Impact of Navitus Bay wind farm to be discussed tonight - on eve of planning submission

Bournemouth Echo: DISCUSSION: Wind farm protesters DISCUSSION: Wind farm protesters

THE impact of the proposed wind farm for the Dorset coast will be discussed in Bournemouth tonight on the eve of the planning application being submitted.

It is thought that Navitus Bay Development Limited, which wants to build the park that could contain up to 194 turbines as high as 200m, will be submitting its application to the Planning Inspectorate tomorrow, finally revealing its exact proposals.

Tonight, following a request from the Poole and Christchurch Bays Association, which represents 43 residents’ associations and opposes the development, Bournemouth Borough Council’s Special Environment and Transport Overview and Scrutiny Panel will meet at the town hall at 6pm.

See all our stories on Navitus Bay in our archive here

It will look at the potential for excess noise – during both construction and operation – and the impact on wildlife.

The panel will receive presentations from both the association and the council’s executive director for environment and economy, Bill Cotton, who will outline its role in the planning process, to be managed by the Planning Inspectorate.

Philip Dewhurst, from PCBA, said: “We welcome any opportunity to present the facts about this huge industrial development.

“The developers do, of course, have huge financial resources to get their side of the story across, so it is only right and proper that we, the local residents, are given access to local decision makers.

“We strongly urge local councils and other statutory consultees to oppose this scheme, which is far too big, too close to our beautiful shoreline and threatening to our tourism lifeblood.

“With the national tide now turning against giant wind farms of this type, we hope that our heritage coastline is saved.”

Cllr Mark Anderson, chairman of the panel, said he had received concerns over wildlife and noise.

“I felt that it was therefore important for the committee to accept Mr Cotton’s report before the Local Impact Report was produced and that we should investigate these concerns of our residents and if necessary make representation to cabinet and/or the council about them, we will therefore be investigating these two issues at our meeting,” he added.

The development would be 12 miles from Christchurch, 13 from Bournemouth and Poole and nine from Swanage.

The papers for tonight’s meeting – including the presentations that will be given – can be seen at Bournemouth.gov.uk

A public meeting has also been organised, to be held at the BIC on Sunday, May 10, to discuss all sides of the debate.

Comments (31)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

9:22am Thu 10 Apr 14

Hessenford says...

Oh please not another story of windmills.
They don't work and are not cost efficient.
Oh please not another story of windmills. They don't work and are not cost efficient. Hessenford
  • Score: 9

10:06am Thu 10 Apr 14

muscliffman says...

Planning is NOT the issue, there are far bigger reasons why this grossly inefficient power station should NEVER be built and subsidised by tax payers.
Planning is NOT the issue, there are far bigger reasons why this grossly inefficient power station should NEVER be built and subsidised by tax payers. muscliffman
  • Score: 11

11:29am Thu 10 Apr 14

Ebb Tide says...

Let us minimise the risk of impoverishment to UK Plc by not allowing alleged 'investment' in the wind turbines that cost too much to buy and to run and only produce electricity at price levels our industries cannot afford when competing in the global economy.

The proposed 'investment' is only for a decade or so of expensive and periodic electricity generation (requiring back-up) and then it will be necessary to buy and run replacements that will probably be more expensive if global wind turbine manufacturing monopolies have emerged : the UK has decided not to develop manufacturing nous for wind turbines. Such matters only add to the likely case against the Navitus proposals.

Perhaps Navitus can persuade me otherwise but, if they have only addressed planning, then the case against their ideas will stand.
Let us minimise the risk of impoverishment to UK Plc by not allowing alleged 'investment' in the wind turbines that cost too much to buy and to run and only produce electricity at price levels our industries cannot afford when competing in the global economy. The proposed 'investment' is only for a decade or so of expensive and periodic electricity generation (requiring back-up) and then it will be necessary to buy and run replacements that will probably be more expensive if global wind turbine manufacturing monopolies have emerged : the UK has decided not to develop manufacturing nous for wind turbines. Such matters only add to the likely case against the Navitus proposals. Perhaps Navitus can persuade me otherwise but, if they have only addressed planning, then the case against their ideas will stand. Ebb Tide
  • Score: 2

11:56am Thu 10 Apr 14

TheDistrict says...

Everyone says we need alternative power, we need natural power, something that is not unsafe for the environment. When a proposal covering all the above is put forward, the same people come out and say Not In My Back Yard. Would you rather see a Nuclear Power Station on the Purbecks looking over the coast line. What people need to do is go and see the wind farms off other coasts such as Essex, etc. You will see that the pilava being initiated here is a total fabrication. We need alternative energy, and it is better to be off the coast, than on it.
Everyone says we need alternative power, we need natural power, something that is not unsafe for the environment. When a proposal covering all the above is put forward, the same people come out and say Not In My Back Yard. Would you rather see a Nuclear Power Station on the Purbecks looking over the coast line. What people need to do is go and see the wind farms off other coasts such as Essex, etc. You will see that the pilava being initiated here is a total fabrication. We need alternative energy, and it is better to be off the coast, than on it. TheDistrict
  • Score: 8

12:40pm Thu 10 Apr 14

Hessenford says...

TheDistrict wrote:
Everyone says we need alternative power, we need natural power, something that is not unsafe for the environment. When a proposal covering all the above is put forward, the same people come out and say Not In My Back Yard. Would you rather see a Nuclear Power Station on the Purbecks looking over the coast line. What people need to do is go and see the wind farms off other coasts such as Essex, etc. You will see that the pilava being initiated here is a total fabrication. We need alternative energy, and it is better to be off the coast, than on it.
Absolute bunkum, the power and energy used in construction and siting of these things negates any saving they could ever bring.
New roads to ease congestion are not built because worms of lizards live in the vicinity but no one bats a eye when it is suggested that the sea bed is dug up and a host of metal monstrosities are planted there.
[quote][p][bold]TheDistrict[/bold] wrote: Everyone says we need alternative power, we need natural power, something that is not unsafe for the environment. When a proposal covering all the above is put forward, the same people come out and say Not In My Back Yard. Would you rather see a Nuclear Power Station on the Purbecks looking over the coast line. What people need to do is go and see the wind farms off other coasts such as Essex, etc. You will see that the pilava being initiated here is a total fabrication. We need alternative energy, and it is better to be off the coast, than on it.[/p][/quote]Absolute bunkum, the power and energy used in construction and siting of these things negates any saving they could ever bring. New roads to ease congestion are not built because worms of lizards live in the vicinity but no one bats a eye when it is suggested that the sea bed is dug up and a host of metal monstrosities are planted there. Hessenford
  • Score: 2

12:48pm Thu 10 Apr 14

muscliffman says...

TheDistrict wrote:
Everyone says we need alternative power, we need natural power, something that is not unsafe for the environment. When a proposal covering all the above is put forward, the same people come out and say Not In My Back Yard. Would you rather see a Nuclear Power Station on the Purbecks looking over the coast line. What people need to do is go and see the wind farms off other coasts such as Essex, etc. You will see that the pilava being initiated here is a total fabrication. We need alternative energy, and it is better to be off the coast, than on it.
Why do we need 'alternative' energy, let's just keep cleaning up what we already have.

We have recently discovered huge reserves of natural shale gas under the UK and massive new coal seams alongside us under the North Sea, sufficient to keep the UK efficiently and independently provided with energy for thousands of years. Let's just get on with it, as of course America already has.

And actually yes, if it were the only option I would rather see investment in new compact sensitively sited inland Nuclear power stations, which would at least be productive 24/7, than see a near useless huge industrial power station built in the sea along our Dorset coastline.
[quote][p][bold]TheDistrict[/bold] wrote: Everyone says we need alternative power, we need natural power, something that is not unsafe for the environment. When a proposal covering all the above is put forward, the same people come out and say Not In My Back Yard. Would you rather see a Nuclear Power Station on the Purbecks looking over the coast line. What people need to do is go and see the wind farms off other coasts such as Essex, etc. You will see that the pilava being initiated here is a total fabrication. We need alternative energy, and it is better to be off the coast, than on it.[/p][/quote]Why do we need 'alternative' energy, let's just keep cleaning up what we already have. We have recently discovered huge reserves of natural shale gas under the UK and massive new coal seams alongside us under the North Sea, sufficient to keep the UK efficiently and independently provided with energy for thousands of years. Let's just get on with it, as of course America already has. And actually yes, if it were the only option I would rather see investment in new compact sensitively sited inland Nuclear power stations, which would at least be productive 24/7, than see a near useless huge industrial power station built in the sea along our Dorset coastline. muscliffman
  • Score: 4

1:11pm Thu 10 Apr 14

fedupwithjobsworths says...

Hessenford wrote:
Oh please not another story of windmills.
They don't work and are not cost efficient.
Totally agree ,,,, on BBC website today, each offshore "bird chopper" receives about £300,000 per year subsidy, also National Grid has paid out £300,000,000 during the last 12 months to wind farm operaters to turn them off when there is no demand. Green enviro-mentalist terrorists are destroying our economy, the only way forward is fracking and nuclear.
[quote][p][bold]Hessenford[/bold] wrote: Oh please not another story of windmills. They don't work and are not cost efficient.[/p][/quote]Totally agree ,,,, on BBC website today, each offshore "bird chopper" receives about £300,000 per year subsidy, also National Grid has paid out £300,000,000 during the last 12 months to wind farm operaters to turn them off when there is no demand. Green enviro-mentalist terrorists are destroying our economy, the only way forward is fracking and nuclear. fedupwithjobsworths
  • Score: 6

1:17pm Thu 10 Apr 14

boardsandphotos says...

muscliffman wrote:
TheDistrict wrote:
Everyone says we need alternative power, we need natural power, something that is not unsafe for the environment. When a proposal covering all the above is put forward, the same people come out and say Not In My Back Yard. Would you rather see a Nuclear Power Station on the Purbecks looking over the coast line. What people need to do is go and see the wind farms off other coasts such as Essex, etc. You will see that the pilava being initiated here is a total fabrication. We need alternative energy, and it is better to be off the coast, than on it.
Why do we need 'alternative' energy, let's just keep cleaning up what we already have.

We have recently discovered huge reserves of natural shale gas under the UK and massive new coal seams alongside us under the North Sea, sufficient to keep the UK efficiently and independently provided with energy for thousands of years. Let's just get on with it, as of course America already has.

And actually yes, if it were the only option I would rather see investment in new compact sensitively sited inland Nuclear power stations, which would at least be productive 24/7, than see a near useless huge industrial power station built in the sea along our Dorset coastline.
Nuclear Power Stations...

Like Hinkley Point C Power Station in Somerset?

It will be built and owned by the French and the Chinese, will cost £16 Billion to build, will only provide power for about 60 years and won't be operational until 2023.
[quote][p][bold]muscliffman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]TheDistrict[/bold] wrote: Everyone says we need alternative power, we need natural power, something that is not unsafe for the environment. When a proposal covering all the above is put forward, the same people come out and say Not In My Back Yard. Would you rather see a Nuclear Power Station on the Purbecks looking over the coast line. What people need to do is go and see the wind farms off other coasts such as Essex, etc. You will see that the pilava being initiated here is a total fabrication. We need alternative energy, and it is better to be off the coast, than on it.[/p][/quote]Why do we need 'alternative' energy, let's just keep cleaning up what we already have. We have recently discovered huge reserves of natural shale gas under the UK and massive new coal seams alongside us under the North Sea, sufficient to keep the UK efficiently and independently provided with energy for thousands of years. Let's just get on with it, as of course America already has. And actually yes, if it were the only option I would rather see investment in new compact sensitively sited inland Nuclear power stations, which would at least be productive 24/7, than see a near useless huge industrial power station built in the sea along our Dorset coastline.[/p][/quote]Nuclear Power Stations... Like Hinkley Point C Power Station in Somerset? It will be built and owned by the French and the Chinese, will cost £16 Billion to build, will only provide power for about 60 years and won't be operational until 2023. boardsandphotos
  • Score: -2

1:39pm Thu 10 Apr 14

Marty Caine UKIP says...

muscliffman wrote:
TheDistrict wrote:
Everyone says we need alternative power, we need natural power, something that is not unsafe for the environment. When a proposal covering all the above is put forward, the same people come out and say Not In My Back Yard. Would you rather see a Nuclear Power Station on the Purbecks looking over the coast line. What people need to do is go and see the wind farms off other coasts such as Essex, etc. You will see that the pilava being initiated here is a total fabrication. We need alternative energy, and it is better to be off the coast, than on it.
Why do we need 'alternative' energy, let's just keep cleaning up what we already have.

We have recently discovered huge reserves of natural shale gas under the UK and massive new coal seams alongside us under the North Sea, sufficient to keep the UK efficiently and independently provided with energy for thousands of years. Let's just get on with it, as of course America already has.

And actually yes, if it were the only option I would rather see investment in new compact sensitively sited inland Nuclear power stations, which would at least be productive 24/7, than see a near useless huge industrial power station built in the sea along our Dorset coastline.
Don't forget that Wytch Farm has been fracking for over 20 years, anyone noticed any problems. Of course because there has not been any.
[quote][p][bold]muscliffman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]TheDistrict[/bold] wrote: Everyone says we need alternative power, we need natural power, something that is not unsafe for the environment. When a proposal covering all the above is put forward, the same people come out and say Not In My Back Yard. Would you rather see a Nuclear Power Station on the Purbecks looking over the coast line. What people need to do is go and see the wind farms off other coasts such as Essex, etc. You will see that the pilava being initiated here is a total fabrication. We need alternative energy, and it is better to be off the coast, than on it.[/p][/quote]Why do we need 'alternative' energy, let's just keep cleaning up what we already have. We have recently discovered huge reserves of natural shale gas under the UK and massive new coal seams alongside us under the North Sea, sufficient to keep the UK efficiently and independently provided with energy for thousands of years. Let's just get on with it, as of course America already has. And actually yes, if it were the only option I would rather see investment in new compact sensitively sited inland Nuclear power stations, which would at least be productive 24/7, than see a near useless huge industrial power station built in the sea along our Dorset coastline.[/p][/quote]Don't forget that Wytch Farm has been fracking for over 20 years, anyone noticed any problems. Of course because there has not been any. Marty Caine UKIP
  • Score: 9

1:41pm Thu 10 Apr 14

carrrob says...

The goverment are hell bent on pushing these farms through so protesters your just wasting your time
The goverment are hell bent on pushing these farms through so protesters your just wasting your time carrrob
  • Score: -15

1:42pm Thu 10 Apr 14

muscliffman says...

boardsandphotos wrote:
muscliffman wrote:
TheDistrict wrote:
Everyone says we need alternative power, we need natural power, something that is not unsafe for the environment. When a proposal covering all the above is put forward, the same people come out and say Not In My Back Yard. Would you rather see a Nuclear Power Station on the Purbecks looking over the coast line. What people need to do is go and see the wind farms off other coasts such as Essex, etc. You will see that the pilava being initiated here is a total fabrication. We need alternative energy, and it is better to be off the coast, than on it.
Why do we need 'alternative' energy, let's just keep cleaning up what we already have.

We have recently discovered huge reserves of natural shale gas under the UK and massive new coal seams alongside us under the North Sea, sufficient to keep the UK efficiently and independently provided with energy for thousands of years. Let's just get on with it, as of course America already has.

And actually yes, if it were the only option I would rather see investment in new compact sensitively sited inland Nuclear power stations, which would at least be productive 24/7, than see a near useless huge industrial power station built in the sea along our Dorset coastline.
Nuclear Power Stations...

Like Hinkley Point C Power Station in Somerset?

It will be built and owned by the French and the Chinese, will cost £16 Billion to build, will only provide power for about 60 years and won't be operational until 2023.
Absolutely agree with your angle on this, which is why I emphasised that we have a near unique global opportunity to harness the shale gas and coal we have just discovered below us.

Of course we should extract this reliable energy by our own UK means to provide secure long term independent power primarily controlled by and for ourselves....and anyone else overseas who may care to just buy it - for a very good price!
[quote][p][bold]boardsandphotos[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]muscliffman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]TheDistrict[/bold] wrote: Everyone says we need alternative power, we need natural power, something that is not unsafe for the environment. When a proposal covering all the above is put forward, the same people come out and say Not In My Back Yard. Would you rather see a Nuclear Power Station on the Purbecks looking over the coast line. What people need to do is go and see the wind farms off other coasts such as Essex, etc. You will see that the pilava being initiated here is a total fabrication. We need alternative energy, and it is better to be off the coast, than on it.[/p][/quote]Why do we need 'alternative' energy, let's just keep cleaning up what we already have. We have recently discovered huge reserves of natural shale gas under the UK and massive new coal seams alongside us under the North Sea, sufficient to keep the UK efficiently and independently provided with energy for thousands of years. Let's just get on with it, as of course America already has. And actually yes, if it were the only option I would rather see investment in new compact sensitively sited inland Nuclear power stations, which would at least be productive 24/7, than see a near useless huge industrial power station built in the sea along our Dorset coastline.[/p][/quote]Nuclear Power Stations... Like Hinkley Point C Power Station in Somerset? It will be built and owned by the French and the Chinese, will cost £16 Billion to build, will only provide power for about 60 years and won't be operational until 2023.[/p][/quote]Absolutely agree with your angle on this, which is why I emphasised that we have a near unique global opportunity to harness the shale gas and coal we have just discovered below us. Of course we should extract this reliable energy by our own UK means to provide secure long term independent power primarily controlled by and for ourselves....and anyone else overseas who may care to just buy it - for a very good price! muscliffman
  • Score: 3

1:46pm Thu 10 Apr 14

TheDistrict says...

Bunkem, Absolute Bunkum. Such a funny word. Perhaps you maybe unware of how they are built, or the possibilities of the methods used to plant the turbines to the seabed, WITHOUT, drilling, updigging of the seabeds, or interference to marine life. I do wish people would look into the facts first.
Take a look at this;

http://www.youtube.c
om/watch?v=-gToiG2OF
OI
Bunkem, Absolute Bunkum. Such a funny word. Perhaps you maybe unware of how they are built, or the possibilities of the methods used to plant the turbines to the seabed, WITHOUT, drilling, updigging of the seabeds, or interference to marine life. I do wish people would look into the facts first. Take a look at this; http://www.youtube.c om/watch?v=-gToiG2OF OI TheDistrict
  • Score: -7

2:51pm Thu 10 Apr 14

coster says...

Check out the link, the scam of 'climate change' is coming to an end!.

http://www.telegraph
.co.uk/culture/books
/non_fictionreviews/
10748667/The-game-is
-up-for-climate-chan
ge-believers.html
Check out the link, the scam of 'climate change' is coming to an end!. http://www.telegraph .co.uk/culture/books /non_fictionreviews/ 10748667/The-game-is -up-for-climate-chan ge-believers.html coster
  • Score: 4

4:16pm Thu 10 Apr 14

Ebb Tide says...

carrrob wrote:
The goverment are hell bent on pushing these farms through so protesters your just wasting your time
How long does this government have left ?
[quote][p][bold]carrrob[/bold] wrote: The goverment are hell bent on pushing these farms through so protesters your just wasting your time[/p][/quote]How long does this government have left ? Ebb Tide
  • Score: 7

4:37pm Thu 10 Apr 14

Tony Trent says...

What part of the facts agreed by 98% of World scientists do people on here not accept. The objections are mainly part of one big mega NIMBY, spouting "facts" that can be discredited by most of the 98% and other objective people. Some of the other 2% were paid by the petro-chemical industries to rubbish the facts. We have a huge problem looming which needs action NOW by the current generation. If you don't want clean energy then you better focus on ways of reducing your usage of energy by a massive ammount. You can't have your cake and eat it as far as the environment is concerned. Use a LOT less, or use a little less and generate a much higher proportion of it cleanly by renewable means.
What part of the facts agreed by 98% of World scientists do people on here not accept. The objections are mainly part of one big mega NIMBY, spouting "facts" that can be discredited by most of the 98% and other objective people. Some of the other 2% were paid by the petro-chemical industries to rubbish the facts. We have a huge problem looming which needs action NOW by the current generation. If you don't want clean energy then you better focus on ways of reducing your usage of energy by a massive ammount. You can't have your cake and eat it as far as the environment is concerned. Use a LOT less, or use a little less and generate a much higher proportion of it cleanly by renewable means. Tony Trent
  • Score: 5

4:48pm Thu 10 Apr 14

Tony Trent says...

Hessenford wrote:
TheDistrict wrote:
Everyone says we need alternative power, we need natural power, something that is not unsafe for the environment. When a proposal covering all the above is put forward, the same people come out and say Not In My Back Yard. Would you rather see a Nuclear Power Station on the Purbecks looking over the coast line. What people need to do is go and see the wind farms off other coasts such as Essex, etc. You will see that the pilava being initiated here is a total fabrication. We need alternative energy, and it is better to be off the coast, than on it.
Absolute bunkum, the power and energy used in construction and siting of these things negates any saving they could ever bring.
New roads to ease congestion are not built because worms of lizards live in the vicinity but no one bats a eye when it is suggested that the sea bed is dug up and a host of metal monstrosities are planted there.
So Hessenford: So pylons, roads, cars, bridges and conventional power stations don't! I wonder how much the sea level rise will cost, or the millions of people in Bangladesh and other vulnerable countries looking for a new home. Do you really want to be part of the generation that condemns our children and grandchildren to an even more miserable world because we chose to ignore all the best advice and failed to act on their behalf? Perhaps there will be a rush of volunteers from these pages that will accept responsibility for what happens if inaction continues and perhaps give up half their home in advance to house the first batch of climate refugees. I think they're due soon, probably from one of the South Sea islands.
[quote][p][bold]Hessenford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]TheDistrict[/bold] wrote: Everyone says we need alternative power, we need natural power, something that is not unsafe for the environment. When a proposal covering all the above is put forward, the same people come out and say Not In My Back Yard. Would you rather see a Nuclear Power Station on the Purbecks looking over the coast line. What people need to do is go and see the wind farms off other coasts such as Essex, etc. You will see that the pilava being initiated here is a total fabrication. We need alternative energy, and it is better to be off the coast, than on it.[/p][/quote]Absolute bunkum, the power and energy used in construction and siting of these things negates any saving they could ever bring. New roads to ease congestion are not built because worms of lizards live in the vicinity but no one bats a eye when it is suggested that the sea bed is dug up and a host of metal monstrosities are planted there.[/p][/quote]So Hessenford: So pylons, roads, cars, bridges and conventional power stations don't! I wonder how much the sea level rise will cost, or the millions of people in Bangladesh and other vulnerable countries looking for a new home. Do you really want to be part of the generation that condemns our children and grandchildren to an even more miserable world because we chose to ignore all the best advice and failed to act on their behalf? Perhaps there will be a rush of volunteers from these pages that will accept responsibility for what happens if inaction continues and perhaps give up half their home in advance to house the first batch of climate refugees. I think they're due soon, probably from one of the South Sea islands. Tony Trent
  • Score: 2

5:34pm Thu 10 Apr 14

BarrHumbug says...

Climate change = Bird Flu
Renewable Energy = Tamiflu
Coal and Gas = Paracetamol

Same difference, research into the first two is funded and conducted by the second two when all the time we had an abundant cheap alternative in the third two.
Climate change = Bird Flu Renewable Energy = Tamiflu Coal and Gas = Paracetamol Same difference, research into the first two is funded and conducted by the second two when all the time we had an abundant cheap alternative in the third two. BarrHumbug
  • Score: 0

5:37pm Thu 10 Apr 14

muscliffman says...

Tony Trent wrote:
What part of the facts agreed by 98% of World scientists do people on here not accept. The objections are mainly part of one big mega NIMBY, spouting "facts" that can be discredited by most of the 98% and other objective people. Some of the other 2% were paid by the petro-chemical industries to rubbish the facts. We have a huge problem looming which needs action NOW by the current generation. If you don't want clean energy then you better focus on ways of reducing your usage of energy by a massive ammount. You can't have your cake and eat it as far as the environment is concerned. Use a LOT less, or use a little less and generate a much higher proportion of it cleanly by renewable means.
Well for starters we do not accept that it is 98% of world scientists, just 98% of those very carefully selected. And secondly because if the Lib Dems support the idea of man made climate change then there really must be something pretty iffy about it!
[quote][p][bold]Tony Trent[/bold] wrote: What part of the facts agreed by 98% of World scientists do people on here not accept. The objections are mainly part of one big mega NIMBY, spouting "facts" that can be discredited by most of the 98% and other objective people. Some of the other 2% were paid by the petro-chemical industries to rubbish the facts. We have a huge problem looming which needs action NOW by the current generation. If you don't want clean energy then you better focus on ways of reducing your usage of energy by a massive ammount. You can't have your cake and eat it as far as the environment is concerned. Use a LOT less, or use a little less and generate a much higher proportion of it cleanly by renewable means.[/p][/quote]Well for starters we do not accept that it is 98% of world scientists, just 98% of those very carefully selected. And secondly because if the Lib Dems support the idea of man made climate change then there really must be something pretty iffy about it! muscliffman
  • Score: -3

5:49pm Thu 10 Apr 14

The Wickham Man says...

muscliffman wrote:
Planning is NOT the issue, there are far bigger reasons why this grossly inefficient power station should NEVER be built and subsidised by tax payers.
I completely agree. The problem is that a lot of opponents use Nimby arguments which just dilute the more serious objections. THis country can usefully use around 5-10% of its needs from wind. Above this the cost of maintaining standby power stations ( for when the wind doesn;t blow) is so high as to outweigh all the benefits and more. Only of course it's not Navitus who pay for all that.......it's us. - through ever higher energy bills. Hasn't anyone looked at the size of our electricity bills and started to wonder why they are going through the rood yet our energy security is falling through the floor?
[quote][p][bold]muscliffman[/bold] wrote: Planning is NOT the issue, there are far bigger reasons why this grossly inefficient power station should NEVER be built and subsidised by tax payers.[/p][/quote]I completely agree. The problem is that a lot of opponents use Nimby arguments which just dilute the more serious objections. THis country can usefully use around 5-10% of its needs from wind. Above this the cost of maintaining standby power stations ( for when the wind doesn;t blow) is so high as to outweigh all the benefits and more. Only of course it's not Navitus who pay for all that.......it's us. - through ever higher energy bills. Hasn't anyone looked at the size of our electricity bills and started to wonder why they are going through the rood yet our energy security is falling through the floor? The Wickham Man
  • Score: 1

5:51pm Thu 10 Apr 14

BarrHumbug says...

Tony Trent wrote:
What part of the facts agreed by 98% of World scientists do people on here not accept. The objections are mainly part of one big mega NIMBY, spouting "facts" that can be discredited by most of the 98% and other objective people. Some of the other 2% were paid by the petro-chemical industries to rubbish the facts. We have a huge problem looming which needs action NOW by the current generation. If you don't want clean energy then you better focus on ways of reducing your usage of energy by a massive ammount. You can't have your cake and eat it as far as the environment is concerned. Use a LOT less, or use a little less and generate a much higher proportion of it cleanly by renewable means.
Those world scientists don't work for free you know, who do you think funds their research, and you don't bite the hand that feeds you?

Oh and the petrochemical companies aren't stupid either, they're working on their own renewables so they're just as interested in the pro research too, transport be it by land, sea, or air isn't going to change anytime soon so they're not too worried about demand dropping over night for the petrol and oil devisions of their companies. In fact they are probably very interested in renewables, after all they can get the governments to actually pay them to produce it, how good is that. At the moment they have to pay the middle eastern nations for the privilege of extracting the stuff out of the sand.
[quote][p][bold]Tony Trent[/bold] wrote: What part of the facts agreed by 98% of World scientists do people on here not accept. The objections are mainly part of one big mega NIMBY, spouting "facts" that can be discredited by most of the 98% and other objective people. Some of the other 2% were paid by the petro-chemical industries to rubbish the facts. We have a huge problem looming which needs action NOW by the current generation. If you don't want clean energy then you better focus on ways of reducing your usage of energy by a massive ammount. You can't have your cake and eat it as far as the environment is concerned. Use a LOT less, or use a little less and generate a much higher proportion of it cleanly by renewable means.[/p][/quote]Those world scientists don't work for free you know, who do you think funds their research, and you don't bite the hand that feeds you? Oh and the petrochemical companies aren't stupid either, they're working on their own renewables so they're just as interested in the pro research too, transport be it by land, sea, or air isn't going to change anytime soon so they're not too worried about demand dropping over night for the petrol and oil devisions of their companies. In fact they are probably very interested in renewables, after all they can get the governments to actually pay them to produce it, how good is that. At the moment they have to pay the middle eastern nations for the privilege of extracting the stuff out of the sand. BarrHumbug
  • Score: 1

6:27pm Thu 10 Apr 14

boardsandphotos says...

boardsandphotos wrote:
muscliffman wrote:
TheDistrict wrote:
Everyone says we need alternative power, we need natural power, something that is not unsafe for the environment. When a proposal covering all the above is put forward, the same people come out and say Not In My Back Yard. Would you rather see a Nuclear Power Station on the Purbecks looking over the coast line. What people need to do is go and see the wind farms off other coasts such as Essex, etc. You will see that the pilava being initiated here is a total fabrication. We need alternative energy, and it is better to be off the coast, than on it.
Why do we need 'alternative' energy, let's just keep cleaning up what we already have.

We have recently discovered huge reserves of natural shale gas under the UK and massive new coal seams alongside us under the North Sea, sufficient to keep the UK efficiently and independently provided with energy for thousands of years. Let's just get on with it, as of course America already has.

And actually yes, if it were the only option I would rather see investment in new compact sensitively sited inland Nuclear power stations, which would at least be productive 24/7, than see a near useless huge industrial power station built in the sea along our Dorset coastline.
Nuclear Power Stations...

Like Hinkley Point C Power Station in Somerset?

It will be built and owned by the French and the Chinese, will cost £16 Billion to build, will only provide power for about 60 years and won't be operational until 2023.
No idea why this comnent received a load of thumbs down I have quoted facts:

Hinkley:
WILL cost £16 Billion to make.
WILL take until 2023 to complete.
WILL only provide energy for 60 years.
WILL be owned by the French and Chinese.

Sorry if you don't like the sound of that but thumbs downing a
fact is like sticking your fingers in your ears and going LaLaLaLaLaLa when someone tries to say somthing you disagree with.
[quote][p][bold]boardsandphotos[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]muscliffman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]TheDistrict[/bold] wrote: Everyone says we need alternative power, we need natural power, something that is not unsafe for the environment. When a proposal covering all the above is put forward, the same people come out and say Not In My Back Yard. Would you rather see a Nuclear Power Station on the Purbecks looking over the coast line. What people need to do is go and see the wind farms off other coasts such as Essex, etc. You will see that the pilava being initiated here is a total fabrication. We need alternative energy, and it is better to be off the coast, than on it.[/p][/quote]Why do we need 'alternative' energy, let's just keep cleaning up what we already have. We have recently discovered huge reserves of natural shale gas under the UK and massive new coal seams alongside us under the North Sea, sufficient to keep the UK efficiently and independently provided with energy for thousands of years. Let's just get on with it, as of course America already has. And actually yes, if it were the only option I would rather see investment in new compact sensitively sited inland Nuclear power stations, which would at least be productive 24/7, than see a near useless huge industrial power station built in the sea along our Dorset coastline.[/p][/quote]Nuclear Power Stations... Like Hinkley Point C Power Station in Somerset? It will be built and owned by the French and the Chinese, will cost £16 Billion to build, will only provide power for about 60 years and won't be operational until 2023.[/p][/quote]No idea why this comnent received a load of thumbs down I have quoted facts: Hinkley: WILL cost £16 Billion to make. WILL take until 2023 to complete. WILL only provide energy for 60 years. WILL be owned by the French and Chinese. Sorry if you don't like the sound of that but thumbs downing a fact is like sticking your fingers in your ears and going LaLaLaLaLaLa when someone tries to say somthing you disagree with. boardsandphotos
  • Score: 5

6:28pm Thu 10 Apr 14

Yankee1 says...

Who, besides NAVITUS, supports this?

The whole thing is a boondoggle for EU subsidies. I guess a lot of brown envelopes are being prepared.

Frack. It is not appealing, but it is the only answer. Wind is not 24/7, at the best of times.
Who, besides NAVITUS, supports this? The whole thing is a boondoggle for EU subsidies. I guess a lot of brown envelopes are being prepared. Frack. It is not appealing, but it is the only answer. Wind is not 24/7, at the best of times. Yankee1
  • Score: -2

6:30pm Thu 10 Apr 14

Yankee1 says...

fedupwithjobsworths wrote:
Hessenford wrote:
Oh please not another story of windmills.
They don't work and are not cost efficient.
Totally agree ,,,, on BBC website today, each offshore "bird chopper" receives about £300,000 per year subsidy, also National Grid has paid out £300,000,000 during the last 12 months to wind farm operaters to turn them off when there is no demand. Green enviro-mentalist terrorists are destroying our economy, the only way forward is fracking and nuclear.
Quite right. And fusion.
[quote][p][bold]fedupwithjobsworths[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hessenford[/bold] wrote: Oh please not another story of windmills. They don't work and are not cost efficient.[/p][/quote]Totally agree ,,,, on BBC website today, each offshore "bird chopper" receives about £300,000 per year subsidy, also National Grid has paid out £300,000,000 during the last 12 months to wind farm operaters to turn them off when there is no demand. Green enviro-mentalist terrorists are destroying our economy, the only way forward is fracking and nuclear.[/p][/quote]Quite right. And fusion. Yankee1
  • Score: 2

6:33pm Thu 10 Apr 14

boardsandphotos says...

muscliffman wrote:
boardsandphotos wrote:
muscliffman wrote:
TheDistrict wrote:
Everyone says we need alternative power, we need natural power, something that is not unsafe for the environment. When a proposal covering all the above is put forward, the same people come out and say Not In My Back Yard. Would you rather see a Nuclear Power Station on the Purbecks looking over the coast line. What people need to do is go and see the wind farms off other coasts such as Essex, etc. You will see that the pilava being initiated here is a total fabrication. We need alternative energy, and it is better to be off the coast, than on it.
Why do we need 'alternative' energy, let's just keep cleaning up what we already have.

We have recently discovered huge reserves of natural shale gas under the UK and massive new coal seams alongside us under the North Sea, sufficient to keep the UK efficiently and independently provided with energy for thousands of years. Let's just get on with it, as of course America already has.

And actually yes, if it were the only option I would rather see investment in new compact sensitively sited inland Nuclear power stations, which would at least be productive 24/7, than see a near useless huge industrial power station built in the sea along our Dorset coastline.
Nuclear Power Stations...

Like Hinkley Point C Power Station in Somerset?

It will be built and owned by the French and the Chinese, will cost £16 Billion to build, will only provide power for about 60 years and won't be operational until 2023.
Absolutely agree with your angle on this, which is why I emphasised that we have a near unique global opportunity to harness the shale gas and coal we have just discovered below us.

Of course we should extract this reliable energy by our own UK means to provide secure long term independent power primarily controlled by and for ourselves....and anyone else overseas who may care to just buy it - for a very good price!
I must admit Muscliffman I really don't know very much at all about Fracking so really can't comment, I've heard mixed things about it but from what i've heard it's definitely worth exploring further.
[quote][p][bold]muscliffman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]boardsandphotos[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]muscliffman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]TheDistrict[/bold] wrote: Everyone says we need alternative power, we need natural power, something that is not unsafe for the environment. When a proposal covering all the above is put forward, the same people come out and say Not In My Back Yard. Would you rather see a Nuclear Power Station on the Purbecks looking over the coast line. What people need to do is go and see the wind farms off other coasts such as Essex, etc. You will see that the pilava being initiated here is a total fabrication. We need alternative energy, and it is better to be off the coast, than on it.[/p][/quote]Why do we need 'alternative' energy, let's just keep cleaning up what we already have. We have recently discovered huge reserves of natural shale gas under the UK and massive new coal seams alongside us under the North Sea, sufficient to keep the UK efficiently and independently provided with energy for thousands of years. Let's just get on with it, as of course America already has. And actually yes, if it were the only option I would rather see investment in new compact sensitively sited inland Nuclear power stations, which would at least be productive 24/7, than see a near useless huge industrial power station built in the sea along our Dorset coastline.[/p][/quote]Nuclear Power Stations... Like Hinkley Point C Power Station in Somerset? It will be built and owned by the French and the Chinese, will cost £16 Billion to build, will only provide power for about 60 years and won't be operational until 2023.[/p][/quote]Absolutely agree with your angle on this, which is why I emphasised that we have a near unique global opportunity to harness the shale gas and coal we have just discovered below us. Of course we should extract this reliable energy by our own UK means to provide secure long term independent power primarily controlled by and for ourselves....and anyone else overseas who may care to just buy it - for a very good price![/p][/quote]I must admit Muscliffman I really don't know very much at all about Fracking so really can't comment, I've heard mixed things about it but from what i've heard it's definitely worth exploring further. boardsandphotos
  • Score: -1

6:49pm Thu 10 Apr 14

carrrob says...

Ebb Tide wrote:
carrrob wrote:
The goverment are hell bent on pushing these farms through so protesters your just wasting your time
How long does this government have left ?
You know they will be voted back in as there is currently no alternative other than UKIP !
[quote][p][bold]Ebb Tide[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]carrrob[/bold] wrote: The goverment are hell bent on pushing these farms through so protesters your just wasting your time[/p][/quote]How long does this government have left ?[/p][/quote]You know they will be voted back in as there is currently no alternative other than UKIP ! carrrob
  • Score: -3

6:53pm Thu 10 Apr 14

muscliffman says...

boardsandphotos wrote:
muscliffman wrote:
boardsandphotos wrote:
muscliffman wrote:
TheDistrict wrote:
Everyone says we need alternative power, we need natural power, something that is not unsafe for the environment. When a proposal covering all the above is put forward, the same people come out and say Not In My Back Yard. Would you rather see a Nuclear Power Station on the Purbecks looking over the coast line. What people need to do is go and see the wind farms off other coasts such as Essex, etc. You will see that the pilava being initiated here is a total fabrication. We need alternative energy, and it is better to be off the coast, than on it.
Why do we need 'alternative' energy, let's just keep cleaning up what we already have.

We have recently discovered huge reserves of natural shale gas under the UK and massive new coal seams alongside us under the North Sea, sufficient to keep the UK efficiently and independently provided with energy for thousands of years. Let's just get on with it, as of course America already has.

And actually yes, if it were the only option I would rather see investment in new compact sensitively sited inland Nuclear power stations, which would at least be productive 24/7, than see a near useless huge industrial power station built in the sea along our Dorset coastline.
Nuclear Power Stations...

Like Hinkley Point C Power Station in Somerset?

It will be built and owned by the French and the Chinese, will cost £16 Billion to build, will only provide power for about 60 years and won't be operational until 2023.
Absolutely agree with your angle on this, which is why I emphasised that we have a near unique global opportunity to harness the shale gas and coal we have just discovered below us.

Of course we should extract this reliable energy by our own UK means to provide secure long term independent power primarily controlled by and for ourselves....and anyone else overseas who may care to just buy it - for a very good price!
I must admit Muscliffman I really don't know very much at all about Fracking so really can't comment, I've heard mixed things about it but from what i've heard it's definitely worth exploring further.
I think most of us are a little unsure about fracking, but is has been noted on here before that Dorset's Wytch Farm has been fracking for years and most of us never even knew - and there have been no problems, just a useful little boost to our local economy.

In addition when the fracking opponents turn up en masse as they did last year to protest at a new UK 'fracking' site that was really an oil exploration drill rig it becomes clear they are protesting in blind ignorance and only for the sake of it!
[quote][p][bold]boardsandphotos[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]muscliffman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]boardsandphotos[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]muscliffman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]TheDistrict[/bold] wrote: Everyone says we need alternative power, we need natural power, something that is not unsafe for the environment. When a proposal covering all the above is put forward, the same people come out and say Not In My Back Yard. Would you rather see a Nuclear Power Station on the Purbecks looking over the coast line. What people need to do is go and see the wind farms off other coasts such as Essex, etc. You will see that the pilava being initiated here is a total fabrication. We need alternative energy, and it is better to be off the coast, than on it.[/p][/quote]Why do we need 'alternative' energy, let's just keep cleaning up what we already have. We have recently discovered huge reserves of natural shale gas under the UK and massive new coal seams alongside us under the North Sea, sufficient to keep the UK efficiently and independently provided with energy for thousands of years. Let's just get on with it, as of course America already has. And actually yes, if it were the only option I would rather see investment in new compact sensitively sited inland Nuclear power stations, which would at least be productive 24/7, than see a near useless huge industrial power station built in the sea along our Dorset coastline.[/p][/quote]Nuclear Power Stations... Like Hinkley Point C Power Station in Somerset? It will be built and owned by the French and the Chinese, will cost £16 Billion to build, will only provide power for about 60 years and won't be operational until 2023.[/p][/quote]Absolutely agree with your angle on this, which is why I emphasised that we have a near unique global opportunity to harness the shale gas and coal we have just discovered below us. Of course we should extract this reliable energy by our own UK means to provide secure long term independent power primarily controlled by and for ourselves....and anyone else overseas who may care to just buy it - for a very good price![/p][/quote]I must admit Muscliffman I really don't know very much at all about Fracking so really can't comment, I've heard mixed things about it but from what i've heard it's definitely worth exploring further.[/p][/quote]I think most of us are a little unsure about fracking, but is has been noted on here before that Dorset's Wytch Farm has been fracking for years and most of us never even knew - and there have been no problems, just a useful little boost to our local economy. In addition when the fracking opponents turn up en masse as they did last year to protest at a new UK 'fracking' site that was really an oil exploration drill rig it becomes clear they are protesting in blind ignorance and only for the sake of it! muscliffman
  • Score: 4

8:51pm Thu 10 Apr 14

BIGTONE says...

To be told what you are getting.
To be told what you are getting. BIGTONE
  • Score: 0

8:25am Fri 11 Apr 14

Hessenford says...

Tony Trent wrote:
Hessenford wrote:
TheDistrict wrote:
Everyone says we need alternative power, we need natural power, something that is not unsafe for the environment. When a proposal covering all the above is put forward, the same people come out and say Not In My Back Yard. Would you rather see a Nuclear Power Station on the Purbecks looking over the coast line. What people need to do is go and see the wind farms off other coasts such as Essex, etc. You will see that the pilava being initiated here is a total fabrication. We need alternative energy, and it is better to be off the coast, than on it.
Absolute bunkum, the power and energy used in construction and siting of these things negates any saving they could ever bring.
New roads to ease congestion are not built because worms of lizards live in the vicinity but no one bats a eye when it is suggested that the sea bed is dug up and a host of metal monstrosities are planted there.
So Hessenford: So pylons, roads, cars, bridges and conventional power stations don't! I wonder how much the sea level rise will cost, or the millions of people in Bangladesh and other vulnerable countries looking for a new home. Do you really want to be part of the generation that condemns our children and grandchildren to an even more miserable world because we chose to ignore all the best advice and failed to act on their behalf? Perhaps there will be a rush of volunteers from these pages that will accept responsibility for what happens if inaction continues and perhaps give up half their home in advance to house the first batch of climate refugees. I think they're due soon, probably from one of the South Sea islands.
Obviously you're taken in by the biggest con of the century.
[quote][p][bold]Tony Trent[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hessenford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]TheDistrict[/bold] wrote: Everyone says we need alternative power, we need natural power, something that is not unsafe for the environment. When a proposal covering all the above is put forward, the same people come out and say Not In My Back Yard. Would you rather see a Nuclear Power Station on the Purbecks looking over the coast line. What people need to do is go and see the wind farms off other coasts such as Essex, etc. You will see that the pilava being initiated here is a total fabrication. We need alternative energy, and it is better to be off the coast, than on it.[/p][/quote]Absolute bunkum, the power and energy used in construction and siting of these things negates any saving they could ever bring. New roads to ease congestion are not built because worms of lizards live in the vicinity but no one bats a eye when it is suggested that the sea bed is dug up and a host of metal monstrosities are planted there.[/p][/quote]So Hessenford: So pylons, roads, cars, bridges and conventional power stations don't! I wonder how much the sea level rise will cost, or the millions of people in Bangladesh and other vulnerable countries looking for a new home. Do you really want to be part of the generation that condemns our children and grandchildren to an even more miserable world because we chose to ignore all the best advice and failed to act on their behalf? Perhaps there will be a rush of volunteers from these pages that will accept responsibility for what happens if inaction continues and perhaps give up half their home in advance to house the first batch of climate refugees. I think they're due soon, probably from one of the South Sea islands.[/p][/quote]Obviously you're taken in by the biggest con of the century. Hessenford
  • Score: -1

11:23am Fri 11 Apr 14

dartguru says...

Brilliant.
Quote... Philip Dewhurst, from PCBA, said: “We welcome any opportunity to present the facts about this huge industrial development.
Unquote

So, following the meeting the big story is the FACT about the noise.
To use a word the PCBA will probably understand .... balderdash.

Toddle off to Skegness and view the wind farm there, which is much closer to land. Then toddle back with a review of your FACTS.
Brilliant. Quote... Philip Dewhurst, from PCBA, said: “We welcome any opportunity to present the facts about this huge industrial development. Unquote So, following the meeting the big story is the FACT about the noise. To use a word the PCBA will probably understand .... balderdash. Toddle off to Skegness and view the wind farm there, which is much closer to land. Then toddle back with a review of your FACTS. dartguru
  • Score: 2

11:50am Fri 11 Apr 14

TheDistrict says...

You can all deny what is being said in support of the Wind Farm, ie, Muscliffman refutes that 98% of scientists has supported such energy renewal, yet can he come up with real figures if he has them, NO, he cannot. Wind farms, regardless of how much energy they can produce for now, has got to be better than a nuclear power station, or a coa fired station spewing out smoke all over the county, and eventually country. Once the concept of a wind farm is recognised (why are there a number in Cornwall), and more are farms are produced, then the benefits of renewalble energy witl be seen. At the moment, no one appears to be giving it a chance.
You can all deny what is being said in support of the Wind Farm, ie, Muscliffman refutes that 98% of scientists has supported such energy renewal, yet can he come up with real figures if he has them, NO, he cannot. Wind farms, regardless of how much energy they can produce for now, has got to be better than a nuclear power station, or a coa fired station spewing out smoke all over the county, and eventually country. Once the concept of a wind farm is recognised (why are there a number in Cornwall), and more are farms are produced, then the benefits of renewalble energy witl be seen. At the moment, no one appears to be giving it a chance. TheDistrict
  • Score: 3

10:24am Sun 13 Apr 14

Ebb Tide says...

carrrob wrote:
Ebb Tide wrote:
carrrob wrote:
The goverment are hell bent on pushing these farms through so protesters your just wasting your time
How long does this government have left ?
You know they will be voted back in as there is currently no alternative other than UKIP !
Perhaps the electorate will have educated them to be more convincing in creating a sustainable / affordable energy policy that respects the small portion of the global environment that the UK has. On the other hand perhaps the hustings will not be so entertaining.
[quote][p][bold]carrrob[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ebb Tide[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]carrrob[/bold] wrote: The goverment are hell bent on pushing these farms through so protesters your just wasting your time[/p][/quote]How long does this government have left ?[/p][/quote]You know they will be voted back in as there is currently no alternative other than UKIP ![/p][/quote]Perhaps the electorate will have educated them to be more convincing in creating a sustainable / affordable energy policy that respects the small portion of the global environment that the UK has. On the other hand perhaps the hustings will not be so entertaining. Ebb Tide
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

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