“A stupid idea” – MP slams plan to use helicopter to show how high Navitus Bay wind farm could be

“A stupid idea” –  MP slams plan to use helicopter to show how high Navitus Bay wind farm could be

An artist’s impression of what the wind farm would look like

Conor Burns MP

Tobias Ellwood MP

Mike Unsworth

First published in News by , Chief Reporter

AN idea to use a helicopter to demonstrate the height of the wind turbines proposed for the Dorset coast has been branded “stupid”.

As reported in the Daily Echo, Bournemouth East MP Tobias Ellwood requested that Navitus Bay Development Ltd commissioned the helicopter to hover at agreed heights and distances from Bournemouth’s coastline, which the developer has agreed to do.

But the idea, put forward after talks with residents’ groups, has been slammed by Mr Ellwood’s Parliamentary colleague and groups opposed to the wind farm.

Conor Burns, MP for Bournemouth West, said: “I don’t think a single helicopter hovering in the bay is going to convey in any sense an accurate visual representation of what hundreds of high turbines are going to look like.

“One of the reasons I’m convinced it’s a stupid idea is the way that Navitus Bay Development Ltd has jumped on it and agreed to do it, when so far its visuals have been inaccurate and it is afraid to show the public what it will really look like.”

Philip Dewhurst, of Poole and Christchurch Bays Association, which represents 50 residents’ groups and has launched a ‘Save our Seaside’ campaign, said: “To get a true picture of how intrusive Navitus would be, you’d need to imagine not one, but thousands of helicopters – one estimate says 21,000 – to simulate the size of this giant forest of skyscraper-tall mega turbines.

“The UK already has more offshore wind than the rest of Europe put together and day by day the economics become more shaky.”

Bill Hoodless, also from the association, added: “I think the helicopter plan is a genuine idea from Tobias Ellwood to help provide a height indication of a wind turbine.

“Perhaps we should not pre-judge that – it would be useful if by looking at the helicopter we can also visualise all the turbines.”

David Lloyd, of opposition group Challenge Navitus, said it would “mislead rather than inform people”.

“At best it will be a dot on the horizon and it will not indicate the sheer density of the proposed development.”

He urged people to look at the visuals on its website, which he said had been independently verified.

“This is just one negative aspect of the development,” he added.

The helicopter would hover at 100, 150 and 200 metre heights at nine, 12 and 15 miles from the shore.

Formal consultation on the project has now concluded and the firm is gearing up to submit its planning application.

The application is likely to be submitted to the Government in the spring.

Navitus Bay says the final number of turbines cannot yet be decided as technology is rapidly developing.

There could be as many as 218 as high as 200m.

n REACTING to the criticism, Tobias Ellwood said: “I have little faith in the digital images that I’ve been presented with. There is no solution to show how they will look and, absolutely, this is not ideal, but let’s see what it can do.

“The company is willing to do it and it will not cost the taxpayer anything.

“My view is the more information that we have to paint a more realistic picture of what the impact will be, the better it is for us to make an accurate judgement as to what that impact will be.”

Mike Unsworth, project director at Navitus Bay, added that the demonstration would not happen until the spring.

“The demonstration it still yet to be scoped in any detail. In any case, this exercise would not aim to replicate the visual representation of the wind park, but simply give the public a reference point within the proposed development’s offshore site area, which currently does not exist, to understand the distance of the development from the shore and the height of the turbines,” he said.

Comments (50)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

8:07am Sun 2 Feb 14

BILLY THE BUBBLE says...

All these turbines might slow the earths rotation down then we're all doomed.
All these turbines might slow the earths rotation down then we're all doomed. BILLY THE BUBBLE
  • Score: 0

8:12am Sun 2 Feb 14

retry69 says...

I don't think the majority of us need any publicity seeking MP/Councillor telling us what a ridiculous idea that was.
I don't think the majority of us need any publicity seeking MP/Councillor telling us what a ridiculous idea that was. retry69
  • Score: 9

9:01am Sun 2 Feb 14

High Treason says...

They need them on the Somerset plains with a direct link to the pumps. Amazing how governments waste billions of our money on hair brained schemes but fail to do the essentials.
They need them on the Somerset plains with a direct link to the pumps. Amazing how governments waste billions of our money on hair brained schemes but fail to do the essentials. High Treason
  • Score: 7

9:10am Sun 2 Feb 14

retry69 says...

BILLY THE BUBBLE wrote:
All these turbines might slow the earths rotation down then we're all doomed.
Nobody else has thought of that yet, we have had they are too big,too noisy,dangerous to shipping,birds,santa clause etc etc but actually having an effect on the earth as a whole has not been suggested.So well done for an original idea :)
[quote][p][bold]BILLY THE BUBBLE[/bold] wrote: All these turbines might slow the earths rotation down then we're all doomed.[/p][/quote]Nobody else has thought of that yet, we have had they are too big,too noisy,dangerous to shipping,birds,santa clause etc etc but actually having an effect on the earth as a whole has not been suggested.So well done for an original idea :) retry69
  • Score: -2

9:33am Sun 2 Feb 14

Hessenford says...

The whole idea of wind farms is a stupid idea.
The whole idea of wind farms is a stupid idea. Hessenford
  • Score: -3

9:56am Sun 2 Feb 14

Jetwasher says...

Heres a cheaper idea take a photo and and put some large dots on it with a marker pen ?
Heres a cheaper idea take a photo and and put some large dots on it with a marker pen ? Jetwasher
  • Score: 15

9:59am Sun 2 Feb 14

Jetwasher says...

Another high quality image posted here, what the hell do they use to take photos ? a potato.
Another high quality image posted here, what the hell do they use to take photos ? a potato. Jetwasher
  • Score: 17

10:25am Sun 2 Feb 14

nobull says...

I would love to see 21000 helicopters keeping station on the horizon. Much better than the couple at the air festival. xx
I would love to see 21000 helicopters keeping station on the horizon. Much better than the couple at the air festival. xx nobull
  • Score: 7

10:36am Sun 2 Feb 14

Mindvor says...

I'd like to see a poll/survey of "the yoof" to see what they think about the scheme...after all, they're the ones that have to live with it (and the consequences of any in-action).
Some balanced opinion on the subject would certainly be welcomed rather than just pandering to the "I remember when all this was fields" nimbys.
I'd like to see a poll/survey of "the yoof" to see what they think about the scheme...after all, they're the ones that have to live with it (and the consequences of any in-action). Some balanced opinion on the subject would certainly be welcomed rather than just pandering to the "I remember when all this was fields" nimbys. Mindvor
  • Score: 8

10:51am Sun 2 Feb 14

pete woodley says...

Conning Burns v Tobias,what a contest.Wish we could stick Burns out at sea,he is the most pathetic MP this town has ever had,and Butterful was bad enough.
Conning Burns v Tobias,what a contest.Wish we could stick Burns out at sea,he is the most pathetic MP this town has ever had,and Butterful was bad enough. pete woodley
  • Score: 9

11:17am Sun 2 Feb 14

thevoiceofreason1 says...

i am all for them...we need the power and i quite like the site of them,IN MY BACKYARD!
i am all for them...we need the power and i quite like the site of them,IN MY BACKYARD! thevoiceofreason1
  • Score: 6

11:57am Sun 2 Feb 14

TheUnfortunateTruth says...

From 2016 the UK is likely to start getting blackouts as every new attempt to generate power gets turned down because it "doesn't look nice" - yet these people will be moaning when their home is without power.
Additionally everyone is wanting cheaper energy bills-yet as the UK still only uses 5% renewable energy we are stuck having to pay oil and gas companies billions each year to scrape less and less out offshore.

If we want consistent, cheaper power we have to accept the need for wind farms, solar pannels and fracking and accept they have to be placed somewhere so the whiney people who want things placed away from them, yet still want elecricity need to shut up and stop their childish behaviour and grow up
From 2016 the UK is likely to start getting blackouts as every new attempt to generate power gets turned down because it "doesn't look nice" - yet these people will be moaning when their home is without power. Additionally everyone is wanting cheaper energy bills-yet as the UK still only uses 5% renewable energy we are stuck having to pay oil and gas companies billions each year to scrape less and less out offshore. If we want consistent, cheaper power we have to accept the need for wind farms, solar pannels and fracking and accept they have to be placed somewhere so the whiney people who want things placed away from them, yet still want elecricity need to shut up and stop their childish behaviour and grow up TheUnfortunateTruth
  • Score: 16

12:09pm Sun 2 Feb 14

saynomore says...

The turbines will over the horizon 10 to 15 miles away so unless you have the vision of superman how are they going to be in full view,basic physics and math as the horizon is about 3.5 miles out.
The turbines will over the horizon 10 to 15 miles away so unless you have the vision of superman how are they going to be in full view,basic physics and math as the horizon is about 3.5 miles out. saynomore
  • Score: 9

12:11pm Sun 2 Feb 14

Marty Caine UKIP says...

What is the point of a single helicopter to show what something so massive is going to look like, if you want to get a real idea just take a look at http://www.challenge
navitus.org.uk/ where they have created computer simulations from different views around the Dorset coast and a lot of information on there about the proposed wind farm that I am sure Navitus would rather you did not see.
What is the point of a single helicopter to show what something so massive is going to look like, if you want to get a real idea just take a look at http://www.challenge navitus.org.uk/ where they have created computer simulations from different views around the Dorset coast and a lot of information on there about the proposed wind farm that I am sure Navitus would rather you did not see. Marty Caine UKIP
  • Score: -12

12:20pm Sun 2 Feb 14

Marty Caine UKIP says...

TheUnfortunateTruth wrote:
From 2016 the UK is likely to start getting blackouts as every new attempt to generate power gets turned down because it "doesn't look nice" - yet these people will be moaning when their home is without power.
Additionally everyone is wanting cheaper energy bills-yet as the UK still only uses 5% renewable energy we are stuck having to pay oil and gas companies billions each year to scrape less and less out offshore.

If we want consistent, cheaper power we have to accept the need for wind farms, solar pannels and fracking and accept they have to be placed somewhere so the whiney people who want things placed away from them, yet still want elecricity need to shut up and stop their childish behaviour and grow up
Well lets just all ignore the fact that the Wind farms do not actually do the job as intended then and all sit quietly until the subsidies stop and our energy bills going soaring through the roof to compensate the companies for their loss.

Let's also ignore the fact that the French who part own the planned Navitus bay are planning to build three Nuclear power stations here in Britain and sell us the energy produced from them.

I think I would much prefer not to shut up and shout as loud as I can that we need to be self sufficient in our own energy needs and not be dependent on other countries that actually care less for us than our own government.
[quote][p][bold]TheUnfortunateTruth[/bold] wrote: From 2016 the UK is likely to start getting blackouts as every new attempt to generate power gets turned down because it "doesn't look nice" - yet these people will be moaning when their home is without power. Additionally everyone is wanting cheaper energy bills-yet as the UK still only uses 5% renewable energy we are stuck having to pay oil and gas companies billions each year to scrape less and less out offshore. If we want consistent, cheaper power we have to accept the need for wind farms, solar pannels and fracking and accept they have to be placed somewhere so the whiney people who want things placed away from them, yet still want elecricity need to shut up and stop their childish behaviour and grow up[/p][/quote]Well lets just all ignore the fact that the Wind farms do not actually do the job as intended then and all sit quietly until the subsidies stop and our energy bills going soaring through the roof to compensate the companies for their loss. Let's also ignore the fact that the French who part own the planned Navitus bay are planning to build three Nuclear power stations here in Britain and sell us the energy produced from them. I think I would much prefer not to shut up and shout as loud as I can that we need to be self sufficient in our own energy needs and not be dependent on other countries that actually care less for us than our own government. Marty Caine UKIP
  • Score: -3

12:36pm Sun 2 Feb 14

justanoldie says...

love to see an orchestrated light show, the devices being attached to each blade and programmed to give random displays at "the lighting hour" of 10pm till 11pm Fireworks forever!
The 200 power cables brought ashore.......where.
I wonder how long to recoup the cost of a wind turbine, it's manufacture, installation, constant maintenance and repair and final destruction. There will be I'm sure much better alternatives in the future. Maybe better use of the Echo "hot air" pages!
love to see an orchestrated light show, the devices being attached to each blade and programmed to give random displays at "the lighting hour" of 10pm till 11pm Fireworks forever! The 200 power cables brought ashore.......where. I wonder how long to recoup the cost of a wind turbine, it's manufacture, installation, constant maintenance and repair and final destruction. There will be I'm sure much better alternatives in the future. Maybe better use of the Echo "hot air" pages! justanoldie
  • Score: 0

12:37pm Sun 2 Feb 14

Palantir says...

Marty Caine UKIP wrote:
TheUnfortunateTruth wrote:
From 2016 the UK is likely to start getting blackouts as every new attempt to generate power gets turned down because it "doesn't look nice" - yet these people will be moaning when their home is without power.
Additionally everyone is wanting cheaper energy bills-yet as the UK still only uses 5% renewable energy we are stuck having to pay oil and gas companies billions each year to scrape less and less out offshore.

If we want consistent, cheaper power we have to accept the need for wind farms, solar pannels and fracking and accept they have to be placed somewhere so the whiney people who want things placed away from them, yet still want elecricity need to shut up and stop their childish behaviour and grow up
Well lets just all ignore the fact that the Wind farms do not actually do the job as intended then and all sit quietly until the subsidies stop and our energy bills going soaring through the roof to compensate the companies for their loss.

Let's also ignore the fact that the French who part own the planned Navitus bay are planning to build three Nuclear power stations here in Britain and sell us the energy produced from them.

I think I would much prefer not to shut up and shout as loud as I can that we need to be self sufficient in our own energy needs and not be dependent on other countries that actually care less for us than our own government.
The only reason wind farms 'do not actually do the job' is that there are too few of them, mainly because people keep opposing them from being built. I don't care which country builds us a power generator as long as we're getting renewable energy - we are going to run out of fossil fuels and we need to have clean (which nuclear power is not), renewable energy.
[quote][p][bold]Marty Caine UKIP[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]TheUnfortunateTruth[/bold] wrote: From 2016 the UK is likely to start getting blackouts as every new attempt to generate power gets turned down because it "doesn't look nice" - yet these people will be moaning when their home is without power. Additionally everyone is wanting cheaper energy bills-yet as the UK still only uses 5% renewable energy we are stuck having to pay oil and gas companies billions each year to scrape less and less out offshore. If we want consistent, cheaper power we have to accept the need for wind farms, solar pannels and fracking and accept they have to be placed somewhere so the whiney people who want things placed away from them, yet still want elecricity need to shut up and stop their childish behaviour and grow up[/p][/quote]Well lets just all ignore the fact that the Wind farms do not actually do the job as intended then and all sit quietly until the subsidies stop and our energy bills going soaring through the roof to compensate the companies for their loss. Let's also ignore the fact that the French who part own the planned Navitus bay are planning to build three Nuclear power stations here in Britain and sell us the energy produced from them. I think I would much prefer not to shut up and shout as loud as I can that we need to be self sufficient in our own energy needs and not be dependent on other countries that actually care less for us than our own government.[/p][/quote]The only reason wind farms 'do not actually do the job' is that there are too few of them, mainly because people keep opposing them from being built. I don't care which country builds us a power generator as long as we're getting renewable energy - we are going to run out of fossil fuels and we need to have clean (which nuclear power is not), renewable energy. Palantir
  • Score: 4

12:44pm Sun 2 Feb 14

muscliffman says...

TheUnfortunateTruth wrote:
From 2016 the UK is likely to start getting blackouts as every new attempt to generate power gets turned down because it "doesn't look nice" - yet these people will be moaning when their home is without power.
Additionally everyone is wanting cheaper energy bills-yet as the UK still only uses 5% renewable energy we are stuck having to pay oil and gas companies billions each year to scrape less and less out offshore.

If we want consistent, cheaper power we have to accept the need for wind farms, solar pannels and fracking and accept they have to be placed somewhere so the whiney people who want things placed away from them, yet still want elecricity need to shut up and stop their childish behaviour and grow up
If we are going to start having blackouts in the UK then this will be largely because we are decommissioning perfectly good mostly coal fired UK power stations to meet EU 'green' targets. But incredibly we are then crating them up and shipping then to Germany and probably elsewhere in the same EU to be returned to service - and quite probably then buying back the power from them!

If we want consistent cheap independent power then one of the last ways to obtain that is through expensive and grossly inefficient wind farms. We need to start fracking urgently as you suggest, stop selling our existing coal fired power plants to overseas competitors and further refine 'clean coal' technology and invest in more nuclear.

I am not a NIMBY, if that wind farm really would do even half of what they claim then I would back it all the way whatever it looks like, the truth however is that it cannot do much more than make a few overseas Company's very rich with our UK taxpayer funded subsidies. I simply object to being conned, not because it 'doesn't look nice'!
[quote][p][bold]TheUnfortunateTruth[/bold] wrote: From 2016 the UK is likely to start getting blackouts as every new attempt to generate power gets turned down because it "doesn't look nice" - yet these people will be moaning when their home is without power. Additionally everyone is wanting cheaper energy bills-yet as the UK still only uses 5% renewable energy we are stuck having to pay oil and gas companies billions each year to scrape less and less out offshore. If we want consistent, cheaper power we have to accept the need for wind farms, solar pannels and fracking and accept they have to be placed somewhere so the whiney people who want things placed away from them, yet still want elecricity need to shut up and stop their childish behaviour and grow up[/p][/quote]If we are going to start having blackouts in the UK then this will be largely because we are decommissioning perfectly good mostly coal fired UK power stations to meet EU 'green' targets. But incredibly we are then crating them up and shipping then to Germany and probably elsewhere in the same EU to be returned to service - and quite probably then buying back the power from them! If we want consistent cheap independent power then one of the last ways to obtain that is through expensive and grossly inefficient wind farms. We need to start fracking urgently as you suggest, stop selling our existing coal fired power plants to overseas competitors and further refine 'clean coal' technology and invest in more nuclear. I am not a NIMBY, if that wind farm really would do even half of what they claim then I would back it all the way whatever it looks like, the truth however is that it cannot do much more than make a few overseas Company's very rich with our UK taxpayer funded subsidies. I simply object to being conned, not because it 'doesn't look nice'! muscliffman
  • Score: 5

12:44pm Sun 2 Feb 14

kalebmoledirt says...

Take a boat out an fly a big balloon it could even be anchored out there
Take a boat out an fly a big balloon it could even be anchored out there kalebmoledirt
  • Score: 5

1:07pm Sun 2 Feb 14

kalebmoledirt says...

Can,t understand what,s,wrong with them, the slightest haze and you can,t see them and they add something to the horizon at night.better than a Nuclear plant on the cliffs .but Nuclear is unavoidable long term
Can,t understand what,s,wrong with them, the slightest haze and you can,t see them and they add something to the horizon at night.better than a Nuclear plant on the cliffs .but Nuclear is unavoidable long term kalebmoledirt
  • Score: 6

3:14pm Sun 2 Feb 14

Ophilum says...

Just another Green Stupid idea which we will all have to pay for like the greens have done to the Somerset Levels.
Just another Green Stupid idea which we will all have to pay for like the greens have done to the Somerset Levels. Ophilum
  • Score: -7

4:11pm Sun 2 Feb 14

blackdog1 says...

The new IMAX on the sea!
The new IMAX on the sea! blackdog1
  • Score: -1

4:23pm Sun 2 Feb 14

DorsetBorn79 says...

A SINGLE HELI AT 300FT AMSL 9NM OFFSHORE WILL NOT PROPERLY REPRESENT THE IMPACT OF THE PROPOSED SITE.

I AM DORSET BORN AND LOCAL RESIDENT. I AM EMPLOYED BY OFFSHORE WIND IN THE NORTH EAST UK. IT WOULD BE A DISASTER IF THIS COMES TO DORSET.
A SINGLE HELI AT 300FT AMSL 9NM OFFSHORE WILL NOT PROPERLY REPRESENT THE IMPACT OF THE PROPOSED SITE. I AM DORSET BORN AND LOCAL RESIDENT. I AM EMPLOYED BY OFFSHORE WIND IN THE NORTH EAST UK. IT WOULD BE A DISASTER IF THIS COMES TO DORSET. DorsetBorn79
  • Score: 1

4:32pm Sun 2 Feb 14

Youjustcantwin says...

If you've traveled to any of the other wonderful places in our country like the Lake District , The Highlands of Scotland they have numerous Windfarms and no they don't ruin the area !!!! I bet most of you who are moaning have never seen a real wind turbine. I'm all for it , we need energy and yes I'm born and bred in Bournemouth so it is in my back yard...
If you've traveled to any of the other wonderful places in our country like the Lake District , The Highlands of Scotland they have numerous Windfarms and no they don't ruin the area !!!! I bet most of you who are moaning have never seen a real wind turbine. I'm all for it , we need energy and yes I'm born and bred in Bournemouth so it is in my back yard... Youjustcantwin
  • Score: -2

4:39pm Sun 2 Feb 14

GAHmusic says...

How about we tow the Bournemouth balloon out there
How about we tow the Bournemouth balloon out there GAHmusic
  • Score: 0

6:29pm Sun 2 Feb 14

Marty Caine UKIP says...

Youjustcantwin wrote:
If you've traveled to any of the other wonderful places in our country like the Lake District , The Highlands of Scotland they have numerous Windfarms and no they don't ruin the area !!!! I bet most of you who are moaning have never seen a real wind turbine. I'm all for it , we need energy and yes I'm born and bred in Bournemouth so it is in my back yard...
Well you have never seen one the size of this one planned of our Jurassic coast. They could be the most wonderful looking things ever but if they are going to end up costing far more than they are worth it is still a stupid idea. Wouldn't you agree ?
[quote][p][bold]Youjustcantwin[/bold] wrote: If you've traveled to any of the other wonderful places in our country like the Lake District , The Highlands of Scotland they have numerous Windfarms and no they don't ruin the area !!!! I bet most of you who are moaning have never seen a real wind turbine. I'm all for it , we need energy and yes I'm born and bred in Bournemouth so it is in my back yard...[/p][/quote]Well you have never seen one the size of this one planned of our Jurassic coast. They could be the most wonderful looking things ever but if they are going to end up costing far more than they are worth it is still a stupid idea. Wouldn't you agree ? Marty Caine UKIP
  • Score: -1

6:59pm Sun 2 Feb 14

Phixer says...

Jetwasher wrote:
Another high quality image posted here, what the hell do they use to take photos ? a potato.
Its an Echo stock photo, last used to show us how big the surf would be after tipping £3million bags of sand into the sea.
[quote][p][bold]Jetwasher[/bold] wrote: Another high quality image posted here, what the hell do they use to take photos ? a potato.[/p][/quote]Its an Echo stock photo, last used to show us how big the surf would be after tipping £3million bags of sand into the sea. Phixer
  • Score: 8

7:03pm Sun 2 Feb 14

apm1954 says...

not to bright yourself by all accounts.
not to bright yourself by all accounts. apm1954
  • Score: 1

7:04pm Sun 2 Feb 14

Tictock says...

pete woodley wrote:
Conning Burns v Tobias,what a contest.Wish we could stick Burns out at sea,he is the most pathetic MP this town has ever had,and Butterful was bad enough.
Yes, in a mud ring wearing clown suits - then they could act the buffoons they are!! Self-seeking pompous headline grabbing ne'er-do-wells with little concept of reality.
[quote][p][bold]pete woodley[/bold] wrote: Conning Burns v Tobias,what a contest.Wish we could stick Burns out at sea,he is the most pathetic MP this town has ever had,and Butterful was bad enough.[/p][/quote]Yes, in a mud ring wearing clown suits - then they could act the buffoons they are!! Self-seeking pompous headline grabbing ne'er-do-wells with little concept of reality. Tictock
  • Score: 2

7:17pm Sun 2 Feb 14

kalebmoledirt says...

Jetwasher wrote:
Another high quality image posted here, what the hell do they use to take photos ? a potato.
He does a decent pic of a Dalik on a motorway.
[quote][p][bold]Jetwasher[/bold] wrote: Another high quality image posted here, what the hell do they use to take photos ? a potato.[/p][/quote]He does a decent pic of a Dalik on a motorway. kalebmoledirt
  • Score: 3

7:46pm Sun 2 Feb 14

TOM AND JANE says...

The easiest way to judge the size of these giant 620 foot turbines from the shore is to look at Old Harry himself. Standing only 60 feet above the water, allowing accurately for horizon dip, these turbines would appear to be three times taller than Harry. The photo images produced for the public by the developer Navitus were so inaccurate that they showed them at about the same height as Old Harry.
The easiest way to judge the size of these giant 620 foot turbines from the shore is to look at Old Harry himself. Standing only 60 feet above the water, allowing accurately for horizon dip, these turbines would appear to be three times taller than Harry. The photo images produced for the public by the developer Navitus were so inaccurate that they showed them at about the same height as Old Harry. TOM AND JANE
  • Score: 4

7:52pm Sun 2 Feb 14

Marty Caine UKIP says...

Palantir wrote:
Marty Caine UKIP wrote:
TheUnfortunateTruth wrote:
From 2016 the UK is likely to start getting blackouts as every new attempt to generate power gets turned down because it "doesn't look nice" - yet these people will be moaning when their home is without power.
Additionally everyone is wanting cheaper energy bills-yet as the UK still only uses 5% renewable energy we are stuck having to pay oil and gas companies billions each year to scrape less and less out offshore.

If we want consistent, cheaper power we have to accept the need for wind farms, solar pannels and fracking and accept they have to be placed somewhere so the whiney people who want things placed away from them, yet still want elecricity need to shut up and stop their childish behaviour and grow up
Well lets just all ignore the fact that the Wind farms do not actually do the job as intended then and all sit quietly until the subsidies stop and our energy bills going soaring through the roof to compensate the companies for their loss.

Let's also ignore the fact that the French who part own the planned Navitus bay are planning to build three Nuclear power stations here in Britain and sell us the energy produced from them.

I think I would much prefer not to shut up and shout as loud as I can that we need to be self sufficient in our own energy needs and not be dependent on other countries that actually care less for us than our own government.
The only reason wind farms 'do not actually do the job' is that there are too few of them, mainly because people keep opposing them from being built. I don't care which country builds us a power generator as long as we're getting renewable energy - we are going to run out of fossil fuels and we need to have clean (which nuclear power is not), renewable energy.
You do know that Nuclear fusion does not create the so called Greenhouse Gases like coal powered stations and is actually environmentally cleaner than Wind farms, don't you?

http://blogs.telegra
ph.co.uk/news/willhe
aven/100243023/nucle
ar-power-vs-wind-far
ms-the-infographic-t
he-government-doesnt
-want-you-to-see/
[quote][p][bold]Palantir[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Marty Caine UKIP[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]TheUnfortunateTruth[/bold] wrote: From 2016 the UK is likely to start getting blackouts as every new attempt to generate power gets turned down because it "doesn't look nice" - yet these people will be moaning when their home is without power. Additionally everyone is wanting cheaper energy bills-yet as the UK still only uses 5% renewable energy we are stuck having to pay oil and gas companies billions each year to scrape less and less out offshore. If we want consistent, cheaper power we have to accept the need for wind farms, solar pannels and fracking and accept they have to be placed somewhere so the whiney people who want things placed away from them, yet still want elecricity need to shut up and stop their childish behaviour and grow up[/p][/quote]Well lets just all ignore the fact that the Wind farms do not actually do the job as intended then and all sit quietly until the subsidies stop and our energy bills going soaring through the roof to compensate the companies for their loss. Let's also ignore the fact that the French who part own the planned Navitus bay are planning to build three Nuclear power stations here in Britain and sell us the energy produced from them. I think I would much prefer not to shut up and shout as loud as I can that we need to be self sufficient in our own energy needs and not be dependent on other countries that actually care less for us than our own government.[/p][/quote]The only reason wind farms 'do not actually do the job' is that there are too few of them, mainly because people keep opposing them from being built. I don't care which country builds us a power generator as long as we're getting renewable energy - we are going to run out of fossil fuels and we need to have clean (which nuclear power is not), renewable energy.[/p][/quote]You do know that Nuclear fusion does not create the so called Greenhouse Gases like coal powered stations and is actually environmentally cleaner than Wind farms, don't you? http://blogs.telegra ph.co.uk/news/willhe aven/100243023/nucle ar-power-vs-wind-far ms-the-infographic-t he-government-doesnt -want-you-to-see/ Marty Caine UKIP
  • Score: 1

8:41pm Sun 2 Feb 14

Guybrush_Threepwood says...

saynomore wrote:
The turbines will over the horizon 10 to 15 miles away so unless you have the vision of superman how are they going to be in full view,basic physics and math as the horizon is about 3.5 miles out.
The distance of the horizon changes depending on the viewer's elevation. If the horizon is 3.5 miles, your eyes would have to be around 8.5 feet above sea level (ignoring atmospheric refraction). If you were on top of hengistbury head, the horizon would be 13 miles! You're also not factoring in the height of the turbines either. Basic physics and maths.
[quote][p][bold]saynomore[/bold] wrote: The turbines will over the horizon 10 to 15 miles away so unless you have the vision of superman how are they going to be in full view,basic physics and math as the horizon is about 3.5 miles out.[/p][/quote]The distance of the horizon changes depending on the viewer's elevation. If the horizon is 3.5 miles, your eyes would have to be around 8.5 feet above sea level (ignoring atmospheric refraction). If you were on top of hengistbury head, the horizon would be 13 miles! You're also not factoring in the height of the turbines either. Basic physics and maths. Guybrush_Threepwood
  • Score: 7

9:34pm Sun 2 Feb 14

Benagain says...

All the money should be spent on wave power.
All the money should be spent on wave power. Benagain
  • Score: 1

11:33pm Sun 2 Feb 14

HRH of Boscombe says...

retry69 wrote:
BILLY THE BUBBLE wrote:
All these turbines might slow the earths rotation down then we're all doomed.
Nobody else has thought of that yet, we have had they are too big,too noisy,dangerous to shipping,birds,santa clause etc etc but actually having an effect on the earth as a whole has not been suggested.So well done for an original idea :)
It's all down to the big cheese!
.
The Moon orbit's opposite to our rotation so really is slowing us down. These wind turbines could be the last straw lmao!
.
A 36hr day sounds ideal if I still only have to work 8 or 9 lol
[quote][p][bold]retry69[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BILLY THE BUBBLE[/bold] wrote: All these turbines might slow the earths rotation down then we're all doomed.[/p][/quote]Nobody else has thought of that yet, we have had they are too big,too noisy,dangerous to shipping,birds,santa clause etc etc but actually having an effect on the earth as a whole has not been suggested.So well done for an original idea :)[/p][/quote]It's all down to the big cheese! . The Moon orbit's opposite to our rotation so really is slowing us down. These wind turbines could be the last straw lmao! . A 36hr day sounds ideal if I still only have to work 8 or 9 lol HRH of Boscombe
  • Score: -2

12:17am Mon 3 Feb 14

a.g.o.g. says...

HRH of Boscombe wrote:
retry69 wrote:
BILLY THE BUBBLE wrote:
All these turbines might slow the earths rotation down then we're all doomed.
Nobody else has thought of that yet, we have had they are too big,too noisy,dangerous to shipping,birds,santa clause etc etc but actually having an effect on the earth as a whole has not been suggested.So well done for an original idea :)
It's all down to the big cheese!
.
The Moon orbit's opposite to our rotation so really is slowing us down. These wind turbines could be the last straw lmao!
.
A 36hr day sounds ideal if I still only have to work 8 or 9 lol
It`s not the 1st of Feb even now!
[quote][p][bold]HRH of Boscombe[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]retry69[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BILLY THE BUBBLE[/bold] wrote: All these turbines might slow the earths rotation down then we're all doomed.[/p][/quote]Nobody else has thought of that yet, we have had they are too big,too noisy,dangerous to shipping,birds,santa clause etc etc but actually having an effect on the earth as a whole has not been suggested.So well done for an original idea :)[/p][/quote]It's all down to the big cheese! . The Moon orbit's opposite to our rotation so really is slowing us down. These wind turbines could be the last straw lmao! . A 36hr day sounds ideal if I still only have to work 8 or 9 lol[/p][/quote]It`s not the 1st of Feb even now! a.g.o.g.
  • Score: 0

12:17am Mon 3 Feb 14

a.g.o.g. says...

HRH of Boscombe wrote:
retry69 wrote:
BILLY THE BUBBLE wrote:
All these turbines might slow the earths rotation down then we're all doomed.
Nobody else has thought of that yet, we have had they are too big,too noisy,dangerous to shipping,birds,santa clause etc etc but actually having an effect on the earth as a whole has not been suggested.So well done for an original idea :)
It's all down to the big cheese!
.
The Moon orbit's opposite to our rotation so really is slowing us down. These wind turbines could be the last straw lmao!
.
A 36hr day sounds ideal if I still only have to work 8 or 9 lol
It`s not the 1st of Feb even now!
[quote][p][bold]HRH of Boscombe[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]retry69[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BILLY THE BUBBLE[/bold] wrote: All these turbines might slow the earths rotation down then we're all doomed.[/p][/quote]Nobody else has thought of that yet, we have had they are too big,too noisy,dangerous to shipping,birds,santa clause etc etc but actually having an effect on the earth as a whole has not been suggested.So well done for an original idea :)[/p][/quote]It's all down to the big cheese! . The Moon orbit's opposite to our rotation so really is slowing us down. These wind turbines could be the last straw lmao! . A 36hr day sounds ideal if I still only have to work 8 or 9 lol[/p][/quote]It`s not the 1st of Feb even now! a.g.o.g.
  • Score: 0

12:40am Mon 3 Feb 14

Yankee1 says...

TheUnfortunateTruth wrote:
From 2016 the UK is likely to start getting blackouts as every new attempt to generate power gets turned down because it "doesn't look nice" - yet these people will be moaning when their home is without power.
Additionally everyone is wanting cheaper energy bills-yet as the UK still only uses 5% renewable energy we are stuck having to pay oil and gas companies billions each year to scrape less and less out offshore.

If we want consistent, cheaper power we have to accept the need for wind farms, solar pannels and fracking and accept they have to be placed somewhere so the whiney people who want things placed away from them, yet still want elecricity need to shut up and stop their childish behaviour and grow up
Wind and Solar power are the complete antithesis of 'consistent, cheaper power'.

Gas, coal, oil and nuclear are 'consistent'. Wind and solar are 'inconsistent' by their very nature.

Good grief!
[quote][p][bold]TheUnfortunateTruth[/bold] wrote: From 2016 the UK is likely to start getting blackouts as every new attempt to generate power gets turned down because it "doesn't look nice" - yet these people will be moaning when their home is without power. Additionally everyone is wanting cheaper energy bills-yet as the UK still only uses 5% renewable energy we are stuck having to pay oil and gas companies billions each year to scrape less and less out offshore. If we want consistent, cheaper power we have to accept the need for wind farms, solar pannels and fracking and accept they have to be placed somewhere so the whiney people who want things placed away from them, yet still want elecricity need to shut up and stop their childish behaviour and grow up[/p][/quote]Wind and Solar power are the complete antithesis of 'consistent, cheaper power'. Gas, coal, oil and nuclear are 'consistent'. Wind and solar are 'inconsistent' by their very nature. Good grief! Yankee1
  • Score: 2

1:34am Mon 3 Feb 14

AdelaidePete says...

Amazing. A local MP being sensible!
Amazing. A local MP being sensible! AdelaidePete
  • Score: -1

8:31am Mon 3 Feb 14

Abc1970 says...

Hessenford wrote:
The whole idea of wind farms is a stupid idea.
Why is it stupid? Using a naturally occurring resource to provide electricity to thousands of homes and businesses makes complete sense. It's either wind and solar or nuclear, you decide! It's called moving with the times. It's not going to destroy tourism as most of these protest groups made up of elderly anorak wearers are saying, these turbines are all over Scotland and have you ever heard someone say "I'm not going to Scotland anymore, they've got wind turbines 12 miles out at sea" No is the answer.
[quote][p][bold]Hessenford[/bold] wrote: The whole idea of wind farms is a stupid idea.[/p][/quote]Why is it stupid? Using a naturally occurring resource to provide electricity to thousands of homes and businesses makes complete sense. It's either wind and solar or nuclear, you decide! It's called moving with the times. It's not going to destroy tourism as most of these protest groups made up of elderly anorak wearers are saying, these turbines are all over Scotland and have you ever heard someone say "I'm not going to Scotland anymore, they've got wind turbines 12 miles out at sea" No is the answer. Abc1970
  • Score: 3

8:57am Mon 3 Feb 14

Marty Caine UKIP says...

Abc1970 wrote:
Hessenford wrote:
The whole idea of wind farms is a stupid idea.
Why is it stupid? Using a naturally occurring resource to provide electricity to thousands of homes and businesses makes complete sense. It's either wind and solar or nuclear, you decide! It's called moving with the times. It's not going to destroy tourism as most of these protest groups made up of elderly anorak wearers are saying, these turbines are all over Scotland and have you ever heard someone say "I'm not going to Scotland anymore, they've got wind turbines 12 miles out at sea" No is the answer.
Obviously you have not taken the time to see the size of this proposed wind farm or realised it will disrupt tourism during the five years it will take to build it or more importantly know that the cost in the end will increase our already over inflated energy bills but the most factor that cannot be argued with is they simply do not do the required job, take a look at Hawaii and learn from their mistakes. It really is that simple.
[quote][p][bold]Abc1970[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hessenford[/bold] wrote: The whole idea of wind farms is a stupid idea.[/p][/quote]Why is it stupid? Using a naturally occurring resource to provide electricity to thousands of homes and businesses makes complete sense. It's either wind and solar or nuclear, you decide! It's called moving with the times. It's not going to destroy tourism as most of these protest groups made up of elderly anorak wearers are saying, these turbines are all over Scotland and have you ever heard someone say "I'm not going to Scotland anymore, they've got wind turbines 12 miles out at sea" No is the answer.[/p][/quote]Obviously you have not taken the time to see the size of this proposed wind farm or realised it will disrupt tourism during the five years it will take to build it or more importantly know that the cost in the end will increase our already over inflated energy bills but the most factor that cannot be argued with is they simply do not do the required job, take a look at Hawaii and learn from their mistakes. It really is that simple. Marty Caine UKIP
  • Score: 0

9:16am Mon 3 Feb 14

Abc1970 says...

Marty Caine UKIP wrote:
Abc1970 wrote:
Hessenford wrote:
The whole idea of wind farms is a stupid idea.
Why is it stupid? Using a naturally occurring resource to provide electricity to thousands of homes and businesses makes complete sense. It's either wind and solar or nuclear, you decide! It's called moving with the times. It's not going to destroy tourism as most of these protest groups made up of elderly anorak wearers are saying, these turbines are all over Scotland and have you ever heard someone say "I'm not going to Scotland anymore, they've got wind turbines 12 miles out at sea" No is the answer.
Obviously you have not taken the time to see the size of this proposed wind farm or realised it will disrupt tourism during the five years it will take to build it or more importantly know that the cost in the end will increase our already over inflated energy bills but the most factor that cannot be argued with is they simply do not do the required job, take a look at Hawaii and learn from their mistakes. It really is that simple.
Actually I have seen the proposals. I can't see the problem, it enhances the landscape if anything. Costs are rising, and they will continue to rise regardless of where the energy comes from. What do you propose? Let's hear the UKIP solution to providing energy to a growing population, with diminishing fossil fuel supply whithout increasing costs to the public, you obviously have a suggestion. I'm interested to know how tourism will be disrupted during construction? I think people need to get a grip, we are not the last generation of human being on this planet, I certainly want my children growing up in a world where renewable energy is the norm because once our supply of coal and oil is gone, it won't be coming back. We have a responsibility to future generations to create sustainable energy solutions, wind power is one of them. If people are that narrow minded that they won't come to the south coast because there is a wind farm 9-15 miles out at sea, then these are not the kind of people we need visiting anyway.
[quote][p][bold]Marty Caine UKIP[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Abc1970[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hessenford[/bold] wrote: The whole idea of wind farms is a stupid idea.[/p][/quote]Why is it stupid? Using a naturally occurring resource to provide electricity to thousands of homes and businesses makes complete sense. It's either wind and solar or nuclear, you decide! It's called moving with the times. It's not going to destroy tourism as most of these protest groups made up of elderly anorak wearers are saying, these turbines are all over Scotland and have you ever heard someone say "I'm not going to Scotland anymore, they've got wind turbines 12 miles out at sea" No is the answer.[/p][/quote]Obviously you have not taken the time to see the size of this proposed wind farm or realised it will disrupt tourism during the five years it will take to build it or more importantly know that the cost in the end will increase our already over inflated energy bills but the most factor that cannot be argued with is they simply do not do the required job, take a look at Hawaii and learn from their mistakes. It really is that simple.[/p][/quote]Actually I have seen the proposals. I can't see the problem, it enhances the landscape if anything. Costs are rising, and they will continue to rise regardless of where the energy comes from. What do you propose? Let's hear the UKIP solution to providing energy to a growing population, with diminishing fossil fuel supply whithout increasing costs to the public, you obviously have a suggestion. I'm interested to know how tourism will be disrupted during construction? I think people need to get a grip, we are not the last generation of human being on this planet, I certainly want my children growing up in a world where renewable energy is the norm because once our supply of coal and oil is gone, it won't be coming back. We have a responsibility to future generations to create sustainable energy solutions, wind power is one of them. If people are that narrow minded that they won't come to the south coast because there is a wind farm 9-15 miles out at sea, then these are not the kind of people we need visiting anyway. Abc1970
  • Score: 3

12:53pm Mon 3 Feb 14

Markmag says...

Marty Caine UKIP wrote:
What is the point of a single helicopter to show what something so massive is going to look like, if you want to get a real idea just take a look at http://www.challenge

navitus.org.uk/ where they have created computer simulations from different views around the Dorset coast and a lot of information on there about the proposed wind farm that I am sure Navitus would rather you did not see.
Looks good to me, watching those videos has persuaded me it would be a good idea.

Is the UKIP policy on wind turbines "They come over here, taking our wind..."
[quote][p][bold]Marty Caine UKIP[/bold] wrote: What is the point of a single helicopter to show what something so massive is going to look like, if you want to get a real idea just take a look at http://www.challenge navitus.org.uk/ where they have created computer simulations from different views around the Dorset coast and a lot of information on there about the proposed wind farm that I am sure Navitus would rather you did not see.[/p][/quote]Looks good to me, watching those videos has persuaded me it would be a good idea. Is the UKIP policy on wind turbines "They come over here, taking our wind..." Markmag
  • Score: 2

12:58pm Mon 3 Feb 14

Markmag says...

Guybrush_Threepwood wrote:
saynomore wrote:
The turbines will over the horizon 10 to 15 miles away so unless you have the vision of superman how are they going to be in full view,basic physics and math as the horizon is about 3.5 miles out.
The distance of the horizon changes depending on the viewer's elevation. If the horizon is 3.5 miles, your eyes would have to be around 8.5 feet above sea level (ignoring atmospheric refraction). If you were on top of hengistbury head, the horizon would be 13 miles! You're also not factoring in the height of the turbines either. Basic physics and maths.
I for one am looking forward to climbing Hengistbury Head to get a better view of them! And if I don't want to look at them, I can look towards the Isle of Wight instead. Where is the problem?
[quote][p][bold]Guybrush_Threepwood[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]saynomore[/bold] wrote: The turbines will over the horizon 10 to 15 miles away so unless you have the vision of superman how are they going to be in full view,basic physics and math as the horizon is about 3.5 miles out.[/p][/quote]The distance of the horizon changes depending on the viewer's elevation. If the horizon is 3.5 miles, your eyes would have to be around 8.5 feet above sea level (ignoring atmospheric refraction). If you were on top of hengistbury head, the horizon would be 13 miles! You're also not factoring in the height of the turbines either. Basic physics and maths.[/p][/quote]I for one am looking forward to climbing Hengistbury Head to get a better view of them! And if I don't want to look at them, I can look towards the Isle of Wight instead. Where is the problem? Markmag
  • Score: 1

1:00pm Mon 3 Feb 14

a.g.o.g. says...

Abc1970 wrote:
Marty Caine UKIP wrote:
Abc1970 wrote:
Hessenford wrote:
The whole idea of wind farms is a stupid idea.
Why is it stupid? Using a naturally occurring resource to provide electricity to thousands of homes and businesses makes complete sense. It's either wind and solar or nuclear, you decide! It's called moving with the times. It's not going to destroy tourism as most of these protest groups made up of elderly anorak wearers are saying, these turbines are all over Scotland and have you ever heard someone say "I'm not going to Scotland anymore, they've got wind turbines 12 miles out at sea" No is the answer.
Obviously you have not taken the time to see the size of this proposed wind farm or realised it will disrupt tourism during the five years it will take to build it or more importantly know that the cost in the end will increase our already over inflated energy bills but the most factor that cannot be argued with is they simply do not do the required job, take a look at Hawaii and learn from their mistakes. It really is that simple.
Actually I have seen the proposals. I can't see the problem, it enhances the landscape if anything. Costs are rising, and they will continue to rise regardless of where the energy comes from. What do you propose? Let's hear the UKIP solution to providing energy to a growing population, with diminishing fossil fuel supply whithout increasing costs to the public, you obviously have a suggestion. I'm interested to know how tourism will be disrupted during construction? I think people need to get a grip, we are not the last generation of human being on this planet, I certainly want my children growing up in a world where renewable energy is the norm because once our supply of coal and oil is gone, it won't be coming back. We have a responsibility to future generations to create sustainable energy solutions, wind power is one of them. If people are that narrow minded that they won't come to the south coast because there is a wind farm 9-15 miles out at sea, then these are not the kind of people we need visiting anyway.
you obviously haven`t studied the technology of this methed of energy production.
it doesn`t even scratch the surface of the requirement we will need when fossil really does start to run out.
nuclear and its derivatives are the only way unless we chose to step back in time to Medieval life styles and size of population.
Navitus could only at very best deliver but one hundredth of our Nation electric needs and which, in themselves, are less than a quarter of our total energy needs. So 500 Naviti here we come - ho-ho is it??
[quote][p][bold]Abc1970[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Marty Caine UKIP[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Abc1970[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hessenford[/bold] wrote: The whole idea of wind farms is a stupid idea.[/p][/quote]Why is it stupid? Using a naturally occurring resource to provide electricity to thousands of homes and businesses makes complete sense. It's either wind and solar or nuclear, you decide! It's called moving with the times. It's not going to destroy tourism as most of these protest groups made up of elderly anorak wearers are saying, these turbines are all over Scotland and have you ever heard someone say "I'm not going to Scotland anymore, they've got wind turbines 12 miles out at sea" No is the answer.[/p][/quote]Obviously you have not taken the time to see the size of this proposed wind farm or realised it will disrupt tourism during the five years it will take to build it or more importantly know that the cost in the end will increase our already over inflated energy bills but the most factor that cannot be argued with is they simply do not do the required job, take a look at Hawaii and learn from their mistakes. It really is that simple.[/p][/quote]Actually I have seen the proposals. I can't see the problem, it enhances the landscape if anything. Costs are rising, and they will continue to rise regardless of where the energy comes from. What do you propose? Let's hear the UKIP solution to providing energy to a growing population, with diminishing fossil fuel supply whithout increasing costs to the public, you obviously have a suggestion. I'm interested to know how tourism will be disrupted during construction? I think people need to get a grip, we are not the last generation of human being on this planet, I certainly want my children growing up in a world where renewable energy is the norm because once our supply of coal and oil is gone, it won't be coming back. We have a responsibility to future generations to create sustainable energy solutions, wind power is one of them. If people are that narrow minded that they won't come to the south coast because there is a wind farm 9-15 miles out at sea, then these are not the kind of people we need visiting anyway.[/p][/quote]you obviously haven`t studied the technology of this methed of energy production. it doesn`t even scratch the surface of the requirement we will need when fossil really does start to run out. nuclear and its derivatives are the only way unless we chose to step back in time to Medieval life styles and size of population. Navitus could only at very best deliver but one hundredth of our Nation electric needs and which, in themselves, are less than a quarter of our total energy needs. So 500 Naviti here we come - ho-ho is it?? a.g.o.g.
  • Score: 1

3:50pm Mon 3 Feb 14

Abc1970 says...

a.g.o.g. wrote:
Abc1970 wrote:
Marty Caine UKIP wrote:
Abc1970 wrote:
Hessenford wrote:
The whole idea of wind farms is a stupid idea.
Why is it stupid? Using a naturally occurring resource to provide electricity to thousands of homes and businesses makes complete sense. It's either wind and solar or nuclear, you decide! It's called moving with the times. It's not going to destroy tourism as most of these protest groups made up of elderly anorak wearers are saying, these turbines are all over Scotland and have you ever heard someone say "I'm not going to Scotland anymore, they've got wind turbines 12 miles out at sea" No is the answer.
Obviously you have not taken the time to see the size of this proposed wind farm or realised it will disrupt tourism during the five years it will take to build it or more importantly know that the cost in the end will increase our already over inflated energy bills but the most factor that cannot be argued with is they simply do not do the required job, take a look at Hawaii and learn from their mistakes. It really is that simple.
Actually I have seen the proposals. I can't see the problem, it enhances the landscape if anything. Costs are rising, and they will continue to rise regardless of where the energy comes from. What do you propose? Let's hear the UKIP solution to providing energy to a growing population, with diminishing fossil fuel supply whithout increasing costs to the public, you obviously have a suggestion. I'm interested to know how tourism will be disrupted during construction? I think people need to get a grip, we are not the last generation of human being on this planet, I certainly want my children growing up in a world where renewable energy is the norm because once our supply of coal and oil is gone, it won't be coming back. We have a responsibility to future generations to create sustainable energy solutions, wind power is one of them. If people are that narrow minded that they won't come to the south coast because there is a wind farm 9-15 miles out at sea, then these are not the kind of people we need visiting anyway.
you obviously haven`t studied the technology of this methed of energy production.
it doesn`t even scratch the surface of the requirement we will need when fossil really does start to run out.
nuclear and its derivatives are the only way unless we chose to step back in time to Medieval life styles and size of population.
Navitus could only at very best deliver but one hundredth of our Nation electric needs and which, in themselves, are less than a quarter of our total energy needs. So 500 Naviti here we come - ho-ho is it??
Well if that's the case, let's have 100 of these dotted around our coastline, what with that and the other naturally occurring resource, sun light, we could have the problem sorted in no time. If every house had a small wind turbine and 2 solar panels on their roof to generate their own power, there would not be a problem.

I also notice our UKIP friend has gone quiet since being put in the spot and challenged, there's a surprise.
[quote][p][bold]a.g.o.g.[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Abc1970[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Marty Caine UKIP[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Abc1970[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hessenford[/bold] wrote: The whole idea of wind farms is a stupid idea.[/p][/quote]Why is it stupid? Using a naturally occurring resource to provide electricity to thousands of homes and businesses makes complete sense. It's either wind and solar or nuclear, you decide! It's called moving with the times. It's not going to destroy tourism as most of these protest groups made up of elderly anorak wearers are saying, these turbines are all over Scotland and have you ever heard someone say "I'm not going to Scotland anymore, they've got wind turbines 12 miles out at sea" No is the answer.[/p][/quote]Obviously you have not taken the time to see the size of this proposed wind farm or realised it will disrupt tourism during the five years it will take to build it or more importantly know that the cost in the end will increase our already over inflated energy bills but the most factor that cannot be argued with is they simply do not do the required job, take a look at Hawaii and learn from their mistakes. It really is that simple.[/p][/quote]Actually I have seen the proposals. I can't see the problem, it enhances the landscape if anything. Costs are rising, and they will continue to rise regardless of where the energy comes from. What do you propose? Let's hear the UKIP solution to providing energy to a growing population, with diminishing fossil fuel supply whithout increasing costs to the public, you obviously have a suggestion. I'm interested to know how tourism will be disrupted during construction? I think people need to get a grip, we are not the last generation of human being on this planet, I certainly want my children growing up in a world where renewable energy is the norm because once our supply of coal and oil is gone, it won't be coming back. We have a responsibility to future generations to create sustainable energy solutions, wind power is one of them. If people are that narrow minded that they won't come to the south coast because there is a wind farm 9-15 miles out at sea, then these are not the kind of people we need visiting anyway.[/p][/quote]you obviously haven`t studied the technology of this methed of energy production. it doesn`t even scratch the surface of the requirement we will need when fossil really does start to run out. nuclear and its derivatives are the only way unless we chose to step back in time to Medieval life styles and size of population. Navitus could only at very best deliver but one hundredth of our Nation electric needs and which, in themselves, are less than a quarter of our total energy needs. So 500 Naviti here we come - ho-ho is it??[/p][/quote]Well if that's the case, let's have 100 of these dotted around our coastline, what with that and the other naturally occurring resource, sun light, we could have the problem sorted in no time. If every house had a small wind turbine and 2 solar panels on their roof to generate their own power, there would not be a problem. I also notice our UKIP friend has gone quiet since being put in the spot and challenged, there's a surprise. Abc1970
  • Score: 1

4:21pm Mon 3 Feb 14

Marty Caine UKIP says...

Abc1970 wrote "I also notice our UKIP friend has gone quiet since being put in the spot and challenged, there's a surprise."

Sorry but I tend not to have myself glued to the echo page 24/7 but to answer your question. I would stop closing down British coal powered power stations and having them shipped out and rebuilt in Germany, I would utilise fracking until as such time as we have built enough nuclear stations to self support us in our energy needs. The most important thing is, we must be self sufficient because not doing so will leave our energy bill prices under the control of foreign powers. I would also like to see a full blown scientific investigation into the climate change fears so we can eradicate that nonsense once and for all and try and get some common sense back into peoples heads.
Abc1970 wrote "I also notice our UKIP friend has gone quiet since being put in the spot and challenged, there's a surprise." Sorry but I tend not to have myself glued to the echo page 24/7 but to answer your question. I would stop closing down British coal powered power stations and having them shipped out and rebuilt in Germany, I would utilise fracking until as such time as we have built enough nuclear stations to self support us in our energy needs. The most important thing is, we must be self sufficient because not doing so will leave our energy bill prices under the control of foreign powers. I would also like to see a full blown scientific investigation into the climate change fears so we can eradicate that nonsense once and for all and try and get some common sense back into peoples heads. Marty Caine UKIP
  • Score: 0

4:42pm Mon 3 Feb 14

mooninpisces says...

Marty Caine UKIP wrote:
Abc1970 wrote "I also notice our UKIP friend has gone quiet since being put in the spot and challenged, there's a surprise."

Sorry but I tend not to have myself glued to the echo page 24/7 but to answer your question. I would stop closing down British coal powered power stations and having them shipped out and rebuilt in Germany, I would utilise fracking until as such time as we have built enough nuclear stations to self support us in our energy needs. The most important thing is, we must be self sufficient because not doing so will leave our energy bill prices under the control of foreign powers. I would also like to see a full blown scientific investigation into the climate change fears so we can eradicate that nonsense once and for all and try and get some common sense back into peoples heads.
MC UKIP repeats, for the third time (or is it more, I've lost count) the myth that the EU are forcing the UK to close down coal fired power stations which are then shipped out to be rebuilt in Germany.

I would have thought that he might have learnt from his experience on an earlier thread (the 14,000 abandoned turbines myth, remember?) that you can't believe everything you read on the internet.

So, the nasty EU are forcing us to shut down perfectly good coal fired power stations, are they?

No. They are requiring large coal power stations to meet tighter pollution controls, to limit the sulphur dioxide, nitrogen oxide and particulate emissions which have been responsible for acid rain, and which cause almost as many premature deaths in this country as do traffic accidents. The plants that are closing down are not perfectly good - they are major polluters, and their owners have chosen not to invest in the upgrading which would enable them to meet the tougher standards that will be required by 2015.

So how do the Germans get away with it?
They don't. Because they have made a decision to rapidly phase out all their nuclear power, they are building new coal fired power stations, which meet the new standards, alongside their expanding renewable sector.

Is that the clean coal we hear so much about?
No. The new German plants still emit CO2, though because they burn coal more efficiently, not as much as the old ones they are replacing. The new German coal plants don't have carbon capture and storage (the so-called clean coal), because of its high cost..
[quote][p][bold]Marty Caine UKIP[/bold] wrote: Abc1970 wrote "I also notice our UKIP friend has gone quiet since being put in the spot and challenged, there's a surprise." Sorry but I tend not to have myself glued to the echo page 24/7 but to answer your question. I would stop closing down British coal powered power stations and having them shipped out and rebuilt in Germany, I would utilise fracking until as such time as we have built enough nuclear stations to self support us in our energy needs. The most important thing is, we must be self sufficient because not doing so will leave our energy bill prices under the control of foreign powers. I would also like to see a full blown scientific investigation into the climate change fears so we can eradicate that nonsense once and for all and try and get some common sense back into peoples heads.[/p][/quote]MC UKIP repeats, for the third time (or is it more, I've lost count) the myth that the EU are forcing the UK to close down coal fired power stations which are then shipped out to be rebuilt in Germany. I would have thought that he might have learnt from his experience on an earlier thread (the 14,000 abandoned turbines myth, remember?) that you can't believe everything you read on the internet. So, the nasty EU are forcing us to shut down perfectly good coal fired power stations, are they? No. They are requiring large coal power stations to meet tighter pollution controls, to limit the sulphur dioxide, nitrogen oxide and particulate emissions which have been responsible for acid rain, and which cause almost as many premature deaths in this country as do traffic accidents. The plants that are closing down are not perfectly good - they are major polluters, and their owners have chosen not to invest in the upgrading which would enable them to meet the tougher standards that will be required by 2015. So how do the Germans get away with it? They don't. Because they have made a decision to rapidly phase out all their nuclear power, they are building new coal fired power stations, which meet the new standards, alongside their expanding renewable sector. Is that the clean coal we hear so much about? No. The new German plants still emit CO2, though because they burn coal more efficiently, not as much as the old ones they are replacing. The new German coal plants don't have carbon capture and storage (the so-called clean coal), because of its high cost.. mooninpisces
  • Score: 0

10:28pm Mon 3 Feb 14

a.g.o.g. says...

Abc1970 wrote:
a.g.o.g. wrote:
Abc1970 wrote:
Marty Caine UKIP wrote:
Abc1970 wrote:
Hessenford wrote:
The whole idea of wind farms is a stupid idea.
Why is it stupid? Using a naturally occurring resource to provide electricity to thousands of homes and businesses makes complete sense. It's either wind and solar or nuclear, you decide! It's called moving with the times. It's not going to destroy tourism as most of these protest groups made up of elderly anorak wearers are saying, these turbines are all over Scotland and have you ever heard someone say "I'm not going to Scotland anymore, they've got wind turbines 12 miles out at sea" No is the answer.
Obviously you have not taken the time to see the size of this proposed wind farm or realised it will disrupt tourism during the five years it will take to build it or more importantly know that the cost in the end will increase our already over inflated energy bills but the most factor that cannot be argued with is they simply do not do the required job, take a look at Hawaii and learn from their mistakes. It really is that simple.
Actually I have seen the proposals. I can't see the problem, it enhances the landscape if anything. Costs are rising, and they will continue to rise regardless of where the energy comes from. What do you propose? Let's hear the UKIP solution to providing energy to a growing population, with diminishing fossil fuel supply whithout increasing costs to the public, you obviously have a suggestion. I'm interested to know how tourism will be disrupted during construction? I think people need to get a grip, we are not the last generation of human being on this planet, I certainly want my children growing up in a world where renewable energy is the norm because once our supply of coal and oil is gone, it won't be coming back. We have a responsibility to future generations to create sustainable energy solutions, wind power is one of them. If people are that narrow minded that they won't come to the south coast because there is a wind farm 9-15 miles out at sea, then these are not the kind of people we need visiting anyway.
you obviously haven`t studied the technology of this methed of energy production.
it doesn`t even scratch the surface of the requirement we will need when fossil really does start to run out.
nuclear and its derivatives are the only way unless we chose to step back in time to Medieval life styles and size of population.
Navitus could only at very best deliver but one hundredth of our Nation electric needs and which, in themselves, are less than a quarter of our total energy needs. So 500 Naviti here we come - ho-ho is it??
Well if that's the case, let's have 100 of these dotted around our coastline, what with that and the other naturally occurring resource, sun light, we could have the problem sorted in no time. If every house had a small wind turbine and 2 solar panels on their roof to generate their own power, there would not be a problem.

I also notice our UKIP friend has gone quiet since being put in the spot and challenged, there's a surprise.
Try moving on to B,C,D 2044 maybe never mind X,Y,Z 2084.....
[quote][p][bold]Abc1970[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]a.g.o.g.[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Abc1970[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Marty Caine UKIP[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Abc1970[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hessenford[/bold] wrote: The whole idea of wind farms is a stupid idea.[/p][/quote]Why is it stupid? Using a naturally occurring resource to provide electricity to thousands of homes and businesses makes complete sense. It's either wind and solar or nuclear, you decide! It's called moving with the times. It's not going to destroy tourism as most of these protest groups made up of elderly anorak wearers are saying, these turbines are all over Scotland and have you ever heard someone say "I'm not going to Scotland anymore, they've got wind turbines 12 miles out at sea" No is the answer.[/p][/quote]Obviously you have not taken the time to see the size of this proposed wind farm or realised it will disrupt tourism during the five years it will take to build it or more importantly know that the cost in the end will increase our already over inflated energy bills but the most factor that cannot be argued with is they simply do not do the required job, take a look at Hawaii and learn from their mistakes. It really is that simple.[/p][/quote]Actually I have seen the proposals. I can't see the problem, it enhances the landscape if anything. Costs are rising, and they will continue to rise regardless of where the energy comes from. What do you propose? Let's hear the UKIP solution to providing energy to a growing population, with diminishing fossil fuel supply whithout increasing costs to the public, you obviously have a suggestion. I'm interested to know how tourism will be disrupted during construction? I think people need to get a grip, we are not the last generation of human being on this planet, I certainly want my children growing up in a world where renewable energy is the norm because once our supply of coal and oil is gone, it won't be coming back. We have a responsibility to future generations to create sustainable energy solutions, wind power is one of them. If people are that narrow minded that they won't come to the south coast because there is a wind farm 9-15 miles out at sea, then these are not the kind of people we need visiting anyway.[/p][/quote]you obviously haven`t studied the technology of this methed of energy production. it doesn`t even scratch the surface of the requirement we will need when fossil really does start to run out. nuclear and its derivatives are the only way unless we chose to step back in time to Medieval life styles and size of population. Navitus could only at very best deliver but one hundredth of our Nation electric needs and which, in themselves, are less than a quarter of our total energy needs. So 500 Naviti here we come - ho-ho is it??[/p][/quote]Well if that's the case, let's have 100 of these dotted around our coastline, what with that and the other naturally occurring resource, sun light, we could have the problem sorted in no time. If every house had a small wind turbine and 2 solar panels on their roof to generate their own power, there would not be a problem. I also notice our UKIP friend has gone quiet since being put in the spot and challenged, there's a surprise.[/p][/quote]Try moving on to B,C,D 2044 maybe never mind X,Y,Z 2084..... a.g.o.g.
  • Score: 0

10:35pm Mon 3 Feb 14

a.g.o.g. says...

mooninpisces wrote:
Marty Caine UKIP wrote:
Abc1970 wrote "I also notice our UKIP friend has gone quiet since being put in the spot and challenged, there's a surprise."

Sorry but I tend not to have myself glued to the echo page 24/7 but to answer your question. I would stop closing down British coal powered power stations and having them shipped out and rebuilt in Germany, I would utilise fracking until as such time as we have built enough nuclear stations to self support us in our energy needs. The most important thing is, we must be self sufficient because not doing so will leave our energy bill prices under the control of foreign powers. I would also like to see a full blown scientific investigation into the climate change fears so we can eradicate that nonsense once and for all and try and get some common sense back into peoples heads.
MC UKIP repeats, for the third time (or is it more, I've lost count) the myth that the EU are forcing the UK to close down coal fired power stations which are then shipped out to be rebuilt in Germany.

I would have thought that he might have learnt from his experience on an earlier thread (the 14,000 abandoned turbines myth, remember?) that you can't believe everything you read on the internet.

So, the nasty EU are forcing us to shut down perfectly good coal fired power stations, are they?

No. They are requiring large coal power stations to meet tighter pollution controls, to limit the sulphur dioxide, nitrogen oxide and particulate emissions which have been responsible for acid rain, and which cause almost as many premature deaths in this country as do traffic accidents. The plants that are closing down are not perfectly good - they are major polluters, and their owners have chosen not to invest in the upgrading which would enable them to meet the tougher standards that will be required by 2015.

So how do the Germans get away with it?
They don't. Because they have made a decision to rapidly phase out all their nuclear power, they are building new coal fired power stations, which meet the new standards, alongside their expanding renewable sector.

Is that the clean coal we hear so much about?
No. The new German plants still emit CO2, though because they burn coal more efficiently, not as much as the old ones they are replacing. The new German coal plants don't have carbon capture and storage (the so-called clean coal), because of its high cost..
MIPS wrote """ because they (The Germans) burn coal more efficiently, not (emitting Co2) as much as the old (ex.UK) ones they are replacing. ""

""You can`t be serious!""(Ta McE)
[quote][p][bold]mooninpisces[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Marty Caine UKIP[/bold] wrote: Abc1970 wrote "I also notice our UKIP friend has gone quiet since being put in the spot and challenged, there's a surprise." Sorry but I tend not to have myself glued to the echo page 24/7 but to answer your question. I would stop closing down British coal powered power stations and having them shipped out and rebuilt in Germany, I would utilise fracking until as such time as we have built enough nuclear stations to self support us in our energy needs. The most important thing is, we must be self sufficient because not doing so will leave our energy bill prices under the control of foreign powers. I would also like to see a full blown scientific investigation into the climate change fears so we can eradicate that nonsense once and for all and try and get some common sense back into peoples heads.[/p][/quote]MC UKIP repeats, for the third time (or is it more, I've lost count) the myth that the EU are forcing the UK to close down coal fired power stations which are then shipped out to be rebuilt in Germany. I would have thought that he might have learnt from his experience on an earlier thread (the 14,000 abandoned turbines myth, remember?) that you can't believe everything you read on the internet. So, the nasty EU are forcing us to shut down perfectly good coal fired power stations, are they? No. They are requiring large coal power stations to meet tighter pollution controls, to limit the sulphur dioxide, nitrogen oxide and particulate emissions which have been responsible for acid rain, and which cause almost as many premature deaths in this country as do traffic accidents. The plants that are closing down are not perfectly good - they are major polluters, and their owners have chosen not to invest in the upgrading which would enable them to meet the tougher standards that will be required by 2015. So how do the Germans get away with it? They don't. Because they have made a decision to rapidly phase out all their nuclear power, they are building new coal fired power stations, which meet the new standards, alongside their expanding renewable sector. Is that the clean coal we hear so much about? No. The new German plants still emit CO2, though because they burn coal more efficiently, not as much as the old ones they are replacing. The new German coal plants don't have carbon capture and storage (the so-called clean coal), because of its high cost..[/p][/quote]MIPS wrote """ because they (The Germans) burn coal more efficiently, not (emitting Co2) as much as the old (ex.UK) ones they are replacing. "" ""You can`t be serious!""(Ta McE) a.g.o.g.
  • 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