Protesters fighting wind farm plans will link hands along Swanage seafront

Bournemouth Echo: UP IN ARMS: Supporters of Challenge Navitus who are about to launch a big fundraising drive to finance their campaign UP IN ARMS: Supporters of Challenge Navitus who are about to launch a big fundraising drive to finance their campaign

PROTESTERS will link hands along Swanage seafront in a bid to stop a wind farm being built out to sea.

Navitus Bay, a venture by Dutch Firm Eneco and French power company EDF Energy, has scaled back its plans but that has not been enough to silence opposition, including chief of Bournemouth Tourism Mark Smith.

The new proposals are for the park to be sited 12 miles from Bournemouth rather than 10 with a maximum of 218 turbines instead of 333.

But Swanage resident Charlie Sanderson has set up the protest outside the Mowlem theatre at 11am on Sunday, January 13.

She said: “There are grave concerns over the visual, environmental and economic damage to England’s Jurassic Coast and the whole of the region.”

Mrs Sanderson is concerned about the “visual damage” and fears for “thousands of tourist related jobs”.

She also cites the threat to birds, marine life and the sea bed, as well as seafarers.

South Dorset MP Richard Drax will join the protest and Swanage Mayor Bill Trite is calling on residents to join in like him.

“It’s something that is of great concern to Swanage,” said Cllr Trite.

“The changes are not significant and I would encourage everybody to go along and make their views clear.”

Navitus Bay plans to present new information, including what it says will be improved photomontages of what the wind farm will look like, at a string of fresh public consultations to be announced soon.

Project director Mike Unsworth has said that the formal socio-economic assessment will be completed in the first half of 2013.

Last month, opposition group Challenge Navitus said the changes to the plans were “minor” and would make little difference – it called for the wind farm to be at least 14 miles out to sea in line with government guidance.

Comments (121)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

5:35pm Sun 6 Jan 13

aerolover says...

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.
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. aerolover

5:46pm Sun 6 Jan 13

RichieJB says...

Just sick it's bad enough having them on land but out in the sea, the sea is damaged enough. Richard Drax! ha don't make me laugh he's pathetic look what a mess he's made trying to save Portland coastguard helicopter!!
Just sick it's bad enough having them on land but out in the sea, the sea is damaged enough. Richard Drax! ha don't make me laugh he's pathetic look what a mess he's made trying to save Portland coastguard helicopter!! RichieJB

5:46pm Sun 6 Jan 13

RichieJB says...

Just sick it's bad enough having them on land but out in the sea, the sea is damaged enough. Richard Drax! ha don't make me laugh he's pathetic look what a mess he's made trying to save Portland coastguard helicopter!!
Just sick it's bad enough having them on land but out in the sea, the sea is damaged enough. Richard Drax! ha don't make me laugh he's pathetic look what a mess he's made trying to save Portland coastguard helicopter!! RichieJB

5:58pm Sun 6 Jan 13

Flusters says...

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.
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. Flusters

6:02pm Sun 6 Jan 13

RichieJB says...

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.
you are so right Flusters, it will be sent to the continent, dangerous and complete madness!!
[quote][p][bold]Flusters[/bold] 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.[/p][/quote]you are so right Flusters, it will be sent to the continent, dangerous and complete madness!! RichieJB

6:29pm Sun 6 Jan 13

pete woodley says...

When the protesters have all linked up hands on the beach,will they then walk out as far as the wind turbines will be,as its so near according to them.
When the protesters have all linked up hands on the beach,will they then walk out as far as the wind turbines will be,as its so near according to them. pete woodley

6:48pm Sun 6 Jan 13

aerolover says...

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.
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

10:10pm Sun 6 Jan 13

Palantir says...

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?
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? Palantir

10:51pm Sun 6 Jan 13

B.Fair says...

Millions of birds live happily alongside wind turbines in Holland, however thousands of birds, together with other wildlife, are slaughtered every day on our country roads . One of the worst is the Ringwood to Salisbury road - it would make more sense for anyone concerned about birds to protest there.
Millions of birds live happily alongside wind turbines in Holland, however thousands of birds, together with other wildlife, are slaughtered every day on our country roads . One of the worst is the Ringwood to Salisbury road - it would make more sense for anyone concerned about birds to protest there. B.Fair

12:24am Mon 7 Jan 13

Glashen says...

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.
It will be in sight of the World Heritage,
-
Try googling "ship collision" or think back 12 months to the Costa Concordia,
-
A wind farm in this location will obviously effect migrating birds, to what extent remains to be seen but it will have a detrimental effect.
-
Helicopter rescue will be difficult or impossible within the boundaries of the wind farm.
-
This is not 21st century technology there are far better solutions to our energy needs short, medium and long term.
[quote][p][bold]aerolover[/bold] 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.[/p][/quote]It will be in sight of the World Heritage, - Try googling "ship collision" or think back 12 months to the Costa Concordia, - A wind farm in this location will obviously effect migrating birds, to what extent remains to be seen but it will have a detrimental effect. - Helicopter rescue will be difficult or impossible within the boundaries of the wind farm. - This is not 21st century technology there are far better solutions to our energy needs short, medium and long term. Glashen

5:34am Mon 7 Jan 13

BackOfTheNet says...

Perhaps his Lordship would consent to a nuclear power station on his considerable amount of land instead?
Perhaps his Lordship would consent to a nuclear power station on his considerable amount of land instead? BackOfTheNet

6:54am Mon 7 Jan 13

JohnnySouthbourne says...

aerolover says: "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."
-
An interesting point, but the wrong way round. For this wind farm the SUBSIDIES ALONE (charged to Utility billpayers) will be DOUBLE the wholesale cost of conventional power. On top of this you can add everything else. So, according to aerolover's logic, it is those who support this nonsense who should be paying the higher bills.
-
Will people please look at the facts and figures instead of believing the absolute myth that energy produced from this wind farm will be cheap or free. As the Americans say, you do the math!
aerolover says: "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." - An interesting point, but the wrong way round. For this wind farm the SUBSIDIES ALONE (charged to Utility billpayers) will be DOUBLE the wholesale cost of conventional power. On top of this you can add everything else. So, according to aerolover's logic, it is those who support this nonsense who should be paying the higher bills. - Will people please look at the facts and figures instead of believing the absolute myth that energy produced from this wind farm will be cheap or free. As the Americans say, you do the math! JohnnySouthbourne

7:02am Mon 7 Jan 13

Bmth12345 says...

What ridiculous comments here! I take it the same people who like this wind farm didn't mind the IMAX and the eyesore it became?

Look... Bournemouth, Swanage, the coast is heavily reliant on tourism. And the views from our shores are integral to this.

Please visit Durlston in swanage and tell me the view doesn't matter!

However this is not locals being nimbys! Would you put 10,000 homes in the heart of the new forest no! Would you build factories in the middle of the Lake District no!

So... Why is it acceptable to put wind turbines in a world heritage site?? The answer is no!

I have nothing against wind turbines and understand we need alternative energy. But the uk has the 3rd longest coast line in the EU!

Can we put these away from a tourist centre, and world heritage site? Answer yes we can!

Common sense please and stop this madness.
What ridiculous comments here! I take it the same people who like this wind farm didn't mind the IMAX and the eyesore it became? Look... Bournemouth, Swanage, the coast is heavily reliant on tourism. And the views from our shores are integral to this. Please visit Durlston in swanage and tell me the view doesn't matter! However this is not locals being nimbys! Would you put 10,000 homes in the heart of the new forest no! Would you build factories in the middle of the Lake District no! So... Why is it acceptable to put wind turbines in a world heritage site?? The answer is no! I have nothing against wind turbines and understand we need alternative energy. But the uk has the 3rd longest coast line in the EU! Can we put these away from a tourist centre, and world heritage site? Answer yes we can! Common sense please and stop this madness. Bmth12345

9:14am Mon 7 Jan 13

karalinda says...

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 says the Jurassic Coast is further along the coast to Weymouth, in which case he had better inform World Heritage that they have it wrong, as it does (according to them) start at Old Harry Rocks.
[quote][p][bold]aerolover[/bold] 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.[/p][/quote]Aerolover says the Jurassic Coast is further along the coast to Weymouth, in which case he had better inform World Heritage that they have it wrong, as it does (according to them) start at Old Harry Rocks. karalinda

9:15am Mon 7 Jan 13

karalinda says...

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.
http://jurassiccoast
.org/
[quote][p][bold]aerolover[/bold] 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.[/p][/quote]http://jurassiccoast .org/ karalinda

9:57am Mon 7 Jan 13

Nora James says...

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.
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. Nora James

10:02am Mon 7 Jan 13

pete woodley says...

NORA you are obviously an "expert" on shipping,navigation,
and wind farms,i am surprised your knowledge was not used during consultations.What have developers got to do with wind farms.
NORA you are obviously an "expert" on shipping,navigation, and wind farms,i am surprised your knowledge was not used during consultations.What have developers got to do with wind farms. pete woodley

10:11am Mon 7 Jan 13

saynomore says...

Birds and ships crashing into the turbines what idiotic comments,firstly the turbines turn quite slowly they are not spinning like aircraft props bird have more sense than these protesters and as far as givig the Costa Concordia as an example that was due to bad seamanship not the fault of the rocks that were hit,modern ships dont have a man in a sowester turning a large wheel anymore in you were in any doubt and I doubt that the seabed below existing off shore windfarms are strewn with sunken vessels,the only empty vessels making most noise are the deluded protesters
Birds and ships crashing into the turbines what idiotic comments,firstly the turbines turn quite slowly they are not spinning like aircraft props bird have more sense than these protesters and as far as givig the Costa Concordia as an example that was due to bad seamanship not the fault of the rocks that were hit,modern ships dont have a man in a sowester turning a large wheel anymore in you were in any doubt and I doubt that the seabed below existing off shore windfarms are strewn with sunken vessels,the only empty vessels making most noise are the deluded protesters saynomore

10:37am Mon 7 Jan 13

Dont drop litter says...

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.
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. Dont drop litter

10:41am Mon 7 Jan 13

BarrHumbug says...

If this is the best the objectors can come up with, those in the article and those leaving comments then you might as well save your breath and get on with your lives because your wasting your time.
The Jurassic coast has its world heritage status because of what's under your feet, not what's 12 miles out at sea.

What a stupid comment to say you wouldn't build 10,000 homes in the new forest, no but you wouldn't complain if they were built in Ringwood, Lymington, Southampton and they are within 12 miles of the New Forest, or are you suggesting those places should be flattened because from within the forest you can see them in the distance?

And as for the Costa Concordia? What the hell has an incident caused by a boy racer ship captain got to do with a wind farm?

No, if you really what to stop this then try looking at how Germany's wind farm projects have got on and using facts from proven data rather than just complaining that it won't look very nice!
If this is the best the objectors can come up with, those in the article and those leaving comments then you might as well save your breath and get on with your lives because your wasting your time. The Jurassic coast has its world heritage status because of what's under your feet, not what's 12 miles out at sea. What a stupid comment to say you wouldn't build 10,000 homes in the new forest, no but you wouldn't complain if they were built in Ringwood, Lymington, Southampton and they are within 12 miles of the New Forest, or are you suggesting those places should be flattened because from within the forest you can see them in the distance? And as for the Costa Concordia? What the hell has an incident caused by a boy racer ship captain got to do with a wind farm? No, if you really what to stop this then try looking at how Germany's wind farm projects have got on and using facts from proven data rather than just complaining that it won't look very nice! BarrHumbug

10:43am Mon 7 Jan 13

Nora James says...

They certainly will be visable, and no Pete Woodley I am not an "expert " on shipping, I was talking in "General" about what developers and others are doing to Swanage.
They certainly will be visable, and no Pete Woodley I am not an "expert " on shipping, I was talking in "General" about what developers and others are doing to Swanage. Nora James

10:53am Mon 7 Jan 13

Bmth12345 says...

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!!!
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!!! Bmth12345

11:06am Mon 7 Jan 13

Andy_Moordown says...

Excellent, we should be generating as much renewable energy as we can and for a country with the 3rd longest coastline in the EU it makes good sense to utilize it!

The risk to shipping is not an issue as ships have sophisticated navigation systems, fixed obstacles will be identified on their maps & they will plot a course far away from them.

Surely this is the best option for the environment as the more electricity it generates, the less chemical combustion/nuclear fission has to occur.

Birds can surely just fly over/around them as they do tall buildings or other wind farms.

The Jurassic coast is indeed a local treasure which we should all protect, but I don't believe having a cluster of turbines so far out to sea will take away from its scenery in any way at all.

Whichever place is chosen to build the farms there will always be local opposition who want to move it further down the coast but the reality of it is we can not afford to keep buying in electricity from other countries or filling the atmosphere with fumes or radiation. The most tragic part of this story is that we have to use Dutch/French firms for this project instead of developing UK skills.
Excellent, we should be generating as much renewable energy as we can and for a country with the 3rd longest coastline in the EU it makes good sense to utilize it! The risk to shipping is not an issue as ships have sophisticated navigation systems, fixed obstacles will be identified on their maps & they will plot a course far away from them. Surely this is the best option for the environment as the more electricity it generates, the less chemical combustion/nuclear fission has to occur. Birds can surely just fly over/around them as they do tall buildings or other wind farms. The Jurassic coast is indeed a local treasure which we should all protect, but I don't believe having a cluster of turbines so far out to sea will take away from its scenery in any way at all. Whichever place is chosen to build the farms there will always be local opposition who want to move it further down the coast but the reality of it is we can not afford to keep buying in electricity from other countries or filling the atmosphere with fumes or radiation. The most tragic part of this story is that we have to use Dutch/French firms for this project instead of developing UK skills. Andy_Moordown

11:33am Mon 7 Jan 13

JohnnySouthbourne says...

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.
Yet again someone who hasn't looked at the facts.
-
The Needles is about the same distance from Bournemouth as the turbines are proposed to be. The turbines are TALLER than the cliffs at The Needles. Is the Isle of Wight visible? Yes - then so will the turbines be (except as moving objects they will draw the eye more).
[quote][p][bold]Dont drop litter[/bold] 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.[/p][/quote]Yet again someone who hasn't looked at the facts. - The Needles is about the same distance from Bournemouth as the turbines are proposed to be. The turbines are TALLER than the cliffs at The Needles. Is the Isle of Wight visible? Yes - then so will the turbines be (except as moving objects they will draw the eye more). JohnnySouthbourne

12:03pm Mon 7 Jan 13

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

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.
Yes they have and on the basis that they produce little usable electricity that costs a fortune and are giving them the elbow for more affordable and reliable forms of electricity generation.
[quote][p][bold]Nora James[/bold] 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.[/p][/quote]Yes they have and on the basis that they produce little usable electricity that costs a fortune and are giving them the elbow for more affordable and reliable forms of electricity generation. a.g.o.g.

12:48pm Mon 7 Jan 13

justdreaming says...

My Dorset, always known as England's most "unspoiled county" is about to be raped! These terrible ugly wind farms will wreck what was such a beautiful countryside. How can it be allowed.
My Dorset, always known as England's most "unspoiled county" is about to be raped! These terrible ugly wind farms will wreck what was such a beautiful countryside. How can it be allowed. justdreaming

12:54pm Mon 7 Jan 13

justdreaming says...

When will somebody realise that these wind farms are not very efficient at all, and will be a death sentence to migrating birds as they approach the Dorset coastline as they have, safetly for thousands of years.
When will somebody realise that these wind farms are not very efficient at all, and will be a death sentence to migrating birds as they approach the Dorset coastline as they have, safetly for thousands of years. justdreaming

1:04pm Mon 7 Jan 13

justdreaming says...

Fact,,,Wind farms are one of the most inefficient methods of generating electricity today. Scrap the bloody lot of them !
Fact,,,Wind farms are one of the most inefficient methods of generating electricity today. Scrap the bloody lot of them ! justdreaming

1:22pm Mon 7 Jan 13

Melanie.Read12 says...

Personally, having been a Swanage resident for 15 years, I would be in favour of these turbines. The view from Durlston and the coast path down to Worth is beautiful in itself, and I just don't see that the turbines would change that.
They will be visible, of course, but at 10 miles out would expect that they would be hazy most of the time.
Again, just my opinion, but I have seen huge banks of wind turbines out to see off the coast of East Anglia, and also whilst driving through rural areas of California (quite near Yellowstone NP), and found them fascinating, and not detrimental.
Yes, they may not be everyone's cup of tea, and they may not be the most efficient power source currently, but surely it's worth trying to use a natural and sustainable energy source?
Personally, I believe that reducing the reliance on the planets dwindling resources and addressing our forever-growing energy needs has to be of greater importance here.
Personally, having been a Swanage resident for 15 years, I would be in favour of these turbines. The view from Durlston and the coast path down to Worth is beautiful in itself, and I just don't see that the turbines would change that. They will be visible, of course, but at 10 miles out would expect that they would be hazy most of the time. Again, just my opinion, but I have seen huge banks of wind turbines out to see off the coast of East Anglia, and also whilst driving through rural areas of California (quite near Yellowstone NP), and found them fascinating, and not detrimental. Yes, they may not be everyone's cup of tea, and they may not be the most efficient power source currently, but surely it's worth trying to use a natural and sustainable energy source? Personally, I believe that reducing the reliance on the planets dwindling resources and addressing our forever-growing energy needs has to be of greater importance here. Melanie.Read12

1:25pm Mon 7 Jan 13

Melanie.Read12 says...

Ap. - meant to say Yosemite, not Yellowstone
Ap. - meant to say Yosemite, not Yellowstone Melanie.Read12

1:57pm Mon 7 Jan 13

timwel says...

Remember this monstrous set of bird choppers are set to be sited on a major migration route for thousands of birds via Durlston (check their 2010 report for the numbers) so they get two chances a year to cull migrating birds

Then see this article on the damage:

http://blogs.telegra
ph.co.uk/news/jamesd
elingpole/100196794/
wind-industry-big-li
es-no-3-wind-turbine
s-are-eco-friendly/

Every year in Spain alone — according to research by the conservation group SEO/Birdlife — between 6 and 18 million birds and bats are killed by wind farms. They kill roughly twice as many bats as birds. This breaks down as approximately 110–330 birds per turbine per year and 200–670 bats per year. And these figures may be conservative if you compare them to statistics published in December 2002 by the California Energy Commission: ‘In a summary of avian impacts at wind turbines by Benner et al (1993) bird deaths per turbine per year were as high as 309 in Germany and 895 in Sweden.’
Remember this monstrous set of bird choppers are set to be sited on a major migration route for thousands of birds via Durlston (check their 2010 report for the numbers) so they get two chances a year to cull migrating birds Then see this article on the damage: http://blogs.telegra ph.co.uk/news/jamesd elingpole/100196794/ wind-industry-big-li es-no-3-wind-turbine s-are-eco-friendly/ Every year in Spain alone — according to research by the conservation group SEO/Birdlife — between 6 and 18 million birds and bats are killed by wind farms. They kill roughly twice as many bats as birds. This breaks down as approximately 110–330 birds per turbine per year and 200–670 bats per year. And these figures may be conservative if you compare them to statistics published in December 2002 by the California Energy Commission: ‘In a summary of avian impacts at wind turbines by Benner et al (1993) bird deaths per turbine per year were as high as 309 in Germany and 895 in Sweden.’ timwel

2:03pm Mon 7 Jan 13

timwel says...

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.
I'm sure other have pointed this out... you are already paying higher electric bills for wind power for it is 10x more expensive than conventional generation. I would be happier to see Winfrith re-instated because at least this guaranteed a supply, and with the geniuses who want to put a barrier of bird choppers on a major bird migration route at Durlston, .......well that's just sick
[quote][p][bold]aerolover[/bold] 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.[/p][/quote]I'm sure other have pointed this out... you are already paying higher electric bills for wind power for it is 10x more expensive than conventional generation. I would be happier to see Winfrith re-instated because at least this guaranteed a supply, and with the geniuses who want to put a barrier of bird choppers on a major bird migration route at Durlston, .......well that's just sick timwel

2:09pm Mon 7 Jan 13

timwel says...

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
[quote][p][bold]Palantir[/bold] 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?[/p][/quote]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 timwel

2:12pm Mon 7 Jan 13

kingstonpaul says...

If the folks in the photo just stand and flap their arms around for a couple of hours, they'll generate as much electric as this wind farm will produce.
Or, to protect the view, couldn't they float some articficial trees around them? A bit like the tree skyline they've used to obscure the derricks at Wych Farm?
If the folks in the photo just stand and flap their arms around for a couple of hours, they'll generate as much electric as this wind farm will produce. Or, to protect the view, couldn't they float some articficial trees around them? A bit like the tree skyline they've used to obscure the derricks at Wych Farm? kingstonpaul

2:48pm Mon 7 Jan 13

Andy_Moordown says...

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...)
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...) Andy_Moordown

3:03pm Mon 7 Jan 13

Melanie.Read12 says...

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...)
I've seen that there has been some comment on this thread in regards the wind, or lack of it, affecting the efficiency of the turbines.
From my understanding, whilst there can be a lack of noticeable wind at ground level, the whole reason that these turbines are the height they are, is to take advantage of a more consistent and stronger stream of wind.
The prevailing wind in this area is from the south-west (i.e. up the channel), so should be a pretty constant source, even on a not particularly windy day at street level.
[quote][p][bold]Andy_Moordown[/bold] 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...)[/p][/quote]I've seen that there has been some comment on this thread in regards the wind, or lack of it, affecting the efficiency of the turbines. From my understanding, whilst there can be a lack of noticeable wind at ground level, the whole reason that these turbines are the height they are, is to take advantage of a more consistent and stronger stream of wind. The prevailing wind in this area is from the south-west (i.e. up the channel), so should be a pretty constant source, even on a not particularly windy day at street level. Melanie.Read12

3:40pm Mon 7 Jan 13

timwel says...

Sensationalising? No just opening peoples eyes to the very idea of a set of turbine blades on a major bird migration route. What do you guess happens next?

Please see Anthony Watts connection


I am just exasperated at the inability of people to see what's going on generally with this CO2 scam from the Government.


http://blogs.telegra
ph.co.uk/news/jamesd
elingpole/100196794/
wind-industry-big-li
es-no-3-wind-turbine
s-are-eco-friendly/




http://wattsupwithth
at.com/2013/01/06/th
e-logical-case-again
st-climate-panic/#mo
re-77020
Sensationalising? No just opening peoples eyes to the very idea of a set of turbine blades on a major bird migration route. What do you guess happens next? Please see Anthony Watts connection I am just exasperated at the inability of people to see what's going on generally with this CO2 scam from the Government. http://blogs.telegra ph.co.uk/news/jamesd elingpole/100196794/ wind-industry-big-li es-no-3-wind-turbine s-are-eco-friendly/ http://wattsupwithth at.com/2013/01/06/th e-logical-case-again st-climate-panic/#mo re-77020 timwel

3:55pm Mon 7 Jan 13

justdreaming says...

What problems were there with the very successful Winfrith Project. Surely with their record, this is the way to go. Not these ugly damaging half cocked inefficient bloody great windmills sending out their constant WHOOMP WHOOMP WHOOMP.
What problems were there with the very successful Winfrith Project. Surely with their record, this is the way to go. Not these ugly damaging half cocked inefficient bloody great windmills sending out their constant WHOOMP WHOOMP WHOOMP. justdreaming

4:46pm Mon 7 Jan 13

Palantir says...

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
Sorry, I forgot that the wind turbines go at 13221 RPM and will instantly shred any bird that is incapable of flying around the turbines.

I've not read any government propaganda either, as I personally think that Cameron and Clegg will carry out any publicity stunt they can to get a few extra votes, so I'm going with common sense and what I've read up on it from a wide source prior to posting my comment.

However your comment about 300 foot turbines is in itself something you have utterly failed to check the facts on; if you bothered to look at the proposals before digging out a soapbox, you'll see the following entry:

"2) A 35% reduction in the maximum number of turbines that could be built from 333 to 218. Navitus Bay has narrowed the size of turbine options being considered, meaning that fewer would be built. This also means that the largest turbines will now be smaller than previously proposed, with a maximum height of 200 metres. "
[quote][p][bold]timwel[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Palantir[/bold] 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?[/p][/quote]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[/p][/quote]Sorry, I forgot that the wind turbines go at 13221 RPM and will instantly shred any bird that is incapable of flying around the turbines. I've not read any government propaganda either, as I personally think that Cameron and Clegg will carry out any publicity stunt they can to get a few extra votes, so I'm going with common sense and what I've read up on it from a wide source prior to posting my comment. However your comment about 300 foot turbines is in itself something you have utterly failed to check the facts on; if you bothered to look at the proposals before digging out a soapbox, you'll see the following entry: "2) A 35% reduction in the maximum number of turbines that could be built from 333 to 218. Navitus Bay has narrowed the size of turbine options being considered, meaning that fewer would be built. This also means that the largest turbines will now be smaller than previously proposed, with a maximum height of 200 metres. " Palantir

5:01pm Mon 7 Jan 13

timwel says...

Well I stand corrected clearly 200 metres is much bigger than 300 foot i.e. much more of a barrier than I thought!. And you missed all the articles on the killing potential that land based turbines are now documented to have. Your comment about 13,221 RPM is just a childish joke surely and irrelevant this very serious discussion. But the main issue is that CO2 is not the issue. It's called the 'source effect' and is a classical technique of propaganda dissemination.
Well I stand corrected clearly 200 metres is much bigger than 300 foot i.e. much more of a barrier than I thought!. And you missed all the articles on the killing potential that land based turbines are now documented to have. Your comment about 13,221 RPM is just a childish joke surely and irrelevant this very serious discussion. But the main issue is that CO2 is not the issue. It's called the 'source effect' and is a classical technique of propaganda dissemination. timwel

5:28pm Mon 7 Jan 13

Tom_uk2 says...

There are supported facts that wind farms

A)do not produce as much energy as believed.

B) Have a detrimental affect on migrating wildlife

C) have an affect on tourism levels

This proposal is now 12 miles from Bournemouth. I'm not sure on the distance from Swanage to Bournemouth as the crow flies but is probably 4 miles. Placing it 8 miles off the Swanage. Coast. These will be taller than the cliffs of the iow so noticeable most of the year from this area and although ships have advanced navigation smaller vessels do not. Accidents can always happen and regularly do; just look at lifeboat call outs for last year. There will be incidents within this area, smaller boats especially with any changes in currents etc and the lifeboat or coast guard helicopter which will come from a great distance will have a harder job in rescuing these people.

Perhaps these people are being nimby's but with good reason.

The heritage coast is that for a reason and people do visit for the panoramic views from the cliff tops.

This development Is just in the wrong place. There is a lot of coast in this country and areas not reliant on tourism so heavily.

Loss of tourism has an affect on everyone. If there are less tourists, attractions will close we will loose bars, theatres, cinemas etc things tourists do when here, stores will reduce staff numbers and even close if their turnover is not high enough. Hoteliers will loose their livelihoods and we will have clean energy. That is of no comfort to the people who cannot make ends meat.

There is no guarantee there will be a huge loss in tourism but would you go walking in the Lake District if there were windmills on top the next hill? Some people will have that view. Others won't care. It is a risk the region cannot afford to take
There are supported facts that wind farms A)do not produce as much energy as believed. B) Have a detrimental affect on migrating wildlife C) have an affect on tourism levels This proposal is now 12 miles from Bournemouth. I'm not sure on the distance from Swanage to Bournemouth as the crow flies but is probably 4 miles. Placing it 8 miles off the Swanage. Coast. These will be taller than the cliffs of the iow so noticeable most of the year from this area and although ships have advanced navigation smaller vessels do not. Accidents can always happen and regularly do; just look at lifeboat call outs for last year. There will be incidents within this area, smaller boats especially with any changes in currents etc and the lifeboat or coast guard helicopter which will come from a great distance will have a harder job in rescuing these people. Perhaps these people are being nimby's but with good reason. The heritage coast is that for a reason and people do visit for the panoramic views from the cliff tops. This development Is just in the wrong place. There is a lot of coast in this country and areas not reliant on tourism so heavily. Loss of tourism has an affect on everyone. If there are less tourists, attractions will close we will loose bars, theatres, cinemas etc things tourists do when here, stores will reduce staff numbers and even close if their turnover is not high enough. Hoteliers will loose their livelihoods and we will have clean energy. That is of no comfort to the people who cannot make ends meat. There is no guarantee there will be a huge loss in tourism but would you go walking in the Lake District if there were windmills on top the next hill? Some people will have that view. Others won't care. It is a risk the region cannot afford to take Tom_uk2

5:33pm Mon 7 Jan 13

Tom_uk2 says...

http://www.dailymail
.co.uk/news/article-
2210986/Wind-farms-g
iven-34m-switch-bad-
weather-Households-s
tung-secretive-payme
nts.html

Another aspect worth considering. We paid 34m to have wind turbines turned off In high winds. More wind turbines = increased costs = increased bills for us. Read daily mail report in above link
http://www.dailymail .co.uk/news/article- 2210986/Wind-farms-g iven-34m-switch-bad- weather-Households-s tung-secretive-payme nts.html Another aspect worth considering. We paid 34m to have wind turbines turned off In high winds. More wind turbines = increased costs = increased bills for us. Read daily mail report in above link Tom_uk2

8:21pm Mon 7 Jan 13

mooninpisces says...

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.
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. mooninpisces

8:52pm Mon 7 Jan 13

David Furmage. says...

I have lived in Swanage most my life and have never once seen the sea level rise and that's coming on for 40 years now:)

We don't need these turbines at all , we could save more energy 55x more than this windfarm if we insulated our houses better and to be honest we should look at the way we use our energy. Do we need to fill kettles right up ? Do we need street lighting on all night ? Do we need office blocks and business lighting on all night? There are many other things we could all do to save on energy. And planting these things on land or in sea is not the answer , they don't work over 40mph winds , Dorset will not get cheaper electric . They are only positioned in one direction . And their a complete waste of money.
I have lived in Swanage most my life and have never once seen the sea level rise and that's coming on for 40 years now:) We don't need these turbines at all , we could save more energy 55x more than this windfarm if we insulated our houses better and to be honest we should look at the way we use our energy. Do we need to fill kettles right up ? Do we need street lighting on all night ? Do we need office blocks and business lighting on all night? There are many other things we could all do to save on energy. And planting these things on land or in sea is not the answer , they don't work over 40mph winds , Dorset will not get cheaper electric . They are only positioned in one direction . And their a complete waste of money. David Furmage.

10:54pm Mon 7 Jan 13

Yankee1 says...

This simple fact of the matter is this: this scheme will not produce what it promises.

The nation will still rely primarily upon gas, coal and nuclear.
This simple fact of the matter is this: this scheme will not produce what it promises. The nation will still rely primarily upon gas, coal and nuclear. Yankee1

2:35am Tue 8 Jan 13

justdreaming says...

Just believe this readers !
This wind farm is really all about making money and nothing else. The question is, where will the money go and will it benefit Gt Britain or any of its counties ?
Dorset in particular.
Just believe this readers ! This wind farm is really all about making money and nothing else. The question is, where will the money go and will it benefit Gt Britain or any of its counties ? Dorset in particular. justdreaming

4:41am Tue 8 Jan 13

AdelaidePete says...

It's a world wide problem. If the population keeps going up, and Bmth/Poole seems to have doubled since I was a nipper then these things are inevitable. Meadows near where I lived in Bmth were used as a huge tip. Farmland under houses etc etc. It's perpetual "growth"which is the real underlying problem.
It's a world wide problem. If the population keeps going up, and Bmth/Poole seems to have doubled since I was a nipper then these things are inevitable. Meadows near where I lived in Bmth were used as a huge tip. Farmland under houses etc etc. It's perpetual "growth"which is the real underlying problem. AdelaidePete

5:15am Tue 8 Jan 13

justdreaming says...

Couple of years ago, i visited a mate at Workington , Cumbria. He had these wind generators quite close to his home, after a few days i had to leave as the constant noise made me feel unwell. He told me that they first appeared out at sea, but then were placed on land.
Given past performances, i am sure that these wind farms will eventually appear on the hills of the Dorset coastline. These companies just cannot resist the power of another "quick quid" So beware all you people that accept the 'thin end of the wedge' on this matter.
Couple of years ago, i visited a mate at Workington , Cumbria. He had these wind generators quite close to his home, after a few days i had to leave as the constant noise made me feel unwell. He told me that they first appeared out at sea, but then were placed on land. Given past performances, i am sure that these wind farms will eventually appear on the hills of the Dorset coastline. These companies just cannot resist the power of another "quick quid" So beware all you people that accept the 'thin end of the wedge' on this matter. justdreaming

5:16am Tue 8 Jan 13

justdreaming says...

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

5:17am Tue 8 Jan 13

justdreaming says...

Couple of years ago, i visited a mate at Workington , Cumbria. He had these wind generators quite close to his home, after a few days i had to leave as the constant noise made me feel unwell. He told me that they first appeared out at sea, but then were placed on land.
Given past performances, i am sure that these wind farms will eventually appear on the hills of the Dorset coastline. These companies just cannot resist the power of another "quick quid" So beware all you people that accept the 'thin end of the wedge' on this matter.
Couple of years ago, i visited a mate at Workington , Cumbria. He had these wind generators quite close to his home, after a few days i had to leave as the constant noise made me feel unwell. He told me that they first appeared out at sea, but then were placed on land. Given past performances, i am sure that these wind farms will eventually appear on the hills of the Dorset coastline. These companies just cannot resist the power of another "quick quid" So beware all you people that accept the 'thin end of the wedge' on this matter. justdreaming

8:59am Tue 8 Jan 13

timwel says...

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.
This is just more media propaganda who love a good story whatever the facts. Today even the Met Office admitted that 'Global Warming' estimates were too high. The sea has been rising here for thousands of years. Once the islands of Brownsea and Furzey were joined up before the sea rose. I guess the Romans were responsible for that. The CO2 will rise regardless of wind farms here thanks to the Chinese but fortunately accelerated warming stopped 16 years ago.
[quote][p][bold]mooninpisces[/bold] 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.[/p][/quote]This is just more media propaganda who love a good story whatever the facts. Today even the Met Office admitted that 'Global Warming' estimates were too high. The sea has been rising here for thousands of years. Once the islands of Brownsea and Furzey were joined up before the sea rose. I guess the Romans were responsible for that. The CO2 will rise regardless of wind farms here thanks to the Chinese but fortunately accelerated warming stopped 16 years ago. timwel

9:38am Tue 8 Jan 13

Andy_Moordown says...

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.
[quote][p][bold]justdreaming[/bold] wrote: One Winfrith equalls how many ugly wind farms............... .anybody got any idea ?[/p][/quote]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

10:14am Tue 8 Jan 13

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

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.
You obviously do not understand how statistics can be mis-used.
Navitus has a potential of producing about 900megaWatts of electrical power under maximun wind speed operating conditions. Such power could supply circa 800,000 homes drawing but ONE Kilowatt of power each and, yes, there are times of year and day and night when all the homes along the nearby Coastline may not be drawing much electricity BUT the implications of Eneco`s blurb is that Navitus will supply them all, ALL of the time.
[quote][p][bold]Andy_Moordown[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]justdreaming[/bold] wrote: One Winfrith equalls how many ugly wind farms............... .anybody got any idea ?[/p][/quote]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.[/p][/quote]You obviously do not understand how statistics can be mis-used. Navitus has a potential of producing about 900megaWatts of electrical power under maximun wind speed operating conditions. Such power could supply circa 800,000 homes drawing but ONE Kilowatt of power each and, yes, there are times of year and day and night when all the homes along the nearby Coastline may not be drawing much electricity BUT the implications of Eneco`s blurb is that Navitus will supply them all, ALL of the time. a.g.o.g.

10:14am Tue 8 Jan 13

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

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.
You obviously do not understand how statistics can be mis-used.
Navitus has a potential of producing about 900megaWatts of electrical power under maximun wind speed operating conditions. Such power could supply circa 800,000 homes drawing but ONE Kilowatt of power each and, yes, there are times of year and day and night when all the homes along the nearby Coastline may not be drawing much electricity BUT the implications of Eneco`s blurb is that Navitus will supply them all, ALL of the time.
[quote][p][bold]Andy_Moordown[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]justdreaming[/bold] wrote: One Winfrith equalls how many ugly wind farms............... .anybody got any idea ?[/p][/quote]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.[/p][/quote]You obviously do not understand how statistics can be mis-used. Navitus has a potential of producing about 900megaWatts of electrical power under maximun wind speed operating conditions. Such power could supply circa 800,000 homes drawing but ONE Kilowatt of power each and, yes, there are times of year and day and night when all the homes along the nearby Coastline may not be drawing much electricity BUT the implications of Eneco`s blurb is that Navitus will supply them all, ALL of the time. a.g.o.g.

10:16am Tue 8 Jan 13

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

PS. it is also very unlikely that periods of near gale conditions would coincide with minimal electricity usage.
PS. it is also very unlikely that periods of near gale conditions would coincide with minimal electricity usage. a.g.o.g.

11:02am Tue 8 Jan 13

BarrHumbug says...

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!!!
What a load of rubbish!

The biggest effect on tourism in Dorset is the weather, this summers tourism figures will be well down on last year, no matter what the weathers like, tourists will go abroad where they are pretty much guaranteed 2 weeks of sunshine.

The main problem with the effect on tourism argument is the facts and data to back it up. It is far too convenient for a council to blame a wind farm on a drop in visitor numbers when in reality those numbers have probably dropped anyway through lack of investment on facilities by the council and/or poor weather. I'll bet BCC are rubbing their hands together at the thought of having someone to shift the blame to for their wasted investment and demolition of indoor facilities, and yes I was a fan of the IMAX, unlike most objectors I actually went inside the place and I think it's a travesty to pull down a perfectly good building especially when the council are moaning of budget cuts!
[quote][p][bold]Bmth12345[/bold] 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!!![/p][/quote]What a load of rubbish! The biggest effect on tourism in Dorset is the weather, this summers tourism figures will be well down on last year, no matter what the weathers like, tourists will go abroad where they are pretty much guaranteed 2 weeks of sunshine. The main problem with the effect on tourism argument is the facts and data to back it up. It is far too convenient for a council to blame a wind farm on a drop in visitor numbers when in reality those numbers have probably dropped anyway through lack of investment on facilities by the council and/or poor weather. I'll bet BCC are rubbing their hands together at the thought of having someone to shift the blame to for their wasted investment and demolition of indoor facilities, and yes I was a fan of the IMAX, unlike most objectors I actually went inside the place and I think it's a travesty to pull down a perfectly good building especially when the council are moaning of budget cuts! BarrHumbug

11:54am Tue 8 Jan 13

justdreaming says...

People learn from their past. There will be no more Fukishima accidents with new technology and planning. Thousands of Nuclear power plants all over the world and many countries are building more WAY TO GO. clean ,efficient . Expensive to build yes, but there for a lifetime. The Brits know how to do it, so do the French. Let them get on with it. Also nuclear powered ships and submarines, perfectly safe.
People learn from their past. There will be no more Fukishima accidents with new technology and planning. Thousands of Nuclear power plants all over the world and many countries are building more WAY TO GO. clean ,efficient . Expensive to build yes, but there for a lifetime. The Brits know how to do it, so do the French. Let them get on with it. Also nuclear powered ships and submarines, perfectly safe. justdreaming

12:31pm Tue 8 Jan 13

nottingham says...

I agree with the Swanage people protesting against the eye sore wind farms . People of Poole and Bournemouth should also be protesting as well as the local MP's for both towns .

If we allow this future generations will think we were stark raving mad to allow hat is unquestionably one of the best natural views in the world to be spoilt.

There are plenty of alternatives in Britain nuclear clean and cheap, wave power in some areas as well as fracking proposals for gas. Wind turbines simply do not produce the energy required for our needs.
I agree with the Swanage people protesting against the eye sore wind farms . People of Poole and Bournemouth should also be protesting as well as the local MP's for both towns . If we allow this future generations will think we were stark raving mad to allow hat is unquestionably one of the best natural views in the world to be spoilt. There are plenty of alternatives in Britain nuclear clean and cheap, wave power in some areas as well as fracking proposals for gas. Wind turbines simply do not produce the energy required for our needs. nottingham

1:54pm Tue 8 Jan 13

justdreaming says...

Sorry Nottingham, some of your proposals i agree with. But "definately" not fracking. Just look
at the problems they are having in Australia with it.
Sorry Nottingham, some of your proposals i agree with. But "definately" not fracking. Just look at the problems they are having in Australia with it. justdreaming

5:52pm Tue 8 Jan 13

Tom_uk2 says...

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
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 Tom_uk2

6:24pm Tue 8 Jan 13

mooninpisces says...

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.
[quote][p][bold]Tom_uk2[/bold] 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[/p][/quote]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. mooninpisces

7:57pm Tue 8 Jan 13

bobsworthforever says...

What a load of nonsense ive been told all my life when buying property "you cant buy the view" not in Swanage according to these nimbys. If they are complaining that they are a complete waste of money etc etc i have some sympathy but as for the environmental damage and spoiling the view so do a lot of other things i can think of. Still musnt complain at least i dont live in Swanage.
What a load of nonsense ive been told all my life when buying property "you cant buy the view" not in Swanage according to these nimbys. If they are complaining that they are a complete waste of money etc etc i have some sympathy but as for the environmental damage and spoiling the view so do a lot of other things i can think of. Still musnt complain at least i dont live in Swanage. bobsworthforever

8:03pm Tue 8 Jan 13

pete woodley says...

Still musnt complain at least i dont live in Swanage.Nor does tom-uk2.
Still musnt complain at least i dont live in Swanage.Nor does tom-uk2. pete woodley

8:56pm Tue 8 Jan 13

David Furmage. says...

I am all for renewable energy , but not when it's a waste of money. Anyway we don't need these silly awful turbines. China is leading the way , and hopefully we will follow suit :)

http://www.telegraph
.co.uk/finance/comme
nt/ambroseevans_prit
chard/9784044/China-
blazes-trail-for-cle
an-nuclear-power-fro
m-thorium.html
I am all for renewable energy , but not when it's a waste of money. Anyway we don't need these silly awful turbines. China is leading the way , and hopefully we will follow suit :) http://www.telegraph .co.uk/finance/comme nt/ambroseevans_prit chard/9784044/China- blazes-trail-for-cle an-nuclear-power-fro m-thorium.html David Furmage.

9:24pm Tue 8 Jan 13

Letcommonsenseprevail says...

These ex-greenham common nutters have to do something with their spare time I suppose........
These ex-greenham common nutters have to do something with their spare time I suppose........ Letcommonsenseprevail

9:48pm Tue 8 Jan 13

Yankee1 says...

Look on the bright side:

The make great navigational beacons!

http://www.youtube.c
om/watch?v=p5KvJjI21
i0

The smoke is green, by the way.
Look on the bright side: The make great navigational beacons! http://www.youtube.c om/watch?v=p5KvJjI21 i0 The smoke is green, by the way. Yankee1

9:53pm Tue 8 Jan 13

mooninpisces says...

"China is leading the way" - David Furnage comment above.

Yes. Windpower capacity is growing faster in China than anywhere else in the world. Up from 3GW (4% of global capacity) in 2006 to 80GW (35% of global capacity) in 2012.

But don't let that get in the way of your "silly awful turbines" stereotype.
"China is leading the way" - David Furnage comment above. Yes. Windpower capacity is growing faster in China than anywhere else in the world. Up from 3GW (4% of global capacity) in 2006 to 80GW (35% of global capacity) in 2012. But don't let that get in the way of your "silly awful turbines" stereotype. mooninpisces

10:09pm Tue 8 Jan 13

pete woodley says...

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

10:24pm Tue 8 Jan 13

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

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.
30% across the North of Scotland if you`re lucky but not along the South Coast perhaps Eneco is still to learn with there being no available data.

Average wind speeds are lower than the North Sea even are only as high as they are due to the more gusty nature of the weather systems down here that will trigger the circa 25m/s safety cut-outs.

When are Eneco going to erect that 100m wind test tower out in OUR Bay to fid out that our winds are more feast and famine than the average w/s charts might convey.

Regardless of all else though, at around £8,000/kW(actual load factor output if you`re lucky) installed up-front cost and the regular 8% return on capital employed plus high servicing costs, the cost of the electricity it may produce, and which may not be fully usable in any case due to its vagaries of supply, at around £1/kWhr might even cause PW to expect it to arrive down solid gold cabling.

This is about twice the cost of on-shore renewable sources of 10 + years past that I was rather familiar with and which cost was rather extraordinary even then.
[quote][p][bold]mooninpisces[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Tom_uk2[/bold] 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[/p][/quote]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.[/p][/quote]30% across the North of Scotland if you`re lucky but not along the South Coast perhaps Eneco is still to learn with there being no available data. Average wind speeds are lower than the North Sea even are only as high as they are due to the more gusty nature of the weather systems down here that will trigger the circa 25m/s safety cut-outs. When are Eneco going to erect that 100m wind test tower out in OUR Bay to fid out that our winds are more feast and famine than the average w/s charts might convey. Regardless of all else though, at around £8,000/kW(actual load factor output if you`re lucky) installed up-front cost and the regular 8% return on capital employed plus high servicing costs, the cost of the electricity it may produce, and which may not be fully usable in any case due to its vagaries of supply, at around £1/kWhr might even cause PW to expect it to arrive down solid gold cabling. This is about twice the cost of on-shore renewable sources of 10 + years past that I was rather familiar with and which cost was rather extraordinary even then. a.g.o.g.

1:18am Wed 9 Jan 13

justdreaming says...

China leading the way ? they are building one Coal powered power station per week.
China leading the way ? they are building one Coal powered power station per week. justdreaming

7:30am Wed 9 Jan 13

GWalker says...

I believe that this wind farm will be a very bad idea for this area, the small amount of energy gained from such a large amount of money spent to create just dosn't add up. If you contact local councils around the UK who have wind farms on their coast lines as I have, they will inform you of the lost tourism, a fantastic amount of money lost for a next to nothing return. Has anyone considered the air festival? how will it affect some of the displays? if we want more exciting aircraft at the forth coming events and draw in further tourism we have to think ahead. Why don't EDF a French company build it off of their own coast. Perhaps they wouldn't tolorate such things spoiling their views or damaging potential future tourism. I am pro renewable energy and believe there is a way forward, im not saying lets not use wind farms, mearly saying a full and open assment of these plans should be sought, did the government not long ago set up some kind of protection scheme for the coast? I thought it said that the coast and sea from the isle of Wight to portland was included in this, oh but hold on did they also not say that it would be reveiwed towards the end of 2013. Funny that, as the wind farm proposal will be decided by mid 2013. Can anyone else see what is happening here? I have writen a letter to the Prime Minister, who I must say replied within a week, well his office anyway, saying that my concerns are valid and further contact will be made soon. I only hope that we can all both protesters and the energy companies can come to some kind of compromise where no wildlife or tourism is lost.
I believe that this wind farm will be a very bad idea for this area, the small amount of energy gained from such a large amount of money spent to create just dosn't add up. If you contact local councils around the UK who have wind farms on their coast lines as I have, they will inform you of the lost tourism, a fantastic amount of money lost for a next to nothing return. Has anyone considered the air festival? how will it affect some of the displays? if we want more exciting aircraft at the forth coming events and draw in further tourism we have to think ahead. Why don't EDF a French company build it off of their own coast. Perhaps they wouldn't tolorate such things spoiling their views or damaging potential future tourism. I am pro renewable energy and believe there is a way forward, im not saying lets not use wind farms, mearly saying a full and open assment of these plans should be sought, did the government not long ago set up some kind of protection scheme for the coast? I thought it said that the coast and sea from the isle of Wight to portland was included in this, oh but hold on did they also not say that it would be reveiwed towards the end of 2013. Funny that, as the wind farm proposal will be decided by mid 2013. Can anyone else see what is happening here? I have writen a letter to the Prime Minister, who I must say replied within a week, well his office anyway, saying that my concerns are valid and further contact will be made soon. I only hope that we can all both protesters and the energy companies can come to some kind of compromise where no wildlife or tourism is lost. GWalker

9:54am Wed 9 Jan 13

mooninpisces says...

" We have to think ahead" (GWalker). That's why we need to find sources of energy that don't make the climate more unstable.

And how is having wind turbines more than 12 miles from Bournemouth promenade supposed to affect the air festival displays? I thought the idea of the displays that they were close to the prom so that they could be seen by the spectators.

No argument seems to be too ridiculous for some of our NIMBY objectors. Why don't they admit it - it's about preferring a view with no turbines on the horizon to one with turbines. I, too, would prefer the uninterrupted view (though I expect I'd get used to the distant turbines), but I recognise that taking steps to avoid climate catastrophe is more important, by several orders of magnitude.
" We have to think ahead" (GWalker). That's why we need to find sources of energy that don't make the climate more unstable. And how is having wind turbines more than 12 miles from Bournemouth promenade supposed to affect the air festival displays? I thought the idea of the displays that they were close to the prom so that they could be seen by the spectators. No argument seems to be too ridiculous for some of our NIMBY objectors. Why don't they admit it - it's about preferring a view with no turbines on the horizon to one with turbines. I, too, would prefer the uninterrupted view (though I expect I'd get used to the distant turbines), but I recognise that taking steps to avoid climate catastrophe is more important, by several orders of magnitude. mooninpisces

10:26am Wed 9 Jan 13

timwel says...

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?
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? timwel

10:45am Wed 9 Jan 13

mooninpisces says...

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 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. mooninpisces

11:03am Wed 9 Jan 13

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

pete woodley wrote:
Mooninpisces,try humouring them,i havent got the patience.
reap what you sow....
[quote][p][bold]pete woodley[/bold] wrote: Mooninpisces,try humouring them,i havent got the patience.[/p][/quote]reap what you sow.... a.g.o.g.

11:09am Wed 9 Jan 13

David Furmage. says...

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.
Just to let you all know Pete is an old man who has nothing else better to do than troll other website with his arrogant and childest comments. Thought this was a open debate is it not.

Anyway lets move on.

To the person who reckons Bournemouth is not in a section of world class waves. British surfing waves are under threat from a growing number of activities around our coastline that can hamper or have long term devastating impacts on some of our most prized surfing beaches. This includes coastal developments, pollution, and restricted access. This does include Bournemouth , please feel free to take alook at the Surfers Against Sewage website , you might be enlightened :)
[quote][p][bold]pete woodley[/bold] 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.[/p][/quote]Just to let you all know Pete is an old man who has nothing else better to do than troll other website with his arrogant and childest comments. Thought this was a open debate is it not. Anyway lets move on. To the person who reckons Bournemouth is not in a section of world class waves. British surfing waves are under threat from a growing number of activities around our coastline that can hamper or have long term devastating impacts on some of our most prized surfing beaches. This includes coastal developments, pollution, and restricted access. This does include Bournemouth , please feel free to take alook at the Surfers Against Sewage website , you might be enlightened :) David Furmage.

11:18am Wed 9 Jan 13

BarrHumbug says...

This project is probably at least 10yrs away from actually getting anywhere, they havent even put up the test tower yet, imaterial of how much energy the wind farm will or wont produce, I'm not sure I've got the energy to argue about it for that long :-D
This project is probably at least 10yrs away from actually getting anywhere, they havent even put up the test tower yet, imaterial of how much energy the wind farm will or wont produce, I'm not sure I've got the energy to argue about it for that long :-D BarrHumbug

11:56am Wed 9 Jan 13

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

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?
[quote][p][bold]mooninpisces[/bold] 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.[/p][/quote]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? a.g.o.g.

12:37pm Wed 9 Jan 13

Letcommonsenseprevail says...

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?
No, I didn't know you live in Swanage - 'cos I'm not a mind reader!
[quote][p][bold]timwel[/bold] 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?[/p][/quote]No, I didn't know you live in Swanage - 'cos I'm not a mind reader! Letcommonsenseprevail

1:08pm Wed 9 Jan 13

Teepee01 says...

The question to ask is...Do we really need these turbines 12 miles out to sea? If we could only find a way to harness all the hot air spouted on here, surely we would have a sustainable and free source of energy for years?
The question to ask is...Do we really need these turbines 12 miles out to sea? If we could only find a way to harness all the hot air spouted on here, surely we would have a sustainable and free source of energy for years? Teepee01

1:13pm Wed 9 Jan 13

justdreaming says...

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

3:30pm Wed 9 Jan 13

ronlin says...

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

3:38pm Wed 9 Jan 13

David Furmage. says...

justdreaming wrote:
Unless they are off the Nth Devon or CornishCoast, they dont know what serious surf is.
Funny how in my 30 odd years of surfing around Europe riding some of the best waves , I have met alot of surfers who have visited Bournemouth and our South Coast and put it up there with some of the best waves ridden. Our whole South Coast has a lot to offer. Ok it's not consistence , but when it's works it works really well. And I think that is worth fighting for and protecting;)
[quote][p][bold]justdreaming[/bold] wrote: Unless they are off the Nth Devon or CornishCoast, they dont know what serious surf is.[/p][/quote]Funny how in my 30 odd years of surfing around Europe riding some of the best waves , I have met alot of surfers who have visited Bournemouth and our South Coast and put it up there with some of the best waves ridden. Our whole South Coast has a lot to offer. Ok it's not consistence , but when it's works it works really well. And I think that is worth fighting for and protecting;) David Furmage.

3:40pm Wed 9 Jan 13

hamperville says...

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.
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. hamperville

3:43pm Wed 9 Jan 13

hamperville says...

ronlin wrote:
And , the turbines only last 7 to 10 years at best , Expensive or what ???
Wrong
[quote][p][bold]ronlin[/bold] wrote: And , the turbines only last 7 to 10 years at best , Expensive or what ???[/p][/quote]Wrong hamperville

3:54pm Wed 9 Jan 13

hamperville says...

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
[quote][p][bold]a.g.o.g.[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]mooninpisces[/bold] 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.[/p][/quote]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?[/p][/quote]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

4:08pm Wed 9 Jan 13

hamperville says...

Gwalker said: "I believe that this wind farm will be a very bad idea for this area, the small amount of energy gained from such a large amount of money spent to create just dosn't add up..."

Actually it is more the case that fossil fuel use doesn't add up and has been a subsidy on current economics and life.
If you add up the fact that food prices are going up this year as well as insurance premiums, all directly as a result of CO2 emissions, then the real costs are evident.

In any case you like many forget that when building a coal or gas fired power station, the capital costs don't include buying fuel for 20 years ate variable market prices!

You have to consider system life cycles and risks, not just initial costs.

I guess it is a problem with modern economics and accounting, because fuel isn't included in capital costs, for sensible reasons, but no matter how sensible, they encourage a day to day, short term view about life and accounting.
Gwalker said: "I believe that this wind farm will be a very bad idea for this area, the small amount of energy gained from such a large amount of money spent to create just dosn't add up..." Actually it is more the case that fossil fuel use doesn't add up and has been a subsidy on current economics and life. If you add up the fact that food prices are going up this year as well as insurance premiums, all directly as a result of CO2 emissions, then the real costs are evident. In any case you like many forget that when building a coal or gas fired power station, the capital costs don't include buying fuel for 20 years ate variable market prices! You have to consider system life cycles and risks, not just initial costs. I guess it is a problem with modern economics and accounting, because fuel isn't included in capital costs, for sensible reasons, but no matter how sensible, they encourage a day to day, short term view about life and accounting. hamperville

4:11pm Wed 9 Jan 13

justdreaming says...

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.
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

4:27pm Wed 9 Jan 13

David Furmage. says...

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:)
[quote][p][bold]justdreaming[/bold] 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.[/p][/quote]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:) David Furmage.

4:27pm Wed 9 Jan 13

David Furmage. says...

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:)
[quote][p][bold]justdreaming[/bold] 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.[/p][/quote]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:) David Furmage.

4:38pm Wed 9 Jan 13

pete woodley says...

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 .
[quote][p][bold]David Furmage.[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]justdreaming[/bold] 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.[/p][/quote]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:)[/p][/quote]What a wind up . pete woodley

4:42pm Wed 9 Jan 13

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

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
Er......So what is incorrect in the words you repeat?

More wind, more Co2 compared to the nuclear option you then say!

Elsewhere I drew attention to the fact that some agencies are now suggesting that the working life of off-shore sited wind turbines might be more like 15 years but I didn`t plug it in.

Otherwise my posting serves to illustrate just how poor the wind option is £/kW-wise and so why it is that Eneco have had to exaggerate the promised performance of Navitus beyond the already barely credible claims of a German fore-runner who at least acknowledged that its turbine could and would not be providing peak power continuously right through the year as Eneco so claims by announcing that Navitus will serve 800,000 homes.
[quote][p][bold]hamperville[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]a.g.o.g.[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]mooninpisces[/bold] 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.[/p][/quote]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?[/p][/quote]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[/p][/quote]Er......So what is incorrect in the words you repeat? More wind, more Co2 compared to the nuclear option you then say! Elsewhere I drew attention to the fact that some agencies are now suggesting that the working life of off-shore sited wind turbines might be more like 15 years but I didn`t plug it in. Otherwise my posting serves to illustrate just how poor the wind option is £/kW-wise and so why it is that Eneco have had to exaggerate the promised performance of Navitus beyond the already barely credible claims of a German fore-runner who at least acknowledged that its turbine could and would not be providing peak power continuously right through the year as Eneco so claims by announcing that Navitus will serve 800,000 homes. a.g.o.g.

6:19pm Wed 9 Jan 13

timwel says...

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.
We don't have much evidence that CO2 is very relevant to the warming that has been happening since the little ice age. We only have the IPCCs models that have failed to prove the hypothesis and these can't cope with cloud forcings etc. The CO2 story has been adopted by the UK Government who are majorly influence by pressure groups. Many people have fallen foul of the 'source effect' which is textbook brainwashing. More important even if you believe that CO2 is a significant factor you are missing the fact that levels are going up thanks to the Chinese etc and any reduction the UK may make will have almost no influence either way. So ask you MP 'what are you guaranteeing us for the huge increase in the cost of UK electricity that windpower will mean'. Well go on tell us what are we guaranteed??????
[quote][p][bold]hamperville[/bold] 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.[/p][/quote]We don't have much evidence that CO2 is very relevant to the warming that has been happening since the little ice age. We only have the IPCCs models that have failed to prove the hypothesis and these can't cope with cloud forcings etc. The CO2 story has been adopted by the UK Government who are majorly influence by pressure groups. Many people have fallen foul of the 'source effect' which is textbook brainwashing. More important even if you believe that CO2 is a significant factor you are missing the fact that levels are going up thanks to the Chinese etc and any reduction the UK may make will have almost no influence either way. So ask you MP 'what are you guaranteeing us for the huge increase in the cost of UK electricity that windpower will mean'. Well go on tell us what are we guaranteed?????? timwel

6:27pm Wed 9 Jan 13

mooninpisces says...

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".
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

8:00pm Wed 9 Jan 13

David Furmage. says...

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 .
Why that then ?
[quote][p][bold]pete woodley[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]David Furmage.[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]justdreaming[/bold] 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.[/p][/quote]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:)[/p][/quote]What a wind up .[/p][/quote]Why that then ? David Furmage.

8:09pm Wed 9 Jan 13

David Furmage. says...

Anyway a good book to buy to see how this whole wind farm subject is a scam , worth a read :)

http://www.amazon.co
.uk/gp/aw/d/19052998
34/ref=aw_d_detail/2
77-4738816-5328769?p
d=1
Anyway a good book to buy to see how this whole wind farm subject is a scam , worth a read :) http://www.amazon.co .uk/gp/aw/d/19052998 34/ref=aw_d_detail/2 77-4738816-5328769?p d=1 David Furmage.

8:34pm Wed 9 Jan 13

David Furmage. says...

No-one will ever know what new products, what new processes or what medical breakthroughs will have failed to come into existence, killed before they were born, because of the diversion of our nation’s precious, valuable resources into wind turbines. No-one will ever be able to compute the price that we all will pay for this public policy failure, keeping our standard of living lower than it would otherwise have been.
And for what? What is this for; what is the entire point? Well, members on the other side often regurgitate that delusional phrase: ‘We are taking action on climate change.’ Firstly, we need to be clear how little power wind turbines actually produce. You would need 3,500 giant steel windmills to produce the equivalent output of one single, medium-sized conventional coal or gas fired power station. Secondly, even if we built a wind farm of 3,500 steel windmills, we would still need a gas fired power station as a backup—for when the wind doesn’t blow, the power doesn’t flow. It is that simple. And of course any gas fired backup power station needs to be ramped up and down to compensate for the intermittency of the wind. A gas fired plant runs inefficiently, burning more gas and having a shorter life span than a plant which is just working normally. It is like a car battling through heavy traffic — less fuel efficiency and more wear and tear. Overseas studies have suggested that we could actually lower our emissions of carbon dioxide if we did away with wind turbines altogether and just ran gas power stations inefficiently.
No-one will ever know what new products, what new processes or what medical breakthroughs will have failed to come into existence, killed before they were born, because of the diversion of our nation’s precious, valuable resources into wind turbines. No-one will ever be able to compute the price that we all will pay for this public policy failure, keeping our standard of living lower than it would otherwise have been. And for what? What is this for; what is the entire point? Well, members on the other side often regurgitate that delusional phrase: ‘We are taking action on climate change.’ Firstly, we need to be clear how little power wind turbines actually produce. You would need 3,500 giant steel windmills to produce the equivalent output of one single, medium-sized conventional coal or gas fired power station. Secondly, even if we built a wind farm of 3,500 steel windmills, we would still need a gas fired power station as a backup—for when the wind doesn’t blow, the power doesn’t flow. It is that simple. And of course any gas fired backup power station needs to be ramped up and down to compensate for the intermittency of the wind. A gas fired plant runs inefficiently, burning more gas and having a shorter life span than a plant which is just working normally. It is like a car battling through heavy traffic — less fuel efficiency and more wear and tear. Overseas studies have suggested that we could actually lower our emissions of carbon dioxide if we did away with wind turbines altogether and just ran gas power stations inefficiently. David Furmage.

9:44pm Wed 9 Jan 13

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

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".
And so how many homes may I ask could do you think an average more like 25% LF Navitus power (you forget 2010 of course) during those 6 hrs or so hours of peak electricity usage if you wish to dabble in irrelevant averages and which, if replicated by the National Grid Executive, would have around 75% of the UK homes suffering power cuts at those crucial times of day!

This is why it will retain conventional supply to meet PEAK load on The Grid + a 10% safety margin regardless of how many Navitus size farms may be put on stream at unfairly horrendous cost to they who depend on electricity for heating.

Was the NG to declare its power suppling capabilities using the ingenuous Eneco criteria it could lokely claim ability to power both the UK and France.
(according to their average demand)!

No, measuring Navitus potential in attention grabbing household numbers instead of bald annual output expectations that reveal the over-optimism of the salesman, 35% load factors and all that, is far from fair considering the harsh financial effect it will have on some consumers considering the exceptional cost of the product relative to the competition.

It could soon be less costly for those with electric heating to go sit/sleep even in the car running on tick-over!!

How daft can it get?

You really should study REF paper 217 and consider its implications more carefully and particularly the extra cost of conventional power generation caused by the inherant variability of wind.
[quote][p][bold]mooninpisces[/bold] 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".[/p][/quote]And so how many homes may I ask could do you think an average more like 25% LF Navitus power (you forget 2010 of course) during those 6 hrs or so hours of peak electricity usage if you wish to dabble in irrelevant averages and which, if replicated by the National Grid Executive, would have around 75% of the UK homes suffering power cuts at those crucial times of day! This is why it will retain conventional supply to meet PEAK load on The Grid + a 10% safety margin regardless of how many Navitus size farms may be put on stream at unfairly horrendous cost to they who depend on electricity for heating. Was the NG to declare its power suppling capabilities using the ingenuous Eneco criteria it could lokely claim ability to power both the UK and France. (according to their average demand)! No, measuring Navitus potential in attention grabbing household numbers instead of bald annual output expectations that reveal the over-optimism of the salesman, 35% load factors and all that, is far from fair considering the harsh financial effect it will have on some consumers considering the exceptional cost of the product relative to the competition. It could soon be less costly for those with electric heating to go sit/sleep even in the car running on tick-over!! How daft can it get? You really should study REF paper 217 and consider its implications more carefully and particularly the extra cost of conventional power generation caused by the inherant variability of wind. a.g.o.g.

1:39am Thu 10 Jan 13

mooninpisces says...

Taking an average load factor to give an indication of households served is standard practice, whatever the electricity source, even though the actual power generated, with all sources, varies around that average.

The additional costs of managing the intermittency of wind are minimal at present, when wind is such a small proportion of the total energy mix. I'm sure I don't need to spell out all the ways these costs can be kept down as the share of renewables expands. These include developing a range of renewable technologies, employing more reliable short-term weather forecasts to allow planned responses to wind variation, ensuring a wider geographical distribution of sites (including more interconnection with other European grids) to both reduce overall variability and share backup gas generation more widely, bringing in more storage backup solutions, introducing smart metering in such a way as to achieve a better balance between supply and demand, etc etc.

Noel Edmonds' REF routinely exaggerates the costs of intermittency, and downplays the innovations that are in the pipeline.
Taking an average load factor to give an indication of households served is standard practice, whatever the electricity source, even though the actual power generated, with all sources, varies around that average. The additional costs of managing the intermittency of wind are minimal at present, when wind is such a small proportion of the total energy mix. I'm sure I don't need to spell out all the ways these costs can be kept down as the share of renewables expands. These include developing a range of renewable technologies, employing more reliable short-term weather forecasts to allow planned responses to wind variation, ensuring a wider geographical distribution of sites (including more interconnection with other European grids) to both reduce overall variability and share backup gas generation more widely, bringing in more storage backup solutions, introducing smart metering in such a way as to achieve a better balance between supply and demand, etc etc. Noel Edmonds' REF routinely exaggerates the costs of intermittency, and downplays the innovations that are in the pipeline. mooninpisces

9:53am Thu 10 Jan 13

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

Not all renewables are variable and even solar can be better predicted than wind and thus programmed-in to some degree.

The problem with both though is their already high cost per kWhr relative to Gas & Nuclear (coal should be cooked for its gas and not burned in my view) without having to conjure up likely expensive both in money and resource buffering and/or storage considering that we are talking about `Feast of Famine` sources of enenergy of which not only we but our near neighbours who will have likely more than their contemporaneous fill.

What you are espousing in effect is the building of an empire on foundations of sand.

So get digging and discover the jar that will hold an untold amount of sparks so we can then sell it to those Countries of the World to whom we cannot entrust that Nuclear option we know we can manage and AFFORD.

Mixing wind and solar with other steady renewables with gas might be feasible but with our ultimate option Nuclear not I would think and which I`m rather sure The Masters of the National Grid will insist upon in Peak Load + 10% quantity in the absence of Gas or Coal plus a solidly reliable renewable back-up which could perhaps include Wind/Solar given the presence then of that more elusive still BIG BIG Jar o`Sparks.

But meanwhile, as I also pointed out to no response, some people in this supposed advanced Country of ours are already suffering fuel poverty and your DAYGLO version of GOING GREEN that even questions the considered opinions of your Founding Fathers so to speak only threatens to make things worse for the sake of the still non-proven theory of AGW and associated Climate upheaval due to Co2 emissions.

But try instead to get a movement started calling for the shipment of all goods and materials between East and West to be done under the power of sail instead of dirty disel and you might find much support.
Not all renewables are variable and even solar can be better predicted than wind and thus programmed-in to some degree. The problem with both though is their already high cost per kWhr relative to Gas & Nuclear (coal should be cooked for its gas and not burned in my view) without having to conjure up likely expensive both in money and resource buffering and/or storage considering that we are talking about `Feast of Famine` sources of enenergy of which not only we but our near neighbours who will have likely more than their contemporaneous fill. What you are espousing in effect is the building of an empire on foundations of sand. So get digging and discover the jar that will hold an untold amount of sparks so we can then sell it to those Countries of the World to whom we cannot entrust that Nuclear option we know we can manage and AFFORD. Mixing wind and solar with other steady renewables with gas might be feasible but with our ultimate option Nuclear not I would think and which I`m rather sure The Masters of the National Grid will insist upon in Peak Load + 10% quantity in the absence of Gas or Coal plus a solidly reliable renewable back-up which could perhaps include Wind/Solar given the presence then of that more elusive still BIG BIG Jar o`Sparks. But meanwhile, as I also pointed out to no response, some people in this supposed advanced Country of ours are already suffering fuel poverty and your DAYGLO version of GOING GREEN that even questions the considered opinions of your Founding Fathers so to speak only threatens to make things worse for the sake of the still non-proven theory of AGW and associated Climate upheaval due to Co2 emissions. But try instead to get a movement started calling for the shipment of all goods and materials between East and West to be done under the power of sail instead of dirty disel and you might find much support. a.g.o.g.

10:48am Thu 10 Jan 13

mooninpisces says...

a.g.o.g. - What you leave out is that the costs of wind power decline as the technology develops (unlike nuclear, whose costs seem to rise over time, possibly as more safety features need to be built in). Onshore wind is expected to achieve grid parity by 2020. Offshore is more expensive (but still falling) - some would say a price worth paying for the lower visual impact than onshore.

Those who take human-caused climate change seriously do campaign for a realistic carbon price that includes international shipping (and air transport). The movement you seem to be calling for already exists!
a.g.o.g. - What you leave out is that the costs of wind power decline as the technology develops (unlike nuclear, whose costs seem to rise over time, possibly as more safety features need to be built in). Onshore wind is expected to achieve grid parity by 2020. Offshore is more expensive (but still falling) - some would say a price worth paying for the lower visual impact than onshore. Those who take human-caused climate change seriously do campaign for a realistic carbon price that includes international shipping (and air transport). The movement you seem to be calling for already exists! mooninpisces

12:00pm Thu 10 Jan 13

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

mooninpieces:- You persistently avoid the crux of the issue which is not so much the capabilities of wind to provide power on occasion but that variability that is already causing difficulties and extra cost to other suppliers and The Nat Grid.
According, that is, to even the more official voices of your own brigade and from whom I do not distance myself that very far I might add.
It`s more the `shade of` than the colour itself with most people.
As for costs the last I saw for off-shore as already said was for that German field of twelve 5mega machines that came in at around £20million EACH fully laced up and ready to rock.
Multiply that by Navitus`s 200 and you should have money enough for a brand new Nuke up and ready to roll out 1000meg each and every hour for the next 40 years or more (minus a month off every 18 months) against 350 (given your hopeful Load Factor is achieved) which will come in pulses with which other suppliers will have try to harmonize for the next, hopeful again, 20 years maximum and which therefore would require a new set of turbines being commissioned to see out the next 20 years and which, overall would cost us about half as much again, I`d estimate, for a product that wouldn`t provide more that one quarter of the useful power that Puffing Billy would churn out.(Barring the occasional Box Office busting B Movie Melt-Down of course) (I`m waiting for the one in which the Greenpeace barge visits an off-shore farm to do a bird carcass count and then wage war against it`s own 3 armed masters!)
mooninpieces:- You persistently avoid the crux of the issue which is not so much the capabilities of wind to provide power on occasion but that variability that is already causing difficulties and extra cost to other suppliers and The Nat Grid. According, that is, to even the more official voices of your own brigade and from whom I do not distance myself that very far I might add. It`s more the `shade of` than the colour itself with most people. As for costs the last I saw for off-shore as already said was for that German field of twelve 5mega machines that came in at around £20million EACH fully laced up and ready to rock. Multiply that by Navitus`s 200 and you should have money enough for a brand new Nuke up and ready to roll out 1000meg each and every hour for the next 40 years or more (minus a month off every 18 months) against 350 (given your hopeful Load Factor is achieved) which will come in pulses with which other suppliers will have try to harmonize for the next, hopeful again, 20 years maximum and which therefore would require a new set of turbines being commissioned to see out the next 20 years and which, overall would cost us about half as much again, I`d estimate, for a product that wouldn`t provide more that one quarter of the useful power that Puffing Billy would churn out.(Barring the occasional Box Office busting B Movie Melt-Down of course) (I`m waiting for the one in which the Greenpeace barge visits an off-shore farm to do a bird carcass count and then wage war against it`s own 3 armed masters!) a.g.o.g.

12:35pm Thu 10 Jan 13

mooninpisces says...

a.g.o.g. - if you re-read my comment before last, you will see that it is entirely about what you call "the crux of the issue" - the variability (intermittency) of wind and what this does to other suppliers and therefore overall costs.

Variability is less at the system level than at the site level (when it's calm in the south its usually windy in the north, and vv), and even less when systems are interconnected. I won't repeat all the other ways variability is, and can be, managed.

The problems increase when the share of wind in the overall mix increases - again, these problems are not insuperable. Poyry (the recognised, even by your anti-wind REF, expert consultancy in this field) did some work for the Climate Change Committee in 2011. Its analysis suggested that even if the share of renewables in total electricity supply went up to 80% by 2050, the costs associated with variability/intermit
tency would only go up by 1p per kWh of additional intermittent generation. It's only beyond an 80% share that the management problems would start imposing serious costs - reducing these would require innovations not yet in the pipeline.
a.g.o.g. - if you re-read my comment before last, you will see that it is entirely about what you call "the crux of the issue" - the variability (intermittency) of wind and what this does to other suppliers and therefore overall costs. Variability is less at the system level than at the site level (when it's calm in the south its usually windy in the north, and vv), and even less when systems are interconnected. I won't repeat all the other ways variability is, and can be, managed. The problems increase when the share of wind in the overall mix increases - again, these problems are not insuperable. Poyry (the recognised, even by your anti-wind REF, expert consultancy in this field) did some work for the Climate Change Committee in 2011. Its analysis suggested that even if the share of renewables in total electricity supply went up to 80% by 2050, the costs associated with variability/intermit tency would only go up by 1p per kWh of additional intermittent generation. It's only beyond an 80% share that the management problems would start imposing serious costs - reducing these would require innovations not yet in the pipeline. mooninpisces

1:16pm Thu 10 Jan 13

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

m,i,p,,.....and what share of that 80& did (y)our crystal ball gazers give to wind?
The NG demands security of supply which I believe currently runs at 33% above peak load - due to both variability and intermittency as you admit neither wind nor solar can form part thereof unless somebody re-writes the rule (of thum?) book.
OK both bio and hydro (with which wind and solar could be mated) might become perhaps 20% or more thereof but why on Earth we should then have
another ??% or so extra and more expensive solar/wind to twiddle with is something I don`t think can or will happen.
Funny that when I made wry comment about the fitting of sails some while back when Maersk announced that it was about to replace its Container Fleet that nobody joined in the debate..
Recent convert are you? .
m,i,p,,.....and what share of that 80& did (y)our crystal ball gazers give to wind? The NG demands security of supply which I believe currently runs at 33% above peak load - due to both variability and intermittency as you admit neither wind nor solar can form part thereof unless somebody re-writes the rule (of thum?) book. OK both bio and hydro (with which wind and solar could be mated) might become perhaps 20% or more thereof but why on Earth we should then have another ??% or so extra and more expensive solar/wind to twiddle with is something I don`t think can or will happen. Funny that when I made wry comment about the fitting of sails some while back when Maersk announced that it was about to replace its Container Fleet that nobody joined in the debate.. Recent convert are you? . a.g.o.g.

3:09pm Thu 10 Jan 13

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

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".
Take a look at the at the DECC wins speed map on which you can see that the average coastal wind speed here is but 7 metres/sec and at which speed large turbines are producing about one sixty-forth of their rated capacity
(and which they likely need in-house anyway) and tell the World that that near 2% average Load Factor can be amplified to 35% as you predict by periods of high winds that, by simple calculation, would have to amount to one day in every three and not the one in ten or so that can be seen on other charts available on the Internet too.
By that token a Load Factor of around 12% looks optimistic even.
[quote][p][bold]mooninpisces[/bold] 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".[/p][/quote]Take a look at the at the DECC wins speed map on which you can see that the average coastal wind speed here is but 7 metres/sec and at which speed large turbines are producing about one sixty-forth of their rated capacity (and which they likely need in-house anyway) and tell the World that that near 2% average Load Factor can be amplified to 35% as you predict by periods of high winds that, by simple calculation, would have to amount to one day in every three and not the one in ten or so that can be seen on other charts available on the Internet too. By that token a Load Factor of around 12% looks optimistic even. a.g.o.g.

3:16pm Thu 10 Jan 13

Dorset Logic says...

Ah more Baby Boomers stamping their feet. The generation that burnt all the gas in their lifetime are now worried about the effect on their houseprices, but hey they have a pension don't they, and sod the next generation and their needs. Even if wind power isn't that brilliant at the moment its only through trial and error that any of these will come good. But please make sure your Baby Boomer generation doesn't give up Jack......
Ah more Baby Boomers stamping their feet. The generation that burnt all the gas in their lifetime are now worried about the effect on their houseprices, but hey they have a pension don't they, and sod the next generation and their needs. Even if wind power isn't that brilliant at the moment its only through trial and error that any of these will come good. But please make sure your Baby Boomer generation doesn't give up Jack...... Dorset Logic

3:45pm Thu 10 Jan 13

mooninpisces says...

a.g.o.g. - you're being even more ridiculous than usual. The 35% average load factor is the ACTUAL annual average power generated by UK offshore wind as a % of theoretical capacity. IF Poole Bay has less wind than average that would bring it down below 35%. But having some offshore wind off the south coast would ease the variability issue for the UK grid which you see as "the crux of the issue".
a.g.o.g. - you're being even more ridiculous than usual. The 35% average load factor is the ACTUAL annual average power generated by UK offshore wind as a % of theoretical capacity. IF Poole Bay has less wind than average that would bring it down below 35%. But having some offshore wind off the south coast would ease the variability issue for the UK grid which you see as "the crux of the issue". mooninpisces

4:42pm Thu 10 Jan 13

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

m.i.p.- how many more straws in the wind can you try to clutch? You talk as though a low output Navitus would be more benificial

The 35% you rely on is the actual amount produced over the year typically against the RATED output of the turbine and they would not be in business at all if they promised very much less due to the extraordinary cost per kWhr that even 15% LF would bring.(as per NE off-shore performance data I`ve since seen).

A £2Billion Navitus for 150megaWatt of juice IF it doesn`t use most of it itself and quite LIKELY even less?!

Nuclear gives c.1000megas for maybe $5Billion by comparison and which is TWO AND A HALF TIMES as good X TWO for its longer life expectancy and so would be a FIVE TIMES BETTER DEAL..

No?

It isn`t until around the viable 35% that variability and intermittency should become any issue that further expansion of wind power need consider and it would seem that the required output criterea can only be met in the far West and North.
m.i.p.- how many more straws in the wind can you try to clutch? You talk as though a low output Navitus would be more benificial The 35% you rely on is the actual amount produced over the year typically against the RATED output of the turbine and they would not be in business at all if they promised very much less due to the extraordinary cost per kWhr that even 15% LF would bring.(as per NE off-shore performance data I`ve since seen). A £2Billion Navitus for 150megaWatt of juice IF it doesn`t use most of it itself and quite LIKELY even less?! Nuclear gives c.1000megas for maybe $5Billion by comparison and which is TWO AND A HALF TIMES as good X TWO for its longer life expectancy and so would be a FIVE TIMES BETTER DEAL.. No? It isn`t until around the viable 35% that variability and intermittency should become any issue that further expansion of wind power need consider and it would seem that the required output criterea can only be met in the far West and North. a.g.o.g.

6:34pm Thu 10 Jan 13

mooninpisces says...

a.g.o.g. - "No?" No - you're digging yourself into a deeper and deeper hole of your own making. Do you seriously believe that wind turbine manufacturers are massively UNDERestimating the maximum power of their products in order to give a misleading boost to the load factor? ie Is a 5MW rated turbine actually capable of producing 15MW, so that the load factor based on an actual generation of 1.75MW averaged over the year is not 35%, but the 12% you say is optimistic? On second thoughts, perhaps you do - I know there's a high correlation globally between denial of the reality of human-caused climate change and belief in conspiracy theories.

Clearly you still do not understand why a wide geographical distribution of sites is important, if system variability and the costs of backup are to be minimised.
a.g.o.g. - "No?" No - you're digging yourself into a deeper and deeper hole of your own making. Do you seriously believe that wind turbine manufacturers are massively UNDERestimating the maximum power of their products in order to give a misleading boost to the load factor? ie Is a 5MW rated turbine actually capable of producing 15MW, so that the load factor based on an actual generation of 1.75MW averaged over the year is not 35%, but the 12% you say is optimistic? On second thoughts, perhaps you do - I know there's a high correlation globally between denial of the reality of human-caused climate change and belief in conspiracy theories. Clearly you still do not understand why a wide geographical distribution of sites is important, if system variability and the costs of backup are to be minimised. mooninpisces

12:54am Fri 11 Jan 13

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

Oh dear , Oh dear m.i.p., trying to fudge the issue by playing dumb with numbers does not change them!

But let me simplify my dive into available statistics just in case you do not understand your own blurb.....

A new c, £5Billion Nuclear PS WILL produce about 1000 Megawatthrs of electricity for the NGrid from having a Load Factor of near enough 100%.
and It Will have a life span of at least 40 years
20 year lifespan Navitus may cost only £2Billion with having say 200 5megaWatt turbines at £10Million each (When the Germans have recently paid £20Million I have read - so I`m being hopeful of our financial skills at least).
However the average wind speed over a full year here at an altitude of 45m,.is only 7 metres/sec which is about one quarter of that necessary for turbines of that size to achieve maximum output and which, under the relevant inverse proportion laws, translates into an actual output of 75kWatthrs per turbine and which can be expressed as an average Load Factor of but 2%. I think!
But there are times when the wind does blow more strongly of course but not that many as you may have seen on relevant charts and so I have added 20% of the time (to be generous) @ a LF of 65% to arrive at that average yearly LF of 15% which DECC list applies to wind farms off the NE Coast as the wind profile chart for Hurn Airport is quite similar to that for Newcastle..
However as turbine output at below 9m/s is largely consumed in-house my earlier pitch at a LF of 12% still might be ovely optimistic.
So,no, no fundamental or arithmetical errors here as I can see and so Navitus electricity would likely come at least five times more expensive than were it to come from a Nuclear source.
Oh dear , Oh dear m.i.p., trying to fudge the issue by playing dumb with numbers does not change them! But let me simplify my dive into available statistics just in case you do not understand your own blurb..... A new c, £5Billion Nuclear PS WILL produce about 1000 Megawatthrs of electricity for the NGrid from having a Load Factor of near enough 100%. and It Will have a life span of at least 40 years 20 year lifespan Navitus may cost only £2Billion with having say 200 5megaWatt turbines at £10Million each (When the Germans have recently paid £20Million I have read - so I`m being hopeful of our financial skills at least). However the average wind speed over a full year here at an altitude of 45m,.is only 7 metres/sec which is about one quarter of that necessary for turbines of that size to achieve maximum output and which, under the relevant inverse proportion laws, translates into an actual output of 75kWatthrs per turbine and which can be expressed as an average Load Factor of but 2%. I think! But there are times when the wind does blow more strongly of course but not that many as you may have seen on relevant charts and so I have added 20% of the time (to be generous) @ a LF of 65% to arrive at that average yearly LF of 15% which DECC list applies to wind farms off the NE Coast as the wind profile chart for Hurn Airport is quite similar to that for Newcastle.. However as turbine output at below 9m/s is largely consumed in-house my earlier pitch at a LF of 12% still might be ovely optimistic. So,no, no fundamental or arithmetical errors here as I can see and so Navitus electricity would likely come at least five times more expensive than were it to come from a Nuclear source. a.g.o.g.

1:55am Fri 11 Jan 13

mooninpisces says...

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.
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

11:00am Fri 11 Jan 13

David Furmage. says...

Ok let's say if this wind farm gets the go ahead , how many local jobs will this create? I mean I take it we have a lot of wind turbine factories around here? Eneco stated that it would create 2000 full time jobs at our meeting over here in Swanage. I personally think that can't be right or could I be wrong.

We have all talked about farms and nuclear ( which I think is a good option ) though something that has not been brought up is the rivers we have around Dorset. There's potential power right there to tap into and would create a lot of local jobs. Rivers have a constant flow of water and are very predictable , not like the wind. There are all ready some business around the UK that have done just this and there energy needs run of rivers that are next to buildings. We used to have quite a lot of water mills in the UK , surely we could bring some back to life and even create a few new ones,:)
Ok let's say if this wind farm gets the go ahead , how many local jobs will this create? I mean I take it we have a lot of wind turbine factories around here? Eneco stated that it would create 2000 full time jobs at our meeting over here in Swanage. I personally think that can't be right or could I be wrong. We have all talked about farms and nuclear ( which I think is a good option ) though something that has not been brought up is the rivers we have around Dorset. There's potential power right there to tap into and would create a lot of local jobs. Rivers have a constant flow of water and are very predictable , not like the wind. There are all ready some business around the UK that have done just this and there energy needs run of rivers that are next to buildings. We used to have quite a lot of water mills in the UK , surely we could bring some back to life and even create a few new ones,:) David Furmage.

4:45pm Fri 11 Jan 13

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

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.
Mmmm. yeah...did get some smoke in my eyes from burning the midnight oil and can happily dismiss the figures I could hardly believe myself and so dressed them up to about where I thought they would be in the first place. Some charts/manufactures quote mps & others mph for wind speeds.

But we are still left with probable turbine outputs of nil for 45% of the time, about 10% for 15% of the time, 25% for 23%, 50 for 13 and around max for 2% of the time.
These average out to a 16% Load Factor.
Finer calculations at each and every wind speed between zero and 20+m/sec might alter the result to a minor degree.
But as that is as measured 45m above Hurn airport I think it fair to add 10% for the off-shore location and so suggest that 17.5% maybe the target figure neither you nor anyone in the turbine sales department can countenance in being half that which you prophecy back up this page.

This 17.5% of course compares very favourably with the NE Coast average Load Factor of 15.3% quoted by DECC.

Thus my simple cost comparison with Nuclear on costs of Watts/£ is still valid
enough in the round to put wind power in this quarter out in the cold even before its other downsides are taken into consideration.
[quote][p][bold]mooninpisces[/bold] 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.[/p][/quote]Mmmm. yeah...did get some smoke in my eyes from burning the midnight oil and can happily dismiss the figures I could hardly believe myself and so dressed them up to about where I thought they would be in the first place. Some charts/manufactures quote mps & others mph for wind speeds. But we are still left with probable turbine outputs of nil for 45% of the time, about 10% for 15% of the time, 25% for 23%, 50 for 13 and around max for 2% of the time. These average out to a 16% Load Factor. Finer calculations at each and every wind speed between zero and 20+m/sec might alter the result to a minor degree. But as that is as measured 45m above Hurn airport I think it fair to add 10% for the off-shore location and so suggest that 17.5% maybe the target figure neither you nor anyone in the turbine sales department can countenance in being half that which you prophecy back up this page. This 17.5% of course compares very favourably with the NE Coast average Load Factor of 15.3% quoted by DECC. Thus my simple cost comparison with Nuclear on costs of Watts/£ is still valid enough in the round to put wind power in this quarter out in the cold even before its other downsides are taken into consideration. a.g.o.g.

5:49pm Fri 11 Jan 13

mooninpisces says...

a.g.o.g. - you keep quoting the NE Coast average. You do realise, I suppose, that "the NE coast" is just 2 small turbines off the coast at Blyth - a pilot project, the first ever in the UK. The technology, and reliability, has improved quite a bit since then, which is why the average UK load factor is much higher.
a.g.o.g. - you keep quoting the NE Coast average. You do realise, I suppose, that "the NE coast" is just 2 small turbines off the coast at Blyth - a pilot project, the first ever in the UK. The technology, and reliability, has improved quite a bit since then, which is why the average UK load factor is much higher. mooninpisces

9:15pm Fri 11 Jan 13

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

It`s the wind speed that dictates the LF
no matter the kit.

Newcastle just happens to have a similar profile to Hurn for comparison purposes.
Its the Scottish farms that fluke the stats which, according to DECC, by the way, say the average uk off-shore was 28% over 2011 and not your hopeful 35.

Look at the DECC map for wind speeds and not your Green guidance notes perhaps.

17.5% looks about right for Navitus.

DECC also tell the wind contributed 10372gW or enough to power 2.4 million homes.

Thus the Navitus scallywag overstates its potential in recognised terms by a factor of TWENTY,if my calculation is near correct, or only TEN if it lived up to your speculation. ONLY????

But do please check mine out.
It`s the wind speed that dictates the LF no matter the kit. Newcastle just happens to have a similar profile to Hurn for comparison purposes. Its the Scottish farms that fluke the stats which, according to DECC, by the way, say the average uk off-shore was 28% over 2011 and not your hopeful 35. Look at the DECC map for wind speeds and not your Green guidance notes perhaps. 17.5% looks about right for Navitus. DECC also tell the wind contributed 10372gW or enough to power 2.4 million homes. Thus the Navitus scallywag overstates its potential in recognised terms by a factor of TWENTY,if my calculation is near correct, or only TEN if it lived up to your speculation. ONLY???? But do please check mine out. a.g.o.g.

10:34pm Fri 11 Jan 13

mooninpisces says...

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).
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). mooninpisces

12:04am Sat 12 Jan 13

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

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).
I have not seen that DECC figure but it willbe heavvily slewed by N/W rig LF`s that related to detailed wind speeds locally that do not blow here.
That is why I calculated what the actual output would be from those that are and then added a percentage to turn it to off-shore conditions but if DECC are say 35%LF for off-shore somewhere then instead of adding 10% as I did lets callit 25 and make Navitus expecant of 20%.
It still blows your desperate bid for Nav glory out of the water.
So instead of serving 800,000 or so homes Nav would serve only 46,000 according to DECC criterea.
Chewed on that one yet?
But at least you are getting me closer to that real `crux of the problem`, besides COST..
[quote][p][bold]mooninpisces[/bold] 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).[/p][/quote]I have not seen that DECC figure but it willbe heavvily slewed by N/W rig LF`s that related to detailed wind speeds locally that do not blow here. That is why I calculated what the actual output would be from those that are and then added a percentage to turn it to off-shore conditions but if DECC are say 35%LF for off-shore somewhere then instead of adding 10% as I did lets callit 25 and make Navitus expecant of 20%. It still blows your desperate bid for Nav glory out of the water. So instead of serving 800,000 or so homes Nav would serve only 46,000 according to DECC criterea. Chewed on that one yet? But at least you are getting me closer to that real `crux of the problem`, besides COST.. a.g.o.g.

7:42am Sat 12 Jan 13

mooninpisces says...

"According to DECC criteria" the number of homes served, by whatever energy source, assumes a (very generous, in my opinion) 4.370kWh average annual domestic household electricity consumption, and is calculated by dividing actual power generated in a typical year by that figure.

Go through the sums again in my calculation above (6.27pm on 9 Jan).
Peak capacity of 1,100MW and a load factor of 35% comes to 3.3726GWh generated - 771,762 homes served. I accept the load factor could be lower than 35% - but nowhere near low enough to bring homes served down to your 46,000 figure.

None of this, however, gets to the real "crux of the problem", which is how best to prevent the destabilisation of the global climate that will occur if we, locally and globally, continue to burn fossil fuels as if there is no tomorrow.
"According to DECC criteria" the number of homes served, by whatever energy source, assumes a (very generous, in my opinion) 4.370kWh average annual domestic household electricity consumption, and is calculated by dividing actual power generated in a typical year by that figure. Go through the sums again in my calculation above (6.27pm on 9 Jan). Peak capacity of 1,100MW and a load factor of 35% comes to 3.3726GWh generated - 771,762 homes served. I accept the load factor could be lower than 35% - but nowhere near low enough to bring homes served down to your 46,000 figure. None of this, however, gets to the real "crux of the problem", which is how best to prevent the destabilisation of the global climate that will occur if we, locally and globally, continue to burn fossil fuels as if there is no tomorrow. mooninpisces

12:20pm Sat 12 Jan 13

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

As you were. No with aps., it was my calculator dropping a noughtr and not the DECC coming to terms with the Load Factor homes generally served with a 60 or 100 Amp supply present to the Nast Grid or any other supplier of electricity.
However, the DECC citation relates to the capability of the wind power actually received over the period of one year relative to the average household comsumption of same, and of which you cleary register the effect of those with high consumption electric heating, whilst Eneco, should it wish to use that simple criterea, should cleary express their 800,000 homes claim as being measured over the fullness of one year and not , by implication, the number of homes that could be hooked-up and served potentially. They should also come clean on their 35% LF expectancy cleary extracted from whatever DECC document you have found that quotes a UK off-shore 2011 Wind perfprmance LF of 35% but which we know, don`t, them too, is heavily skewed upwards by the worth having, even I think, Northern wind farms rather good performance.
The reason for this is not only the higher duration and strength of the winds to the North and higher West but their directional stability which translates into lower loss factors due to yaw changes and intermittency/variab
ility that those farms positioned to exhaust the lower wind zones both suffer themselves in relation to yaw and the Nat Grid that other `crux of the situation` which Eneco seem to ignore as well and likely can due to the huge amount of money we are set to shower on it for the meagre amount of usable electricity likely to come out of the end of its pipe.
Your further `crux` is still one step short of that about which we cannot speak.
You notice I hope that we have but yet another Navitus Noughty day half behind us already! Does Eneco?
As you were. No with aps., it was my calculator dropping a noughtr and not the DECC coming to terms with the Load Factor homes generally served with a 60 or 100 Amp supply present to the Nast Grid or any other supplier of electricity. However, the DECC citation relates to the capability of the wind power actually received over the period of one year relative to the average household comsumption of same, and of which you cleary register the effect of those with high consumption electric heating, whilst Eneco, should it wish to use that simple criterea, should cleary express their 800,000 homes claim as being measured over the fullness of one year and not , by implication, the number of homes that could be hooked-up and served potentially. They should also come clean on their 35% LF expectancy cleary extracted from whatever DECC document you have found that quotes a UK off-shore 2011 Wind perfprmance LF of 35% but which we know, don`t, them too, is heavily skewed upwards by the worth having, even I think, Northern wind farms rather good performance. The reason for this is not only the higher duration and strength of the winds to the North and higher West but their directional stability which translates into lower loss factors due to yaw changes and intermittency/variab ility that those farms positioned to exhaust the lower wind zones both suffer themselves in relation to yaw and the Nat Grid that other `crux of the situation` which Eneco seem to ignore as well and likely can due to the huge amount of money we are set to shower on it for the meagre amount of usable electricity likely to come out of the end of its pipe. Your further `crux` is still one step short of that about which we cannot speak. You notice I hope that we have but yet another Navitus Noughty day half behind us already! Does Eneco? a.g.o.g.

11:31pm Sat 12 Jan 13

Yankee1 says...

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?
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? Yankee1

8:35am Sun 13 Jan 13

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

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?
And in what currrenbcy can we pay you Eneco, sir?

£Sterling ? - you must be joshing sir, we don`t take toast!,

Gold ? - you haven`t any!

Euros? - not our preferred choice!

Then what else sir? - $Yankee at the going rate of exchange!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!
(and which, after Merve the swerves QE Gas Bubble bursts could be one-for-one), so.....

Er, UK owned Bank Shares, shale gas, coal, subsidised wind energy, Knighthoods, blood, spare body parts, land????????????????
???????????
[quote][p][bold]Yankee1[/bold] 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?[/p][/quote]And in what currrenbcy can we pay you Eneco, sir? £Sterling ? - you must be joshing sir, we don`t take toast!, Gold ? - you haven`t any! Euros? - not our preferred choice! Then what else sir? - $Yankee at the going rate of exchange!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!! (and which, after Merve the swerves QE Gas Bubble bursts could be one-for-one), so..... Er, UK owned Bank Shares, shale gas, coal, subsidised wind energy, Knighthoods, blood, spare body parts, land???????????????? ??????????? a.g.o.g.

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