Protesters fighting wind farm plans will link hands along Swanage seafront (From Bournemouth Echo)

Flusters wrote:
They can find another place to build their wind farm, not on a world heritage site where it will be a danger to shipping (just when our lifeboats are taken away), spoil the tourist trade, a danger to migrating wildlife and ruin an iconic view. We do need urgent help with our power problems but the small amount of power it will generate will be fed into the national grid and may well be sent off to the continent.

aerolover wrote:
It will not be in the world heritage site that is further along the coast towards Weymouth.
Modern ship are not like the Titanic they have modern navigation systems and don't relie on a man up a mast anymore.
I would like to see evidence on how many birds would be killed, pity it's not seagulls or pigeons who crap all over the place.
Don't remember our lifeboats being taken away?
Our power going to the continent, that I don't believe, we buy a lot of our power from France so I can't believe that the company who will build the wind farms will sell to the France, they will want to get the most out of us. We should be building this farm ourselves, we had a company on the Isle of Wight who made this type of thing.
People need to get into the 21st century and realise we have big problems with power generation or lack of it.

aerolover wrote:
It will not be in the world heritage site that is further along the coast towards Weymouth.
Modern ship are not like the Titanic they have modern navigation systems and don't relie on a man up a mast anymore.
I would like to see evidence on how many birds would be killed, pity it's not seagulls or pigeons who crap all over the place.
Don't remember our lifeboats being taken away?
Our power going to the continent, that I don't believe, we buy a lot of our power from France so I can't believe that the company who will build the wind farms will sell to the France, they will want to get the most out of us. We should be building this farm ourselves, we had a company on the Isle of Wight who made this type of thing.
People need to get into the 21st century and realise we have big problems with power generation or lack of it.

aerolover wrote:
It will not be in the world heritage site that is further along the coast towards Weymouth.
Modern ship are not like the Titanic they have modern navigation systems and don't relie on a man up a mast anymore.
I would like to see evidence on how many birds would be killed, pity it's not seagulls or pigeons who crap all over the place.
Don't remember our lifeboats being taken away?
Our power going to the continent, that I don't believe, we buy a lot of our power from France so I can't believe that the company who will build the wind farms will sell to the France, they will want to get the most out of us. We should be building this farm ourselves, we had a company on the Isle of Wight who made this type of thing.
People need to get into the 21st century and realise we have big problems with power generation or lack of it.

Dont drop litter wrote:
The distance to the horizon at sea level (i.e. the beach) is only about 3 miles. Given the height of the turbines, i am doubtful whether they will even be visible at 10miles off shore.
There needs to be some sort of initiative for generating power - wind turbines are far more effective than solar power.
There is a huge wind farm off the coast of East Anglia, again a very busy shipping area, and soo far I haven't heard of a single ship colliding with a turbine.

Nora James wrote:
Has anyone really looked in to wither Wind Farms actually work, what happens when there is no wind?What will happen to the wild life?what about the large ships going into Poole Harbour?if there is a call out for the lifeboat what danger to our brave men that go to the rescue? I feel Swanage is being damaged so much with the Developers who what to tear down our beautiful old houses and build these awful concrete blocks ( have you seen what they have put in place of WESTBURY , no we do not want Wind Farms of the coast of Swanage, thank you.

aerolover wrote:
If they don't want it built at sea perhaps they would like it in their back yard. We need something to help with our power problems. I for one wouldn't worry if it was built the view would not make much difference. I'm sure the thousands of tourists would still come and wouldn't be put off. Many places in Europe have them on land and sea and still people go there for holidays.
Let those who don't want this type or any other type of power station pay higher bills and those who allow them pay less, that's fair.

Palantir wrote:
So when they link arms on the seafront, this will stop the builders going out on their boats to build the turbines?

As others have said, these people need to get with it and try to comprehend some more accurate facts, rather than the ones perpetuated by the people concerned about their house prices decreasing by about £20.

We need to be looking at viable sources of energy, there is minimal damage to be expected to seabird flocks and at the end of the day, modern marine navigation tends to have clear statement on their maps as to where things are... not to mention radar.

Oh and while I'm there, are the oil and gas rigs not a hazard to shipping on the same basis these ill-informed people are saying about these turbines?

Andy_Moordown wrote:
I think calling them 'bird choppers' is sensationalizing the issue a bit. I would be surprised if birds can't avoid a massive blade moving that slowly. Perhaps the design of turbines 20 years ago which had a much greater rate of revolution were more hazardous to birds.

Can anybody back up their claims that wind turbines don't help decrease co2 output? Surely once they have been installed and commissioned they just keep generating limitless clean energy (providing there is wind of course...)

timwel wrote:

Palantir wrote:
So when they link arms on the seafront, this will stop the builders going out on their boats to build the turbines?

As others have said, these people need to get with it and try to comprehend some more accurate facts, rather than the ones perpetuated by the people concerned about their house prices decreasing by about £20.

We need to be looking at viable sources of energy, there is minimal damage to be expected to seabird flocks and at the end of the day, modern marine navigation tends to have clear statement on their maps as to where things are... not to mention radar.

Oh and while I'm there, are the oil and gas rigs not a hazard to shipping on the same basis these ill-informed people are saying about these turbines?

Then you don't know Durlston is a migration route for thousands of British birds twice a year??????????? straight into a 300 foot set of choppers????
This is just sick.........you can come and help shovel the corpses off the Purbeck beaches

Oh and bye-the-way the renewables movement is mainly a scam, wind power saves almost no CO2 and is vastly expensive so check your facts not the Government propaganda

mooninpisces wrote:
If the wind farm doesn't go ahead, and if nothing is done, anywhere else, to stop the rise in CO2 emissions, Swanage will suffer from the resulting sea level rise and from the increased frequency and intensity of severe storms. Perhaps Sunday's protesters will return, when the promenade is completely under water, to link hands to stop the sea going any further up into the town.

justdreaming wrote:
One Winfrith equalls how many ugly wind farms...............

.anybody got any idea ?

Andy_Moordown wrote:

justdreaming wrote: One Winfrith equalls how many ugly wind farms............... .anybody got any idea ?

not sure, but I can tell you one accident on the scale of Fukushima (unlikely I know but still possible) = 1 irradiated Dorset. I wonder how that would effect tourism.... a note to all, Just because you say that the turbines will not generate the amount of energy or save the amount of CO2 quoted by Eneco that does not make it true. Not one person has bothered to back up their statements with any facts whatsoever. I'm far more inclined to believe the figures quoted on the Eneco website (enough to power 775m ,000 homes & 1.15mil tonnes of CO2), as they are derived from ACTUAL data collected and scientific calculation. As for the 'bird chopper' argument, I find it surprising that the RSPB itself intends to construct a large wind turbine at its headquarters in Bedfordshire, it appears that they don't agree with your claims either.

Andy_Moordown wrote:

justdreaming wrote: One Winfrith equalls how many ugly wind farms............... .anybody got any idea ?

not sure, but I can tell you one accident on the scale of Fukushima (unlikely I know but still possible) = 1 irradiated Dorset. I wonder how that would effect tourism.... a note to all, Just because you say that the turbines will not generate the amount of energy or save the amount of CO2 quoted by Eneco that does not make it true. Not one person has bothered to back up their statements with any facts whatsoever. I'm far more inclined to believe the figures quoted on the Eneco website (enough to power 775m ,000 homes & 1.15mil tonnes of CO2), as they are derived from ACTUAL data collected and scientific calculation. As for the 'bird chopper' argument, I find it surprising that the RSPB itself intends to construct a large wind turbine at its headquarters in Bedfordshire, it appears that they don't agree with your claims either.

Bmth12345 wrote:
BarrHumbug says...
10:41am Mon 7 Jan 13

You are ignoring the fact the local area mainly survives on tourism, selling the Jurassic Coast!

Note COAST in the title, how does a huge wind farm assist this??

I suspect you thought the IMAX was beautiful. What a horrible place we would live in, if you were in charge?

I have nothing against Wind Farms, but dont put them in a Tourist Area that happens to be a World Heritage Site.

Its beyond belief, that any one can argue its a good location!!

Remember we have a very long coast line!!!

Tom_uk2 wrote:
Fact : wind turbines cannot operate in winds above 40mph. They produce electricity 70-85% of the time and typically generate 30% of their theoretical maximum load. - taken from Nottingham university study

My feelings are that wind has its uses and correct places. The dorset cost isn't one of them. There are many more unpopulated areas of coastline for offshore developments and study's reveal there is a need for onshore and offshore ones. Who cares about a couple wind turbines at the side of the road on your journey but a few hundred interrupting some if the best views in the country has caused a stir. I am not a nimby as I live in Somerset. I'd quite happily have one off certain parts of our coastline but not dorset.

To be quoting the developers facts is also very dangerous statistics can be used to any sides advantage. I.e quote the capability of the turbine and not the average power production.

What happens in 30 years when they fail and need replacing or if the government change their view in wind or that its proven to offer no significant power. Hundreds of miles of cable and cement will lie at the bottom of our ocean

mooninpisces wrote:

Tom_uk2 wrote:
Fact : wind turbines cannot operate in winds above 40mph. They produce electricity 70-85% of the time and typically generate 30% of their theoretical maximum load. - taken from Nottingham university study

My feelings are that wind has its uses and correct places. The dorset cost isn't one of them. There are many more unpopulated areas of coastline for offshore developments and study's reveal there is a need for onshore and offshore ones. Who cares about a couple wind turbines at the side of the road on your journey but a few hundred interrupting some if the best views in the country has caused a stir. I am not a nimby as I live in Somerset. I'd quite happily have one off certain parts of our coastline but not dorset.

To be quoting the developers facts is also very dangerous statistics can be used to any sides advantage. I.e quote the capability of the turbine and not the average power production.

What happens in 30 years when they fail and need replacing or if the government change their view in wind or that its proven to offer no significant power. Hundreds of miles of cable and cement will lie at the bottom of our ocean

I don't know who in Nottingham University gave you this "fact", but it's wrong. Wind turbines don't cut out until 25 m/s - that's 56mph (storm force), not 40mph. The actual load factor of UK offshore turbines varies from year to year, but averages around 35% (not 30%) - it's higher offshore than onshore, and higher in the UK than elsewhere in Europe.

pete woodley wrote:
Mooninpisces,try humouring them,i havent got the patience.

pete woodley wrote:
In case people have not noticed,david furmage is a wind up lad who is on other threads with very silly comments,just to get you going.

mooninpisces wrote:
What is guaranteed if Navitus goes ahead is a small local contribution to moving away from the fossil fuel consumption that is destabilising our climate.

What is guaranteed if nothing, anywhere, goes ahead is more severe storms, accelerating sea level rises, and a whole lot more.

timwel wrote:
Do you know, I live in Swanage and the impact on the coastal view are the least of my concerns and the NIMBY arguments (We had Winfrith here for 30 years, now its someone else's turn NISET). My biggest concern is the way the Government is steam-rollering this project to burden us with a £1bn extra asset, but cant say what they are guaranteeing for this money and inconvenience. So moonpieces what am I guaranteed if this goes ahead?, and remember Chinese coal burning for power generation is going through the roof. Oh and the RSPB surerly must see the benefit of putting a curtain of bird chopping rotors in the path of 000's of migrating birds. I mean,... they couldn't have a different agenda could they?

justdreaming wrote:
Unless they are off the Nth Devon or CornishCoast, they dont know what serious surf is.

ronlin wrote:
And , the turbines only last 7 to 10 years at best , Expensive or what ???

a.g.o.g. wrote:

mooninpisces wrote:
What is guaranteed if Navitus goes ahead is a small local contribution to moving away from the fossil fuel consumption that is destabilising our climate.

What is guaranteed if nothing, anywhere, goes ahead is more severe storms, accelerating sea level rises, and a whole lot more.

What is guaranteed is that the more likely£2Billion and possibly + Navitus investment will produce absolutely NO BENIFIT in terms of Co2 emission in the round because of not only the huge amount that will be produced by the resourcing of the materials, fabrication, transport and installation of the turbines and the high cost of maintaining them but the very fact that such power as they will produce will, like all other wind farm power, solar too, be entirely surplus to the needs of The National Grid and so used, as and when usefully available, to replace the power being provided by conventional stations that will need then to be throttled-back or put on stand-by temporarily at a cost to their efficiency which nobody seems keen to declare.

So with the Climate Change brigade now saying that they need more money and research to resolve the actual impact of extra Co2 on an already ever-changing climate we, the UK citizenry, could end up paying out an extra 10 to 20p per kW hour for our electricity if it is hell-bent on wind contributing 10% of the electrical power provided by the National Grid.
As for Eneco`s brash claim that Navitus would service the needs of 800,000 homes perhaps you should refer to the more modest claims of they who provided Germany`s first 5megaWatt turbine in rating it`s expected contribution of 17gigaWattspa and so being capable of serving the needs of 4500 people - lets say 1500 homes.


That claim is based upon the turbine achieving a 40% load factor year round no less!

Even so, comparing that with the Navitus claim, multiplying by 200 that is, a 40% load factor achievement amounts to 300,000 homes and not 800,000.

SO WHO IS BEING EXTRA CONVENIENT WITH THE TRUTH HERE?

justdreaming wrote:
Hi David, its obvious that you have'nt surfed the likes of Bells Beach. Do that and you will know what i am talking about............Rid

ing some of the best waves in Europe ain't really much to crow about.

justdreaming wrote:
Hi David, its obvious that you have'nt surfed the likes of Bells Beach. Do that and you will know what i am talking about............Rid

ing some of the best waves in Europe ain't really much to crow about.

David Furmage. wrote:

justdreaming wrote:
Hi David, its obvious that you have'nt surfed the likes of Bells Beach. Do that and you will know what i am talking about............Rid


ing some of the best waves in Europe ain't really much to crow about.

Did not relize Bells Beach was in Europe :) though I take it that's one of those waves that if you have not surfed , you don't have an opinion. Thurso , Brimms Ness , Peniche , SuperTubes , Portugal , All along the south west coast of France , Cornwall , Wales , Ireland is nothing to crow about you say ? Comments like that make you look the fool. But hey keep on dreaming , you might wake up one day:)

hamperville wrote:

a.g.o.g. wrote:

mooninpisces wrote: What is guaranteed if Navitus goes ahead is a small local contribution to moving away from the fossil fuel consumption that is destabilising our climate. What is guaranteed if nothing, anywhere, goes ahead is more severe storms, accelerating sea level rises, and a whole lot more.

What is guaranteed is that the more likely£2Billion and possibly + Navitus investment will produce absolutely NO BENIFIT in terms of Co2 emission in the round because of not only the huge amount that will be produced by the resourcing of the materials, fabrication, transport and installation of the turbines and the high cost of maintaining them but the very fact that such power as they will produce will, like all other wind farm power, solar too, be entirely surplus to the needs of The National Grid and so used, as and when usefully available, to replace the power being provided by conventional stations that will need then to be throttled-back or put on stand-by temporarily at a cost to their efficiency which nobody seems keen to declare. So with the Climate Change brigade now saying that they need more money and research to resolve the actual impact of extra Co2 on an already ever-changing climate we, the UK citizenry, could end up paying out an extra 10 to 20p per kW hour for our electricity if it is hell-bent on wind contributing 10% of the electrical power provided by the National Grid. As for Eneco`s brash claim that Navitus would service the needs of 800,000 homes perhaps you should refer to the more modest claims of they who provided Germany`s first 5megaWatt turbine in rating it`s expected contribution of 17gigaWattspa and so being capable of serving the needs of 4500 people - lets say 1500 homes. That claim is based upon the turbine achieving a 40% load factor year round no less! Even so, comparing that with the Navitus claim, multiplying by 200 that is, a 40% load factor achievement amounts to 300,000 homes and not 800,000. SO WHO IS BEING EXTRA CONVENIENT WITH THE TRUTH HERE?

agog said "Navitus investment will produce absolutely NO BENIFIT in terms of Co2 emission in the round because of not only the huge amount that will be produced by the resourcing of the materials, fabrication, transport and installation of the turbines and the high cost of maintaining them but the very fact that such power as they will produce will, like all other wind farm power" That is incorrect. The life cycle of wind farms are well documented and the life cycle CO2 emissions are very similar to nuclear energy. Approx emissions: Coal = 900 gCO2/kwh Nuclear = 22 gCO2/kwh Wind = 37 gCO2/kwh Source: World Nuclear Association

hamperville wrote:
We don't have much choice about energy. We can't continue to pump out CO2 emissions and the UK coast is one of the best places to exploit wind energy.

The issues of wind intermittancy is an engineering issue that the UK is well placed to solve, having a number of advanced low cost energy storage projects that are well into development and that can could be deployed at many locations on the grid.

Tourism had it's day, but it is time to develop new commercial industries that exploit British skills and innovation.
One of the supporters of Challenge Navitus group, is a corporate marketing executive who owns a holiday home on the coast. All very 1980s, but we have moved on and based on the catastrophic weather and climate in the last 12 months across the world and in Dorset, then UK tourism needs better weather to survive.

The only solution to that is renewable energy, of which wind farms are going to be a key player across the UK.

pete woodley wrote:

David Furmage. wrote:

justdreaming wrote:
Hi David, its obvious that you have'nt surfed the likes of Bells Beach. Do that and you will know what i am talking about............Rid



ing some of the best waves in Europe ain't really much to crow about.

Did not relize Bells Beach was in Europe :) though I take it that's one of those waves that if you have not surfed , you don't have an opinion. Thurso , Brimms Ness , Peniche , SuperTubes , Portugal , All along the south west coast of France , Cornwall , Wales , Ireland is nothing to crow about you say ? Comments like that make you look the fool. But hey keep on dreaming , you might wake up one day:)

What a wind up .

mooninpisces wrote:
a.g.o.g. - I've lost count of the times I've pointed out to you that Navitus do take account of the obvious fact that wind speeds vary and that the turbines will not run at peak power throughout the year. Lets go through the maths. Peak capacity is now down to 1,100MW. With a typical offshore load factor of 35%, that's 385MW generated in an average year (1100 X .35), or 3,372,600MWh (385 X 8760). Then divide by 4,370kWh (the DECC assumed average domestic household electricity consumption - MUCH more than my household's, I must say) and you get a figure of 771,762 households. Pretty close to what Navitus say, in their latest reduced plan "In a typical year, we estmate the site could generate enough electricity to power around 775,000 homes." They go on to say "Based on wind speed data from internal sources. This will be updated as Navitus Bay site specific data is gathered".

mooninpisces wrote:
a.g.o.g. - I've lost count of the times I've pointed out to you that Navitus do take account of the obvious fact that wind speeds vary and that the turbines will not run at peak power throughout the year. Lets go through the maths. Peak capacity is now down to 1,100MW. With a typical offshore load factor of 35%, that's 385MW generated in an average year (1100 X .35), or 3,372,600MWh (385 X 8760). Then divide by 4,370kWh (the DECC assumed average domestic household electricity consumption - MUCH more than my household's, I must say) and you get a figure of 771,762 households. Pretty close to what Navitus say, in their latest reduced plan "In a typical year, we estmate the site could generate enough electricity to power around 775,000 homes." They go on to say "Based on wind speed data from internal sources. This will be updated as Navitus Bay site specific data is gathered".

mooninpisces wrote:
a.g.o.g. - I'm struggling to find a single "fact" that you quote here that is both correct and relevant. No wonder you end up with a load factor of only 2% for offshore wind. Or is it 12%?

Clearly you think nuclear is a better bet than offshore wind. Fine, just say that (though I'm still not sure if you're happy for it to be located in our area). You don't have to make up these ridiculous figures to argue that case. I suppose I should be thankful, though, that your preferred solution is a low-carbon one, even though you deny that human-caused climate change exists.

mooninpisces wrote:
a.c.o.g. - Actually it's wind speed PLUS technical efficiency that determines how much is generated. It doesn't matter if the wind is the same in Newcastle as Hurn, 2 antiquated small turbines at Blyth will have a lower load factor than modern large turbines at Navitus. I did misread chart 6.5 in the DECC energy stats - my eyesight confused the graphs for offshore wind and hydro. Apologies. Averaging the past 5 years figures in Table 6.5 you get a load factor of 32% on the more realistic "unchanged configuration basis". The figure for 2011 is 35% (not 28% as you say).

Yankee1 wrote:
I am afraid it will be built, unless the government buys them off. Unlikely. Too much political flack. Too many reasons to issue contracts. The good news is that in 10-15 years it will be demolished as a faiure. The only profit here is in constructing this joke. The bed news is that a Netherlands company will get the demolition contract. Sic transit gloria mundi.......... After all, this is backed by this government, is it not?