We need Navitus Bay windfarm, say environmentalists

WINDY: Members of Friends of the Earth gather at Bournemouth seafront to promote debate over the proposed windfarm off the coast. Below, Andy Atkins, executive director of Friends of the Earth

WINDY: Members of Friends of the Earth gather at Bournemouth seafront to promote debate over the proposed windfarm off the coast. Below, Andy Atkins, executive director of Friends of the Earth

First published in News by , Chief Reporter

LOVE it or loathe it, we need wind power.

That’s the message coming from Friends of the Earth over the proposed Navitus Bay project off the Dorset coast.

The plans, from Eneco and EDF, could see up to 300 turbines around 10 miles off Bournemouth and about eight miles off Swanage.

It has split opinion, with opposition group Challenge Navitus mounting a fervent campaign against it, saying it will be inefficient, spoil views and be detrimental to the environment.

Now, Friends of the Earth has spoken out to support the idea in principle, but has urged everyone, for or against the 78-square-mile farm, to have their say and listen to all views.

They gathered on Bournemouth seafront ahead of a debate at Bournemouth University.

Andy Atkins, executive director of Friends of the Earth, said: “In principle, we’re in favour of it. We’re sensitive to the concerns. There are people with concerns that any person that loves nature and the landscape shares.

“In practice we’re waiting for the environmental impact survey to be concluded and that might throw up unexpected things.

“But we think the issues that could come up can be mitigated.

“We’re very keen that there’s good quality discussion with local communities.

“We have to set it in context of climate change.”

Project director Mike Unsworth added: “My taking part in the debate is primarily to represent the facts and the interests of the project and the benefits that arise from it.”

After the debate, Andrew Langley, from Challenge Navitus, said: “There are always compromises to be made in general policy on the environment.

“We’re passionately interested in the environment as well. We want to make sure that the nation makes the best compromises in resolving the issues of renewable energy and we believe that this current proposal is at the bad end of the spectrum, not the good end of the spectrum.”

Nigel Hedges, president of Bournemouth Chamber of Trade and Commerce, said the main concern was a figure from Eneco that four per cent of visitors to other areas that had wind farms said they would not return.

“That may seem like a small figure, but to us it could cost us a couple of hotels.

“Working with affiliated sections like BAHA and Bournemouth Tourism, the fact that four per cent of people don’t return is a big concern.

“We’re very happy to play a part in the consultations,” he added.

Bournemouth’s tourism director Mark Smith said: “We are not against wind energy; we just want to ensure that solving one problem doesn’t create another. That would be wrong.

“If Eneco can apply the same high environmental standards in Dorset as they have in Holland, where they ensured they were not damaging the Dutch holiday trade, there are ways forward. But the tourist industry should not pay an unnecessary price for the wind farm.”

An Alternative

A RENEWABLE Energy Conference held at Christchurch Borough Council has concluded that deep geothermal energy would achieve the government’s renewal energy target without the need for wind power.

The conference was convened in the face of proposals for the wind farm off the coast of Dorset.

The deep geothermal method was seen to be able to produce the largest amount of renewable energy.

The conference report concluded that, using today’s technology alone, deep geothermal resources could provide 20 per cent of the UK’s annual average electricity generation capacity requirement and the equivalent of the total annual heat consumption in the UK.

Cllr Margaret Phipps, portfolio holder for environment at Christchurch Borough Council, who chaired the conference, said: “We wanted to look at all renewable energy possibilities so that we wouldn’t solely be relying on environmentally-controversial and visually-intrusive intermittent wind power which, in Dorset, may have detrimental consequences for our World Heritage historic environment.”

Comments (27)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

12:12pm Thu 8 Nov 12

upyourpipe says...

No we dont.
No we dont. upyourpipe
  • Score: 0

12:15pm Thu 8 Nov 12

simcal says...

Those crakpots should do us all a favour and jump off the pier. Global warming is the biggest con ever perpetrated.
Those crakpots should do us all a favour and jump off the pier. Global warming is the biggest con ever perpetrated. simcal
  • Score: 0

12:16pm Thu 8 Nov 12

muscliffman says...

'Love it or loathe it, we need wind power.'

Err...NO WE DON'T, it does not work, it is a profit driven scam.
'Love it or loathe it, we need wind power.' Err...NO WE DON'T, it does not work, it is a profit driven scam. muscliffman
  • Score: 0

12:22pm Thu 8 Nov 12

Phixer says...

muscliffman wrote:
'Love it or loathe it, we need wind power.'

Err...NO WE DON'T, it does not work, it is a profit driven scam.
Plenty of wind coming out of the 'global warming' doom-mongers.

Wonder how we can tax it??
[quote][p][bold]muscliffman[/bold] wrote: 'Love it or loathe it, we need wind power.' Err...NO WE DON'T, it does not work, it is a profit driven scam.[/p][/quote]Plenty of wind coming out of the 'global warming' doom-mongers. Wonder how we can tax it?? Phixer
  • Score: 0

12:23pm Thu 8 Nov 12

muscliffman says...

simcal wrote:
Those crakpots should do us all a favour and jump off the pier. Global warming is the biggest con ever perpetrated.
Agree, perhaps after yesterday's bizzare TV appearance Mr Smith, who is also quoted here, could join them.
Off Boscombe Pier preferably - not far to walk down what remains of it and on the left of course is.......
[quote][p][bold]simcal[/bold] wrote: Those crakpots should do us all a favour and jump off the pier. Global warming is the biggest con ever perpetrated.[/p][/quote]Agree, perhaps after yesterday's bizzare TV appearance Mr Smith, who is also quoted here, could join them. Off Boscombe Pier preferably - not far to walk down what remains of it and on the left of course is....... muscliffman
  • Score: 0

12:24pm Thu 8 Nov 12

Phixer says...

"..We have got a big pipeline of onshore and offshore wind projects coming through,’ the Prime Minister said. We are committed to those....."

Our ostrich PM still doesn't listen to the people that put him in power.
"..We have got a big pipeline of onshore and offshore wind projects coming through,’ the Prime Minister said. We are committed to those....." Our ostrich PM still doesn't listen to the people that put him in power. Phixer
  • Score: 0

12:26pm Thu 8 Nov 12

whataboutthat says...

I wish opponents would stop banging on about tourism loss - this is a red herring. The council are impotent in the whole sordid affair - they have no say in HRH flogging off what she thinks is her land - even if it is covered by the sea. Think about that next time you lick a stamp.
Ditto the proponents and their talk of wind power's advantages - a completely unproven case. Look at the abandoned wind farms all over the US and parts of Europe - accelerating as subsidies are withdrawn. This whole whistling up the wind is a joke. Greenpeace - long since a joke too - there is nos such thing as clean energy you muppets. Where does the steel/concrete/coppe
r/lithium/rare earth magnets/plastic and paint come from to build and maintain these follies. That's right, we're currently expecting China to desecrate its landscape for such reserves. Really clean Greenpeace! Go back to the kiddies class and make some more toy windmills. Jeez.
I wish opponents would stop banging on about tourism loss - this is a red herring. The council are impotent in the whole sordid affair - they have no say in HRH flogging off what she thinks is her land - even if it is covered by the sea. Think about that next time you lick a stamp. Ditto the proponents and their talk of wind power's advantages - a completely unproven case. Look at the abandoned wind farms all over the US and parts of Europe - accelerating as subsidies are withdrawn. This whole whistling up the wind is a joke. Greenpeace - long since a joke too - there is nos such thing as clean energy you muppets. Where does the steel/concrete/coppe r/lithium/rare earth magnets/plastic and paint come from to build and maintain these follies. That's right, we're currently expecting China to desecrate its landscape for such reserves. Really clean Greenpeace! Go back to the kiddies class and make some more toy windmills. Jeez. whataboutthat
  • Score: 0

12:43pm Thu 8 Nov 12

BourneRed says...

Seems a shame that a fairly balanced article with comments from both sides, who both raise issues and concerns has to have a tabloid-esque headline attached to it which doesn't actually reflect the article.

The concerns that Challenge Navitus have, if my understand is correct, is that they are not against the wind farm, just its current proposal. Move out to sea, so it isn't visible from the coastline from Christchurch to Swanage and that aspect of the proposal is "fixed".

Then you have the argument over whether or not investment in wind energy is worthwhile and sustainable or whether tidal energy or other alternatives could be a better idea.
Seems a shame that a fairly balanced article with comments from both sides, who both raise issues and concerns has to have a tabloid-esque headline attached to it which doesn't actually reflect the article. The concerns that Challenge Navitus have, if my understand is correct, is that they are not against the wind farm, just its current proposal. Move out to sea, so it isn't visible from the coastline from Christchurch to Swanage and that aspect of the proposal is "fixed". Then you have the argument over whether or not investment in wind energy is worthwhile and sustainable or whether tidal energy or other alternatives could be a better idea. BourneRed
  • Score: 0

12:56pm Thu 8 Nov 12

upyourpipe says...

muscliffman wrote:
'Love it or loathe it, we need wind power.'

Err...NO WE DON'T, it does not work, it is a profit driven scam.
Well said.
[quote][p][bold]muscliffman[/bold] wrote: 'Love it or loathe it, we need wind power.' Err...NO WE DON'T, it does not work, it is a profit driven scam.[/p][/quote]Well said. upyourpipe
  • Score: 0

1:00pm Thu 8 Nov 12

Eddie's dog says...

Numerous yachts on the horizon daily / weekly look the same-ish; alternatively, paint in Cherries colours of Black / white stripes.......... and show support for Eddie Howe.
Numerous yachts on the horizon daily / weekly look the same-ish; alternatively, paint in Cherries colours of Black / white stripes.......... and show support for Eddie Howe. Eddie's dog
  • Score: 0

1:09pm Thu 8 Nov 12

Redgolfer00 says...

BourneRed wrote:
Seems a shame that a fairly balanced article with comments from both sides, who both raise issues and concerns has to have a tabloid-esque headline attached to it which doesn't actually reflect the article.

The concerns that Challenge Navitus have, if my understand is correct, is that they are not against the wind farm, just its current proposal. Move out to sea, so it isn't visible from the coastline from Christchurch to Swanage and that aspect of the proposal is "fixed".

Then you have the argument over whether or not investment in wind energy is worthwhile and sustainable or whether tidal energy or other alternatives could be a better idea.
When the subsidy from the EU is taken away, wind farms are not viable, far better as poster above states, tidal energy could be better, how much water flows in and out of the second largest natural harbour in the world 4 times a day, Poole could be the answer, much better than wind farms.
[quote][p][bold]BourneRed[/bold] wrote: Seems a shame that a fairly balanced article with comments from both sides, who both raise issues and concerns has to have a tabloid-esque headline attached to it which doesn't actually reflect the article. The concerns that Challenge Navitus have, if my understand is correct, is that they are not against the wind farm, just its current proposal. Move out to sea, so it isn't visible from the coastline from Christchurch to Swanage and that aspect of the proposal is "fixed". Then you have the argument over whether or not investment in wind energy is worthwhile and sustainable or whether tidal energy or other alternatives could be a better idea.[/p][/quote]When the subsidy from the EU is taken away, wind farms are not viable, far better as poster above states, tidal energy could be better, how much water flows in and out of the second largest natural harbour in the world 4 times a day, Poole could be the answer, much better than wind farms. Redgolfer00
  • Score: 0

1:11pm Thu 8 Nov 12

penhale says...

Friends of the earth ought to find something to take up their spare time, global warming is the biggest con since time began, it's pushing up fuel bills beyond the normal working persons reach and the government is ripping us all off with carbon taxes, the air is cleaner now than it was 30 years ago whe the only problem was the ozone layer disappearing, don't hear much about that now, cars are cleaner, cfcs have been banned and there have been massive strides in cleaner planes yet this crazy bunch of crackpots are still on about global warming, I suspect that's caused by all the hot air this lot throw out of their gobs evey day
Friends of the earth ought to find something to take up their spare time, global warming is the biggest con since time began, it's pushing up fuel bills beyond the normal working persons reach and the government is ripping us all off with carbon taxes, the air is cleaner now than it was 30 years ago whe the only problem was the ozone layer disappearing, don't hear much about that now, cars are cleaner, cfcs have been banned and there have been massive strides in cleaner planes yet this crazy bunch of crackpots are still on about global warming, I suspect that's caused by all the hot air this lot throw out of their gobs evey day penhale
  • Score: 0

1:36pm Thu 8 Nov 12

kingstonpaul says...

I’m no card carrying climate change warrior, I’m totally unconvinced by the case for wind farms, and the benefits they deliver are far outweighed by their environmental damage. But, I do find myself becoming more sympathetic to the idea that there is something not quite right happening with our climate, and that the evidence of polar ice melt is kind of convincing. While also keeping in mind that in the past we’ve never really been able to measure this stuff, so what we’re seeing may just be the impact of better measurement.

But, one thing I am in no doubt about is that huge amounts of energy are expended on fuelling the needless and wanton demands of a consumer society. Energy consumption and the fallout from it could be reduced significantly if we learnt to buy less of the millions of tons of tat that require valuable oil reserves to manufacture and distribute. Pointless purchases that serve no ‘want’ other than vanity. The desire to ‘consume’ consume, and then consume some more…’. These eco warriors should concentrate their fire power on getting people to consume less, make do with what we’ve got.
I’m no card carrying climate change warrior, I’m totally unconvinced by the case for wind farms, and the benefits they deliver are far outweighed by their environmental damage. But, I do find myself becoming more sympathetic to the idea that there is something not quite right happening with our climate, and that the evidence of polar ice melt is kind of convincing. While also keeping in mind that in the past we’ve never really been able to measure this stuff, so what we’re seeing may just be the impact of better measurement. But, one thing I am in no doubt about is that huge amounts of energy are expended on fuelling the needless and wanton demands of a consumer society. Energy consumption and the fallout from it could be reduced significantly if we learnt to buy less of the millions of tons of tat that require valuable oil reserves to manufacture and distribute. Pointless purchases that serve no ‘want’ other than vanity. The desire to ‘consume’ consume, and then consume some more…’. These eco warriors should concentrate their fire power on getting people to consume less, make do with what we’ve got. kingstonpaul
  • Score: 0

1:36pm Thu 8 Nov 12

karmicfabio says...

Everything I read and have seen points to the need for many different types of forms of green energy, wind, tidal, thermal, solar. The good news is that in 20-50 years fusion stations will be online, but to a huge cost. In the mean time many coal power stations and nuclear have reached the end of their lives, so in the next 5-10 years there will be a massive short fall in power, meaning more power cuts!

For those who think rising oil prices is purely due to global warming con, you need to read up on "peak oil" which the main arab oil producers deny. Oil is now a dwindling resource, that is why it will continue to rise in price. It is possible to build more coal power stations which have scrubbed the carbons, but these are very expensive also and a huge number would be required to power the whole country.
Everything I read and have seen points to the need for many different types of forms of green energy, wind, tidal, thermal, solar. The good news is that in 20-50 years fusion stations will be online, but to a huge cost. In the mean time many coal power stations and nuclear have reached the end of their lives, so in the next 5-10 years there will be a massive short fall in power, meaning more power cuts! For those who think rising oil prices is purely due to global warming con, you need to read up on "peak oil" which the main arab oil producers deny. Oil is now a dwindling resource, that is why it will continue to rise in price. It is possible to build more coal power stations which have scrubbed the carbons, but these are very expensive also and a huge number would be required to power the whole country. karmicfabio
  • Score: 0

1:40pm Thu 8 Nov 12

karmicfabio says...

kingstonpaul wrote:
I’m no card carrying climate change warrior, I’m totally unconvinced by the case for wind farms, and the benefits they deliver are far outweighed by their environmental damage. But, I do find myself becoming more sympathetic to the idea that there is something not quite right happening with our climate, and that the evidence of polar ice melt is kind of convincing. While also keeping in mind that in the past we’ve never really been able to measure this stuff, so what we’re seeing may just be the impact of better measurement.

But, one thing I am in no doubt about is that huge amounts of energy are expended on fuelling the needless and wanton demands of a consumer society. Energy consumption and the fallout from it could be reduced significantly if we learnt to buy less of the millions of tons of tat that require valuable oil reserves to manufacture and distribute. Pointless purchases that serve no ‘want’ other than vanity. The desire to ‘consume’ consume, and then consume some more…’. These eco warriors should concentrate their fire power on getting people to consume less, make do with what we’ve got.
Totally agree, but to do this we would have to get rid of Capitalism and replace with a more democratic economy such as Parecon (Participatory economics). Parecon economy benefits those who plan their consumption, where as those who dont pay more.
[quote][p][bold]kingstonpaul[/bold] wrote: I’m no card carrying climate change warrior, I’m totally unconvinced by the case for wind farms, and the benefits they deliver are far outweighed by their environmental damage. But, I do find myself becoming more sympathetic to the idea that there is something not quite right happening with our climate, and that the evidence of polar ice melt is kind of convincing. While also keeping in mind that in the past we’ve never really been able to measure this stuff, so what we’re seeing may just be the impact of better measurement. But, one thing I am in no doubt about is that huge amounts of energy are expended on fuelling the needless and wanton demands of a consumer society. Energy consumption and the fallout from it could be reduced significantly if we learnt to buy less of the millions of tons of tat that require valuable oil reserves to manufacture and distribute. Pointless purchases that serve no ‘want’ other than vanity. The desire to ‘consume’ consume, and then consume some more…’. These eco warriors should concentrate their fire power on getting people to consume less, make do with what we’ve got.[/p][/quote]Totally agree, but to do this we would have to get rid of Capitalism and replace with a more democratic economy such as Parecon (Participatory economics). Parecon economy benefits those who plan their consumption, where as those who dont pay more. karmicfabio
  • Score: 0

4:35pm Thu 8 Nov 12

Ophilum says...

They are the green Taliban, they try and force there ideas down your throat whether you like it or not, They are always right like the Taliban, religion has it,s uses for the greens.
No Wind farms.
They are the green Taliban, they try and force there ideas down your throat whether you like it or not, They are always right like the Taliban, religion has it,s uses for the greens. No Wind farms. Ophilum
  • Score: 0

10:55pm Thu 8 Nov 12

Letcommonsenseprevail says...

There appears to be a half-person / half-dog mutant creature on the left hand end of the banner........
There appears to be a half-person / half-dog mutant creature on the left hand end of the banner........ Letcommonsenseprevail
  • Score: 0

10:55pm Thu 8 Nov 12

Letcommonsenseprevail says...

upyourpipe wrote:
No we dont.
Oh yes we do!
[quote][p][bold]upyourpipe[/bold] wrote: No we dont.[/p][/quote]Oh yes we do! Letcommonsenseprevail
  • Score: 0

10:57pm Thu 8 Nov 12

Letcommonsenseprevail says...

karmicfabio wrote:
kingstonpaul wrote:
I’m no card carrying climate change warrior, I’m totally unconvinced by the case for wind farms, and the benefits they deliver are far outweighed by their environmental damage. But, I do find myself becoming more sympathetic to the idea that there is something not quite right happening with our climate, and that the evidence of polar ice melt is kind of convincing. While also keeping in mind that in the past we’ve never really been able to measure this stuff, so what we’re seeing may just be the impact of better measurement.

But, one thing I am in no doubt about is that huge amounts of energy are expended on fuelling the needless and wanton demands of a consumer society. Energy consumption and the fallout from it could be reduced significantly if we learnt to buy less of the millions of tons of tat that require valuable oil reserves to manufacture and distribute. Pointless purchases that serve no ‘want’ other than vanity. The desire to ‘consume’ consume, and then consume some more…’. These eco warriors should concentrate their fire power on getting people to consume less, make do with what we’ve got.
Totally agree, but to do this we would have to get rid of Capitalism and replace with a more democratic economy such as Parecon (Participatory economics). Parecon economy benefits those who plan their consumption, where as those who dont pay more.
Heavy stuff!
[quote][p][bold]karmicfabio[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]kingstonpaul[/bold] wrote: I’m no card carrying climate change warrior, I’m totally unconvinced by the case for wind farms, and the benefits they deliver are far outweighed by their environmental damage. But, I do find myself becoming more sympathetic to the idea that there is something not quite right happening with our climate, and that the evidence of polar ice melt is kind of convincing. While also keeping in mind that in the past we’ve never really been able to measure this stuff, so what we’re seeing may just be the impact of better measurement. But, one thing I am in no doubt about is that huge amounts of energy are expended on fuelling the needless and wanton demands of a consumer society. Energy consumption and the fallout from it could be reduced significantly if we learnt to buy less of the millions of tons of tat that require valuable oil reserves to manufacture and distribute. Pointless purchases that serve no ‘want’ other than vanity. The desire to ‘consume’ consume, and then consume some more…’. These eco warriors should concentrate their fire power on getting people to consume less, make do with what we’ve got.[/p][/quote]Totally agree, but to do this we would have to get rid of Capitalism and replace with a more democratic economy such as Parecon (Participatory economics). Parecon economy benefits those who plan their consumption, where as those who dont pay more.[/p][/quote]Heavy stuff! Letcommonsenseprevail
  • Score: 0

1:34am Fri 9 Nov 12

Phixer says...

Letcommonsenseprevai
l
wrote:
upyourpipe wrote:
No we dont.
Oh yes we do!
Oh no we don't!
[quote][p][bold]Letcommonsenseprevai l[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]upyourpipe[/bold] wrote: No we dont.[/p][/quote]Oh yes we do![/p][/quote]Oh no we don't! Phixer
  • Score: 0

2:21am Fri 9 Nov 12

Tom 'Boscombe' Jones says...

Eco-fascists.
Eco-fascists. Tom 'Boscombe' Jones
  • Score: 0

9:27am Fri 9 Nov 12

BarrHumbug says...

Rather than spouting theories on what it will look like or how much or how little energy it will produce, after all we can all go on the internet and find damming evidence for both sides of the argument, why don't we just look to the people who have done it and know?

The Germans now boast 25% of their energy requirements come from renewables and are decommissioning all their nuclear power plants.
We should look to our EU neighbours to follow the shining example they are setting.
Their 50% rise on their energy bills next year to cover the spiralling costs of subsidies.
Their power shortages meaning they have to import electricity from France and elsewhere
Their Industry moving manufacturing abroad due to the high energy costs.
And their building of 23 new coal fired power stations?

Hmmm, perhaps not such a shining example?
Rather than spouting theories on what it will look like or how much or how little energy it will produce, after all we can all go on the internet and find damming evidence for both sides of the argument, why don't we just look to the people who have done it and know? The Germans now boast 25% of their energy requirements come from renewables and are decommissioning all their nuclear power plants. We should look to our EU neighbours to follow the shining example they are setting. Their 50% rise on their energy bills next year to cover the spiralling costs of subsidies. Their power shortages meaning they have to import electricity from France and elsewhere Their Industry moving manufacturing abroad due to the high energy costs. And their building of 23 new coal fired power stations? Hmmm, perhaps not such a shining example? BarrHumbug
  • Score: 0

12:30pm Fri 9 Nov 12

mooninpisces says...

At what point will these posters, who air their prejudices every time Navitus Bay is mentioned, accept that climate change is real, and dangerous? When the Greenland ice sheet finally slides into the sea? When sea level rises and storm surges mean Bournemouth Square is permanently under water? When hordes of environmental refugees from parched tropics arrive on our shores seeking shelter ? Trouble is, by this time, it would be too late to do anything about it.

I like to believe that humankind can be wise enough to anticipate where things are going, and take remedial action before it is too late. But here, it seems, King Canute still rules.
At what point will these posters, who air their prejudices every time Navitus Bay is mentioned, accept that climate change is real, and dangerous? When the Greenland ice sheet finally slides into the sea? When sea level rises and storm surges mean Bournemouth Square is permanently under water? When hordes of environmental refugees from parched tropics arrive on our shores seeking shelter ? Trouble is, by this time, it would be too late to do anything about it. I like to believe that humankind can be wise enough to anticipate where things are going, and take remedial action before it is too late. But here, it seems, King Canute still rules. mooninpisces
  • Score: 0

2:41pm Fri 9 Nov 12

BourneRed says...

mooninpisces wrote:
At what point will these posters, who air their prejudices every time Navitus Bay is mentioned, accept that climate change is real, and dangerous? When the Greenland ice sheet finally slides into the sea? When sea level rises and storm surges mean Bournemouth Square is permanently under water? When hordes of environmental refugees from parched tropics arrive on our shores seeking shelter ? Trouble is, by this time, it would be too late to do anything about it.

I like to believe that humankind can be wise enough to anticipate where things are going, and take remedial action before it is too late. But here, it seems, King Canute still rules.
Why do you assume that people against this current proposal automatically have no concerns about climate change and the need to find renewable energy?

Why not actually read the comments and discover that many are just against the plans in their current form, some want more information before making a judgement and some believe there are more sustainable ideas than mass off shore wind farms.

99.9% of the time you cannot make an argument into a black or white situation, the fact that there are so many concerns with this current proposal should set the alarm bells ringing and make you think that perhaps with more information from the developers, together with some alterations that perhaps more people may well support some sort of plan as the country looks for many ways of supplying renewable energy?
[quote][p][bold]mooninpisces[/bold] wrote: At what point will these posters, who air their prejudices every time Navitus Bay is mentioned, accept that climate change is real, and dangerous? When the Greenland ice sheet finally slides into the sea? When sea level rises and storm surges mean Bournemouth Square is permanently under water? When hordes of environmental refugees from parched tropics arrive on our shores seeking shelter ? Trouble is, by this time, it would be too late to do anything about it. I like to believe that humankind can be wise enough to anticipate where things are going, and take remedial action before it is too late. But here, it seems, King Canute still rules.[/p][/quote]Why do you assume that people against this current proposal automatically have no concerns about climate change and the need to find renewable energy? Why not actually read the comments and discover that many are just against the plans in their current form, some want more information before making a judgement and some believe there are more sustainable ideas than mass off shore wind farms. 99.9% of the time you cannot make an argument into a black or white situation, the fact that there are so many concerns with this current proposal should set the alarm bells ringing and make you think that perhaps with more information from the developers, together with some alterations that perhaps more people may well support some sort of plan as the country looks for many ways of supplying renewable energy? BourneRed
  • Score: 0

3:53pm Fri 9 Nov 12

mooninpisces says...

BourneRed wrote:
mooninpisces wrote:
At what point will these posters, who air their prejudices every time Navitus Bay is mentioned, accept that climate change is real, and dangerous? When the Greenland ice sheet finally slides into the sea? When sea level rises and storm surges mean Bournemouth Square is permanently under water? When hordes of environmental refugees from parched tropics arrive on our shores seeking shelter ? Trouble is, by this time, it would be too late to do anything about it.

I like to believe that humankind can be wise enough to anticipate where things are going, and take remedial action before it is too late. But here, it seems, King Canute still rules.
Why do you assume that people against this current proposal automatically have no concerns about climate change and the need to find renewable energy?

Why not actually read the comments and discover that many are just against the plans in their current form, some want more information before making a judgement and some believe there are more sustainable ideas than mass off shore wind farms.

99.9% of the time you cannot make an argument into a black or white situation, the fact that there are so many concerns with this current proposal should set the alarm bells ringing and make you think that perhaps with more information from the developers, together with some alterations that perhaps more people may well support some sort of plan as the country looks for many ways of supplying renewable energy?
My remarks were directed at most of the posters above (and I exclude you, as yours was a reasoned case), not all people questioning the current proposal. Of course there are valid arguments for and against Navitus Bay, and alternatives should be considered. What I was objecting to is the large number of ill-informed comments which either deny the reality of man-made climate change, or pretend that wind farms don't work, or both.
[quote][p][bold]BourneRed[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]mooninpisces[/bold] wrote: At what point will these posters, who air their prejudices every time Navitus Bay is mentioned, accept that climate change is real, and dangerous? When the Greenland ice sheet finally slides into the sea? When sea level rises and storm surges mean Bournemouth Square is permanently under water? When hordes of environmental refugees from parched tropics arrive on our shores seeking shelter ? Trouble is, by this time, it would be too late to do anything about it. I like to believe that humankind can be wise enough to anticipate where things are going, and take remedial action before it is too late. But here, it seems, King Canute still rules.[/p][/quote]Why do you assume that people against this current proposal automatically have no concerns about climate change and the need to find renewable energy? Why not actually read the comments and discover that many are just against the plans in their current form, some want more information before making a judgement and some believe there are more sustainable ideas than mass off shore wind farms. 99.9% of the time you cannot make an argument into a black or white situation, the fact that there are so many concerns with this current proposal should set the alarm bells ringing and make you think that perhaps with more information from the developers, together with some alterations that perhaps more people may well support some sort of plan as the country looks for many ways of supplying renewable energy?[/p][/quote]My remarks were directed at most of the posters above (and I exclude you, as yours was a reasoned case), not all people questioning the current proposal. Of course there are valid arguments for and against Navitus Bay, and alternatives should be considered. What I was objecting to is the large number of ill-informed comments which either deny the reality of man-made climate change, or pretend that wind farms don't work, or both. mooninpisces
  • Score: 0

5:29pm Fri 9 Nov 12

mooninpisces says...

I wonder if Christchurch Council will be making their conference report on deep geothermal energy as an alternative to wind power available to the general public? Their estimates of energy generating capacity seem incredibly optimistic - Southampton, which already extracts geothermal energy from the Wessex basin, does not meet anything like 20% of its residents' energy demands from this source. And has any account been taken of the risk that the fracturing of rocks needed to extract deep geothermal energy could trigger earthquake activity? No energy source is problem-free, which is why it is so important to develop more effective measures to reduce energy demand.
I wonder if Christchurch Council will be making their conference report on deep geothermal energy as an alternative to wind power available to the general public? Their estimates of energy generating capacity seem incredibly optimistic - Southampton, which already extracts geothermal energy from the Wessex basin, does not meet anything like 20% of its residents' energy demands from this source. And has any account been taken of the risk that the fracturing of rocks needed to extract deep geothermal energy could trigger earthquake activity? No energy source is problem-free, which is why it is so important to develop more effective measures to reduce energy demand. mooninpisces
  • Score: 0

6:15pm Fri 9 Nov 12

anigel says...

Read the article and cannot see a single reason why we need it.

What we need is modern gas powered or nuclear generation.

With the investment of the same amount of money that we have wasted turning this once pleasant land into a pin cushion, we could have clean reliable generation capability and beautiful landscapes, but instead its all about the fast buck and the brainwashed few screaming fallacies about your kids will hate you forever if you don't build a windmill on every inch of this planet.

Wind power can never be a reliable base load power generation system which is something that tidal could have been, but instead we have wasted all this time, money and the beauty of our landscapes on wind because too many people have jumped on the wind religion, and yes it is a religion as so many people trust in wind on faith, they have done no thinking about it, and no investigation, they just take it on faith and believe that because someone green once said wind is good then it must be the only answer.

You only have to look at how the whole bio ethanol in fuels has damaged the planet to see where we are heading with wind power.

Wind power is the wrong answer even if people think they are backing it for all the right reasons.
Read the article and cannot see a single reason why we need it. What we need is modern gas powered or nuclear generation. With the investment of the same amount of money that we have wasted turning this once pleasant land into a pin cushion, we could have clean reliable generation capability and beautiful landscapes, but instead its all about the fast buck and the brainwashed few screaming fallacies about your kids will hate you forever if you don't build a windmill on every inch of this planet. Wind power can never be a reliable base load power generation system which is something that tidal could have been, but instead we have wasted all this time, money and the beauty of our landscapes on wind because too many people have jumped on the wind religion, and yes it is a religion as so many people trust in wind on faith, they have done no thinking about it, and no investigation, they just take it on faith and believe that because someone green once said wind is good then it must be the only answer. You only have to look at how the whole bio ethanol in fuels has damaged the planet to see where we are heading with wind power. Wind power is the wrong answer even if people think they are backing it for all the right reasons. anigel
  • 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