Navitus Bay wind farm 'could produce as little as 20 to 30 per cent of output'

Bournemouth Echo: Navitus Bay wind farm 'could produce as little as 20 to 30 per cent of output' Navitus Bay wind farm 'could produce as little as 20 to 30 per cent of output'

THE proposed Navitus Bay wind farm development could produce as little as 20 to 30 per cent of the one gigawatt estimated output quoted in the original planning application, it was claimed at Dorset County Council’s cabinet meeting yesterday.

The county council’s planning committee met to discuss the proposed development on Tuesday and opposed the application.

Yesterday the cabinet supported that decision and opposed the wind farm application in its current form.

During the meeting chairman Cllr Spencer Flower referred to claims there could be discrepancies between estimated and actual power output from the turbines.

Cllr Flower said: “The public are being asked to make a big sacrifice. There is tremendous destruction of our natural environment for what seems to be little gain.”

Don Gobbett, head of planning, confirmed he did not have precise figures on average output and added estimates quoted by Navitus Bay Development Limited were standard figures used for a large number of wind farms.

He suggested NBDL’s initial estimates might not reflect average output if calculations were based on all turbines operating at once, or did not consider some energy could be lost when transferring it from the turbines.

Other points raised echoed many of the initial report findings mentioning light pollution, noise, and potential effects on wildlife and the environment.

Comments (22)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

8:40am Thu 5 Jun 14

Townee says...

It is CLAIMED NOT FACT this is what the anti campaign use not facts. Evidence how many birds have been killed by wind farms NIL. Evidence that ship are at risk NIL. Evidence of noise pollution NIL. Evidence of light pollution NIL.
All non fact used to try and persuade us that this should not be built. WE NEED ALTERNATIVE POWER SOURCES AND THIS IS BETTER THAN NON. JUST GET ON AND BUILD IT.
It is CLAIMED NOT FACT this is what the anti campaign use not facts. Evidence how many birds have been killed by wind farms NIL. Evidence that ship are at risk NIL. Evidence of noise pollution NIL. Evidence of light pollution NIL. All non fact used to try and persuade us that this should not be built. WE NEED ALTERNATIVE POWER SOURCES AND THIS IS BETTER THAN NON. JUST GET ON AND BUILD IT. Townee
  • Score: -6

9:23am Thu 5 Jun 14

forest-dweller says...

The ratings that Navitus Bay have used are higher than the established industry figures, and give a best theoretical return rather than a realistic one. But it all depends on what weather we get. At the end of 2008 beginning of 2009, there was a huge high pressure cell that sat over the country and for a period of over 2 months, UK wind farms were running at 2% capacity.

On another subject, I read with interest the on shore ecology status that Navitus Bay have on their website. They are saying that there is no danger of anything being disturbed, yet for example, the bat surveyors were around me yesterday. They also say 1 badger set is in the way - as I personally know of more than one, it does lead me to wonder how much of what they say is true.

It's easy to be a NIMBY on this. Renewable energy is something we should strive for, and my personal preference is solar seeing as we are ignoring tidal and wave. In the right place, you can hardly see the installations. .
The ratings that Navitus Bay have used are higher than the established industry figures, and give a best theoretical return rather than a realistic one. But it all depends on what weather we get. At the end of 2008 beginning of 2009, there was a huge high pressure cell that sat over the country and for a period of over 2 months, UK wind farms were running at 2% capacity. On another subject, I read with interest the on shore ecology status that Navitus Bay have on their website. They are saying that there is no danger of anything being disturbed, yet for example, the bat surveyors were around me yesterday. They also say 1 badger set is in the way - as I personally know of more than one, it does lead me to wonder how much of what they say is true. It's easy to be a NIMBY on this. Renewable energy is something we should strive for, and my personal preference is solar seeing as we are ignoring tidal and wave. In the right place, you can hardly see the installations. . forest-dweller
  • Score: 4

9:32am Thu 5 Jun 14

GarrySibbald says...

Townee wrote:
It is CLAIMED NOT FACT this is what the anti campaign use not facts. Evidence how many birds have been killed by wind farms NIL. Evidence that ship are at risk NIL. Evidence of noise pollution NIL. Evidence of light pollution NIL.
All non fact used to try and persuade us that this should not be built. WE NEED ALTERNATIVE POWER SOURCES AND THIS IS BETTER THAN NON. JUST GET ON AND BUILD IT.
Perhaps it would be better to find out first whether this scheme is being built with the sole purpose of providing clean electricity or whether as many suggest it is being built mainly to grab cash incentives offered by the Government
[quote][p][bold]Townee[/bold] wrote: It is CLAIMED NOT FACT this is what the anti campaign use not facts. Evidence how many birds have been killed by wind farms NIL. Evidence that ship are at risk NIL. Evidence of noise pollution NIL. Evidence of light pollution NIL. All non fact used to try and persuade us that this should not be built. WE NEED ALTERNATIVE POWER SOURCES AND THIS IS BETTER THAN NON. JUST GET ON AND BUILD IT.[/p][/quote]Perhaps it would be better to find out first whether this scheme is being built with the sole purpose of providing clean electricity or whether as many suggest it is being built mainly to grab cash incentives offered by the Government GarrySibbald
  • Score: 19

10:21am Thu 5 Jun 14

Glashen says...

Townee wrote:
It is CLAIMED NOT FACT this is what the anti campaign use not facts. Evidence how many birds have been killed by wind farms NIL. Evidence that ship are at risk NIL. Evidence of noise pollution NIL. Evidence of light pollution NIL.
All non fact used to try and persuade us that this should not be built. WE NEED ALTERNATIVE POWER SOURCES AND THIS IS BETTER THAN NON. JUST GET ON AND BUILD IT.
Well it is a well supported claim, Read this quoted from Wikipedia,
-
"The alternator of a wind turbine is normally specified to match the strongest wind in which the turbine is designed to operate. This is because most of the cost of a wind turbine is in the rotor and the tower and bearings that support it, rather than in the alternator. It makes no economic sense to restrict the size of the alternator to anything less than the maximum that the rotor will deliver. However, this means that, unlike a conventional power station, a wind turbine rarely achieves its maximum rated output while operating.
-
While for conventional power stations, the station is only regarded as available if the full power output is achievable, for wind power stations no power at all may be available depending on the wind strength, and even if a turbine is operating it may be producing as little as a tenth of its maximum rated capacity. A typical average figure is between one-third and one-half of the maximum rated capacity.
-
There are several suggested methods of allowing for this when quoting a DNC figure for a wind farm, but none has gained general acceptance, and the capacity quoted for a wind farm is normally a simple total of the maximum rated capacities of the turbines, sometimes termed the peak capacity. "
-
If Navitus wish to put on record a comparison by way of how many percent of say the coal fired Drax power station could be closed permanently as a direct result we might have a meaningful figure, why do i suspect they won't because that figure will not IMHO be large partially due to the need to keep stand by generation for when the wind is not blowing.
[quote][p][bold]Townee[/bold] wrote: It is CLAIMED NOT FACT this is what the anti campaign use not facts. Evidence how many birds have been killed by wind farms NIL. Evidence that ship are at risk NIL. Evidence of noise pollution NIL. Evidence of light pollution NIL. All non fact used to try and persuade us that this should not be built. WE NEED ALTERNATIVE POWER SOURCES AND THIS IS BETTER THAN NON. JUST GET ON AND BUILD IT.[/p][/quote]Well it is a well supported claim, Read this quoted from Wikipedia, - "The alternator of a wind turbine is normally specified to match the strongest wind in which the turbine is designed to operate. This is because most of the cost of a wind turbine is in the rotor and the tower and bearings that support it, rather than in the alternator. It makes no economic sense to restrict the size of the alternator to anything less than the maximum that the rotor will deliver. However, this means that, unlike a conventional power station, a wind turbine rarely achieves its maximum rated output while operating. - While for conventional power stations, the station is only regarded as available if the full power output is achievable, for wind power stations no power at all may be available depending on the wind strength, and even if a turbine is operating it may be producing as little as a tenth of its maximum rated capacity. A typical average figure is between one-third and one-half of the maximum rated capacity. - There are several suggested methods of allowing for this when quoting a DNC figure for a wind farm, but none has gained general acceptance, and the capacity quoted for a wind farm is normally a simple total of the maximum rated capacities of the turbines, sometimes termed the peak capacity. " - If Navitus wish to put on record a comparison by way of how many percent of say the coal fired Drax power station could be closed permanently as a direct result we might have a meaningful figure, why do i suspect they won't because that figure will not IMHO be large partially due to the need to keep stand by generation for when the wind is not blowing. Glashen
  • Score: 10

10:43am Thu 5 Jun 14

Ebb Tide says...

Townee wrote:
It is CLAIMED NOT FACT this is what the anti campaign use not facts. Evidence how many birds have been killed by wind farms NIL. Evidence that ship are at risk NIL. Evidence of noise pollution NIL. Evidence of light pollution NIL.
All non fact used to try and persuade us that this should not be built. WE NEED ALTERNATIVE POWER SOURCES AND THIS IS BETTER THAN NON. JUST GET ON AND BUILD IT.
Not sceptical of a 'Hobson's Choice' being fostered by a short-term (5 year) government not prepared to encourage alternatives ? Why are so many roofs without relevant panels. ? Distributed micro generation would save the incredible losses associated with "transmission" from any concentrated macro generation facilities (that may be affordable and sufficiently reliable for you) that are miles away.
[quote][p][bold]Townee[/bold] wrote: It is CLAIMED NOT FACT this is what the anti campaign use not facts. Evidence how many birds have been killed by wind farms NIL. Evidence that ship are at risk NIL. Evidence of noise pollution NIL. Evidence of light pollution NIL. All non fact used to try and persuade us that this should not be built. WE NEED ALTERNATIVE POWER SOURCES AND THIS IS BETTER THAN NON. JUST GET ON AND BUILD IT.[/p][/quote]Not sceptical of a 'Hobson's Choice' being fostered by a short-term (5 year) government not prepared to encourage alternatives ? Why are so many roofs without relevant panels. ? Distributed micro generation would save the incredible losses associated with "transmission" from any concentrated macro generation facilities (that may be affordable and sufficiently reliable for you) that are miles away. Ebb Tide
  • Score: -9

10:45am Thu 5 Jun 14

Ebb Tide says...

forest-dweller wrote:
The ratings that Navitus Bay have used are higher than the established industry figures, and give a best theoretical return rather than a realistic one. But it all depends on what weather we get. At the end of 2008 beginning of 2009, there was a huge high pressure cell that sat over the country and for a period of over 2 months, UK wind farms were running at 2% capacity.

On another subject, I read with interest the on shore ecology status that Navitus Bay have on their website. They are saying that there is no danger of anything being disturbed, yet for example, the bat surveyors were around me yesterday. They also say 1 badger set is in the way - as I personally know of more than one, it does lead me to wonder how much of what they say is true.

It's easy to be a NIMBY on this. Renewable energy is something we should strive for, and my personal preference is solar seeing as we are ignoring tidal and wave. In the right place, you can hardly see the installations. .
Please don't forget the butterflies that are wind borne from the continent.
[quote][p][bold]forest-dweller[/bold] wrote: The ratings that Navitus Bay have used are higher than the established industry figures, and give a best theoretical return rather than a realistic one. But it all depends on what weather we get. At the end of 2008 beginning of 2009, there was a huge high pressure cell that sat over the country and for a period of over 2 months, UK wind farms were running at 2% capacity. On another subject, I read with interest the on shore ecology status that Navitus Bay have on their website. They are saying that there is no danger of anything being disturbed, yet for example, the bat surveyors were around me yesterday. They also say 1 badger set is in the way - as I personally know of more than one, it does lead me to wonder how much of what they say is true. It's easy to be a NIMBY on this. Renewable energy is something we should strive for, and my personal preference is solar seeing as we are ignoring tidal and wave. In the right place, you can hardly see the installations. .[/p][/quote]Please don't forget the butterflies that are wind borne from the continent. Ebb Tide
  • Score: 1

10:47am Thu 5 Jun 14

Ebb Tide says...

GarrySibbald wrote:
Townee wrote:
It is CLAIMED NOT FACT this is what the anti campaign use not facts. Evidence how many birds have been killed by wind farms NIL. Evidence that ship are at risk NIL. Evidence of noise pollution NIL. Evidence of light pollution NIL.
All non fact used to try and persuade us that this should not be built. WE NEED ALTERNATIVE POWER SOURCES AND THIS IS BETTER THAN NON. JUST GET ON AND BUILD IT.
Perhaps it would be better to find out first whether this scheme is being built with the sole purpose of providing clean electricity or whether as many suggest it is being built mainly to grab cash incentives offered by the Government
I take it that the research will be valuable even if it proves that the proposal is unacceptable in the busy seaway that is subject to very stormy conditions.
[quote][p][bold]GarrySibbald[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Townee[/bold] wrote: It is CLAIMED NOT FACT this is what the anti campaign use not facts. Evidence how many birds have been killed by wind farms NIL. Evidence that ship are at risk NIL. Evidence of noise pollution NIL. Evidence of light pollution NIL. All non fact used to try and persuade us that this should not be built. WE NEED ALTERNATIVE POWER SOURCES AND THIS IS BETTER THAN NON. JUST GET ON AND BUILD IT.[/p][/quote]Perhaps it would be better to find out first whether this scheme is being built with the sole purpose of providing clean electricity or whether as many suggest it is being built mainly to grab cash incentives offered by the Government[/p][/quote]I take it that the research will be valuable even if it proves that the proposal is unacceptable in the busy seaway that is subject to very stormy conditions. Ebb Tide
  • Score: 0

11:04am Thu 5 Jun 14

fedupwithjobsworths says...

I think you will find that windfarms usually generate about 30% of their headline quoted rating.
I think you will find that windfarms usually generate about 30% of their headline quoted rating. fedupwithjobsworths
  • Score: 7

11:15am Thu 5 Jun 14

Jeff in Parkstone says...

Diana Henderson
Poole Office

Diana ... I am appalled that this morning in the Echo print edtition along side the item on Tories oppose Navitus you have posted a depiction of a turbine mast on a coastal beech.

That is shockingly misleading for the general public Diana.

I am atounded that the Echo would so grossly misrepresent this twelve miles plus off-shore development to your readers.

If you sit down and look at the triangulation you will find at a distance of 13 miles from Sandbanks beach, 69,000 feet, the 660 ft masts viewed from the beach are less hight than a thumb nail when looked at along an extended arm.

That is the truth Diana. The masts are vanishingly small on the horizon.

How ever can you justify frightening the life out of everyone that the masts are going on or even near our beaches ?

The Echo needs now to withdraw your artists impression and in my view run a balanced item explaining to the general public the turbines are not going on the beach, not near the beach, not within audible range of the beach - they are going in many miles out to sea and will be no more than faint thumb nail size images on the horizon.

All the years reading the Echo all the years contributing this is the first time I really am horrified that the Echo in a reporting item would sail in with such shockingly misleading information in support of one side of a major debate. Publishing in fact exactly or near exactly the very montages that were presented by the opposition speakers at BoPs Monday meeting.

I don't know if you or another reporter were at that meeting but if you were you would have heard nine speakers, including I think three doctorates, all of us entirely unconected (not poltically orchestrated) making case after case in support of this huge off-shore project.

There are two sides here as you well know. I hope Echo will be of a mind now to redress this matter and make clear to the public the masts are going in over 10 miles out at sea - on the horizon.

Jeff Williams
Diana Henderson Poole Office Diana ... I am appalled that this morning in the Echo print edtition along side the item on Tories oppose Navitus you have posted a depiction of a turbine mast on a coastal beech. That is shockingly misleading for the general public Diana. I am atounded that the Echo would so grossly misrepresent this twelve miles plus off-shore development to your readers. If you sit down and look at the triangulation you will find at a distance of 13 miles from Sandbanks beach, 69,000 feet, the 660 ft masts viewed from the beach are less hight than a thumb nail when looked at along an extended arm. That is the truth Diana. The masts are vanishingly small on the horizon. How ever can you justify frightening the life out of everyone that the masts are going on or even near our beaches ? The Echo needs now to withdraw your artists impression and in my view run a balanced item explaining to the general public the turbines are not going on the beach, not near the beach, not within audible range of the beach - they are going in many miles out to sea and will be no more than faint thumb nail size images on the horizon. All the years reading the Echo all the years contributing this is the first time I really am horrified that the Echo in a reporting item would sail in with such shockingly misleading information in support of one side of a major debate. Publishing in fact exactly or near exactly the very montages that were presented by the opposition speakers at BoPs Monday meeting. I don't know if you or another reporter were at that meeting but if you were you would have heard nine speakers, including I think three doctorates, all of us entirely unconected (not poltically orchestrated) making case after case in support of this huge off-shore project. There are two sides here as you well know. I hope Echo will be of a mind now to redress this matter and make clear to the public the masts are going in over 10 miles out at sea - on the horizon. Jeff Williams Jeff in Parkstone
  • Score: -4

12:57pm Thu 5 Jun 14

saynomore says...

Jeff in Parkstone wrote:
Diana Henderson
Poole Office

Diana ... I am appalled that this morning in the Echo print edtition along side the item on Tories oppose Navitus you have posted a depiction of a turbine mast on a coastal beech.

That is shockingly misleading for the general public Diana.

I am atounded that the Echo would so grossly misrepresent this twelve miles plus off-shore development to your readers.

If you sit down and look at the triangulation you will find at a distance of 13 miles from Sandbanks beach, 69,000 feet, the 660 ft masts viewed from the beach are less hight than a thumb nail when looked at along an extended arm.

That is the truth Diana. The masts are vanishingly small on the horizon.

How ever can you justify frightening the life out of everyone that the masts are going on or even near our beaches ?

The Echo needs now to withdraw your artists impression and in my view run a balanced item explaining to the general public the turbines are not going on the beach, not near the beach, not within audible range of the beach - they are going in many miles out to sea and will be no more than faint thumb nail size images on the horizon.

All the years reading the Echo all the years contributing this is the first time I really am horrified that the Echo in a reporting item would sail in with such shockingly misleading information in support of one side of a major debate. Publishing in fact exactly or near exactly the very montages that were presented by the opposition speakers at BoPs Monday meeting.

I don't know if you or another reporter were at that meeting but if you were you would have heard nine speakers, including I think three doctorates, all of us entirely unconected (not poltically orchestrated) making case after case in support of this huge off-shore project.

There are two sides here as you well know. I hope Echo will be of a mind now to redress this matter and make clear to the public the masts are going in over 10 miles out at sea - on the horizon.

Jeff Williams
OVER the horizon you mean,not on it,too far out.
[quote][p][bold]Jeff in Parkstone[/bold] wrote: Diana Henderson Poole Office Diana ... I am appalled that this morning in the Echo print edtition along side the item on Tories oppose Navitus you have posted a depiction of a turbine mast on a coastal beech. That is shockingly misleading for the general public Diana. I am atounded that the Echo would so grossly misrepresent this twelve miles plus off-shore development to your readers. If you sit down and look at the triangulation you will find at a distance of 13 miles from Sandbanks beach, 69,000 feet, the 660 ft masts viewed from the beach are less hight than a thumb nail when looked at along an extended arm. That is the truth Diana. The masts are vanishingly small on the horizon. How ever can you justify frightening the life out of everyone that the masts are going on or even near our beaches ? The Echo needs now to withdraw your artists impression and in my view run a balanced item explaining to the general public the turbines are not going on the beach, not near the beach, not within audible range of the beach - they are going in many miles out to sea and will be no more than faint thumb nail size images on the horizon. All the years reading the Echo all the years contributing this is the first time I really am horrified that the Echo in a reporting item would sail in with such shockingly misleading information in support of one side of a major debate. Publishing in fact exactly or near exactly the very montages that were presented by the opposition speakers at BoPs Monday meeting. I don't know if you or another reporter were at that meeting but if you were you would have heard nine speakers, including I think three doctorates, all of us entirely unconected (not poltically orchestrated) making case after case in support of this huge off-shore project. There are two sides here as you well know. I hope Echo will be of a mind now to redress this matter and make clear to the public the masts are going in over 10 miles out at sea - on the horizon. Jeff Williams[/p][/quote]OVER the horizon you mean,not on it,too far out. saynomore
  • Score: -4

2:09pm Thu 5 Jun 14

Marty Caine UKIP says...

Jeff in Parkstone wrote:
Diana Henderson
Poole Office

Diana ... I am appalled that this morning in the Echo print edtition along side the item on Tories oppose Navitus you have posted a depiction of a turbine mast on a coastal beech.

That is shockingly misleading for the general public Diana.

I am atounded that the Echo would so grossly misrepresent this twelve miles plus off-shore development to your readers.

If you sit down and look at the triangulation you will find at a distance of 13 miles from Sandbanks beach, 69,000 feet, the 660 ft masts viewed from the beach are less hight than a thumb nail when looked at along an extended arm.

That is the truth Diana. The masts are vanishingly small on the horizon.

How ever can you justify frightening the life out of everyone that the masts are going on or even near our beaches ?

The Echo needs now to withdraw your artists impression and in my view run a balanced item explaining to the general public the turbines are not going on the beach, not near the beach, not within audible range of the beach - they are going in many miles out to sea and will be no more than faint thumb nail size images on the horizon.

All the years reading the Echo all the years contributing this is the first time I really am horrified that the Echo in a reporting item would sail in with such shockingly misleading information in support of one side of a major debate. Publishing in fact exactly or near exactly the very montages that were presented by the opposition speakers at BoPs Monday meeting.

I don't know if you or another reporter were at that meeting but if you were you would have heard nine speakers, including I think three doctorates, all of us entirely unconected (not poltically orchestrated) making case after case in support of this huge off-shore project.

There are two sides here as you well know. I hope Echo will be of a mind now to redress this matter and make clear to the public the masts are going in over 10 miles out at sea - on the horizon.

Jeff Williams
Jeff from what you are saying there, we should never be able to see the Isle of Wight from sandbanks beach and as everyone knows we can see it without any problem, but it is not the unsightliness of these monstrosities which is the biggest concern, it is the simple fact that they are not fit for purpose. Why are you so pro wasting £3 billion of taxpayers money?
[quote][p][bold]Jeff in Parkstone[/bold] wrote: Diana Henderson Poole Office Diana ... I am appalled that this morning in the Echo print edtition along side the item on Tories oppose Navitus you have posted a depiction of a turbine mast on a coastal beech. That is shockingly misleading for the general public Diana. I am atounded that the Echo would so grossly misrepresent this twelve miles plus off-shore development to your readers. If you sit down and look at the triangulation you will find at a distance of 13 miles from Sandbanks beach, 69,000 feet, the 660 ft masts viewed from the beach are less hight than a thumb nail when looked at along an extended arm. That is the truth Diana. The masts are vanishingly small on the horizon. How ever can you justify frightening the life out of everyone that the masts are going on or even near our beaches ? The Echo needs now to withdraw your artists impression and in my view run a balanced item explaining to the general public the turbines are not going on the beach, not near the beach, not within audible range of the beach - they are going in many miles out to sea and will be no more than faint thumb nail size images on the horizon. All the years reading the Echo all the years contributing this is the first time I really am horrified that the Echo in a reporting item would sail in with such shockingly misleading information in support of one side of a major debate. Publishing in fact exactly or near exactly the very montages that were presented by the opposition speakers at BoPs Monday meeting. I don't know if you or another reporter were at that meeting but if you were you would have heard nine speakers, including I think three doctorates, all of us entirely unconected (not poltically orchestrated) making case after case in support of this huge off-shore project. There are two sides here as you well know. I hope Echo will be of a mind now to redress this matter and make clear to the public the masts are going in over 10 miles out at sea - on the horizon. Jeff Williams[/p][/quote]Jeff from what you are saying there, we should never be able to see the Isle of Wight from sandbanks beach and as everyone knows we can see it without any problem, but it is not the unsightliness of these monstrosities which is the biggest concern, it is the simple fact that they are not fit for purpose. Why are you so pro wasting £3 billion of taxpayers money? Marty Caine UKIP
  • Score: 7

2:47pm Thu 5 Jun 14

whataboutthat says...

30 per cent of claimed maximum output is quite normal for all windfarms over their antcipated lifetime. It's in the literature going back to the early 1970s (US) and from Germany (mid1980s).
Google it. It's all there - for how long who knows!?
30 per cent of claimed maximum output is quite normal for all windfarms over their antcipated lifetime. It's in the literature going back to the early 1970s (US) and from Germany (mid1980s). Google it. It's all there - for how long who knows!? whataboutthat
  • Score: -2

2:55pm Thu 5 Jun 14

muscliffman says...

Marty Caine UKIP wrote:
Jeff in Parkstone wrote:
Diana Henderson
Poole Office

Diana ... I am appalled that this morning in the Echo print edtition along side the item on Tories oppose Navitus you have posted a depiction of a turbine mast on a coastal beech.

That is shockingly misleading for the general public Diana.

I am atounded that the Echo would so grossly misrepresent this twelve miles plus off-shore development to your readers.

If you sit down and look at the triangulation you will find at a distance of 13 miles from Sandbanks beach, 69,000 feet, the 660 ft masts viewed from the beach are less hight than a thumb nail when looked at along an extended arm.

That is the truth Diana. The masts are vanishingly small on the horizon.

How ever can you justify frightening the life out of everyone that the masts are going on or even near our beaches ?

The Echo needs now to withdraw your artists impression and in my view run a balanced item explaining to the general public the turbines are not going on the beach, not near the beach, not within audible range of the beach - they are going in many miles out to sea and will be no more than faint thumb nail size images on the horizon.

All the years reading the Echo all the years contributing this is the first time I really am horrified that the Echo in a reporting item would sail in with such shockingly misleading information in support of one side of a major debate. Publishing in fact exactly or near exactly the very montages that were presented by the opposition speakers at BoPs Monday meeting.

I don't know if you or another reporter were at that meeting but if you were you would have heard nine speakers, including I think three doctorates, all of us entirely unconected (not poltically orchestrated) making case after case in support of this huge off-shore project.

There are two sides here as you well know. I hope Echo will be of a mind now to redress this matter and make clear to the public the masts are going in over 10 miles out at sea - on the horizon.

Jeff Williams
Jeff from what you are saying there, we should never be able to see the Isle of Wight from sandbanks beach and as everyone knows we can see it without any problem, but it is not the unsightliness of these monstrosities which is the biggest concern, it is the simple fact that they are not fit for purpose. Why are you so pro wasting £3 billion of taxpayers money?
Precisely. It is far too easy to dismiss objectors to these wind farms as NIMBYs but I am sure an increasing number against them are now less concerned about the view than the huge financial scams involved.

Gullible well intended people supporting a £3billion solution that doesn't work to solve a problem that probably does not exist, the perfect dream scenario for vote and 'green' tax hungry politicians and their greedy opportunist friends.
[quote][p][bold]Marty Caine UKIP[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Jeff in Parkstone[/bold] wrote: Diana Henderson Poole Office Diana ... I am appalled that this morning in the Echo print edtition along side the item on Tories oppose Navitus you have posted a depiction of a turbine mast on a coastal beech. That is shockingly misleading for the general public Diana. I am atounded that the Echo would so grossly misrepresent this twelve miles plus off-shore development to your readers. If you sit down and look at the triangulation you will find at a distance of 13 miles from Sandbanks beach, 69,000 feet, the 660 ft masts viewed from the beach are less hight than a thumb nail when looked at along an extended arm. That is the truth Diana. The masts are vanishingly small on the horizon. How ever can you justify frightening the life out of everyone that the masts are going on or even near our beaches ? The Echo needs now to withdraw your artists impression and in my view run a balanced item explaining to the general public the turbines are not going on the beach, not near the beach, not within audible range of the beach - they are going in many miles out to sea and will be no more than faint thumb nail size images on the horizon. All the years reading the Echo all the years contributing this is the first time I really am horrified that the Echo in a reporting item would sail in with such shockingly misleading information in support of one side of a major debate. Publishing in fact exactly or near exactly the very montages that were presented by the opposition speakers at BoPs Monday meeting. I don't know if you or another reporter were at that meeting but if you were you would have heard nine speakers, including I think three doctorates, all of us entirely unconected (not poltically orchestrated) making case after case in support of this huge off-shore project. There are two sides here as you well know. I hope Echo will be of a mind now to redress this matter and make clear to the public the masts are going in over 10 miles out at sea - on the horizon. Jeff Williams[/p][/quote]Jeff from what you are saying there, we should never be able to see the Isle of Wight from sandbanks beach and as everyone knows we can see it without any problem, but it is not the unsightliness of these monstrosities which is the biggest concern, it is the simple fact that they are not fit for purpose. Why are you so pro wasting £3 billion of taxpayers money?[/p][/quote]Precisely. It is far too easy to dismiss objectors to these wind farms as NIMBYs but I am sure an increasing number against them are now less concerned about the view than the huge financial scams involved. Gullible well intended people supporting a £3billion solution that doesn't work to solve a problem that probably does not exist, the perfect dream scenario for vote and 'green' tax hungry politicians and their greedy opportunist friends. muscliffman
  • Score: 13

3:18pm Thu 5 Jun 14

coster says...

The amount of actual output is more likely to be at the average of 10% of the rated power. In addition to all other problems the landfall power cabling at some 22 miles of a 200 foot wide digging area is a horror yet to be included.
The amount of actual output is more likely to be at the average of 10% of the rated power. In addition to all other problems the landfall power cabling at some 22 miles of a 200 foot wide digging area is a horror yet to be included. coster
  • Score: 9

3:29pm Thu 5 Jun 14

fedupwithjobsworths says...

GarrySibbald wrote:
Townee wrote:
It is CLAIMED NOT FACT this is what the anti campaign use not facts. Evidence how many birds have been killed by wind farms NIL. Evidence that ship are at risk NIL. Evidence of noise pollution NIL. Evidence of light pollution NIL.
All non fact used to try and persuade us that this should not be built. WE NEED ALTERNATIVE POWER SOURCES AND THIS IS BETTER THAN NON. JUST GET ON AND BUILD IT.
Perhaps it would be better to find out first whether this scheme is being built with the sole purpose of providing clean electricity or whether as many suggest it is being built mainly to grab cash incentives offered by the Government
The foreign wind farm owners are guaranteed a price for their electricity of three times the current wholesale price. This subsidy is 50% higher that for the proposed new nuclear power plant in Somerset. Perhaps they should build a new nuclear power station at Winfrith instead, this would create a lot of new high skill jobs.
[quote][p][bold]GarrySibbald[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Townee[/bold] wrote: It is CLAIMED NOT FACT this is what the anti campaign use not facts. Evidence how many birds have been killed by wind farms NIL. Evidence that ship are at risk NIL. Evidence of noise pollution NIL. Evidence of light pollution NIL. All non fact used to try and persuade us that this should not be built. WE NEED ALTERNATIVE POWER SOURCES AND THIS IS BETTER THAN NON. JUST GET ON AND BUILD IT.[/p][/quote]Perhaps it would be better to find out first whether this scheme is being built with the sole purpose of providing clean electricity or whether as many suggest it is being built mainly to grab cash incentives offered by the Government[/p][/quote]The foreign wind farm owners are guaranteed a price for their electricity of three times the current wholesale price. This subsidy is 50% higher that for the proposed new nuclear power plant in Somerset. Perhaps they should build a new nuclear power station at Winfrith instead, this would create a lot of new high skill jobs. fedupwithjobsworths
  • Score: 8

5:19pm Thu 5 Jun 14

Ophilum says...

The greens love wind farms as it is the prayer wheels for there religion of global warming Co2 cobblers and is sacrosanct, these thing are useless and cost the earth in more ways than the greens would like you to know, if we had any say in it they would never be built nor should they. Time to get real about the green scam. Transferring wealth from the poor to the rich is total madness.
The greens love wind farms as it is the prayer wheels for there religion of global warming Co2 cobblers and is sacrosanct, these thing are useless and cost the earth in more ways than the greens would like you to know, if we had any say in it they would never be built nor should they. Time to get real about the green scam. Transferring wealth from the poor to the rich is total madness. Ophilum
  • Score: 6

6:19pm Thu 5 Jun 14

Phixer says...

Townee wrote:
It is CLAIMED NOT FACT this is what the anti campaign use not facts. Evidence how many birds have been killed by wind farms NIL. Evidence that ship are at risk NIL. Evidence of noise pollution NIL. Evidence of light pollution NIL.
All non fact used to try and persuade us that this should not be built. WE NEED ALTERNATIVE POWER SOURCES AND THIS IS BETTER THAN NON. JUST GET ON AND BUILD IT.
There is no need to shout. Empty vessels make the most noise. And those making the most noise are those who don't have a credible argument.

Too many people have fallen for the charms of the snake oil salemen without questioning whether wind farms are a long-term solution or just a fad that will go out of fashion when the subsidies stop - and subsidies, back-handers, corruption, call it what you like, are the main purpose for pushing for wind farms.

What happened to all the solar panel snake oil salemen when their bluff was called? I turned down solar panels more than twenty years ago because I had the sense to check the figures.
[quote][p][bold]Townee[/bold] wrote: It is CLAIMED NOT FACT this is what the anti campaign use not facts. Evidence how many birds have been killed by wind farms NIL. Evidence that ship are at risk NIL. Evidence of noise pollution NIL. Evidence of light pollution NIL. All non fact used to try and persuade us that this should not be built. WE NEED ALTERNATIVE POWER SOURCES AND THIS IS BETTER THAN NON. JUST GET ON AND BUILD IT.[/p][/quote]There is no need to shout. Empty vessels make the most noise. And those making the most noise are those who don't have a credible argument. Too many people have fallen for the charms of the snake oil salemen without questioning whether wind farms are a long-term solution or just a fad that will go out of fashion when the subsidies stop - and subsidies, back-handers, corruption, call it what you like, are the main purpose for pushing for wind farms. What happened to all the solar panel snake oil salemen when their bluff was called? I turned down solar panels more than twenty years ago because I had the sense to check the figures. Phixer
  • Score: 4

9:42pm Thu 5 Jun 14

BIGTONE says...

Why can't anybody put this into proper perspective?
Go to the end of Bournemouth pier and look at The Isle of Wight polar bear(Alum/Scratchell
s bay cliffs) it is 12.3 miles as the crow flies from the end of the pier. The height of the cliff is approx 75 Metres. The turbines will be up to 200 Metres tall so that is 3 Isle of Wight polar bears on top of one another.
That's the true visualisation as it stands.
Why can't anybody put this into proper perspective? Go to the end of Bournemouth pier and look at The Isle of Wight polar bear(Alum/Scratchell s bay cliffs) it is 12.3 miles as the crow flies from the end of the pier. The height of the cliff is approx 75 Metres. The turbines will be up to 200 Metres tall so that is 3 Isle of Wight polar bears on top of one another. That's the true visualisation as it stands. BIGTONE
  • Score: 3

7:42am Fri 6 Jun 14

esquisquirrel says...

That's probably because the NIMBYs keep forcing them to make it smaller
That's probably because the NIMBYs keep forcing them to make it smaller esquisquirrel
  • Score: -2

8:23am Fri 6 Jun 14

save energy says...

IIgnoring - aesthetics NIMBYs, tourism & politics, just look at some hard facts –

Capacity Factor CP (also known as Load or Production Factor) is the % of possible output that is actually produced.
Nuclear - Capacity Factor ≈ 75 - 90%
CCGT - Combined Cycle Gas turbines - CP ≈ 70%
Coal fired electric plant CP ≈ 40 – 50%
Wind - Capacity Factor UK ≈ 26%
Solar Photo Voltaic - Capacity Factor UK ≈ 10%


According to the wind industry, UK has 1,278 Windfarms (may 2014) comprising –
9,912 Turbines,
Total Capacity (MW) : 22,936
See - http://www.renewable
uk.com/en/renewable-
energy/wind-energy/u
k-wind-energy-databa
se/index.cfm/maplarg
e/1

To see how little they’re contributing to our grid demand, look here –http://www.gridwa
tch.templar.co.uk/

Live production from your local windfarm - http://www.rwe.com/w
eb/cms/en/206488/rwe
-innogy/sites/produc
tion-data-live/rwe-r
enewable-energy-live
/

And this is how much EXTRA we pay per mth for low density intermittent ‘green’ energy - http://www.variablep
itch.co.uk/finance/ & yes the figs are £millions/mth.

more info from-
Department of Energy & Climate Change ( DECC ) & Grid figs
( Digest of United Kingdom Energy Statistics ( DUKES)
http://tinyurl.com/n
4k7n8 )

Ps- as I write this wind is operating at just 0.8% of its capacity !! supplying a mere 0.5% of demand.

Do you really think that’s a sensible way to use resources ??
It is a very dangerous world, when politics trump science.
IIgnoring - aesthetics NIMBYs, tourism & politics, just look at some hard facts – Capacity Factor CP (also known as Load or Production Factor) is the % of possible output that is actually produced. Nuclear - Capacity Factor ≈ 75 - 90% CCGT - Combined Cycle Gas turbines - CP ≈ 70% Coal fired electric plant CP ≈ 40 – 50% Wind - Capacity Factor UK ≈ 26% Solar Photo Voltaic - Capacity Factor UK ≈ 10% According to the wind industry, UK has 1,278 Windfarms (may 2014) comprising – 9,912 Turbines, Total Capacity (MW) : 22,936 See - http://www.renewable uk.com/en/renewable- energy/wind-energy/u k-wind-energy-databa se/index.cfm/maplarg e/1 To see how little they’re contributing to our grid demand, look here –http://www.gridwa tch.templar.co.uk/ Live production from your local windfarm - http://www.rwe.com/w eb/cms/en/206488/rwe -innogy/sites/produc tion-data-live/rwe-r enewable-energy-live / And this is how much EXTRA we pay per mth for low density intermittent ‘green’ energy - http://www.variablep itch.co.uk/finance/ & yes the figs are £millions/mth. more info from- Department of Energy & Climate Change ( DECC ) & Grid figs ( Digest of United Kingdom Energy Statistics ( DUKES) http://tinyurl.com/n 4k7n8 ) Ps- as I write this wind is operating at just 0.8% of its capacity !! supplying a mere 0.5% of demand. Do you really think that’s a sensible way to use resources ?? It is a very dangerous world, when politics trump science. save energy
  • Score: 4

8:46am Fri 6 Jun 14

whataboutthat says...

Save energy you will be marked down by those who know better for this injection of facts...
Save energy you will be marked down by those who know better for this injection of facts... whataboutthat
  • Score: 0

2:34pm Wed 11 Jun 14

Flusters says...

Make no mistake this wind farm will be enormous and as UNESCO says it will damage our world heritage site. Wildlife and marine life will be harmed. The scale of destruction under water is huge so experts say.

The French and Dutch have funded Navitus. The National Grid will sink cables to Holland and France from Norfolk and Ramsgate. Why are The Dutch and French funding this wind farm? The French have refused to construct one off Mont S. Michel.

In order to stop this wind farm damaging our environment you need to register your disapproval at http://infrastructur
e.planningportal.gov
.uk/projects/south-e
ast/navitus-bay-wind
-park/ by June 23rd.
Make no mistake this wind farm will be enormous and as UNESCO [sic] says it will damage our world heritage site. Wildlife and marine life will be harmed. The scale of destruction under water is huge so experts say. The French and Dutch have funded Navitus. The National Grid will sink cables to Holland and France from Norfolk and Ramsgate. Why are The Dutch and French funding this wind farm? The French have refused to construct one off Mont S. Michel. In order to stop this wind farm damaging our environment you need to register your disapproval at http://infrastructur e.planningportal.gov .uk/projects/south-e ast/navitus-bay-wind -park/ by June 23rd. Flusters
  • Score: 0

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