We need Navitus Bay windfarm, say environmentalists (From Bournemouth Echo)

No we dont.

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

'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 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??

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.......

"..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.

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 Look at the abandoned wind farms all over the US and parts of Europe - accelerating as subsidies are withdrawn.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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

upyourpipe wrote:
No we dont.

Oh yes we do!

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!

Letcommonsenseprevai
l wrote:

upyourpipe wrote:
No we dont.

Oh yes we do!

Oh no we don't!

Eco-fascists.

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?

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 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?

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.

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.

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.