Formal complaint lodged over wind farm plans

Bournemouth Echo: AGAINST: Andrew Langley of Challenge Navitus AGAINST: Andrew Langley of Challenge Navitus

A RETIRED research scientist says he can prove that the wind turbines planned for the Dorset coast will appear substantially taller than has been shown.

Alan Heasman, 68, from Westbourne, has challenged the photomontages used by Navitus Bay Development Ltd (NBDL) at its public exhibitions earlier this month.

He has pledged to hand over £100 to charity if he is proved wrong.

NBDL’s plans would see a maximum of 218 turbines placed 12 miles away from Bournemouth.

Mr Heasman, who also worked as a senior industrial manager, said he used simple geometry and based his calculations on the maximum height that could be installed, 200m.

He said: “If you stand at the point on Hengistbury Head where their photograph was taken, you are the same distance from Tennyson Down behind The Needles, Isle of Wight, as you are from the 200m turbines in the front row of the wind farm – 10.4 miles.

“Navitus’ photomontage shows the 200m turbines as being only very slightly higher than Tennyson Down, which is 147m on the Ordnance Survey map.

“This is visually impossible. Using my own accurate measurements, the 200m turbines on the Hengistbury Head photomontage are 30.7 per cent undersized.

“This is a substantial difference and, on this basis, I have made a formal complaint to Navitus as the visual impact portrayed will grossly mislead the public.”

He said that standing anywhere between Hengistbury Head and Bournemouth Pier an onlooker would be equidistant from Tennyson Down and a 200m turbine at the front of the proposed wind farm.

Alan, who is not a member of any group for or against the wind farm, added: “As the human eye is also attracted to movement, they will totally dominate the seascape and they will certainly not be a speck on the horizon, as some people believe.”

In a statement, NBDL said its photomontages had been produced by independent firm LDA Design and adhered to Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH) methodology.

It added: “SNH guidance provides detailed advice on photography and its use in the preparation of visual material, including material associated with wind park developments. Its methodology is endorsed by the Landscape Institute, the Royal Chartered body for landscape architects, and represents best practice for the wind power industry.

“Navitus Bay has met with Mr Heasman at several of its recent public exhibitions and has openly discussed the visuals of the project and his specific concerns.

“Mr Heasman has formally written to Navitus Bay on this subject and we shall provide a detailed response in due course.”

THE turbines are:
20 metres taller than the Gherkin in London
One and a half times the height of London Eye
30 metres taller than the Spinnaker Tower in Portsmouth
77 metres taller than the spire on Salisbury Cathedral – the tallest church spire in the UK

HD videos of site on the internet

OPPOSITION group Challenge Navitus has published new HD videos on its website of the Navitus Bay wind farm proposal on its website for HD televisions and high-resolution computer monitors.

Andrew Langley, a co-founder of Challenge Navitus, who computed the simulations, said: “We are always trying to bring the very best pictures of the wind farm to the public’s attention.

“These HD videos give an even more immersive experience than before. The new videos are suitable only for displays with at least 1920x1080 pixels, and you will need a fast internet connection, but the results are stunning. If the user feedback is positive, we will add more.”

Comments (32)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

4:42pm Sun 24 Feb 13

l'anglais says...

What are all these NIMBY's proposing as an alternative precisely?

The only other alternative is Nuclear, would they like a New reactor built in amongst their azaleas?
What are all these NIMBY's proposing as an alternative precisely? The only other alternative is Nuclear, would they like a New reactor built in amongst their azaleas? l'anglais

4:50pm Sun 24 Feb 13

Ebb Tide says...

Notwithstanding the accuracy (or otherwise) of the window dressing by the non-NIMBYs, there is a real lack of information. I am glad the relevance of the UN's Aarhus Convention is being tested - hopefully with some urgency.

Decision making without adequate information is not an easy task !!!

When it comes to 'nuclear' it is hoped that the fuel will be thorium and not uranium.
Notwithstanding the accuracy (or otherwise) of the window dressing by the non-NIMBYs, there is a real lack of information. I am glad the relevance of the UN's Aarhus Convention is being tested - hopefully with some urgency. Decision making without adequate information is not an easy task !!! When it comes to 'nuclear' it is hoped that the fuel will be thorium and not uranium. Ebb Tide

5:33pm Sun 24 Feb 13

aerolover says...

He is sure that he is right but only £100 if he is wrong. Sounds like he is sure he is right.
He is sure that he is right but only £100 if he is wrong. Sounds like he is sure he is right. aerolover

6:17pm Sun 24 Feb 13

wotdidusay? says...

The Dutch did not allow turbines this high in Holland, what makes this Dutch company think we will put up with this crazy height here? Many people are quite happy with wind power, but not at this incredible height, and so many of them, not to mention the fact they would be on a major bird migration route, and in the middle of the shipping lane. The windfarm off Sheringham, Norfolk (put up by a Norwegian company), is out of sight from the shore.
The Dutch did not allow turbines this high in Holland, what makes this Dutch company think we will put up with this crazy height here? Many people are quite happy with wind power, but not at this incredible height, and so many of them, not to mention the fact they would be on a major bird migration route, and in the middle of the shipping lane. The windfarm off Sheringham, Norfolk (put up by a Norwegian company), is out of sight from the shore. wotdidusay?

6:23pm Sun 24 Feb 13

muscliffman says...

Good luck to him.

I would however rather the case against this wind-farm was not based upon such 'NIMBY' foundations but concentrated instead upon the base greed and futility - that arguably attends all these schemes.
Good luck to him. I would however rather the case against this wind-farm was not based upon such 'NIMBY' foundations but concentrated instead upon the base greed and futility - that arguably attends all these schemes. muscliffman

6:28pm Sun 24 Feb 13

Jacobsmith95 says...

Get over it.
Get over it. Jacobsmith95

6:46pm Sun 24 Feb 13

ts12345 says...

Dont think it will make any difference. I think he should put more money on it.
1000 would be a better sum if he is that sure!!
The purbeck hills would be a good place for the turbines. Old harry to Corfe and then along the ridge way to lulworth.
Dont think it will make any difference. I think he should put more money on it. 1000 would be a better sum if he is that sure!! The purbeck hills would be a good place for the turbines. Old harry to Corfe and then along the ridge way to lulworth. ts12345

6:56pm Sun 24 Feb 13

manyogie says...

Desppith the arguments from both sides, good on anyone whose willing to stand up and be counted.
Desppith the arguments from both sides, good on anyone whose willing to stand up and be counted. manyogie

8:14pm Sun 24 Feb 13

Hobad1 says...

l'anglais wrote:
What are all these NIMBY's proposing as an alternative precisely?

The only other alternative is Nuclear, would they like a New reactor built in amongst their azaleas?
Totally agree (twice in one week!).
[quote][p][bold]l'anglais[/bold] wrote: What are all these NIMBY's proposing as an alternative precisely? The only other alternative is Nuclear, would they like a New reactor built in amongst their azaleas?[/p][/quote]Totally agree (twice in one week!). Hobad1

9:00pm Sun 24 Feb 13

awsokend says...

ts12345 wrote:
Dont think it will make any difference. I think he should put more money on it.
1000 would be a better sum if he is that sure!!
The purbeck hills would be a good place for the turbines. Old harry to Corfe and then along the ridge way to lulworth.
ARE YOU JOKING ME OFF
OR HAVING A LAUGH
NO WAY
I HAVE NEVER BEEN SO ******* HURT IN ALL MY LIFE, WHEN I READ YOUR COMMENT
ITS A WIND UP.
GOT TO BE.
[quote][p][bold]ts12345[/bold] wrote: Dont think it will make any difference. I think he should put more money on it. 1000 would be a better sum if he is that sure!! The purbeck hills would be a good place for the turbines. Old harry to Corfe and then along the ridge way to lulworth.[/p][/quote]ARE YOU JOKING ME OFF OR HAVING A LAUGH NO WAY I HAVE NEVER BEEN SO ******* HURT IN ALL MY LIFE, WHEN I READ YOUR COMMENT ITS A WIND UP. GOT TO BE. awsokend

9:35pm Sun 24 Feb 13

The Timelord says...

Totally flawed plan locally. The prevailing local weather/wind conditions are such that when high demand for energy occurs during the winter months the wind levels are relatively low and hence such an installation won't meet demand when it is required.
Now where have we been mis-sold things that were meant to be good for us in recent history?
(1) The BIC that has never made a profit?
(2) The IMAX that was meant to be the fututre and is finally being pulled down?
(3) The surf-reef that never worked?.

How gullable do these so called experts think we are?
Totally flawed plan locally. The prevailing local weather/wind conditions are such that when high demand for energy occurs during the winter months the wind levels are relatively low and hence such an installation won't meet demand when it is required. Now where have we been mis-sold things that were meant to be good for us in recent history? (1) The BIC that has never made a profit? (2) The IMAX that was meant to be the fututre and is finally being pulled down? (3) The surf-reef that never worked?. How gullable do these so called experts think we are? The Timelord

9:56pm Sun 24 Feb 13

Jacobsmith95 says...

awsokend wrote:
ts12345 wrote:
Dont think it will make any difference. I think he should put more money on it.
1000 would be a better sum if he is that sure!!
The purbeck hills would be a good place for the turbines. Old harry to Corfe and then along the ridge way to lulworth.
ARE YOU JOKING ME OFF
OR HAVING A LAUGH
NO WAY
I HAVE NEVER BEEN SO ******* HURT IN ALL MY LIFE, WHEN I READ YOUR COMMENT
ITS A WIND UP.
GOT TO BE.
Haha, get over yourself.
[quote][p][bold]awsokend[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ts12345[/bold] wrote: Dont think it will make any difference. I think he should put more money on it. 1000 would be a better sum if he is that sure!! The purbeck hills would be a good place for the turbines. Old harry to Corfe and then along the ridge way to lulworth.[/p][/quote]ARE YOU JOKING ME OFF OR HAVING A LAUGH NO WAY I HAVE NEVER BEEN SO ******* HURT IN ALL MY LIFE, WHEN I READ YOUR COMMENT ITS A WIND UP. GOT TO BE.[/p][/quote]Haha, get over yourself. Jacobsmith95

10:09pm Sun 24 Feb 13

ashleycross says...

They've obviously done their research on how easy it is to get stuff through here. After all, this conurbation has hospital waste sent from all over the country to be burnt here right where people live rather than out in the countryside somewhere not many people live. BH postcode has the reputation of being the easiest pushover ever. Not quite nice to make a fuss you know.
They've obviously done their research on how easy it is to get stuff through here. After all, this conurbation has hospital waste sent from all over the country to be burnt here right where people live rather than out in the countryside somewhere not many people live. BH postcode has the reputation of being the easiest pushover ever. Not quite nice to make a fuss you know. ashleycross

10:16pm Sun 24 Feb 13

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

As a Nation we cannot afford wind-driven electrical power with a Capital Cost of £/kW output near 16 times higher than the Nuclear/Gas/Coal alternatives that we will need to keep available 24/365 anyway for when the WIND DOESN`T BLOW.
Either hard enough and not at all,and which is much of the time.
As a Nation we cannot afford wind-driven electrical power with a Capital Cost of £/kW output near 16 times higher than the Nuclear/Gas/Coal alternatives that we will need to keep available 24/365 anyway for when the WIND DOESN`T BLOW. Either hard enough and not at all,and which is much of the time. a.g.o.g.

10:31pm Sun 24 Feb 13

mooninpisces says...

Would the retired research scientist be able to see the 1m wide tip of the blade (the only part of the structure of the largest turbines that would be 200m above sea level) from 10+ miles away? As I understood it, the photomontages were meant to give an indication of what could be seen from the viewpoints with the naked eye, not with binoculars.
Would the retired research scientist be able to see the 1m wide tip of the blade (the only part of the structure of the largest turbines that would be 200m above sea level) from 10+ miles away? As I understood it, the photomontages were meant to give an indication of what could be seen from the viewpoints with the naked eye, not with binoculars. mooninpisces

10:36pm Sun 24 Feb 13

Stop Press says...

I think many of the comments so far seem to be either off topic or perhaps bought and paid for by Navitus. The majority of people I know, don't want a wind farm where it can be seen from Bournemouth beach, the Isle of Wight, Swanage and anywhere else on this as yet unspoilt and beautiful coastline. The proposed 218 turbines are 156 feet higher than the 500ft balloon ride in Bournemouth Gardens who advertise a vista of 20 miles. Navitus, who have very expensive professionals pressing this industrial development on us, don't care what we think, if they did they'd have moved on by now. What they do care about is the billions of £'s they'll make from their offshore factory.
As for the opponents of Mr Heasman, who is waging £100 of his own money, which charity will you be giving £100 to if he's right?
I think many of the comments so far seem to be either off topic or perhaps bought and paid for by Navitus. The majority of people I know, don't want a wind farm where it can be seen from Bournemouth beach, the Isle of Wight, Swanage and anywhere else on this as yet unspoilt and beautiful coastline. The proposed 218 turbines are 156 feet higher than the 500ft balloon ride in Bournemouth Gardens who advertise a vista of 20 miles. Navitus, who have very expensive professionals pressing this industrial development on us, don't care what we think, if they did they'd have moved on by now. What they do care about is the billions of £'s they'll make from their offshore factory. As for the opponents of Mr Heasman, who is waging £100 of his own money, which charity will you be giving £100 to if he's right? Stop Press

11:31pm Sun 24 Feb 13

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

mooninpisces wrote:
Would the retired research scientist be able to see the 1m wide tip of the blade (the only part of the structure of the largest turbines that would be 200m above sea level) from 10+ miles away? As I understood it, the photomontages were meant to give an indication of what could be seen from the viewpoints with the naked eye, not with binoculars.
Maybe not, but he`d likely see the other 195 metres of not only it but an Armada of them in observed reducing in height ranks of them 10+ deep.

It was photomontage style presentation that landed us with I-sore Imax remember!
[quote][p][bold]mooninpisces[/bold] wrote: Would the retired research scientist be able to see the 1m wide tip of the blade (the only part of the structure of the largest turbines that would be 200m above sea level) from 10+ miles away? As I understood it, the photomontages were meant to give an indication of what could be seen from the viewpoints with the naked eye, not with binoculars.[/p][/quote]Maybe not, but he`d likely see the other 195 metres of not only it but an Armada of them in observed reducing in height ranks of them 10+ deep. It was photomontage style presentation that landed us with I-sore Imax remember! a.g.o.g.

7:35am Mon 25 Feb 13

timwel says...

....and the birds migrating will not be able to see the blades either...until its all too late for them. Hopefully our local council will have a beach clean system in place to remove the kills that wash up on our beaches. (Its obviously all fine if you can't see anything). Maybe the local schools will have competitions to see who can collect the most corpses as part of their lessons on the Green Energy industry.
....and the birds migrating will not be able to see the blades either...until its all too late for them. Hopefully our local council will have a beach clean system in place to remove the kills that wash up on our beaches. (Its obviously all fine if you can't see anything). Maybe the local schools will have competitions to see who can collect the most corpses as part of their lessons on the Green Energy industry. timwel

8:31am Mon 25 Feb 13

N Smith says...

Bigger the better , they look cool much better than a massive reactor.
Bigger the better , they look cool much better than a massive reactor. N Smith

10:29am Mon 25 Feb 13

harrythered says...

l'anglais wrote:
What are all these NIMBY's proposing as an alternative precisely?

The only other alternative is Nuclear, would they like a New reactor built in amongst their azaleas?
I propose shale gas, clean coal and nuclear. At least they will keep the lights on unlike useless expensive wind farms. At this very moment the total of all wind turbines in this country is supplying exactly 3.2% of this countries energy consumption. The cost of this 3.2% by way of subsidies and green taxes is massively more than that of conventional fuels.
[quote][p][bold]l'anglais[/bold] wrote: What are all these NIMBY's proposing as an alternative precisely? The only other alternative is Nuclear, would they like a New reactor built in amongst their azaleas?[/p][/quote]I propose shale gas, clean coal and nuclear. At least they will keep the lights on unlike useless expensive wind farms. At this very moment the total of all wind turbines in this country is supplying exactly 3.2% of this countries energy consumption. The cost of this 3.2% by way of subsidies and green taxes is massively more than that of conventional fuels. harrythered

3:04pm Mon 25 Feb 13

Red Grouse says...

l'anglais wrote:
What are all these NIMBY's proposing as an alternative precisely?

The only other alternative is Nuclear, would they like a New reactor built in amongst their azaleas?
Wind is not "an alternative" to base load power generation.

Suggest you read what National Grid have to say on the subject. They say that even if we built DECC's worst case 2030 wind build (23GW of onshore and 51GW offshore), we would still need 30.5GW of NEW nuclear and 36GW of NEW gas-fuelled capacity, plus 5.5GW of coal, just to keep the lights on.
[quote][p][bold]l'anglais[/bold] wrote: What are all these NIMBY's proposing as an alternative precisely? The only other alternative is Nuclear, would they like a New reactor built in amongst their azaleas?[/p][/quote]Wind is not "an alternative" to base load power generation. Suggest you read what National Grid have to say on the subject. They say that even if we built DECC's worst case 2030 wind build (23GW of onshore and 51GW offshore), we would still need 30.5GW of NEW nuclear and 36GW of NEW gas-fuelled capacity, plus 5.5GW of coal, just to keep the lights on. Red Grouse

4:25pm Mon 25 Feb 13

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

Red Grouse wrote:
l'anglais wrote:
What are all these NIMBY's proposing as an alternative precisely?

The only other alternative is Nuclear, would they like a New reactor built in amongst their azaleas?
Wind is not "an alternative" to base load power generation.

Suggest you read what National Grid have to say on the subject. They say that even if we built DECC's worst case 2030 wind build (23GW of onshore and 51GW offshore), we would still need 30.5GW of NEW nuclear and 36GW of NEW gas-fuelled capacity, plus 5.5GW of coal, just to keep the lights on.
If we could still afford to switch them on that is..................
[quote][p][bold]Red Grouse[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]l'anglais[/bold] wrote: What are all these NIMBY's proposing as an alternative precisely? The only other alternative is Nuclear, would they like a New reactor built in amongst their azaleas?[/p][/quote]Wind is not "an alternative" to base load power generation. Suggest you read what National Grid have to say on the subject. They say that even if we built DECC's worst case 2030 wind build (23GW of onshore and 51GW offshore), we would still need 30.5GW of NEW nuclear and 36GW of NEW gas-fuelled capacity, plus 5.5GW of coal, just to keep the lights on.[/p][/quote]If we could still afford to switch them on that is.................. a.g.o.g.

8:54pm Mon 25 Feb 13

Red Grouse says...

a.g.o.g. wrote:
Red Grouse wrote:
l'anglais wrote:
What are all these NIMBY's proposing as an alternative precisely?

The only other alternative is Nuclear, would they like a New reactor built in amongst their azaleas?
Wind is not "an alternative" to base load power generation.

Suggest you read what National Grid have to say on the subject. They say that even if we built DECC's worst case 2030 wind build (23GW of onshore and 51GW offshore), we would still need 30.5GW of NEW nuclear and 36GW of NEW gas-fuelled capacity, plus 5.5GW of coal, just to keep the lights on.
If we could still afford to switch them on that is..................
Nuclear is cheaper than onshore wind before we get to associated wind costs of backup, curtailment and connection/distribut
ion/grid strengthening costs. And that is before we add the subsidy costs!

Gas ditto, and may well fall in price, as it has in the US (to 2003 levels) with unconventional gas exploitation, currently fracking with huge resources of methane hydrate in prospect.
[quote][p][bold]a.g.o.g.[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Red Grouse[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]l'anglais[/bold] wrote: What are all these NIMBY's proposing as an alternative precisely? The only other alternative is Nuclear, would they like a New reactor built in amongst their azaleas?[/p][/quote]Wind is not "an alternative" to base load power generation. Suggest you read what National Grid have to say on the subject. They say that even if we built DECC's worst case 2030 wind build (23GW of onshore and 51GW offshore), we would still need 30.5GW of NEW nuclear and 36GW of NEW gas-fuelled capacity, plus 5.5GW of coal, just to keep the lights on.[/p][/quote]If we could still afford to switch them on that is..................[/p][/quote]Nuclear is cheaper than onshore wind before we get to associated wind costs of backup, curtailment and connection/distribut ion/grid strengthening costs. And that is before we add the subsidy costs! Gas ditto, and may well fall in price, as it has in the US (to 2003 levels) with unconventional gas exploitation, currently fracking with huge resources of methane hydrate in prospect. Red Grouse

1:41am Tue 26 Feb 13

mooninpisces says...

Funny how many commenters talk about subsidies for wind, and ignore the subsidies (recently extended by Osborne) for nuclear and gas.
Funny how many commenters talk about subsidies for wind, and ignore the subsidies (recently extended by Osborne) for nuclear and gas. mooninpisces

2:13am Tue 26 Feb 13

Red Grouse says...

mooninpisces wrote:
Funny how many commenters talk about subsidies for wind, and ignore the subsidies (recently extended by Osborne) for nuclear and gas.
There are no production subsidies for gas or nuclear at the moment.

Government is now introducing 'contracts for difference' which are effectively guaranteed purchase prices for thermal generation.

This is the other side of the uncontrolled, 'developer-led' wind build with prioritised access to the market.

We have surrendered control of the market to foreign-owned conglomerates who are not going to build urgently needed baseload nuclear and gas power stations without some guarantees that their product will be bought at a volume and price that will ensure a reasonable return on their investment.

Centrica has openly expressed this sentiment re. gas. As has EDF re. nuclear. It is the Windies who have put us in this position (together with the politicians who gave away control of our energy supplies and markets).

If you doubt this, look at DECC's figures for worst case 2030 wind build then ask yourself why any thermal energy company would build in the UK without guarantees on volumes and prices.
[quote][p][bold]mooninpisces[/bold] wrote: Funny how many commenters talk about subsidies for wind, and ignore the subsidies (recently extended by Osborne) for nuclear and gas.[/p][/quote]There are no production subsidies for gas or nuclear at the moment. Government is now introducing 'contracts for difference' which are effectively guaranteed purchase prices for thermal generation. This is the other side of the uncontrolled, 'developer-led' wind build with prioritised access to the market. We have surrendered control of the market to foreign-owned conglomerates who are not going to build urgently needed baseload nuclear and gas power stations without some guarantees that their product will be bought at a volume and price that will ensure a reasonable return on their investment. Centrica has openly expressed this sentiment re. gas. As has EDF re. nuclear. It is the Windies who have put us in this position (together with the politicians who gave away control of our energy supplies and markets). If you doubt this, look at DECC's figures for worst case 2030 wind build then ask yourself why any thermal energy company would build in the UK without guarantees on volumes and prices. Red Grouse

3:16am Tue 26 Feb 13

Stop Press says...

The UK has a coastline of over 7500 miles, much of which is bleak and remote. Why would anyone, without a vested interest, be in favour of placing a battery of electricity generators 8 miles from the Jurassic Coast (a UNESCO World Heritage site) & in full view of some of the most attractive coastline in the country? The proposed 218 x 650ft monsters will fill the horizon ruining an otherwise stunningly beautiful view. Before it's too late, please get involved, say no to Navitus!
The UK has a coastline of over 7500 miles, much of which is bleak and remote. Why would anyone, without a vested interest, be in favour of placing a battery of electricity generators 8 miles from the Jurassic Coast (a UNESCO World Heritage site) & in full view of some of the most attractive coastline in the country? The proposed 218 x 650ft monsters will fill the horizon ruining an otherwise stunningly beautiful view. Before it's too late, please get involved, say no to Navitus! Stop Press

7:45am Tue 26 Feb 13

save energy says...

Red Grouse wrote:
mooninpisces wrote:
Funny how many commenters talk about subsidies for wind, and ignore the subsidies (recently extended by Osborne) for nuclear and gas.
There are no production subsidies for gas or nuclear at the moment.

Government is now introducing 'contracts for difference' which are effectively guaranteed purchase prices for thermal generation.

This is the other side of the uncontrolled, 'developer-led' wind build with prioritised access to the market.

We have surrendered control of the market to foreign-owned conglomerates who are not going to build urgently needed baseload nuclear and gas power stations without some guarantees that their product will be bought at a volume and price that will ensure a reasonable return on their investment.

Centrica has openly expressed this sentiment re. gas. As has EDF re. nuclear. It is the Windies who have put us in this position (together with the politicians who gave away control of our energy supplies and markets).

If you doubt this, look at DECC's figures for worst case 2030 wind build then ask yourself why any thermal energy company would build in the UK without guarantees on volumes and prices.
Red Grouse says...
"We have surrendered control of the market to foreign-owned conglomerates who are not going to build urgently needed baseload nuclear and gas power stations without some guarantees that their product will be bought at a volume and price that will ensure a reasonable return on their investment."

As at July 2012, UK companies own just –
12% of offshore wind
37% of on land wind
& only 26% of ALL British Electricity Generating.
Everything else is foreign owned.!!
[quote][p][bold]Red Grouse[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]mooninpisces[/bold] wrote: Funny how many commenters talk about subsidies for wind, and ignore the subsidies (recently extended by Osborne) for nuclear and gas.[/p][/quote]There are no production subsidies for gas or nuclear at the moment. Government is now introducing 'contracts for difference' which are effectively guaranteed purchase prices for thermal generation. This is the other side of the uncontrolled, 'developer-led' wind build with prioritised access to the market. We have surrendered control of the market to foreign-owned conglomerates who are not going to build urgently needed baseload nuclear and gas power stations without some guarantees that their product will be bought at a volume and price that will ensure a reasonable return on their investment. Centrica has openly expressed this sentiment re. gas. As has EDF re. nuclear. It is the Windies who have put us in this position (together with the politicians who gave away control of our energy supplies and markets). If you doubt this, look at DECC's figures for worst case 2030 wind build then ask yourself why any thermal energy company would build in the UK without guarantees on volumes and prices.[/p][/quote]Red Grouse says... "We have surrendered control of the market to foreign-owned conglomerates who are not going to build urgently needed baseload nuclear and gas power stations without some guarantees that their product will be bought at a volume and price that will ensure a reasonable return on their investment." As at July 2012, UK companies own just – 12% of offshore wind 37% of on land wind & only 26% of ALL British Electricity Generating. Everything else is foreign owned.!! save energy

9:26am Tue 26 Feb 13

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

mooninpisces wrote:
Funny how many commenters talk about subsidies for wind, and ignore the subsidies (recently extended by Osborne) for nuclear and gas.
They both do the job - Wind doesn`t!
[quote][p][bold]mooninpisces[/bold] wrote: Funny how many commenters talk about subsidies for wind, and ignore the subsidies (recently extended by Osborne) for nuclear and gas.[/p][/quote]They both do the job - Wind doesn`t! a.g.o.g.

9:36am Tue 26 Feb 13

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

Red Grouse wrote:
mooninpisces wrote: Funny how many commenters talk about subsidies for wind, and ignore the subsidies (recently extended by Osborne) for nuclear and gas.
There are no production subsidies for gas or nuclear at the moment. Government is now introducing 'contracts for difference' which are effectively guaranteed purchase prices for thermal generation. This is the other side of the uncontrolled, 'developer-led' wind build with prioritised access to the market. We have surrendered control of the market to foreign-owned conglomerates who are not going to build urgently needed baseload nuclear and gas power stations without some guarantees that their product will be bought at a volume and price that will ensure a reasonable return on their investment. Centrica has openly expressed this sentiment re. gas. As has EDF re. nuclear. It is the Windies who have put us in this position (together with the politicians who gave away control of our energy supplies and markets). If you doubt this, look at DECC's figures for worst case 2030 wind build then ask yourself why any thermal energy company would build in the UK without guarantees on volumes and prices.
Yes indeed, The CON-DEM combo is managing to deliver, it seems, the worst of each
strain of political drift on a titt-for-tatt basis.
[quote][p][bold]Red Grouse[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]mooninpisces[/bold] wrote: Funny how many commenters talk about subsidies for wind, and ignore the subsidies (recently extended by Osborne) for nuclear and gas.[/p][/quote]There are no production subsidies for gas or nuclear at the moment. Government is now introducing 'contracts for difference' which are effectively guaranteed purchase prices for thermal generation. This is the other side of the uncontrolled, 'developer-led' wind build with prioritised access to the market. We have surrendered control of the market to foreign-owned conglomerates who are not going to build urgently needed baseload nuclear and gas power stations without some guarantees that their product will be bought at a volume and price that will ensure a reasonable return on their investment. Centrica has openly expressed this sentiment re. gas. As has EDF re. nuclear. It is the Windies who have put us in this position (together with the politicians who gave away control of our energy supplies and markets). If you doubt this, look at DECC's figures for worst case 2030 wind build then ask yourself why any thermal energy company would build in the UK without guarantees on volumes and prices.[/p][/quote]Yes indeed, The CON-DEM combo is managing to deliver, it seems, the worst of each strain of political drift on a titt-for-tatt basis. a.g.o.g.

10:00am Tue 26 Feb 13

mooninpisces says...

Red Grouse - "There are no production subsidies for gas or nuclear at the moment."

So, ignore the encouragement that was given to the development of North Sea oil and gas, and the "generous new tax regime" which Osborne says is necessary if shale gas is to be developed. And ignore the non-production subsidies which have underwritten nuclear since it was first introduced (not least financing the storage and disposal of radioactive waste, and covering the risk of nuclear accident which private insurers won't touch).
Red Grouse - "There are no production subsidies for gas or nuclear at the moment." So, ignore the encouragement that was given to the development of North Sea oil and gas, and the "generous new tax regime" which Osborne says is necessary if shale gas is to be developed. And ignore the non-production subsidies which have underwritten nuclear since it was first introduced (not least financing the storage and disposal of radioactive waste, and covering the risk of nuclear accident which private insurers won't touch). mooninpisces

10:15am Tue 26 Feb 13

Red Grouse says...

mooninpisces wrote:
Red Grouse - "There are no production subsidies for gas or nuclear at the moment."

So, ignore the encouragement that was given to the development of North Sea oil and gas, and the "generous new tax regime" which Osborne says is necessary if shale gas is to be developed. And ignore the non-production subsidies which have underwritten nuclear since it was first introduced (not least financing the storage and disposal of radioactive waste, and covering the risk of nuclear accident which private insurers won't touch).
With the exception of the nuclear waste (which has little to do with power production costs now), all the points you make apply as much to wind as other generators.

Perhaps you would like to discuss the ca. £100 billion costs of grid restructuring and strengthening consequent on the wind rush. Makes nuclear clean-up costs look fairly cheap!

Might be safer to stick to production subsidies paid by consumers!
[quote][p][bold]mooninpisces[/bold] wrote: Red Grouse - "There are no production subsidies for gas or nuclear at the moment." So, ignore the encouragement that was given to the development of North Sea oil and gas, and the "generous new tax regime" which Osborne says is necessary if shale gas is to be developed. And ignore the non-production subsidies which have underwritten nuclear since it was first introduced (not least financing the storage and disposal of radioactive waste, and covering the risk of nuclear accident which private insurers won't touch).[/p][/quote]With the exception of the nuclear waste (which has little to do with power production costs now), all the points you make apply as much to wind as other generators. Perhaps you would like to discuss the ca. £100 billion costs of grid restructuring and strengthening consequent on the wind rush. Makes nuclear clean-up costs look fairly cheap! Might be safer to stick to production subsidies paid by consumers! Red Grouse

11:19am Tue 26 Feb 13

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

Red Grouse wrote:
mooninpisces wrote: Red Grouse - "There are no production subsidies for gas or nuclear at the moment." So, ignore the encouragement that was given to the development of North Sea oil and gas, and the "generous new tax regime" which Osborne says is necessary if shale gas is to be developed. And ignore the non-production subsidies which have underwritten nuclear since it was first introduced (not least financing the storage and disposal of radioactive waste, and covering the risk of nuclear accident which private insurers won't touch).
With the exception of the nuclear waste (which has little to do with power production costs now), all the points you make apply as much to wind as other generators. Perhaps you would like to discuss the ca. £100 billion costs of grid restructuring and strengthening consequent on the wind rush. Makes nuclear clean-up costs look fairly cheap! Might be safer to stick to production subsidies paid by consumers!
Yes, having a high component of wind/renewables in the mix will be much like having to run and insure a supercar running on three of its twelve cylinders on average (of the Mr&Mrs 2.3 children variety of course), or, occasionally, screaming away on all pots in neutral because of having nowhere to use it all of a sudden, or, rather too often, just parked somewhere up the by-pass fresh out of fuel, all of a sudden too.................
......
[quote][p][bold]Red Grouse[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]mooninpisces[/bold] wrote: Red Grouse - "There are no production subsidies for gas or nuclear at the moment." So, ignore the encouragement that was given to the development of North Sea oil and gas, and the "generous new tax regime" which Osborne says is necessary if shale gas is to be developed. And ignore the non-production subsidies which have underwritten nuclear since it was first introduced (not least financing the storage and disposal of radioactive waste, and covering the risk of nuclear accident which private insurers won't touch).[/p][/quote]With the exception of the nuclear waste (which has little to do with power production costs now), all the points you make apply as much to wind as other generators. Perhaps you would like to discuss the ca. £100 billion costs of grid restructuring and strengthening consequent on the wind rush. Makes nuclear clean-up costs look fairly cheap! Might be safer to stick to production subsidies paid by consumers![/p][/quote]Yes, having a high component of wind/renewables in the mix will be much like having to run and insure a supercar running on three of its twelve cylinders on average (of the Mr&Mrs 2.3 children variety of course), or, occasionally, screaming away on all pots in neutral because of having nowhere to use it all of a sudden, or, rather too often, just parked somewhere up the by-pass fresh out of fuel, all of a sudden too................. ...... 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