked eye.”

But Whitehall Hospitality, who operate two Bournemouth hotels and a tour company, said: “This proposal is too big, too close to shore and in the wrong location.

“There are many other locations where a wind farm could be located – why destroy a local tourist economy to make way for this one?”

And Jonathan Warner said: “The wind farm would be a terrible eyesore on the beautiful Jurassic Coast. This is a concept which would not even be considered in other countries.”

‘Consistent approach’

DORSET County Council has decided to cease negotiations with the developers of the Navitus Bay wind farm over a lease to enable cabling work for the project.

Officers had been in discussions with a view to granting a lease to enable cabling for the proposed offshore wind farm to run under the council-owned trailway at Avon Heath Country Park.

However, after the county council voiced its objections to the Navitus Bay scheme, members of its cabinet agreed that it would be inconsistent to continue with discussions regarding the enabling works.

Cabinet member for corporate resources Robert Gould said: “We are taking a consistent and coherent approach to Navitus Bay.

“It would not be appropriate in view of our stance on the scheme itself.”

Council leader Spencer Flower suggested that if the Navitus Bay scheme was successful the developers would have to look at the compulsory purchase route if they wished to pursue their plans for the cabling under the council-owned trailway.

Comments (56)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

7:08am Thu 3 Jul 14

S,Bowes says...

It will go ahead regardless of a democrat of vote to abandon it ,can assume that those that voted no are in favour of a Nuclear power station on the Purbeck s
It will go ahead regardless of a democrat of vote to abandon it ,can assume that those that voted no are in favour of a Nuclear power station on the Purbeck s S,Bowes
  • Score: -8

7:17am Thu 3 Jul 14

Moro99 says...

Frack our Jurassic coast, we don't mind that . So long as our precious hearing is protected from the windmills ten miles away.
Frack our Jurassic coast, we don't mind that . So long as our precious hearing is protected from the windmills ten miles away. Moro99
  • Score: 2

7:19am Thu 3 Jul 14

Ophilum says...

S,Bowes wrote:
It will go ahead regardless of a democrat of vote to abandon it ,can assume that those that voted no are in favour of a Nuclear power station on the Purbeck s
Why is it a nuclear station in the purbecks, we had one at winfrith with not a day of problems so why the scare story you have put up, say no to this wind turbine Farm If it needs to run on subsidies it is worthless so forget it.
[quote][p][bold]S,Bowes[/bold] wrote: It will go ahead regardless of a democrat of vote to abandon it ,can assume that those that voted no are in favour of a Nuclear power station on the Purbeck s[/p][/quote]Why is it a nuclear station in the purbecks, we had one at winfrith with not a day of problems so why the scare story you have put up, say no to this wind turbine Farm If it needs to run on subsidies it is worthless so forget it. Ophilum
  • Score: 26

7:23am Thu 3 Jul 14

Ophilum says...

We do not want it, it is a mad scheme dreamt up by the lefty greens who do not live in the real world and talk utter rubbish about nuclear to scare us.
We do not want it, it is a mad scheme dreamt up by the lefty greens who do not live in the real world and talk utter rubbish about nuclear to scare us. Ophilum
  • Score: 5

7:23am Thu 3 Jul 14

Baysider says...

S,Bowes wrote:
It will go ahead regardless of a democrat of vote to abandon it ,can assume that those that voted no are in favour of a Nuclear power station on the Purbeck s
I'd be happier with that proposal than these wind turbines yes; cheaper, 100% reliable, won't require another conventional power plant to be built as well to compensate for when it's not working, safe, creating long term jobs for local people and from the same distance far less visually damaging.
[quote][p][bold]S,Bowes[/bold] wrote: It will go ahead regardless of a democrat of vote to abandon it ,can assume that those that voted no are in favour of a Nuclear power station on the Purbeck s[/p][/quote]I'd be happier with that proposal than these wind turbines yes; cheaper, 100% reliable, won't require another conventional power plant to be built as well to compensate for when it's not working, safe, creating long term jobs for local people and from the same distance far less visually damaging. Baysider
  • Score: 12

7:35am Thu 3 Jul 14

S,Bowes says...

Ophilum wrote:
S,Bowes wrote:
It will go ahead regardless of a democrat of vote to abandon it ,can assume that those that voted no are in favour of a Nuclear power station on the Purbeck s
Why is it a nuclear station in the purbecks, we had one at winfrith with not a day of problems so why the scare story you have put up, say no to this wind turbine Farm If it needs to run on subsidies it is worthless so forget it.
Good point ,I would like to see Winfrith 're commissioned.that would be a more democratic meeting .Nuclear or wind
[quote][p][bold]Ophilum[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]S,Bowes[/bold] wrote: It will go ahead regardless of a democrat of vote to abandon it ,can assume that those that voted no are in favour of a Nuclear power station on the Purbeck s[/p][/quote]Why is it a nuclear station in the purbecks, we had one at winfrith with not a day of problems so why the scare story you have put up, say no to this wind turbine Farm If it needs to run on subsidies it is worthless so forget it.[/p][/quote]Good point ,I would like to see Winfrith 're commissioned.that would be a more democratic meeting .Nuclear or wind S,Bowes
  • Score: 14

8:15am Thu 3 Jul 14

Marty Caine UKIP says...

Moro99 wrote:
Frack our Jurassic coast, we don't mind that . So long as our precious hearing is protected from the windmills ten miles away.
You do know that Wytch Farm has been Fracking under our jurassic coast for over 20 years without any problems whatsoever?

Fracking & Nuclear is the way forward to ensure we become self sustainable in our energy needs. Not an unreliable wind farm owned by the Dutch and French.
[quote][p][bold]Moro99[/bold] wrote: Frack our Jurassic coast, we don't mind that . So long as our precious hearing is protected from the windmills ten miles away.[/p][/quote]You do know that Wytch Farm has been Fracking under our jurassic coast for over 20 years without any problems whatsoever? Fracking & Nuclear is the way forward to ensure we become self sustainable in our energy needs. Not an unreliable wind farm owned by the Dutch and French. Marty Caine UKIP
  • Score: 13

8:16am Thu 3 Jul 14

GreenManExmouth says...

The arguments over the Swanage wind farm have even made their way into our local paper down in Exmouth.
So opponents do not like the fact that they will be able to see the turbines from the Jurassic Coast World Heritage Site and that the cable connections will involve disruption.
Transition Town Exmouth, of which I am Interim Chair, exists to promote the idea that our way of life does have a future, albeit one that doesn't rely on an addiction to oil. If this is to be achieved, there are compromises that have to be made. We cannot continue to use (and in many cases waste) energy that is generated only in far-off, dirty, places that we don't have to concern ourselves with. Every community now has a responsibility to generate the energy that it expects to use.
Wind turbines are an excellent source of sustainable energy, being both efficient and non-polluting (unlike nuclear) but they have to go in places that have strong winds, which usually means near the coast or on hills.
I have confidence that visitors will continue forever to come to the Jurassic Coast and I am conficent that the majority of them, on seeing the turbines will realise that, while they have the evidence of ages past under their feet, the turbines they will see from the cliffs are symbols of our future.
The arguments over the Swanage wind farm have even made their way into our local paper down in Exmouth. So opponents do not like the fact that they will be able to see the turbines from the Jurassic Coast World Heritage Site and that the cable connections will involve disruption. Transition Town Exmouth, of which I am Interim Chair, exists to promote the idea that our way of life does have a future, albeit one that doesn't rely on an addiction to oil. If this is to be achieved, there are compromises that have to be made. We cannot continue to use (and in many cases waste) energy that is generated only in far-off, dirty, places that we don't have to concern ourselves with. Every community now has a responsibility to generate the energy that it expects to use. Wind turbines are an excellent source of sustainable energy, being both efficient and non-polluting (unlike nuclear) but they have to go in places that have strong winds, which usually means near the coast or on hills. I have confidence that visitors will continue forever to come to the Jurassic Coast and I am conficent that the majority of them, on seeing the turbines will realise that, while they have the evidence of ages past under their feet, the turbines they will see from the cliffs are symbols of our future. GreenManExmouth
  • Score: -29

8:27am Thu 3 Jul 14

Moro99 says...

Marty Caine UKIP wrote:
Moro99 wrote:
Frack our Jurassic coast, we don't mind that . So long as our precious hearing is protected from the windmills ten miles away.
You do know that Wytch Farm has been Fracking under our jurassic coast for over 20 years without any problems whatsoever?

Fracking & Nuclear is the way forward to ensure we become self sustainable in our energy needs. Not an unreliable wind farm owned by the Dutch and French.
Yes, that's why I said it, we are happy to frack our world heritage site, and get that dinosaur oil out, but we think it will be damaged if we can stand on it and see windmills on a clear day 10 miles away .
[quote][p][bold]Marty Caine UKIP[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Moro99[/bold] wrote: Frack our Jurassic coast, we don't mind that . So long as our precious hearing is protected from the windmills ten miles away.[/p][/quote]You do know that Wytch Farm has been Fracking under our jurassic coast for over 20 years without any problems whatsoever? Fracking & Nuclear is the way forward to ensure we become self sustainable in our energy needs. Not an unreliable wind farm owned by the Dutch and French.[/p][/quote]Yes, that's why I said it, we are happy to frack our world heritage site, and get that dinosaur oil out, but we think it will be damaged if we can stand on it and see windmills on a clear day 10 miles away . Moro99
  • Score: 4

8:38am Thu 3 Jul 14

nosuchluck54 says...

Marty Caine UKIP wrote:
Moro99 wrote:
Frack our Jurassic coast, we don't mind that . So long as our precious hearing is protected from the windmills ten miles away.
You do know that Wytch Farm has been Fracking under our jurassic coast for over 20 years without any problems whatsoever?

Fracking & Nuclear is the way forward to ensure we become self sustainable in our energy needs. Not an unreliable wind farm owned by the Dutch and French.
The big question is did you know Mr Caine? or were you unclear what type of fracking was going on until someone who knows what's what corrected you on a previous ?
[quote][p][bold]Marty Caine UKIP[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Moro99[/bold] wrote: Frack our Jurassic coast, we don't mind that . So long as our precious hearing is protected from the windmills ten miles away.[/p][/quote]You do know that Wytch Farm has been Fracking under our jurassic coast for over 20 years without any problems whatsoever? Fracking & Nuclear is the way forward to ensure we become self sustainable in our energy needs. Not an unreliable wind farm owned by the Dutch and French.[/p][/quote]The big question is did you know Mr Caine? or were you unclear what type of fracking was going on until someone who knows what's what corrected you on a previous ? nosuchluck54
  • Score: 2

8:39am Thu 3 Jul 14

Hessenford says...

Marty Caine UKIP wrote:
Moro99 wrote:
Frack our Jurassic coast, we don't mind that . So long as our precious hearing is protected from the windmills ten miles away.
You do know that Wytch Farm has been Fracking under our jurassic coast for over 20 years without any problems whatsoever?

Fracking & Nuclear is the way forward to ensure we become self sustainable in our energy needs. Not an unreliable wind farm owned by the Dutch and French.
Couldn't agree more, to many scare stories are spouted about nuclear power, nuclear has come a long way since Chenoble, the same scare stories abound about fracking, wind farms are uneconomical and will not solve our energy needs on their own.
It's interesting that the large number of anoraks who travel to proposed fracking sites do so by the very propulsion that they are always protesting about, namely oil, I wonder how many would turn up to protest if they had to walk to the sites.
[quote][p][bold]Marty Caine UKIP[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Moro99[/bold] wrote: Frack our Jurassic coast, we don't mind that . So long as our precious hearing is protected from the windmills ten miles away.[/p][/quote]You do know that Wytch Farm has been Fracking under our jurassic coast for over 20 years without any problems whatsoever? Fracking & Nuclear is the way forward to ensure we become self sustainable in our energy needs. Not an unreliable wind farm owned by the Dutch and French.[/p][/quote]Couldn't agree more, to many scare stories are spouted about nuclear power, nuclear has come a long way since Chenoble, the same scare stories abound about fracking, wind farms are uneconomical and will not solve our energy needs on their own. It's interesting that the large number of anoraks who travel to proposed fracking sites do so by the very propulsion that they are always protesting about, namely oil, I wonder how many would turn up to protest if they had to walk to the sites. Hessenford
  • Score: 12

8:39am Thu 3 Jul 14

Ivy says...

Marty Caine UKIP wrote:
Moro99 wrote:
Frack our Jurassic coast, we don't mind that . So long as our precious hearing is protected from the windmills ten miles away.
You do know that Wytch Farm has been Fracking under our jurassic coast for over 20 years without any problems whatsoever?

Fracking & Nuclear is the way forward to ensure we become self sustainable in our energy needs. Not an unreliable wind farm owned by the Dutch and French.
Absolute rubbish, the type of fracking now being proposed has never been carried out in Dorset or anywhere else is England so get your facts right!
[quote][p][bold]Marty Caine UKIP[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Moro99[/bold] wrote: Frack our Jurassic coast, we don't mind that . So long as our precious hearing is protected from the windmills ten miles away.[/p][/quote]You do know that Wytch Farm has been Fracking under our jurassic coast for over 20 years without any problems whatsoever? Fracking & Nuclear is the way forward to ensure we become self sustainable in our energy needs. Not an unreliable wind farm owned by the Dutch and French.[/p][/quote]Absolute rubbish, the type of fracking now being proposed has never been carried out in Dorset or anywhere else is England so get your facts right! Ivy
  • Score: -6

8:43am Thu 3 Jul 14

Ivy says...

Marty Caine UKIP wrote:
Moro99 wrote:
Frack our Jurassic coast, we don't mind that . So long as our precious hearing is protected from the windmills ten miles away.
You do know that Wytch Farm has been Fracking under our jurassic coast for over 20 years without any problems whatsoever?

Fracking & Nuclear is the way forward to ensure we become self sustainable in our energy needs. Not an unreliable wind farm owned by the Dutch and French.
Absolute rubbish, the type of fracking now being proposed has never been carried out in Dorset or anywhere else is England so get your facts right!
[quote][p][bold]Marty Caine UKIP[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Moro99[/bold] wrote: Frack our Jurassic coast, we don't mind that . So long as our precious hearing is protected from the windmills ten miles away.[/p][/quote]You do know that Wytch Farm has been Fracking under our jurassic coast for over 20 years without any problems whatsoever? Fracking & Nuclear is the way forward to ensure we become self sustainable in our energy needs. Not an unreliable wind farm owned by the Dutch and French.[/p][/quote]Absolute rubbish, the type of fracking now being proposed has never been carried out in Dorset or anywhere else is England so get your facts right! Ivy
  • Score: -11

8:54am Thu 3 Jul 14

dorsettech says...

Interesting to see the council get so passionate about something that could actually do some good.

I just wish there was this much attention brought to the weekly noise and damage done to my surrounding area due to disrespectful stag and hen parties who have no concept of acceptable social behaviour.
Interesting to see the council get so passionate about something that could actually do some good. I just wish there was this much attention brought to the weekly noise and damage done to my surrounding area due to disrespectful stag and hen parties who have no concept of acceptable social behaviour. dorsettech
  • Score: -3

9:01am Thu 3 Jul 14

Moro99 says...

http://www.telegraph
.co.uk/earth/earthne
ws/10233955/The-town
-where-a-form-of-fra
cking-is-already-hap
pening.html

Whether it's old fracking or new fracking The world heritage Jurassic rock is being fractured.

Oh, and it's a French company doing it.
http://www.telegraph .co.uk/earth/earthne ws/10233955/The-town -where-a-form-of-fra cking-is-already-hap pening.html Whether it's old fracking or new fracking The world heritage Jurassic rock is being fractured. Oh, and it's a French company doing it. Moro99
  • Score: 10

9:04am Thu 3 Jul 14

Jeff in Parkstone says...

I don't see how from the Planning Portal The Echo can be so sure that the overwhelming majority are against Navitus ?

I see on the web-site 6 pages of representations with 500 per page - so that is at least 2,500 representatons.

I don't know if Echo has access to breakdown of the representations into "for" and "against" which we the public don't have and if they don't I don't see how they have come up with "overwhelming majoirty" against ?

That infor is not as far as I can see in the Planning Portal.

Also to be noted I see two ever three names which I know are from same residence or family so I do wonder how many familes and groups are ramping up the "apparent" oppostion far higher then it is.

Also to note are those who take qualified views - in support with reservations pending more information, or opposing but interested enough to engage with more discussion.

No-one is saying there is not strong opposition but what I see is a great deal of this is very personal from those with homes with sea views or near sea views - not "views" that then are of a mind to take note of the larger public interest - the whole public debate can we afford not to take on off-shore wind farms including off Dorset coast and as a matter of urgency ....

Jeff Williams
I don't see how from the Planning Portal The Echo can be so sure that the overwhelming majority are against Navitus ? I see on the web-site 6 pages of representations with 500 per page - so that is at least 2,500 representatons. I don't know if Echo has access to breakdown of the representations into "for" and "against" which we the public don't have and if they don't I don't see how they have come up with "overwhelming majoirty" against ? That infor is not as far as I can see in the Planning Portal. Also to be noted I see two ever three names which I know are from same residence or family so I do wonder how many familes and groups are ramping up the "apparent" oppostion far higher then it is. Also to note are those who take qualified views - in support with reservations pending more information, or opposing but interested enough to engage with more discussion. No-one is saying there is not strong opposition but what I see is a great deal of this is very personal from those with homes with sea views or near sea views - not "views" that then are of a mind to take note of the larger public interest - the whole public debate can we afford not to take on off-shore wind farms including off Dorset coast and as a matter of urgency .... Jeff Williams Jeff in Parkstone
  • Score: -6

9:10am Thu 3 Jul 14

N Smith says...

2,700 people have registered their interest, well that's not that many even if they are all objectors which they are not. Get on and build it .
2,700 people have registered their interest, well that's not that many even if they are all objectors which they are not. Get on and build it . N Smith
  • Score: -5

9:25am Thu 3 Jul 14

TheDistrict says...

200,000 residents in Bournemouth, nearly 100 times of those who chose to voice their opinions registering on the web pages. And as already noted not all of them are against.

I am with the BH Green Group on this matter, and support the Navitus Bay project as the way forward. As for the spoiling of viewing, at sea level, whilst on any beach, and the distance of the farm, it will be nearly impossible to see the project from shore. Simple mathematics will tell you that.

We also need alternative energy, and a windfarm is that, or part of that alternative energy. Fracking at Wytch Farm has been around for ages, but have we complained of this, or moaned about the blot on the Purbeck landscape, of course not.

Anything that makes a change to the future, out come the Nimbys, led by MPs, including at least one of our Bournemouth MPs, who really has no idea of what he is taling about, and only uses the papers from such anti resources to make his mark. One never hears him speak about it between meetings and votings.

Lets forget the Nimby rubbish, and get on with it.
200,000 residents in Bournemouth, nearly 100 times of those who chose to voice their opinions registering on the web pages. And as already noted not all of them are against. I am with the BH Green Group on this matter, and support the Navitus Bay project as the way forward. As for the spoiling of viewing, at sea level, whilst on any beach, and the distance of the farm, it will be nearly impossible to see the project from shore. Simple mathematics will tell you that. We also need alternative energy, and a windfarm is that, or part of that alternative energy. Fracking at Wytch Farm has been around for ages, but have we complained of this, or moaned about the blot on the Purbeck landscape, of course not. Anything that makes a change to the future, out come the Nimbys, led by MPs, including at least one of our Bournemouth MPs, who really has no idea of what he is taling about, and only uses the papers from such anti resources to make his mark. One never hears him speak about it between meetings and votings. Lets forget the Nimby rubbish, and get on with it. TheDistrict
  • Score: -12

9:30am Thu 3 Jul 14

BmthNewshound says...

The Echo has so far failed to publish balanced reports on the Navitus Bay proposals having firmly supported the "No" campaign since day one.
.
A total of a mere 2,700 registrations is hardly representative of the wider population with most of these generated by an organised group. Its all very well people opposing Navitus because it may spoil their view (but only on a clear day) but they have failed to come up with an alternative solution to generate electricity to meet demand.
The Echo has so far failed to publish balanced reports on the Navitus Bay proposals having firmly supported the "No" campaign since day one. . A total of a mere 2,700 registrations is hardly representative of the wider population with most of these generated by an organised group. Its all very well people opposing Navitus because it may spoil their view (but only on a clear day) but they have failed to come up with an alternative solution to generate electricity to meet demand. BmthNewshound
  • Score: -5

9:33am Thu 3 Jul 14

Redgolfer says...

GreenManExmouth wrote:
The arguments over the Swanage wind farm have even made their way into our local paper down in Exmouth.
So opponents do not like the fact that they will be able to see the turbines from the Jurassic Coast World Heritage Site and that the cable connections will involve disruption.
Transition Town Exmouth, of which I am Interim Chair, exists to promote the idea that our way of life does have a future, albeit one that doesn't rely on an addiction to oil. If this is to be achieved, there are compromises that have to be made. We cannot continue to use (and in many cases waste) energy that is generated only in far-off, dirty, places that we don't have to concern ourselves with. Every community now has a responsibility to generate the energy that it expects to use.
Wind turbines are an excellent source of sustainable energy, being both efficient and non-polluting (unlike nuclear) but they have to go in places that have strong winds, which usually means near the coast or on hills.
I have confidence that visitors will continue forever to come to the Jurassic Coast and I am conficent that the majority of them, on seeing the turbines will realise that, while they have the evidence of ages past under their feet, the turbines they will see from the cliffs are symbols of our future.
So Green Man, you come on here ans spout your opinions, most of which the people who live in this area do not agree with as the story suggests.
Will you be able to see it from your location, no thought not so keep your opinions to yourself !!!
[quote][p][bold]GreenManExmouth[/bold] wrote: The arguments over the Swanage wind farm have even made their way into our local paper down in Exmouth. So opponents do not like the fact that they will be able to see the turbines from the Jurassic Coast World Heritage Site and that the cable connections will involve disruption. Transition Town Exmouth, of which I am Interim Chair, exists to promote the idea that our way of life does have a future, albeit one that doesn't rely on an addiction to oil. If this is to be achieved, there are compromises that have to be made. We cannot continue to use (and in many cases waste) energy that is generated only in far-off, dirty, places that we don't have to concern ourselves with. Every community now has a responsibility to generate the energy that it expects to use. Wind turbines are an excellent source of sustainable energy, being both efficient and non-polluting (unlike nuclear) but they have to go in places that have strong winds, which usually means near the coast or on hills. I have confidence that visitors will continue forever to come to the Jurassic Coast and I am conficent that the majority of them, on seeing the turbines will realise that, while they have the evidence of ages past under their feet, the turbines they will see from the cliffs are symbols of our future.[/p][/quote]So Green Man, you come on here ans spout your opinions, most of which the people who live in this area do not agree with as the story suggests. Will you be able to see it from your location, no thought not so keep your opinions to yourself !!! Redgolfer
  • Score: 2

9:36am Thu 3 Jul 14

Edna Cheese (Mrs) says...

Obviously it's going to be the opponents who protest here. The great majority are not that bothered and realise that 12 miles offshore it's not going to have a huge impact, except as something your kids can spot on a clear day. I think there is a lot of development closer to home thats more of an eyesore than this'll ever be.
Obviously it's going to be the opponents who protest here. The great majority are not that bothered and realise that 12 miles offshore it's not going to have a huge impact, except as something your kids can spot on a clear day. I think there is a lot of development closer to home thats more of an eyesore than this'll ever be. Edna Cheese (Mrs)
  • Score: 0

10:04am Thu 3 Jul 14

wadjit says...

Please do not change the sky line, its the only thing we haven't wrecked. I don't even want to see this as a speck in the distance on a clear day. I just want to look at something that the human race hasn't touched with its industry and construction. It seems to be just me who thinks this, so, oh well, carry on and ruin the sea as well as the land.
Please do not change the sky line, its the only thing we haven't wrecked. I don't even want to see this as a speck in the distance on a clear day. I just want to look at something that the human race hasn't touched with its industry and construction. It seems to be just me who thinks this, so, oh well, carry on and ruin the sea as well as the land. wadjit
  • Score: 15

10:29am Thu 3 Jul 14

muscliffman says...

We have been 'frackng' without incident under the UK for donkey's years - including locally at Wytch Farm. It's only the name of the process and all the fabricated 'green' hysteria about it that are new.

However I do sense that the 'Navitus' project tipping point has been passed and it is now unlikely that it will ever be built. So let's invest those energy subsidies in something that actually works properly - and is UK controlled and owned!
We have been 'frackng' without incident under the UK for donkey's years - including locally at Wytch Farm. It's only the name of the process and all the fabricated 'green' hysteria about it that are new. However I do sense that the 'Navitus' project tipping point has been passed and it is now unlikely that it will ever be built. So let's invest those energy subsidies in something that actually works properly - and is UK controlled and owned! muscliffman
  • Score: 10

10:43am Thu 3 Jul 14

nobodyexpectedthat says...

Bearing in mind that this proposed development has been considered by Dorset County Council, Purbeck Council, Bournemouth & Poole Councils, East Dorset Council, Isle of Wight (Hants) and perhaps others on behalf of their residents, if you add up the populations in those areas you would be looking at a figure around 1m people.

2700 representations, including duplicates from some, plus others for Navitus Bay....means that this sample is not representative of the views of local people. Indeed we all know that the NIMBYs and antis are more vocal and inclined to 'complain' so please dont let the Echo sway you to believe that the vast majority are against this wind farm based on this 'evidence'.

I wonder if we were to ask all these people how they would feel if electricity in the future had to be rationed because we dont have a balanced, sustainable, domestic power generation capability, what they would say then?

We know oil is not the answer, we know fracking and gas is even more controversial and most dont know, but they should, that nuclear is far more expensive than we realise - due to massive waste storage and decommissioning costs - which are NOT included in the KWH cost of electricity from this source.

As some one else on here has already said, wind power is part of our future and should be embraced to help protect our environment, and our way of life and to help deliver power security for the UK.
Bearing in mind that this proposed development has been considered by Dorset County Council, Purbeck Council, Bournemouth & Poole Councils, East Dorset Council, Isle of Wight (Hants) and perhaps others on behalf of their residents, if you add up the populations in those areas you would be looking at a figure around 1m people. 2700 representations, including duplicates from some, plus others for Navitus Bay....means that this sample is not representative of the views of local people. Indeed we all know that the NIMBYs and antis are more vocal and inclined to 'complain' so please dont let the Echo sway you to believe that the vast majority are against this wind farm based on this 'evidence'. I wonder if we were to ask all these people how they would feel if electricity in the future had to be rationed because we dont have a balanced, sustainable, domestic power generation capability, what they would say then? We know oil is not the answer, we know fracking and gas is even more controversial and most dont know, but they should, that nuclear is far more expensive than we realise - due to massive waste storage and decommissioning costs - which are NOT included in the KWH cost of electricity from this source. As some one else on here has already said, wind power is part of our future and should be embraced to help protect our environment, and our way of life and to help deliver power security for the UK. nobodyexpectedthat
  • Score: -10

11:03am Thu 3 Jul 14

Hessenford says...

Ivy wrote:
Marty Caine UKIP wrote:
Moro99 wrote:
Frack our Jurassic coast, we don't mind that . So long as our precious hearing is protected from the windmills ten miles away.
You do know that Wytch Farm has been Fracking under our jurassic coast for over 20 years without any problems whatsoever?

Fracking & Nuclear is the way forward to ensure we become self sustainable in our energy needs. Not an unreliable wind farm owned by the Dutch and French.
Absolute rubbish, the type of fracking now being proposed has never been carried out in Dorset or anywhere else is England so get your facts right!
If it's never been carried out how do we know its dangerous, if it's never been carried out it's about time we tried it.
[quote][p][bold]Ivy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Marty Caine UKIP[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Moro99[/bold] wrote: Frack our Jurassic coast, we don't mind that . So long as our precious hearing is protected from the windmills ten miles away.[/p][/quote]You do know that Wytch Farm has been Fracking under our jurassic coast for over 20 years without any problems whatsoever? Fracking & Nuclear is the way forward to ensure we become self sustainable in our energy needs. Not an unreliable wind farm owned by the Dutch and French.[/p][/quote]Absolute rubbish, the type of fracking now being proposed has never been carried out in Dorset or anywhere else is England so get your facts right![/p][/quote]If it's never been carried out how do we know its dangerous, if it's never been carried out it's about time we tried it. Hessenford
  • Score: 4

11:07am Thu 3 Jul 14

Hessenford says...

Edna Cheese (Mrs) wrote:
Obviously it's going to be the opponents who protest here. The great majority are not that bothered and realise that 12 miles offshore it's not going to have a huge impact, except as something your kids can spot on a clear day. I think there is a lot of development closer to home thats more of an eyesore than this'll ever be.
The impact will come from your wallet or purse when you have to pay through the nose for these things to be manufactured and built, and you will be paying way before these windmills generate one kilowatt of electricity, you will also be paying through the nose to keep some high flying pen pusher in luxury for the rest of his life.
[quote][p][bold]Edna Cheese (Mrs)[/bold] wrote: Obviously it's going to be the opponents who protest here. The great majority are not that bothered and realise that 12 miles offshore it's not going to have a huge impact, except as something your kids can spot on a clear day. I think there is a lot of development closer to home thats more of an eyesore than this'll ever be.[/p][/quote]The impact will come from your wallet or purse when you have to pay through the nose for these things to be manufactured and built, and you will be paying way before these windmills generate one kilowatt of electricity, you will also be paying through the nose to keep some high flying pen pusher in luxury for the rest of his life. Hessenford
  • Score: 13

11:08am Thu 3 Jul 14

wadjit says...

Nuclear and tidal = the way forward
Nuclear and tidal = the way forward wadjit
  • Score: 16

12:06pm Thu 3 Jul 14

BarrHumbug says...

“There are many other locations where a wind farm could be located – why destroy a local tourist economy to make way for this one?”

Thats NIMBY'ism if ever I saw it? I just think its such a shame that all the rejections are based on nimby arguments and no one has brought up the issue of cost and subsidies and the fact that these things will increase our energy bills/taxes and not reduce them or make us any less reliant on foreign energy of which this project is yet another one?
“There are many other locations where a wind farm could be located – why destroy a local tourist economy to make way for this one?” Thats NIMBY'ism if ever I saw it? I just think its such a shame that all the rejections are based on nimby arguments and no one has brought up the issue of cost and subsidies and the fact that these things will increase our energy bills/taxes and not reduce them or make us any less reliant on foreign energy of which this project is yet another one? BarrHumbug
  • Score: -5

12:37pm Thu 3 Jul 14

Hessenford says...

BarrHumbug wrote:
“There are many other locations where a wind farm could be located – why destroy a local tourist economy to make way for this one?”

Thats NIMBY'ism if ever I saw it? I just think its such a shame that all the rejections are based on nimby arguments and no one has brought up the issue of cost and subsidies and the fact that these things will increase our energy bills/taxes and not reduce them or make us any less reliant on foreign energy of which this project is yet another one?
I think that's been said in all the previous stories on this subject.
[quote][p][bold]BarrHumbug[/bold] wrote: “There are many other locations where a wind farm could be located – why destroy a local tourist economy to make way for this one?” Thats NIMBY'ism if ever I saw it? I just think its such a shame that all the rejections are based on nimby arguments and no one has brought up the issue of cost and subsidies and the fact that these things will increase our energy bills/taxes and not reduce them or make us any less reliant on foreign energy of which this project is yet another one?[/p][/quote]I think that's been said in all the previous stories on this subject. Hessenford
  • Score: 6

1:12pm Thu 3 Jul 14

Baysider says...

Well I did point out that my objections are based on much more than aesthetics but ad usual those in favour ignore the discussion around turbine efficiency, loading, short and long term costs, environmental impact, impact on the local economy, etc, etc. The proponents prefer instead to close down these discussions and label anyone who might raise them as a Nimby as that's much firmer ground for them. Sad really that we in the UK are being driven down this route when, with some of the biggest tidal ranges in the world surrounding us, we could have become a world leader in tidal power. That won't happen when there's a quick buck and political capital to be made from pushing through inefficient wind turbine estates like this one.
Well I did point out that my objections are based on much more than aesthetics but ad usual those in favour ignore the discussion around turbine efficiency, loading, short and long term costs, environmental impact, impact on the local economy, etc, etc. The proponents prefer instead to close down these discussions and label anyone who might raise them as a Nimby as that's much firmer ground for them. Sad really that we in the UK are being driven down this route when, with some of the biggest tidal ranges in the world surrounding us, we could have become a world leader in tidal power. That won't happen when there's a quick buck and political capital to be made from pushing through inefficient wind turbine estates like this one. Baysider
  • Score: 10

1:12pm Thu 3 Jul 14

Baysider says...

Well I did point out that my objections are based on much more than aesthetics but as usual those in favour ignore the discussion around turbine efficiency, loading, short and long term costs, environmental impact, impact on the local economy, etc, etc. The proponents prefer instead to close down these discussions and label anyone who might raise them as a Nimby as that's much firmer ground for them. Sad really that we in the UK are being driven down this route when, with some of the biggest tidal ranges in the world surrounding us, we could have become a world leader in tidal power. That won't happen when there's a quick buck and political capital to be made from pushing through inefficient wind turbine estates like this one.
Well I did point out that my objections are based on much more than aesthetics but as usual those in favour ignore the discussion around turbine efficiency, loading, short and long term costs, environmental impact, impact on the local economy, etc, etc. The proponents prefer instead to close down these discussions and label anyone who might raise them as a Nimby as that's much firmer ground for them. Sad really that we in the UK are being driven down this route when, with some of the biggest tidal ranges in the world surrounding us, we could have become a world leader in tidal power. That won't happen when there's a quick buck and political capital to be made from pushing through inefficient wind turbine estates like this one. Baysider
  • Score: 6

1:53pm Thu 3 Jul 14

muscliffman says...

Baysider wrote:
Well I did point out that my objections are based on much more than aesthetics but ad usual those in favour ignore the discussion around turbine efficiency, loading, short and long term costs, environmental impact, impact on the local economy, etc, etc. The proponents prefer instead to close down these discussions and label anyone who might raise them as a Nimby as that's much firmer ground for them. Sad really that we in the UK are being driven down this route when, with some of the biggest tidal ranges in the world surrounding us, we could have become a world leader in tidal power. That won't happen when there's a quick buck and political capital to be made from pushing through inefficient wind turbine estates like this one.
How refreshing I completely agree, in fact I could easily have written that!

In respect of tidal power of course we also have an unusual but sadly unharnessed two tides a day in our bay - and not just when the wind happens to be blowing.
[quote][p][bold]Baysider[/bold] wrote: Well I did point out that my objections are based on much more than aesthetics but ad usual those in favour ignore the discussion around turbine efficiency, loading, short and long term costs, environmental impact, impact on the local economy, etc, etc. The proponents prefer instead to close down these discussions and label anyone who might raise them as a Nimby as that's much firmer ground for them. Sad really that we in the UK are being driven down this route when, with some of the biggest tidal ranges in the world surrounding us, we could have become a world leader in tidal power. That won't happen when there's a quick buck and political capital to be made from pushing through inefficient wind turbine estates like this one.[/p][/quote]How refreshing I completely agree, in fact I could easily have written that! In respect of tidal power of course we also have an unusual but sadly unharnessed two tides a day in our bay - and not just when the wind happens to be blowing. muscliffman
  • Score: 12

2:10pm Thu 3 Jul 14

dartguru says...

You have to love the ambiguity and inaccuracy of statistics.
"THE vast majority of the thousands of people who have registered to have their say on the Navitus Bay wind farm are opposing the plans".

Yes, well, I guess 2,700 can just about be considered to be thousands (plural).

How many, as a percentage of the people would COULD have registered, is that then? The total population of the conurbation of Poole, Bournemouth and Christchurch (ignoring those further afield whose view will be blighted by this horrible eyesore) is about 400,000, in around 150,000 households (which means somewhere in the region of 250,000 potential voters.

So what we are really saying here (even assuming that the 2,700 are individuals which they are not) that probably only 1% of people registered their opinion, of which "the vast majority" were against, which is hardly a surprise.

Therefore it is fair to assume that 99% of voters were apathetic enough for one reason or another not to bother.

It's hardly an overwhelming voted against the plans though, is it, really ?
You have to love the ambiguity and inaccuracy of statistics. "THE vast majority of the thousands of people who have registered to have their say on the Navitus Bay wind farm are opposing the plans". Yes, well, I guess 2,700 can just about be considered to be thousands (plural). How many, as a percentage of the people would COULD have registered, is that then? The total population of the conurbation of Poole, Bournemouth and Christchurch (ignoring those further afield whose view will be blighted by this horrible eyesore) is about 400,000, in around 150,000 households (which means somewhere in the region of 250,000 potential voters. So what we are really saying here (even assuming that the 2,700 are individuals which they are not) that probably only 1% of people registered their opinion, of which "the vast majority" were against, which is hardly a surprise. Therefore it is fair to assume that 99% of voters were apathetic enough for one reason or another not to bother. It's hardly an overwhelming voted against the plans though, is it, really ? dartguru
  • Score: 2

2:30pm Thu 3 Jul 14

wadjit says...

Baysider wrote:
Well I did point out that my objections are based on much more than aesthetics but as usual those in favour ignore the discussion around turbine efficiency, loading, short and long term costs, environmental impact, impact on the local economy, etc, etc. The proponents prefer instead to close down these discussions and label anyone who might raise them as a Nimby as that's much firmer ground for them. Sad really that we in the UK are being driven down this route when, with some of the biggest tidal ranges in the world surrounding us, we could have become a world leader in tidal power. That won't happen when there's a quick buck and political capital to be made from pushing through inefficient wind turbine estates like this one.
Absolutely right. Well said.
[quote][p][bold]Baysider[/bold] wrote: Well I did point out that my objections are based on much more than aesthetics but as usual those in favour ignore the discussion around turbine efficiency, loading, short and long term costs, environmental impact, impact on the local economy, etc, etc. The proponents prefer instead to close down these discussions and label anyone who might raise them as a Nimby as that's much firmer ground for them. Sad really that we in the UK are being driven down this route when, with some of the biggest tidal ranges in the world surrounding us, we could have become a world leader in tidal power. That won't happen when there's a quick buck and political capital to be made from pushing through inefficient wind turbine estates like this one.[/p][/quote]Absolutely right. Well said. wadjit
  • Score: 10

3:00pm Thu 3 Jul 14

Nat1234 says...

I would feel safer. From a terrorist atack on a wind farm. Than a terrorist atack on a nuclear power station. Before anyone slates me. It is a big threat. Just read the papers..
I would feel safer. From a terrorist atack on a wind farm. Than a terrorist atack on a nuclear power station. Before anyone slates me. It is a big threat. Just read the papers.. Nat1234
  • Score: -7

4:01pm Thu 3 Jul 14

warehamguy says...

These anti wind farm protestors need to get a grip.

We need them. They look great. They won't harm tourism.
These anti wind farm protestors need to get a grip. We need them. They look great. They won't harm tourism. warehamguy
  • Score: -6

4:48pm Thu 3 Jul 14

rubberbandman5 says...

Nice to see the climate alarmists crying in their beer. Now they will have to campaign over something else. How about the making of tin backsides for teddy bears.
Nice to see the climate alarmists crying in their beer. Now they will have to campaign over something else. How about the making of tin backsides for teddy bears. rubberbandman5
  • Score: 0

5:08pm Thu 3 Jul 14

Wolfstan says...

Does anybody have any idea on how much the government pays to help subsidies the wind farms?

Question for those who know how the technology works. Would using the money spent on subsidising the wind farm be better spent on putting solar panels on homes and businesses? Is this a more efficient energy creating technology than wind farms? Obviously I could be wrong but isn't daylight going to be more reliable than wind?

Jobs wise aren't you exchanging wind turbine jobs for solar panel jobs, with more jobs being made in the fitting industry? Or am I missing something here?
Does anybody have any idea on how much the government pays to help subsidies the wind farms? Question for those who know how the technology works. Would using the money spent on subsidising the wind farm be better spent on putting solar panels on homes and businesses? Is this a more efficient energy creating technology than wind farms? Obviously I could be wrong but isn't daylight going to be more reliable than wind? Jobs wise aren't you exchanging wind turbine jobs for solar panel jobs, with more jobs being made in the fitting industry? Or am I missing something here? Wolfstan
  • Score: 2

6:26pm Thu 3 Jul 14

Ophilum says...

Once again we do not need this expensive kind of generation it is not sustainable as it is set up, it needs to much subsidy money, It is not constant power and needs a bloody great subsidy of our money for which as the green lefty crewe know is the case, we need a gas or nuclear station not this con. The gas coming from fracking.
Once again we do not need this expensive kind of generation it is not sustainable as it is set up, it needs to much subsidy money, It is not constant power and needs a bloody great subsidy of our money for which as the green lefty crewe know is the case, we need a gas or nuclear station not this con. The gas coming from fracking. Ophilum
  • Score: 3

8:05pm Thu 3 Jul 14

Actualbournemouthsupporter says...

Nimby nimby nimby- what about us young people who are probably going to see the oil running out? I for one want this to go ahead all around the uk along with other renewable and sustainable energy resources. It's all well and good saying it will spoil the view from your retirement homes but you're the ones who've caused this problem for us to deal with!!
Nimby nimby nimby- what about us young people who are probably going to see the oil running out? I for one want this to go ahead all around the uk along with other renewable and sustainable energy resources. It's all well and good saying it will spoil the view from your retirement homes but you're the ones who've caused this problem for us to deal with!! Actualbournemouthsupporter
  • Score: -6

10:38pm Thu 3 Jul 14

muscliffman says...

Actualbournemouthsup
porter
wrote:
Nimby nimby nimby- what about us young people who are probably going to see the oil running out? I for one want this to go ahead all around the uk along with other renewable and sustainable energy resources. It's all well and good saying it will spoil the view from your retirement homes but you're the ones who've caused this problem for us to deal with!!
But it's not the nimby's who are providing the soundest arguments against this wind farm. If it worked efficiently, provided reliable inexpensive electricity and solved a genuine environmental problem many of us would welcome it right where they propose putting it just off the coast. But this wind farm will actually achieve none of that, hence the huge publicly funded subsidies supported by increasingly dodgy 'green' arguments that you younger folk will be paying into it for many, many years.

Anyway, who says fossil fuels (including oil) are really running out? The 'experts' told my generation that one every time they put the prices up twenty years ago, this same money driven scam is just being played a little differently nowadays. In fact geologists have just confirmed huge reserves of coal, gas and oil sitting right under the UK, more than enough to keep us going independently for hundreds of years even without any nuclear generation.

We have plenty of time to explore new sensible energy technologies (such as tidal power) whilst retaining and refining some of the efficient inexpensive older ones. So let's not go down a ridiculous blind 'wind farm' alley driven only by 'quick buck' capitalist profit motives and held together by a lot of dubious 'green' spin!
[quote][p][bold]Actualbournemouthsup porter[/bold] wrote: Nimby nimby nimby- what about us young people who are probably going to see the oil running out? I for one want this to go ahead all around the uk along with other renewable and sustainable energy resources. It's all well and good saying it will spoil the view from your retirement homes but you're the ones who've caused this problem for us to deal with!![/p][/quote]But it's not the nimby's who are providing the soundest arguments against this wind farm. If it worked efficiently, provided reliable inexpensive electricity and solved a genuine environmental problem many of us would welcome it right where they propose putting it just off the coast. But this wind farm will actually achieve none of that, hence the huge publicly funded subsidies supported by increasingly dodgy 'green' arguments that you younger folk will be paying into it for many, many years. Anyway, who says fossil fuels (including oil) are really running out? The 'experts' told my generation that one every time they put the prices up twenty years ago, this same money driven scam is just being played a little differently nowadays. In fact geologists have just confirmed huge reserves of coal, gas and oil sitting right under the UK, more than enough to keep us going independently for hundreds of years even without any nuclear generation. We have plenty of time to explore new sensible energy technologies (such as tidal power) whilst retaining and refining some of the efficient inexpensive older ones. So let's not go down a ridiculous blind 'wind farm' alley driven only by 'quick buck' capitalist profit motives and held together by a lot of dubious 'green' spin! muscliffman
  • Score: 4

7:31am Fri 4 Jul 14

BCDbusint2014 says...

AIR RAMS or SEAWATER RAMS in the cliffs could do it better.. steam or compressed air driven.. they drivingly force air or water compressively and acceleratively through a momentum flywheeled turbine.. like the effluent and drainage water purification and electricty supply systems do.. once rammed through the flywheeling momentum turbine generates enough electricity to dissociate the seawater into hydrogen and oxygen to explosively accelerate a high pressure microcapacity chambered ring drive generator to produce more electricity.. and you could build various BOREWELLS in the bay behind the railway by the holes bay road.. that could power 600,000 homes.. but rams locks are obviously cheaper more discrete and are more easy to design and test for output..
AIR RAMS or SEAWATER RAMS in the cliffs could do it better.. steam or compressed air driven.. they drivingly force air or water compressively and acceleratively through a momentum flywheeled turbine.. like the effluent and drainage water purification and electricty supply systems do.. once rammed through the flywheeling momentum turbine generates enough electricity to dissociate the seawater into hydrogen and oxygen to explosively accelerate a high pressure microcapacity chambered ring drive generator to produce more electricity.. and you could build various BOREWELLS in the bay behind the railway by the holes bay road.. that could power 600,000 homes.. but rams locks are obviously cheaper more discrete and are more easy to design and test for output.. BCDbusint2014
  • Score: 1

7:45am Fri 4 Jul 14

save energy says...

Ignoring - Aesthetics, NIMBYism, Tourism, Ecology, Politics & House prices…just look at some hard facts –

According to the wind industry (may 2014) , UK currently has 1,278 Windfarms comprising –
9,912 large turbines, + approx 18,000 small turbines,
Total Capacity = 23 GW
See - http://www.renewable
uk.com/en/renewable-
energy/wind-energy/u
k-wind-energy-databa
se/index.cfm/maplarg
e/1

• • Even with all that capacity wind has only provided a measly 7% in the last 9 mths
See- http://www.ukpowerge
neration.info/

• • As I write this UK wind is contributing just 1 GW a mere 2% to our grid demand !! (we are importing 5 x more than that from France & Holland) & is operating at just 4% of its 23 GW capacity !!...better than the last 2 mths !! - Look here - http://www.gridwatch
.templar.co.uk/

• • Weather systems can be huge, Europe has had high pressure dominating for weeks, so sod all wind power from Ireland to Poland, Italy to Scotland.

• • See the current production from your local RWE windfarm - http://www.rwe.com/w
eb/cms/en/206488/rwe
-innogy/sites/produc
tion-data-live/rwe-r
enewable-energy-live
/
Notes: 1. A minus fig indicates them taking power from grid to rotate blades.
2. Capacity in MW but output is in kW, so divide output by 1,000 to compare.
3 . It’s a manual reset.

• • And this is how much EXTRA we pay per mth for low density intermittent ‘green’ energy - http://www.variablep
itch.co.uk/finance/ & yes the figs are £millions/mth.


• Do you really think that’s a sensible way to use precious resources ??

I won’t even start on the community benefits ‘Ponzi scam’. (Google it )

• • Lots more info from-
Department of Energy & Climate Change ( DECC ) & Grid figs
( Digest of United Kingdom Energy Statistics ( DUKES)
http://tinyurl.com/n
4k7n8 ) - that proves this ‘green policy’ has compromised our energy security.

But, Ed (di*khead) Davey the UKs Energy and Climate Change Secretary, has cunning plans to keep the lights on…
1. Pay industry to stop work - http://www.bbc.co.uk
/news/uk-politics-26
819050

2. Big dirty diesels to backup his ‘green clean’ wind & solar –
Short Term Operating Reserve STOR. - http://tallbloke.wor
dpress.com/2014/06/1
1/the-insane-cost-of
-ed-daveys-green-ene
rgy-policy/

How mad is that ???

It is a very dangerous world, when money & politics, trump science & engineering facts.
Ignoring - Aesthetics, NIMBYism, Tourism, Ecology, Politics & House prices…just look at some hard facts – According to the wind industry (may 2014) , UK currently has 1,278 Windfarms comprising – 9,912 large turbines, + approx 18,000 small turbines, Total Capacity = 23 GW See - http://www.renewable uk.com/en/renewable- energy/wind-energy/u k-wind-energy-databa se/index.cfm/maplarg e/1 • • Even with all that capacity wind has only provided a measly 7% in the last 9 mths See- http://www.ukpowerge neration.info/ • • As I write this UK wind is contributing just 1 GW a mere 2% to our grid demand !! (we are importing 5 x more than that from France & Holland) & is operating at just 4% of its 23 GW capacity !!...better than the last 2 mths !! - Look here - http://www.gridwatch .templar.co.uk/ • • Weather systems can be huge, Europe has had high pressure dominating for weeks, so sod all wind power from Ireland to Poland, Italy to Scotland. • • See the current production from your local RWE windfarm - http://www.rwe.com/w eb/cms/en/206488/rwe -innogy/sites/produc tion-data-live/rwe-r enewable-energy-live / Notes: 1. A minus fig indicates them taking power from grid to rotate blades. 2. Capacity in MW but output is in kW, so divide output by 1,000 to compare. 3 . It’s a manual reset. • • And this is how much EXTRA we pay per mth for low density intermittent ‘green’ energy - http://www.variablep itch.co.uk/finance/ & yes the figs are £millions/mth. • Do you really think that’s a sensible way to use precious resources ?? I won’t even start on the community benefits ‘Ponzi scam’. (Google it ) • • Lots more info from- Department of Energy & Climate Change ( DECC ) & Grid figs ( Digest of United Kingdom Energy Statistics ( DUKES) http://tinyurl.com/n 4k7n8 ) - that proves this ‘green policy’ has compromised our energy security. But, Ed (di*khead) Davey the UKs Energy and Climate Change Secretary, has cunning plans to keep the lights on… 1. Pay industry to stop work - http://www.bbc.co.uk /news/uk-politics-26 819050 2. Big dirty diesels to backup his ‘green clean’ wind & solar – Short Term Operating Reserve STOR. - http://tallbloke.wor dpress.com/2014/06/1 1/the-insane-cost-of -ed-daveys-green-ene rgy-policy/ How mad is that ??? It is a very dangerous world, when money & politics, trump science & engineering facts. save energy
  • Score: 4

9:44am Fri 4 Jul 14

TheDistrict says...

I do wish the anti windfarm brigade and the Nimbys would stop their hyping on about the proposed windfarm. Then again, stand them out in the channel, they could probably project more wind than any windfarm.

It will NOT effect tourism.
It will NOT be a blot on our bays
It is efficient
It will not be seen as depicted by most of the anti brigade.

Think of the distance from our shores, and you are lying or sitting on that shore. That distance at your height, will probably show the tips of the blades or towers. And only on good clear days, which we do not get many of.

There are not a danger to navigation, fishlife, birdlife, or any other life. In fact the anti brigade will probably cause more problems with their oil burning, nuclear power with all the waste and disposal of the same.

I am anti anti brigade of the Navitus Bay project.
I do wish the anti windfarm brigade and the Nimbys would stop their hyping on about the proposed windfarm. Then again, stand them out in the channel, they could probably project more wind than any windfarm. It will NOT effect tourism. It will NOT be a blot on our bays It is efficient It will not be seen as depicted by most of the anti brigade. Think of the distance from our shores, and you are lying or sitting on that shore. That distance at your height, will probably show the tips of the blades or towers. And only on good clear days, which we do not get many of. There are not a danger to navigation, fishlife, birdlife, or any other life. In fact the anti brigade will probably cause more problems with their oil burning, nuclear power with all the waste and disposal of the same. I am anti anti brigade of the Navitus Bay project. TheDistrict
  • Score: -8

3:33pm Fri 4 Jul 14

save energy says...

See the current production from your local RWE windfarm -

Sorry this link not working now - (http://www.rwe.com/
web/cms/en/206488/rw
e-innogy/sites/produ
ction-data-live/rwe-
renewable-energy-liv
e/ )

Try this one -
http://standortkarte
.oroe.info/index2.ht
ml?lang=en
See the current production from your local RWE windfarm - Sorry this link not working now - (http://www.rwe.com/ web/cms/en/206488/rw e-innogy/sites/produ ction-data-live/rwe- renewable-energy-liv e/ ) Try this one - http://standortkarte .oroe.info/index2.ht ml?lang=en save energy
  • Score: -1

7:59pm Fri 4 Jul 14

rubberbandman5 says...

Save energy talks a load of rubbish. Face the facts man, you are in the minority and no one now believes a word the greens have to say. Even your own web sites argue with each other over the facts on climate change and renewable energy, they simply don't have a clue, what makes you think that you know better.
I would like to call wind turbine fanatics criminal, but even criminals have the sense to get together and agree on what it is they are going to say - before saying it?
Save energy talks a load of rubbish. Face the facts man, you are in the minority and no one now believes a word the greens have to say. Even your own web sites argue with each other over the facts on climate change and renewable energy, they simply don't have a clue, what makes you think that you know better. I would like to call wind turbine fanatics criminal, but even criminals have the sense to get together and agree on what it is they are going to say - before saying it? rubberbandman5
  • Score: 2

8:00pm Fri 4 Jul 14

rogerlu says...

Well that's the choice> UKIP refer to their precious hearing and support fracking. I lived in a colliery area for over 40 years and saw what subsidence did to housing, roads and other infrastructure. Fracking would probably have the same effect. Look at the map, the whole of Bournemouth Poole and Christchurch is likely to be fracked.On this issue UKIP talk nonsense. Alternative sources of clean energy are never mentioned; solar power from North Africa; and more importantly and from a politically stable area Geothermal power from Iceland. There is sufficient energy wasted in Iceland every day to power the whole of Europe, with no pollution at all! That is the route in the longer term
Well that's the choice> UKIP refer to their precious hearing and support fracking. I lived in a colliery area for over 40 years and saw what subsidence did to housing, roads and other infrastructure. Fracking would probably have the same effect. Look at the map, the whole of Bournemouth Poole and Christchurch is likely to be fracked.On this issue UKIP talk nonsense. Alternative sources of clean energy are never mentioned; solar power from North Africa; and more importantly and from a politically stable area Geothermal power from Iceland. There is sufficient energy wasted in Iceland every day to power the whole of Europe, with no pollution at all! That is the route in the longer term rogerlu
  • Score: 0

2:34am Sun 6 Jul 14

mooninpisces says...

Jeff in Parkstone wrote:
I don't see how from the Planning Portal The Echo can be so sure that the overwhelming majority are against Navitus ?

I see on the web-site 6 pages of representations with 500 per page - so that is at least 2,500 representatons.

I don't know if Echo has access to breakdown of the representations into "for" and "against" which we the public don't have and if they don't I don't see how they have come up with "overwhelming majoirty" against ?

That infor is not as far as I can see in the Planning Portal.

Also to be noted I see two ever three names which I know are from same residence or family so I do wonder how many familes and groups are ramping up the "apparent" oppostion far higher then it is.

Also to note are those who take qualified views - in support with reservations pending more information, or opposing but interested enough to engage with more discussion.

No-one is saying there is not strong opposition but what I see is a great deal of this is very personal from those with homes with sea views or near sea views - not "views" that then are of a mind to take note of the larger public interest - the whole public debate can we afford not to take on off-shore wind farms including off Dorset coast and as a matter of urgency ....

Jeff Williams
Scanning the representations it does seem that most are against Navitus Bay, even though the numbers are considerably inflated by many which are repeated, word-for-word, under a number of different names. You don't need to read many of them before a distinct pattern emerges - those against seem overwhelmingly concerned with how their immediate comfort might be impacted, while supporters tend to focus more on the long-term future of life on our planet.
[quote][p][bold]Jeff in Parkstone[/bold] wrote: I don't see how from the Planning Portal The Echo can be so sure that the overwhelming majority are against Navitus ? I see on the web-site 6 pages of representations with 500 per page - so that is at least 2,500 representatons. I don't know if Echo has access to breakdown of the representations into "for" and "against" which we the public don't have and if they don't I don't see how they have come up with "overwhelming majoirty" against ? That infor is not as far as I can see in the Planning Portal. Also to be noted I see two ever three names which I know are from same residence or family so I do wonder how many familes and groups are ramping up the "apparent" oppostion far higher then it is. Also to note are those who take qualified views - in support with reservations pending more information, or opposing but interested enough to engage with more discussion. No-one is saying there is not strong opposition but what I see is a great deal of this is very personal from those with homes with sea views or near sea views - not "views" that then are of a mind to take note of the larger public interest - the whole public debate can we afford not to take on off-shore wind farms including off Dorset coast and as a matter of urgency .... Jeff Williams[/p][/quote]Scanning the representations it does seem that most are against Navitus Bay, even though the numbers are considerably inflated by many which are repeated, word-for-word, under a number of different names. You don't need to read many of them before a distinct pattern emerges - those against seem overwhelmingly concerned with how their immediate comfort might be impacted, while supporters tend to focus more on the long-term future of life on our planet. mooninpisces
  • Score: -1

10:32am Wed 9 Jul 14

BacktoLife says...

Ha ha, the comments from Angela Pooley really made me chuckle. The irony! I'm afraid it's you who's misguided, Angela. Your opinion is just the sort of robotic, knee-jerk reaction that clouds sensible judgement on these types of issue and gives groups like Friends of the Earth a bad name. I don't think that anyone doubts that we need alternative, renewable energy - that goes without saying. I love the earth just as much as you do, Angela. The issue with this Navitus Bay proposal is that there are other sites identified as possible offshore windfarm sites, which are MUCH further out to sea (eg. the site identified but discounted in the middle of the North Sea - were you aware of that?) and will not have the negative impact that this one will. So, before you jump in accusing people of nimby-ism, just step back and have a think........if plonking a massive windfarm in one of the most iconic and beautiful areas of the UK coast was the only option, then OF COURSE we would all support it. But, there are much better alternative sites that haven't been considered, presumably because it would cost the FOREIGN companies involved in Navitus Bay more money and therefore eat into their potential multi-million pound bonuses. To say Angela Pooley's comments are naive is an understatement. Oh, and by the way, to everyone saying that the windfarm will be "barely visible" (eg. Christine Hanny, quoted in the above article): this is incorrect, I'm afraid. Have a look at the Challenge Navitus website and see the video simulations of the turbines from different areas of the coast - it is horrendous.
Ha ha, the comments from Angela Pooley really made me chuckle. The irony! I'm afraid it's you who's misguided, Angela. Your opinion is just the sort of robotic, knee-jerk reaction that clouds sensible judgement on these types of issue and gives groups like Friends of the Earth a bad name. I don't think that anyone doubts that we need alternative, renewable energy - that goes without saying. I love the earth just as much as you do, Angela. The issue with this Navitus Bay proposal is that there are other sites identified as possible offshore windfarm sites, which are MUCH further out to sea (eg. the site identified but discounted in the middle of the North Sea - were you aware of that?) and will not have the negative impact that this one will. So, before you jump in accusing people of nimby-ism, just step back and have a think........if plonking a massive windfarm in one of the most iconic and beautiful areas of the UK coast was the only option, then OF COURSE we would all support it. But, there are much better alternative sites that haven't been considered, presumably because it would cost the FOREIGN companies involved in Navitus Bay more money and therefore eat into their potential multi-million pound bonuses. To say Angela Pooley's comments are naive is an understatement. Oh, and by the way, to everyone saying that the windfarm will be "barely visible" (eg. Christine Hanny, quoted in the above article): this is incorrect, I'm afraid. Have a look at the Challenge Navitus website and see the video simulations of the turbines from different areas of the coast - it is horrendous. BacktoLife
  • Score: 1

10:35am Wed 9 Jul 14

BacktoLife says...

TheDistrict wrote:
I do wish the anti windfarm brigade and the Nimbys would stop their hyping on about the proposed windfarm. Then again, stand them out in the channel, they could probably project more wind than any windfarm.

It will NOT effect tourism.
It will NOT be a blot on our bays
It is efficient
It will not be seen as depicted by most of the anti brigade.

Think of the distance from our shores, and you are lying or sitting on that shore. That distance at your height, will probably show the tips of the blades or towers. And only on good clear days, which we do not get many of.

There are not a danger to navigation, fishlife, birdlife, or any other life. In fact the anti brigade will probably cause more problems with their oil burning, nuclear power with all the waste and disposal of the same.

I am anti anti brigade of the Navitus Bay project.
What is your information based on? According to Challenge Navitus (the opposition group), the turbines will be VERY visisble.
[quote][p][bold]TheDistrict[/bold] wrote: I do wish the anti windfarm brigade and the Nimbys would stop their hyping on about the proposed windfarm. Then again, stand them out in the channel, they could probably project more wind than any windfarm. It will NOT effect tourism. It will NOT be a blot on our bays It is efficient It will not be seen as depicted by most of the anti brigade. Think of the distance from our shores, and you are lying or sitting on that shore. That distance at your height, will probably show the tips of the blades or towers. And only on good clear days, which we do not get many of. There are not a danger to navigation, fishlife, birdlife, or any other life. In fact the anti brigade will probably cause more problems with their oil burning, nuclear power with all the waste and disposal of the same. I am anti anti brigade of the Navitus Bay project.[/p][/quote]What is your information based on? According to Challenge Navitus (the opposition group), the turbines will be VERY visisble. BacktoLife
  • Score: 0

10:39am Wed 9 Jul 14

BacktoLife says...

Jeff in Parkstone wrote:
I don't see how from the Planning Portal The Echo can be so sure that the overwhelming majority are against Navitus ?

I see on the web-site 6 pages of representations with 500 per page - so that is at least 2,500 representatons.

I don't know if Echo has access to breakdown of the representations into "for" and "against" which we the public don't have and if they don't I don't see how they have come up with "overwhelming majoirty" against ?

That infor is not as far as I can see in the Planning Portal.

Also to be noted I see two ever three names which I know are from same residence or family so I do wonder how many familes and groups are ramping up the "apparent" oppostion far higher then it is.

Also to note are those who take qualified views - in support with reservations pending more information, or opposing but interested enough to engage with more discussion.

No-one is saying there is not strong opposition but what I see is a great deal of this is very personal from those with homes with sea views or near sea views - not "views" that then are of a mind to take note of the larger public interest - the whole public debate can we afford not to take on off-shore wind farms including off Dorset coast and as a matter of urgency ....

Jeff Williams
Jeff - it's perfectly legitimate for more than 1 person in a household to express their views. My husband and I are both against the windfarm and so we count as 2 people - because we ARE 2 people! - not just 1. I did notice, however, that Angela Pooley from Friends of the Earth (quoted in the article above) has registered 2 opinions on the Navitus site!
[quote][p][bold]Jeff in Parkstone[/bold] wrote: I don't see how from the Planning Portal The Echo can be so sure that the overwhelming majority are against Navitus ? I see on the web-site 6 pages of representations with 500 per page - so that is at least 2,500 representatons. I don't know if Echo has access to breakdown of the representations into "for" and "against" which we the public don't have and if they don't I don't see how they have come up with "overwhelming majoirty" against ? That infor is not as far as I can see in the Planning Portal. Also to be noted I see two ever three names which I know are from same residence or family so I do wonder how many familes and groups are ramping up the "apparent" oppostion far higher then it is. Also to note are those who take qualified views - in support with reservations pending more information, or opposing but interested enough to engage with more discussion. No-one is saying there is not strong opposition but what I see is a great deal of this is very personal from those with homes with sea views or near sea views - not "views" that then are of a mind to take note of the larger public interest - the whole public debate can we afford not to take on off-shore wind farms including off Dorset coast and as a matter of urgency .... Jeff Williams[/p][/quote]Jeff - it's perfectly legitimate for more than 1 person in a household to express their views. My husband and I are both against the windfarm and so we count as 2 people - because we ARE 2 people! - not just 1. I did notice, however, that Angela Pooley from Friends of the Earth (quoted in the article above) has registered 2 opinions on the Navitus site! BacktoLife
  • Score: 0

10:40am Wed 9 Jul 14

BacktoLife says...

wadjit wrote:
Please do not change the sky line, its the only thing we haven't wrecked. I don't even want to see this as a speck in the distance on a clear day. I just want to look at something that the human race hasn't touched with its industry and construction. It seems to be just me who thinks this, so, oh well, carry on and ruin the sea as well as the land.
Exactly..... where will it end? Let's just build loads of man-made stuff everywhere, so soon we won't be able to see the horizon anywhere in the UK anymore. I couldn't agree more, wadjit.
[quote][p][bold]wadjit[/bold] wrote: Please do not change the sky line, its the only thing we haven't wrecked. I don't even want to see this as a speck in the distance on a clear day. I just want to look at something that the human race hasn't touched with its industry and construction. It seems to be just me who thinks this, so, oh well, carry on and ruin the sea as well as the land.[/p][/quote]Exactly..... where will it end? Let's just build loads of man-made stuff everywhere, so soon we won't be able to see the horizon anywhere in the UK anymore. I couldn't agree more, wadjit. BacktoLife
  • Score: 0

10:56am Wed 9 Jul 14

BacktoLife says...

Hessenford wrote:
Edna Cheese (Mrs) wrote:
Obviously it's going to be the opponents who protest here. The great majority are not that bothered and realise that 12 miles offshore it's not going to have a huge impact, except as something your kids can spot on a clear day. I think there is a lot of development closer to home thats more of an eyesore than this'll ever be.
The impact will come from your wallet or purse when you have to pay through the nose for these things to be manufactured and built, and you will be paying way before these windmills generate one kilowatt of electricity, you will also be paying through the nose to keep some high flying pen pusher in luxury for the rest of his life.
This is so true - the lefties don't consider this sort of thing. The views that "we must have green energy no matter what" is not a very sensible way to proceed. It may make the lefties feel content and happy, but it's not a properly considered strategy.
[quote][p][bold]Hessenford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Edna Cheese (Mrs)[/bold] wrote: Obviously it's going to be the opponents who protest here. The great majority are not that bothered and realise that 12 miles offshore it's not going to have a huge impact, except as something your kids can spot on a clear day. I think there is a lot of development closer to home thats more of an eyesore than this'll ever be.[/p][/quote]The impact will come from your wallet or purse when you have to pay through the nose for these things to be manufactured and built, and you will be paying way before these windmills generate one kilowatt of electricity, you will also be paying through the nose to keep some high flying pen pusher in luxury for the rest of his life.[/p][/quote]This is so true - the lefties don't consider this sort of thing. The views that "we must have green energy no matter what" is not a very sensible way to proceed. It may make the lefties feel content and happy, but it's not a properly considered strategy. BacktoLife
  • Score: 0

11:55am Wed 9 Jul 14

BacktoLife says...

wadjit wrote:
Baysider wrote:
Well I did point out that my objections are based on much more than aesthetics but as usual those in favour ignore the discussion around turbine efficiency, loading, short and long term costs, environmental impact, impact on the local economy, etc, etc. The proponents prefer instead to close down these discussions and label anyone who might raise them as a Nimby as that's much firmer ground for them. Sad really that we in the UK are being driven down this route when, with some of the biggest tidal ranges in the world surrounding us, we could have become a world leader in tidal power. That won't happen when there's a quick buck and political capital to be made from pushing through inefficient wind turbine estates like this one.
Absolutely right. Well said.
I agree - I really object to being called a nimby, just because I don't think we should ruin this precious coastline with something that may not be efficient and will no doubt make lots of money for the Dutch and French companies involved. It is an easier option for proponents to just call us nimbys than it is for them to learn the full details and issues about the proposed windfarm.
[quote][p][bold]wadjit[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Baysider[/bold] wrote: Well I did point out that my objections are based on much more than aesthetics but as usual those in favour ignore the discussion around turbine efficiency, loading, short and long term costs, environmental impact, impact on the local economy, etc, etc. The proponents prefer instead to close down these discussions and label anyone who might raise them as a Nimby as that's much firmer ground for them. Sad really that we in the UK are being driven down this route when, with some of the biggest tidal ranges in the world surrounding us, we could have become a world leader in tidal power. That won't happen when there's a quick buck and political capital to be made from pushing through inefficient wind turbine estates like this one.[/p][/quote]Absolutely right. Well said.[/p][/quote]I agree - I really object to being called a nimby, just because I don't think we should ruin this precious coastline with something that may not be efficient and will no doubt make lots of money for the Dutch and French companies involved. It is an easier option for proponents to just call us nimbys than it is for them to learn the full details and issues about the proposed windfarm. BacktoLife
  • Score: 0

12:03pm Wed 9 Jul 14

BacktoLife says...

Actualbournemouthsup
porter
wrote:
Nimby nimby nimby- what about us young people who are probably going to see the oil running out? I for one want this to go ahead all around the uk along with other renewable and sustainable energy resources. It's all well and good saying it will spoil the view from your retirement homes but you're the ones who've caused this problem for us to deal with!!
Wow, I am speechless........! How have we "caused this problem"?? Did you want us to leave all the fossil fuels where they were and live like stone-age people, so that we could save the fossil fuels for you? This is just how life works - we use one type of resource, then need to find another when the current one runs out. But yes, you are right, we DO need lots more renewable energy sources, I agree with you there........but this is NOT the way to do it. There are BETTER places to locate the windfarm than here, plus wind power is not very efficient anyway. Have a look at the Challenge Navitus website, so that you can become more educated about the issue and not just churn out the knee jerk "nimby" accusation.
[quote][p][bold]Actualbournemouthsup porter[/bold] wrote: Nimby nimby nimby- what about us young people who are probably going to see the oil running out? I for one want this to go ahead all around the uk along with other renewable and sustainable energy resources. It's all well and good saying it will spoil the view from your retirement homes but you're the ones who've caused this problem for us to deal with!![/p][/quote]Wow, I am speechless........! How have we "caused this problem"?? Did you want us to leave all the fossil fuels where they were and live like stone-age people, so that we could save the fossil fuels for you? This is just how life works - we use one type of resource, then need to find another when the current one runs out. But yes, you are right, we DO need lots more renewable energy sources, I agree with you there........but this is NOT the way to do it. There are BETTER places to locate the windfarm than here, plus wind power is not very efficient anyway. Have a look at the Challenge Navitus website, so that you can become more educated about the issue and not just churn out the knee jerk "nimby" accusation. BacktoLife
  • Score: 0

12:28pm Wed 9 Jul 14

BacktoLife says...

BacktoLife wrote:
Actualbournemouthsup

porter
wrote:
Nimby nimby nimby- what about us young people who are probably going to see the oil running out? I for one want this to go ahead all around the uk along with other renewable and sustainable energy resources. It's all well and good saying it will spoil the view from your retirement homes but you're the ones who've caused this problem for us to deal with!!
Wow, I am speechless........! How have we "caused this problem"?? Did you want us to leave all the fossil fuels where they were and live like stone-age people, so that we could save the fossil fuels for you? This is just how life works - we use one type of resource, then need to find another when the current one runs out. But yes, you are right, we DO need lots more renewable energy sources, I agree with you there........but this is NOT the way to do it. There are BETTER places to locate the windfarm than here, plus wind power is not very efficient anyway. Have a look at the Challenge Navitus website, so that you can become more educated about the issue and not just churn out the knee jerk "nimby" accusation.
PS. A lot of the luxuries and lifestyle stuff that young people (and all of us) in this country enjoy nowadays has come about due to the petrochemical industry (eg. the nylon and other man-made fibres in the clothes you wear, to name a simple example, not to mention all the other consumables and technology that you enjoy and also nice food in supermarkets that's been flown in - using aviation fuel - from elsewhere) (and central heating!). So, please don't knock the fact that the supplies of fossil fuels are nearly used up. They have contributed to the comfortable life we all lead in this country, compared to the life you would have had if petrochemicals hadn't been discovered yet. Yes, maybe they should have been used rather more sparingly - there's no doubt about that - but as the younger generation today are some of the biggest consumers, it's hardly appropriate for you to criticise the older generation (do you live a "green" lifestyle? If I offered you free tickets for a week in Ibiza, would you turn them down on the grounds that it would be wasteful to use the fuel and would contribute to global warming? :) ) . As for the "retirement home" comment - not all of us opposing the windfarm are retired!! I am much nearer to the younger generation than the older one!
[quote][p][bold]BacktoLife[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Actualbournemouthsup porter[/bold] wrote: Nimby nimby nimby- what about us young people who are probably going to see the oil running out? I for one want this to go ahead all around the uk along with other renewable and sustainable energy resources. It's all well and good saying it will spoil the view from your retirement homes but you're the ones who've caused this problem for us to deal with!![/p][/quote]Wow, I am speechless........! How have we "caused this problem"?? Did you want us to leave all the fossil fuels where they were and live like stone-age people, so that we could save the fossil fuels for you? This is just how life works - we use one type of resource, then need to find another when the current one runs out. But yes, you are right, we DO need lots more renewable energy sources, I agree with you there........but this is NOT the way to do it. There are BETTER places to locate the windfarm than here, plus wind power is not very efficient anyway. Have a look at the Challenge Navitus website, so that you can become more educated about the issue and not just churn out the knee jerk "nimby" accusation.[/p][/quote]PS. A lot of the luxuries and lifestyle stuff that young people (and all of us) in this country enjoy nowadays has come about due to the petrochemical industry (eg. the nylon and other man-made fibres in the clothes you wear, to name a simple example, not to mention all the other consumables and technology that you enjoy and also nice food in supermarkets that's been flown in - using aviation fuel - from elsewhere) (and central heating!). So, please don't knock the fact that the supplies of fossil fuels are nearly used up. They have contributed to the comfortable life we all lead in this country, compared to the life you would have had if petrochemicals hadn't been discovered yet. Yes, maybe they should have been used rather more sparingly - there's no doubt about that - but as the younger generation today are some of the biggest consumers, it's hardly appropriate for you to criticise the older generation (do you live a "green" lifestyle? If I offered you free tickets for a week in Ibiza, would you turn them down on the grounds that it would be wasteful to use the fuel and would contribute to global warming? :) ) . As for the "retirement home" comment - not all of us opposing the windfarm are retired!! I am much nearer to the younger generation than the older one! BacktoLife
  • 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