Giant wind farm is ‘threat to tourism’

A wind farm off the Kent coast

A wind farm off the Kent coast

First published in News by

BOURNEMOUTH council should consider the potential impact of the proposed Navitus Bay wind farm on the town’s tourism, economy and wildlife, a meeting heard last night.

The Navitus proposal has been submitted to the Planning Inspectorate for a decision by the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change next year.

Council planning officers highlighted seven key issues to be put forward by the authority in its bid to be registered as an interested party in the planning process and to form the basis of a Local Impact Report.

“We should avoid a scattergun approach,” said head of planning Andrew England, at the environment and transport panel meeting last night.

“We want to present a credible case. We should avoid the temptation to pick on every single issue and focus on those on which we have expertise.”

He said the seven areas that should be presented to the inspectorate in the 500-word initial application were the impact on tourism and the economy, the impact on the World Heritage Site and other national and international designations, the potential loss of capital investment, the impact on wildlife, the potential impact on water quality and views, noise and vibration.

The officers told members the council’s view would only be considered by the Secretary of State if the statement was balanced and backed by evidence and submitted according to the official timescale, which has yet to be revealed.

Mr England said the council had to put in the initial application by Monday and that the impact statement would be before the cabinet on July 23.

Cllr Mike Greene said the inspectors should be invited to visit Bournemouth before the end of this summer.

Cllr Chris Rochester said it was “disgusting” that the public was not being given a “reasonable length of time” to comment.

The panel agreed to endorse the work carried out thus far by officers for approval by the cabinet.

Comments (64)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

5:58am Thu 19 Jun 14

ShuttleX says...

Just get on and build the thing. The Council should be spending more time on things they do have some say in, unlike this project. All these protest groups have one thing in common, none of them will be listened to by the Government.
Just get on and build the thing. The Council should be spending more time on things they do have some say in, unlike this project. All these protest groups have one thing in common, none of them will be listened to by the Government. ShuttleX
  • Score: -5

6:39am Thu 19 Jun 14

churchill gardens resident says...

I would have thought Boscombe & all its shenanigans compounded with general troubles associated with bournemouth was more of a threat to tourism than a few windmills stuck out at sea. Not saying these things wont be a blight on the landscape
I would have thought Boscombe & all its shenanigans compounded with general troubles associated with bournemouth was more of a threat to tourism than a few windmills stuck out at sea. Not saying these things wont be a blight on the landscape churchill gardens resident
  • Score: 28

7:07am Thu 19 Jun 14

kalebmoledirt says...

This council love to debate things they seem to have little or no control over .travellers, traffic, the crime rate.data protection, expenses.building applications , Boscombe .get on and build it
This council love to debate things they seem to have little or no control over .travellers, traffic, the crime rate.data protection, expenses.building applications , Boscombe .get on and build it kalebmoledirt
  • Score: 13

7:10am Thu 19 Jun 14

N Smith says...

I actually find the windmills interesting to look at, rather have them than huge energy bills and being held to ransom by foreign countries.Get on and build them.
I actually find the windmills interesting to look at, rather have them than huge energy bills and being held to ransom by foreign countries.Get on and build them. N Smith
  • Score: 18

7:14am Thu 19 Jun 14

N Smith says...

By the way they have loads of wind turbines in the Canary Island hasn't effected their tourism.
By the way they have loads of wind turbines in the Canary Island hasn't effected their tourism. N Smith
  • Score: 26

7:15am Thu 19 Jun 14

BIGTONE says...

Won't it effect the Red Arrows displays? They will have to keep well away and increase height levels once built.
Won't it effect the Red Arrows displays? They will have to keep well away and increase height levels once built. BIGTONE
  • Score: -55

7:18am Thu 19 Jun 14

Recovery999 says...

With all the press about these i think tourism will go threw the roof as people will be keen to see what the fuss is about.
With all the press about these i think tourism will go threw the roof as people will be keen to see what the fuss is about. Recovery999
  • Score: 12

7:19am Thu 19 Jun 14

Baysider says...

N Smith wrote:
I actually find the windmills interesting to look at, rather have them than huge energy bills and being held to ransom by foreign countries.Get on and build them.
You do realise these things are one of the most, if not the most, expensive form of energy don't you? How is that going to reduce your bill?
[quote][p][bold]N Smith[/bold] wrote: I actually find the windmills interesting to look at, rather have them than huge energy bills and being held to ransom by foreign countries.Get on and build them.[/p][/quote]You do realise these things are one of the most, if not the most, expensive form of energy don't you? How is that going to reduce your bill? Baysider
  • Score: -13

7:20am Thu 19 Jun 14

Ophilum says...

I see the usual greens are out spouting get on and build it, build it by all means if it will do it,s job WITHOUT SUBSIDIES if it pays it,s way go ahead if not as seems clear they do no Don,t bother build a conventional power station station.
I see the usual greens are out spouting get on and build it, build it by all means if it will do it,s job WITHOUT SUBSIDIES if it pays it,s way go ahead if not as seems clear they do no Don,t bother build a conventional power station station. Ophilum
  • Score: -5

7:26am Thu 19 Jun 14

N Smith says...

Baysider wrote:
N Smith wrote:
I actually find the windmills interesting to look at, rather have them than huge energy bills and being held to ransom by foreign countries.Get on and build them.
You do realise these things are one of the most, if not the most, expensive form of energy don't you? How is that going to reduce your bill?
More propaganda, we are going to be drilling under our houses soon, drilling deeper and deeper to get to the resources .It may not be cheaper now but in the near future it certainly will.Question would you rather have a nuclear power station on your doorstep.
[quote][p][bold]Baysider[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]N Smith[/bold] wrote: I actually find the windmills interesting to look at, rather have them than huge energy bills and being held to ransom by foreign countries.Get on and build them.[/p][/quote]You do realise these things are one of the most, if not the most, expensive form of energy don't you? How is that going to reduce your bill?[/p][/quote]More propaganda, we are going to be drilling under our houses soon, drilling deeper and deeper to get to the resources .It may not be cheaper now but in the near future it certainly will.Question would you rather have a nuclear power station on your doorstep. N Smith
  • Score: 21

7:38am Thu 19 Jun 14

yet_another_one says...

BIGTONE wrote:
Won't it effect the Red Arrows displays? They will have to keep well away and increase height levels once built.
They will be 12 miles off shore.
The benefit will BY FAR outweigh any objection, they will be present all the time & not just for the occasional event.
All these pathetic NIMBY's should get real & come to terms with real issues of the current day.
[quote][p][bold]BIGTONE[/bold] wrote: Won't it effect the Red Arrows displays? They will have to keep well away and increase height levels once built.[/p][/quote]They will be 12 miles off shore. The benefit will BY FAR outweigh any objection, they will be present all the time & not just for the occasional event. All these pathetic NIMBY's should get real & come to terms with real issues of the current day. yet_another_one
  • Score: 26

7:42am Thu 19 Jun 14

Baysider says...

N Smith wrote:
Baysider wrote:
N Smith wrote:
I actually find the windmills interesting to look at, rather have them than huge energy bills and being held to ransom by foreign countries.Get on and build them.
You do realise these things are one of the most, if not the most, expensive form of energy don't you? How is that going to reduce your bill?
More propaganda, we are going to be drilling under our houses soon, drilling deeper and deeper to get to the resources .It may not be cheaper now but in the near future it certainly will.Question would you rather have a nuclear power station on your doorstep.
Actually yeah I would. It's cheap, reliable and no more unsafe than having them 70 miles away across the Channel than a couple of miles up the road. And they wouldn't spoil the view for miles and miles around only those much nearer.
[quote][p][bold]N Smith[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Baysider[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]N Smith[/bold] wrote: I actually find the windmills interesting to look at, rather have them than huge energy bills and being held to ransom by foreign countries.Get on and build them.[/p][/quote]You do realise these things are one of the most, if not the most, expensive form of energy don't you? How is that going to reduce your bill?[/p][/quote]More propaganda, we are going to be drilling under our houses soon, drilling deeper and deeper to get to the resources .It may not be cheaper now but in the near future it certainly will.Question would you rather have a nuclear power station on your doorstep.[/p][/quote]Actually yeah I would. It's cheap, reliable and no more unsafe than having them 70 miles away across the Channel than a couple of miles up the road. And they wouldn't spoil the view for miles and miles around only those much nearer. Baysider
  • Score: -9

7:58am Thu 19 Jun 14

BIGTONE says...

yet_another_one wrote:
BIGTONE wrote:
Won't it effect the Red Arrows displays? They will have to keep well away and increase height levels once built.
They will be 12 miles off shore.
The benefit will BY FAR outweigh any objection, they will be present all the time & not just for the occasional event.
All these pathetic NIMBY's should get real & come to terms with real issues of the current day.
12 miles is nothing......as I've said before from Bournemouth pier to The Isle of Wight cliffs (the polar bear) is just over 12 miles away and the height would be almost 3 of those cliffs on top of one another so when you visualise that it is quite significant and nearer than you think.

I am neither for or against them but these people who think we will significantly benefit by all of this are the most gullible in our society. They clearly don't have a clue what they are spouting on about as they believe anything they are told.
Leave it to the "experts". They will sort it
[quote][p][bold]yet_another_one[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BIGTONE[/bold] wrote: Won't it effect the Red Arrows displays? They will have to keep well away and increase height levels once built.[/p][/quote]They will be 12 miles off shore. The benefit will BY FAR outweigh any objection, they will be present all the time & not just for the occasional event. All these pathetic NIMBY's should get real & come to terms with real issues of the current day.[/p][/quote]12 miles is nothing......as I've said before from Bournemouth pier to The Isle of Wight cliffs (the polar bear) is just over 12 miles away and the height would be almost 3 of those cliffs on top of one another so when you visualise that it is quite significant and nearer than you think. I am neither for or against them but these people who think we will significantly benefit by all of this are the most gullible in our society. They clearly don't have a clue what they are spouting on about as they believe anything they are told. Leave it to the "experts". They will sort it BIGTONE
  • Score: -2

7:58am Thu 19 Jun 14

mooninpisces says...

Cllr Chris Rochester said it was “disgusting” that the public was not being given a “reasonable length of time” to comment.

NBDL's final proposals were published back in April. In May the Planning Inspectorate gave us 6 weeks to make an initial representation. We will have until September or October to make a more detailed written representation. How much more time does Cllr Rochester honestly think we need?
Cllr Chris Rochester said it was “disgusting” that the public was not being given a “reasonable length of time” to comment. NBDL's final proposals were published back in April. In May the Planning Inspectorate gave us 6 weeks to make an initial representation. We will have until September or October to make a more detailed written representation. How much more time does Cllr Rochester honestly think we need? mooninpisces
  • Score: 14

8:27am Thu 19 Jun 14

Townee says...

More scaremongering from the anti camp, same old reason why we should not build them. These reason don't wash and are only sad people who want us to return to the dark ages. We need more ways to supply power in the future be it nuclear, wind farms, wave power etc so they need to pull their heads in and let them be built. I have said before I want lower power bills and a guaranteed supply for where ever. Who cares if you can see them from the pier it will be something to watch instead of the sea going out and back in.
More scaremongering from the anti camp, same old reason why we should not build them. These reason don't wash and are only sad people who want us to return to the dark ages. We need more ways to supply power in the future be it nuclear, wind farms, wave power etc so they need to pull their heads in and let them be built. I have said before I want lower power bills and a guaranteed supply for where ever. Who cares if you can see them from the pier it will be something to watch instead of the sea going out and back in. Townee
  • Score: 9

8:33am Thu 19 Jun 14

Red Panda says...

Why would it affect tourism.............
...there are wind turbines on the hills in Cornwall as you go down to go to Newquay which are visible for miles and its made no difference..........
......these are going to be out to sea................a
nd if it does mean lower energy bills then surely that is a good thing...............
its all this NIMBYism that causes problems in the first place...............
...people need to open their eyes and look outside the box instead of living in an endless tunnel with no outlook.............
.....
Why would it affect tourism............. ...there are wind turbines on the hills in Cornwall as you go down to go to Newquay which are visible for miles and its made no difference.......... ......these are going to be out to sea................a nd if it does mean lower energy bills then surely that is a good thing............... its all this NIMBYism that causes problems in the first place............... ...people need to open their eyes and look outside the box instead of living in an endless tunnel with no outlook............. ..... Red Panda
  • Score: 10

8:34am Thu 19 Jun 14

BarrHumbug says...

This is perfect for the council. They will appeal to the majority of their voters, most of which are of the older generation who object to change of any sort, looking like they are fighting their corner for them, when in reality they know they have no hope of stopping this from going ahead. Then they have the other benefit of arguing it will have a dramatic effect on tourism, setting up the future excuse to mask their many failings on land?
This is perfect for the council. They will appeal to the majority of their voters, most of which are of the older generation who object to change of any sort, looking like they are fighting their corner for them, when in reality they know they have no hope of stopping this from going ahead. Then they have the other benefit of arguing it will have a dramatic effect on tourism, setting up the future excuse to mask their many failings on land? BarrHumbug
  • Score: 4

8:53am Thu 19 Jun 14

Chris@Bmouth says...

This is getting boring.
This is getting boring. Chris@Bmouth
  • Score: 4

9:05am Thu 19 Jun 14

Baysider says...

Townee wrote:
More scaremongering from the anti camp, same old reason why we should not build them. These reason don't wash and are only sad people who want us to return to the dark ages. We need more ways to supply power in the future be it nuclear, wind farms, wave power etc so they need to pull their heads in and let them be built. I have said before I want lower power bills and a guaranteed supply for where ever. Who cares if you can see them from the pier it will be something to watch instead of the sea going out and back in.
Well if you want lower power bills and a guaranteed supply how do you square this with your support of wind turbines which will provide neither?
[quote][p][bold]Townee[/bold] wrote: More scaremongering from the anti camp, same old reason why we should not build them. These reason don't wash and are only sad people who want us to return to the dark ages. We need more ways to supply power in the future be it nuclear, wind farms, wave power etc so they need to pull their heads in and let them be built. I have said before I want lower power bills and a guaranteed supply for where ever. Who cares if you can see them from the pier it will be something to watch instead of the sea going out and back in.[/p][/quote]Well if you want lower power bills and a guaranteed supply how do you square this with your support of wind turbines which will provide neither? Baysider
  • Score: -5

9:08am Thu 19 Jun 14

FerryFan says...

As enthusiast how will they affect shipping in the area - they will be slap bang in the middle of the routes out of Poole by the looks of them?

In response to N Smith - totally disagree. I have seen them in other countries and they are HORRIBLE ugly things, ruin beauty spots. If they were somewhere like the Wytch oil farm on (which island in Poole Harbour?) surrounded by trees and camouflaged in some way then they would be more acceptable. But no, they are worse than power station chimneys of old - even though these old chimneys turned into landmarks!! Ugly, and spoiling some of the natural beauty of the land!!
As enthusiast how will they affect shipping in the area - they will be slap bang in the middle of the routes out of Poole by the looks of them? In response to N Smith - totally disagree. I have seen them in other countries and they are HORRIBLE ugly things, ruin beauty spots. If they were somewhere like the Wytch oil farm on (which island in Poole Harbour?) surrounded by trees and camouflaged in some way then they would be more acceptable. But no, they are worse than power station chimneys of old - even though these old chimneys turned into landmarks!! Ugly, and spoiling some of the natural beauty of the land!! FerryFan
  • Score: -15

9:25am Thu 19 Jun 14

Ophilum says...

No subsidies, and then you will have no windmills problem solved, without subsidies these things are just that wind and mirrors and b***dy great electricity bills
No subsidies, and then you will have no windmills problem solved, without subsidies these things are just that wind and mirrors and b***dy great electricity bills Ophilum
  • Score: 9

9:25am Thu 19 Jun 14

sdmxch says...

The question I would like to have answered is how will the power get from the sea to the land? My Local Residents Association have said there will need to be a trench dug for the cables and that it would be miles long (onshore, not including offshore) and will need to go under 2 rivers, the train line and most major roads in the area (A31, A338 etc). I haven't seen anything in the Echo about that.
The question I would like to have answered is how will the power get from the sea to the land? My Local Residents Association have said there will need to be a trench dug for the cables and that it would be miles long (onshore, not including offshore) and will need to go under 2 rivers, the train line and most major roads in the area (A31, A338 etc). I haven't seen anything in the Echo about that. sdmxch
  • Score: 8

9:36am Thu 19 Jun 14

Ivy says...

I attended last evening’s meeting as a member of public and felt some sympathy for the officers that were trying unsuccessfully to encourage our Councillors to make a balanced response. Sadly the Councillors are too frightened of losing their seats to UKIP next year to show any commonsense. I despair at the unsubstantiated C*** that’s being spouted by so called ‘experts’ including one that attended last evening. Climate Change will have a far greater impact on the Coast and wildlife than these turbines will. Yes I am one of those ‘idiot’ Greens and an OAP but I want future generations to enjoy the same quality of life that I have had so will keep campaigning.
I attended last evening’s meeting as a member of public and felt some sympathy for the officers that were trying unsuccessfully to encourage our Councillors to make a balanced response. Sadly the Councillors are too frightened of losing their seats to UKIP next year to show any commonsense. I despair at the unsubstantiated C*** that’s being spouted by so called ‘experts’ including one that attended last evening. Climate Change will have a far greater impact on the Coast and wildlife than these turbines will. Yes I am one of those ‘idiot’ Greens and an OAP but I want future generations to enjoy the same quality of life that I have had so will keep campaigning. Ivy
  • Score: 7

9:36am Thu 19 Jun 14

N Smith says...

FerryFan wrote:
As enthusiast how will they affect shipping in the area - they will be slap bang in the middle of the routes out of Poole by the looks of them?

In response to N Smith - totally disagree. I have seen them in other countries and they are HORRIBLE ugly things, ruin beauty spots. If they were somewhere like the Wytch oil farm on (which island in Poole Harbour?) surrounded by trees and camouflaged in some way then they would be more acceptable. But no, they are worse than power station chimneys of old - even though these old chimneys turned into landmarks!! Ugly, and spoiling some of the natural beauty of the land!!
But that's not the point , they have not effected tourism hence what the article is about!!!!!!!!!
[quote][p][bold]FerryFan[/bold] wrote: As enthusiast how will they affect shipping in the area - they will be slap bang in the middle of the routes out of Poole by the looks of them? In response to N Smith - totally disagree. I have seen them in other countries and they are HORRIBLE ugly things, ruin beauty spots. If they were somewhere like the Wytch oil farm on (which island in Poole Harbour?) surrounded by trees and camouflaged in some way then they would be more acceptable. But no, they are worse than power station chimneys of old - even though these old chimneys turned into landmarks!! Ugly, and spoiling some of the natural beauty of the land!![/p][/quote]But that's not the point , they have not effected tourism hence what the article is about!!!!!!!!! N Smith
  • Score: 10

9:42am Thu 19 Jun 14

foggy1965 says...

Townee wrote:
More scaremongering from the anti camp, same old reason why we should not build them. These reason don't wash and are only sad people who want us to return to the dark ages. We need more ways to supply power in the future be it nuclear, wind farms, wave power etc so they need to pull their heads in and let them be built. I have said before I want lower power bills and a guaranteed supply for where ever. Who cares if you can see them from the pier it will be something to watch instead of the sea going out and back in.
can't agree more.
I think it would add a interesting view to the horizon, rather than the odd sail boat. plus it means we are doing our bit for the environment.
as for tourism? well lets think. do people come down here to look out to sea, or enjoy the beaches, clubs and night life. I think the council are after a large brown envelope to let this happen.
[quote][p][bold]Townee[/bold] wrote: More scaremongering from the anti camp, same old reason why we should not build them. These reason don't wash and are only sad people who want us to return to the dark ages. We need more ways to supply power in the future be it nuclear, wind farms, wave power etc so they need to pull their heads in and let them be built. I have said before I want lower power bills and a guaranteed supply for where ever. Who cares if you can see them from the pier it will be something to watch instead of the sea going out and back in.[/p][/quote]can't agree more. I think it would add a interesting view to the horizon, rather than the odd sail boat. plus it means we are doing our bit for the environment. as for tourism? well lets think. do people come down here to look out to sea, or enjoy the beaches, clubs and night life. I think the council are after a large brown envelope to let this happen. foggy1965
  • Score: -3

9:48am Thu 19 Jun 14

Ophilum says...

This wind farm idea should be put to a binding referendum held in the area it effects and not left to the whims and fancies of extreme views held by a few.
This wind farm idea should be put to a binding referendum held in the area it effects and not left to the whims and fancies of extreme views held by a few. Ophilum
  • Score: 4

9:56am Thu 19 Jun 14

FerryFan says...

N Smith wrote:
FerryFan wrote:
As enthusiast how will they affect shipping in the area - they will be slap bang in the middle of the routes out of Poole by the looks of them?

In response to N Smith - totally disagree. I have seen them in other countries and they are HORRIBLE ugly things, ruin beauty spots. If they were somewhere like the Wytch oil farm on (which island in Poole Harbour?) surrounded by trees and camouflaged in some way then they would be more acceptable. But no, they are worse than power station chimneys of old - even though these old chimneys turned into landmarks!! Ugly, and spoiling some of the natural beauty of the land!!
But that's not the point , they have not effected tourism hence what the article is about!!!!!!!!!
They haven't affected tourism here yet, because they haven't been built yet. If they were camouflaged, further out to sea and out of sight, then they would be more acceptable. Tourism here may be greatly affected by them, we do not know, the article is not about how tourism is affected in other place is it about how it WOULD be affected here. Tourists may go out to the Purbecks to gawp at the windmills and take photos, so tourism over there might perk up, lol!!! How can you say they have not affected tourism when they have not been built yet, they aren't there yet to affect it. Elsewhere, not the issue.
[quote][p][bold]N Smith[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]FerryFan[/bold] wrote: As enthusiast how will they affect shipping in the area - they will be slap bang in the middle of the routes out of Poole by the looks of them? In response to N Smith - totally disagree. I have seen them in other countries and they are HORRIBLE ugly things, ruin beauty spots. If they were somewhere like the Wytch oil farm on (which island in Poole Harbour?) surrounded by trees and camouflaged in some way then they would be more acceptable. But no, they are worse than power station chimneys of old - even though these old chimneys turned into landmarks!! Ugly, and spoiling some of the natural beauty of the land!![/p][/quote]But that's not the point , they have not effected tourism hence what the article is about!!!!!!!!![/p][/quote]They haven't affected tourism here yet, because they haven't been built yet. If they were camouflaged, further out to sea and out of sight, then they would be more acceptable. Tourism here may be greatly affected by them, we do not know, the article is not about how tourism is affected in other place is it about how it WOULD be affected here. Tourists may go out to the Purbecks to gawp at the windmills and take photos, so tourism over there might perk up, lol!!! How can you say they have not affected tourism when they have not been built yet, they aren't there yet to affect it. Elsewhere, not the issue. FerryFan
  • Score: -5

10:00am Thu 19 Jun 14

Ophilum says...

Ivy wrote:
I attended last evening’s meeting as a member of public and felt some sympathy for the officers that were trying unsuccessfully to encourage our Councillors to make a balanced response. Sadly the Councillors are too frightened of losing their seats to UKIP next year to show any commonsense. I despair at the unsubstantiated C*** that’s being spouted by so called ‘experts’ including one that attended last evening. Climate Change will have a far greater impact on the Coast and wildlife than these turbines will. Yes I am one of those ‘idiot’ Greens and an OAP but I want future generations to enjoy the same quality of life that I have had so will keep campaigning.
You greens go on and on about climate change and rising sea levels etc, i am knocking on a bit and i haven't seen any climate change in my lifetim,neither have you if you were honest about it and kept a open mind instead of going along with the sheepys, to expensive and totally in the wrong place for any obstacles at all. No to subsidies for wind farms, to expensive.
[quote][p][bold]Ivy[/bold] wrote: I attended last evening’s meeting as a member of public and felt some sympathy for the officers that were trying unsuccessfully to encourage our Councillors to make a balanced response. Sadly the Councillors are too frightened of losing their seats to UKIP next year to show any commonsense. I despair at the unsubstantiated C*** that’s being spouted by so called ‘experts’ including one that attended last evening. Climate Change will have a far greater impact on the Coast and wildlife than these turbines will. Yes I am one of those ‘idiot’ Greens and an OAP but I want future generations to enjoy the same quality of life that I have had so will keep campaigning.[/p][/quote]You greens go on and on about climate change and rising sea levels etc, i am knocking on a bit and i haven't seen any climate change in my lifetim,neither have you if you were honest about it and kept a open mind instead of going along with the sheepys, to expensive and totally in the wrong place for any obstacles at all. No to subsidies for wind farms, to expensive. Ophilum
  • Score: -2

10:00am Thu 19 Jun 14

nobodyexpectedthat says...

Its interesting to see how the vast majority on this post are in favour of the wind farm - this wasnt always the case. I challange anyone who is against on the grounds that it will damage tourism, to find evidence of this. In fact if you look hard enough, you will find plenty of evidence that where they have been built they actually attract tourism!

Those that keep spouting the ' not viable because of subsidy' thing - you need to make sure you get your facts straight. If we added the cost of waste storage and decomissioning to the KWH cost of nuclear electricity, then it would be the most expensive form of electricity generation far above wind but we still have and are investing in nuclear- so why not for wind?

If we build new oil fired staions then ...derr...its running out and because of this is likely to get more expensive as dwindling supplies cant meet demand. Not to mention that the vast majorioty of world oil comes from politically unstable countries that we really should not be relying on for our energy supplies. As for gas, well if you are prepared to have ground based fracking all over the UK then yes we might have a vast , cheap supply of domestic energy. But isnt this worse than wind?

So what alternatives are we left with? The simple truth is that the UK needs a sustainable, renewable, balanced, domestic power gerneration industry that includes wind, solar, tidal, probably gas and a big effort at energy efficiency / conservation.

Once again this debate over wind farms seems to be politically motivated, with far too manyy NIMBYs spouting en-educated nonsense.
Its interesting to see how the vast majority on this post are in favour of the wind farm - this wasnt always the case. I challange anyone who is against on the grounds that it will damage tourism, to find evidence of this. In fact if you look hard enough, you will find plenty of evidence that where they have been built they actually attract tourism! Those that keep spouting the ' not viable because of subsidy' thing - you need to make sure you get your facts straight. If we added the cost of waste storage and decomissioning to the KWH cost of nuclear electricity, then it would be the most expensive form of electricity generation far above wind but we still have and are investing in nuclear- so why not for wind? If we build new oil fired staions then ...derr...its running out and because of this is likely to get more expensive as dwindling supplies cant meet demand. Not to mention that the vast majorioty of world oil comes from politically unstable countries that we really should not be relying on for our energy supplies. As for gas, well if you are prepared to have ground based fracking all over the UK then yes we might have a vast , cheap supply of domestic energy. But isnt this worse than wind? So what alternatives are we left with? The simple truth is that the UK needs a sustainable, renewable, balanced, domestic power gerneration industry that includes wind, solar, tidal, probably gas and a big effort at energy efficiency / conservation. Once again this debate over wind farms seems to be politically motivated, with far too manyy NIMBYs spouting en-educated nonsense. nobodyexpectedthat
  • Score: 4

10:07am Thu 19 Jun 14

Sir Beachy Head says...

If they paint the bottom halves brown and the top halves grey then they'll blend in with the sea and sky and you'd never notice them from the beach.
If they paint the bottom halves brown and the top halves grey then they'll blend in with the sea and sky and you'd never notice them from the beach. Sir Beachy Head
  • Score: -4

10:09am Thu 19 Jun 14

BmthNewshound says...

Ophilum wrote:
I see the usual greens are out spouting get on and build it, build it by all means if it will do it,s job WITHOUT SUBSIDIES if it pays it,s way go ahead if not as seems clear they do no Don,t bother build a conventional power station station.
Where do you suggest they build a new conventional power station ? ... by guess is you don’t care providing its built in someone elses backyard. Subsides paid for renewable energy are insignificant compared those being proposed for the new generation nuclear power stations. I don’t think people have woken up to the fact that energy security is an increasing problem. We depend more and more on imports of gas and coal to fuel our conventional power stations and proposals for fracking have been met with almost universal opposition.
.
The impact on tourism of Navitus will be minimal and Councils are scaremongering and playing to the schemes opponents who are predominantly the aging middle class on whose votes our councillors depend.
[quote][p][bold]Ophilum[/bold] wrote: I see the usual greens are out spouting get on and build it, build it by all means if it will do it,s job WITHOUT SUBSIDIES if it pays it,s way go ahead if not as seems clear they do no Don,t bother build a conventional power station station.[/p][/quote]Where do you suggest they build a new conventional power station ? ... by guess is you don’t care providing its built in someone elses backyard. Subsides paid for renewable energy are insignificant compared those being proposed for the new generation nuclear power stations. I don’t think people have woken up to the fact that energy security is an increasing problem. We depend more and more on imports of gas and coal to fuel our conventional power stations and proposals for fracking have been met with almost universal opposition. . The impact on tourism of Navitus will be minimal and Councils are scaremongering and playing to the schemes opponents who are predominantly the aging middle class on whose votes our councillors depend. BmthNewshound
  • Score: -8

10:22am Thu 19 Jun 14

muscliffman says...

I am sure there may be something in the quite popular headline view that "Giant wind farm is threat to tourism’ because these near useless things are certainly not going to look attractive to anybody - with the possible exception of one or two rather strange folk who keep telling us that they would like to sit on the edge of the cliffs all day long and watch them!

But the serious wind farm 'threat' for many of us is not the one to tourism but the one to simple common sense. If someone proposed putting a huge great nuclear, coal, gas or oil fired power station in the sea just off the coast there would be absolute outrage. Yet any one of those traditional alternatives would at least work efficiently and produce relatively inexpensive electricity - and all of the time! Time to wake up and take away these ridiculous and wasteful 'green' off-shore wind farm subsidies and invest the money instead in some common sense methods of producing long term UK independent, inexpensive and reliable energy.
I am sure there may be something in the quite popular headline view that "Giant wind farm is threat to tourism’ because these near useless things are certainly not going to look attractive to anybody - with the possible exception of one or two rather strange folk who keep telling us that they would like to sit on the edge of the cliffs all day long and watch them! But the serious wind farm 'threat' for many of us is not the one to tourism but the one to simple common sense. If someone proposed putting a huge great nuclear, coal, gas or oil fired power station in the sea just off the coast there would be absolute outrage. Yet any one of those traditional alternatives would at least work efficiently and produce relatively inexpensive electricity - and all of the time! Time to wake up and take away these ridiculous and wasteful 'green' off-shore wind farm subsidies and invest the money instead in some common sense methods of producing long term UK independent, inexpensive and reliable energy. muscliffman
  • Score: -4

10:43am Thu 19 Jun 14

twynham says...

As I type, wind power is producing just 2.08% of National Grid demand.
Couldn't be built if not heavily subsidised.
http://www.gridwatch
.templar.co.uk/
As I type, wind power is producing just 2.08% of National Grid demand. Couldn't be built if not heavily subsidised. http://www.gridwatch .templar.co.uk/ twynham
  • Score: 6

10:58am Thu 19 Jun 14

MattGillett says...

If anyone cares to travel to Barrow in Furness you will see that the windmills 7km away, are visible from the shoreline. But the impact is much less than the Isle of Wight because they are not as wide and their colour blends more into the background. If you painted a light grey strip of 1m wide on the cliff at the Isle of Wight it would have a similar impact. Bournemouth will be 21km from the proposed site.
It is inevitable that the price of Gas Oil and Coal will increase as these are finite resources. If prices don’t increase then Gas, Oil and Coal will quite literally run out (even fracking is projected on increases in the cost of carbon fuel). Every single projection that I have seen that shows wind power to be of greater cost than Gas, Oil and Coal assume that the Gas, Oil and Coal are an infinite resource at current prices; this is idiotic. It is quite correct for us to look at alternatives be they renewables or nuclear fission. It is quite reasonable to assume that fusion may not be achieved on an economic scale in the next 100 years.
If anyone cares to travel to Barrow in Furness you will see that the windmills 7km away, are visible from the shoreline. But the impact is much less than the Isle of Wight because they are not as wide and their colour blends more into the background. If you painted a light grey strip of 1m wide on the cliff at the Isle of Wight it would have a similar impact. Bournemouth will be 21km from the proposed site. It is inevitable that the price of Gas Oil and Coal will increase as these are finite resources. If prices don’t increase then Gas, Oil and Coal will quite literally run out (even fracking is projected on increases in the cost of carbon fuel). Every single projection that I have seen that shows wind power to be of greater cost than Gas, Oil and Coal assume that the Gas, Oil and Coal are an infinite resource at current prices; this is idiotic. It is quite correct for us to look at alternatives be they renewables or nuclear fission. It is quite reasonable to assume that fusion may not be achieved on an economic scale in the next 100 years. MattGillett
  • Score: -1

11:00am Thu 19 Jun 14

saved sinner says...

FerryFan wrote:
As enthusiast how will they affect shipping in the area - they will be slap bang in the middle of the routes out of Poole by the looks of them?

In response to N Smith - totally disagree. I have seen them in other countries and they are HORRIBLE ugly things, ruin beauty spots. If they were somewhere like the Wytch oil farm on (which island in Poole Harbour?) surrounded by trees and camouflaged in some way then they would be more acceptable. But no, they are worse than power station chimneys of old - even though these old chimneys turned into landmarks!! Ugly, and spoiling some of the natural beauty of the land!!
I accidentally voted against this mail, but I agree with what is said.
Our beautiful bay will be totally spoilt if this is allowed to go through.
They are also expensive to run and will there really be any benefit in the long run? I doubt it. Some holidaymakers said they would not come again.
[quote][p][bold]FerryFan[/bold] wrote: As enthusiast how will they affect shipping in the area - they will be slap bang in the middle of the routes out of Poole by the looks of them? In response to N Smith - totally disagree. I have seen them in other countries and they are HORRIBLE ugly things, ruin beauty spots. If they were somewhere like the Wytch oil farm on (which island in Poole Harbour?) surrounded by trees and camouflaged in some way then they would be more acceptable. But no, they are worse than power station chimneys of old - even though these old chimneys turned into landmarks!! Ugly, and spoiling some of the natural beauty of the land!![/p][/quote]I accidentally voted against this mail, but I agree with what is said. Our beautiful bay will be totally spoilt if this is allowed to go through. They are also expensive to run and will there really be any benefit in the long run? I doubt it. Some holidaymakers said they would not come again. saved sinner
  • Score: -5

11:09am Thu 19 Jun 14

TheDistrict says...

All the 7 areas announced by the council are ludicrous. What impact on tourism. As pointed out above, other countries have windfarms on a larger scale and have not effected the tourism, therefor not effecting the economy.
As for wildlife, wildlife has been avoiding obstacles in their flight paths for eternity, and will continue to do so, maybe even adjusting their route to avoid such objects. Underwater life will adapt, as they always do to any changes on the sea bed, they may move away, but will return. And I am sure the contractors will endeavour to acheive this. I cannot see how water quality will be effected, other than maybe on the build, but looking at designs of how the pylons will be erected, and connected to the sea bed, minimises the disturbance in the water. As for the views. This argument is the most stupid argument of all. If one is standing on the beach, who has a heigh of approx 1.6 - 1.8m, the distance to the horizon is approximately 4.6km, where as the windfarm will be at a distance of 19km.

It is time for both the Council, and all those who oppose this project to stand back and let it happen, so that it can be proved that this is a good alternative for power. Of course all new projects are intially expensive (why the council is not in on it), but in return, it will reduce costs to our energy bills.

By the way, I am not Green, or belong to a Green Party. I am however, concerned as a pensioner about the rising costs of fuel charges, when the big 6 make big bucks for their own pockets. It is time that alternative energy was sourced, and at least given a chance.
All the 7 areas announced by the council are ludicrous. What impact on tourism. As pointed out above, other countries have windfarms on a larger scale and have not effected the tourism, therefor not effecting the economy. As for wildlife, wildlife has been avoiding obstacles in their flight paths for eternity, and will continue to do so, maybe even adjusting their route to avoid such objects. Underwater life will adapt, as they always do to any changes on the sea bed, they may move away, but will return. And I am sure the contractors will endeavour to acheive this. I cannot see how water quality will be effected, other than maybe on the build, but looking at designs of how the pylons will be erected, and connected to the sea bed, minimises the disturbance in the water. As for the views. This argument is the most stupid argument of all. If one is standing on the beach, who has a heigh of approx 1.6 - 1.8m, the distance to the horizon is approximately 4.6km, where as the windfarm will be at a distance of 19km. It is time for both the Council, and all those who oppose this project to stand back and let it happen, so that it can be proved that this is a good alternative for power. Of course all new projects are intially expensive (why the council is not in on it), but in return, it will reduce costs to our energy bills. By the way, I am not Green, or belong to a Green Party. I am however, concerned as a pensioner about the rising costs of fuel charges, when the big 6 make big bucks for their own pockets. It is time that alternative energy was sourced, and at least given a chance. TheDistrict
  • Score: 1

11:33am Thu 19 Jun 14

Ophilum says...

Climate change" is a theory for which there is "no scientific proof at all" says the co-founder of Greenpeace. And the green movement has become a "combination of extreme political ideology and religious fundamentalism rolled into one." And yet we still have them telling us we are to blame for the climate, well they are totally wrong. Put up wind farms as a penance to there religion.
Climate change" is a theory for which there is "no scientific proof at all" says the co-founder of Greenpeace. And the green movement has become a "combination of extreme political ideology and religious fundamentalism rolled into one." And yet we still have them telling us we are to blame for the climate, well they are totally wrong. Put up wind farms as a penance to there religion. Ophilum
  • Score: -11

12:00pm Thu 19 Jun 14

muscliffman says...

TheDistrict wrote:
All the 7 areas announced by the council are ludicrous. What impact on tourism. As pointed out above, other countries have windfarms on a larger scale and have not effected the tourism, therefor not effecting the economy.
As for wildlife, wildlife has been avoiding obstacles in their flight paths for eternity, and will continue to do so, maybe even adjusting their route to avoid such objects. Underwater life will adapt, as they always do to any changes on the sea bed, they may move away, but will return. And I am sure the contractors will endeavour to acheive this. I cannot see how water quality will be effected, other than maybe on the build, but looking at designs of how the pylons will be erected, and connected to the sea bed, minimises the disturbance in the water. As for the views. This argument is the most stupid argument of all. If one is standing on the beach, who has a heigh of approx 1.6 - 1.8m, the distance to the horizon is approximately 4.6km, where as the windfarm will be at a distance of 19km.

It is time for both the Council, and all those who oppose this project to stand back and let it happen, so that it can be proved that this is a good alternative for power. Of course all new projects are intially expensive (why the council is not in on it), but in return, it will reduce costs to our energy bills.

By the way, I am not Green, or belong to a Green Party. I am however, concerned as a pensioner about the rising costs of fuel charges, when the big 6 make big bucks for their own pockets. It is time that alternative energy was sourced, and at least given a chance.
I am sorry but don't begin to understand your logic. This wind farm generation of power will never be proved to be a good alternative to traditional fuels, it has already been proven beyond all reasonable doubt to be a very expensive and inefficient ways to produce electricity - hence the huge subsidies.

These UK wind farm projects were only introduced because of their (very dubious) 'green' credentials - and because they were formerly a political vote winner. They are not being built to produce cheaper electricity, your existing fuels bills are already far higher than they need be simply because of them - and this will get worse!

If you want lower UK energy bills, stop building useless wind farms, stop decommissioning traditional power stations and return to our own inexpensive and plentiful UK energy producing fuels - particularly the clean use of our plentiful reserves of coal and gas. The USA has very successfully led the way back to common sense low cost traditional energy production and it is transforming their economy for the better, we should follow.
[quote][p][bold]TheDistrict[/bold] wrote: All the 7 areas announced by the council are ludicrous. What impact on tourism. As pointed out above, other countries have windfarms on a larger scale and have not effected the tourism, therefor not effecting the economy. As for wildlife, wildlife has been avoiding obstacles in their flight paths for eternity, and will continue to do so, maybe even adjusting their route to avoid such objects. Underwater life will adapt, as they always do to any changes on the sea bed, they may move away, but will return. And I am sure the contractors will endeavour to acheive this. I cannot see how water quality will be effected, other than maybe on the build, but looking at designs of how the pylons will be erected, and connected to the sea bed, minimises the disturbance in the water. As for the views. This argument is the most stupid argument of all. If one is standing on the beach, who has a heigh of approx 1.6 - 1.8m, the distance to the horizon is approximately 4.6km, where as the windfarm will be at a distance of 19km. It is time for both the Council, and all those who oppose this project to stand back and let it happen, so that it can be proved that this is a good alternative for power. Of course all new projects are intially expensive (why the council is not in on it), but in return, it will reduce costs to our energy bills. By the way, I am not Green, or belong to a Green Party. I am however, concerned as a pensioner about the rising costs of fuel charges, when the big 6 make big bucks for their own pockets. It is time that alternative energy was sourced, and at least given a chance.[/p][/quote]I am sorry but don't begin to understand your logic. This wind farm generation of power will never be proved to be a good alternative to traditional fuels, it has already been proven beyond all reasonable doubt to be a very expensive and inefficient ways to produce electricity - hence the huge subsidies. These UK wind farm projects were only introduced because of their (very dubious) 'green' credentials - and because they were formerly a political vote winner. They are not being built to produce cheaper electricity, your existing fuels bills are already far higher than they need be simply because of them - and this will get worse! If you want lower UK energy bills, stop building useless wind farms, stop decommissioning traditional power stations and return to our own inexpensive and plentiful UK energy producing fuels - particularly the clean use of our plentiful reserves of coal and gas. The USA has very successfully led the way back to common sense low cost traditional energy production and it is transforming their economy for the better, we should follow. muscliffman
  • Score: 5

12:18pm Thu 19 Jun 14

GarrySibbald says...

N Smith wrote:
I actually find the windmills interesting to look at, rather have them than huge energy bills and being held to ransom by foreign countries.Get on and build them.
Scotland?
[quote][p][bold]N Smith[/bold] wrote: I actually find the windmills interesting to look at, rather have them than huge energy bills and being held to ransom by foreign countries.Get on and build them.[/p][/quote]Scotland? GarrySibbald
  • Score: 0

1:01pm Thu 19 Jun 14

speedy231278 says...

yet_another_one wrote:
BIGTONE wrote:
Won't it effect the Red Arrows displays? They will have to keep well away and increase height levels once built.
They will be 12 miles off shore.
The benefit will BY FAR outweigh any objection, they will be present all the time & not just for the occasional event.
All these pathetic NIMBY's should get real & come to terms with real issues of the current day.
Like the massive pollution caused by the processes required to create the magnets in these things?
[quote][p][bold]yet_another_one[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BIGTONE[/bold] wrote: Won't it effect the Red Arrows displays? They will have to keep well away and increase height levels once built.[/p][/quote]They will be 12 miles off shore. The benefit will BY FAR outweigh any objection, they will be present all the time & not just for the occasional event. All these pathetic NIMBY's should get real & come to terms with real issues of the current day.[/p][/quote]Like the massive pollution caused by the processes required to create the magnets in these things? speedy231278
  • Score: -3

1:06pm Thu 19 Jun 14

kalebmoledirt says...

Consider the poor Sods building them ,on clear day they can see Boscombe
Consider the poor Sods building them ,on clear day they can see Boscombe kalebmoledirt
  • Score: 17

1:06pm Thu 19 Jun 14

coster says...

The destruction of the countryside as the landfall works drive through the new forest and across road and river (22 miles 200 feet wide) will be kept quiet and opposition over ridden. Those who are vilified now,will be seen as augers when the massive expenditure is seen for what it is - a Con Trick..
The destruction of the countryside as the landfall works drive through the new forest and across road and river (22 miles 200 feet wide) will be kept quiet and opposition over ridden. Those who are vilified now,will be seen as augers when the massive expenditure is seen for what it is - a Con Trick.. coster
  • Score: 1

1:27pm Thu 19 Jun 14

Flusters says...

If you want to contest this wind farm go to challengenavitus and object to the proposal by June 23rd at the latest.
If you want to contest this wind farm go to challengenavitus and object to the proposal by June 23rd at the latest. Flusters
  • Score: 0

1:35pm Thu 19 Jun 14

Eddie's dog says...

Sir Beachy Head wrote:
If they paint the bottom halves brown and the top halves grey then they'll blend in with the sea and sky and you'd never notice them from the beach.
Eddie Howe thinks they should be painted in red and black stripes - I agree; and it could increase visitors to the town.... COYR
[quote][p][bold]Sir Beachy Head[/bold] wrote: If they paint the bottom halves brown and the top halves grey then they'll blend in with the sea and sky and you'd never notice them from the beach.[/p][/quote]Eddie Howe thinks they should be painted in red and black stripes - I agree; and it could increase visitors to the town.... COYR Eddie's dog
  • Score: -2

1:48pm Thu 19 Jun 14

SenseWillPrevail says...

In1895, Svente Arrhenius, calculated how much greenhouse gases (such as CO2 and Methane) could raise the temperature of the atmosphere. He predicted that emmisions from fossil fuels were large enough to cause global warming. That "Greenhouse Effect" theory has been verified many times over since then.
Partick Moore used to work at Greenpeace, but is a communications consultant for nuclear and fossil fuel industries. He also ignores multiple lines of evidence that the warming is caused by humans. Of course he could find times when global temperatures were higher, the Earth was much closer to the Sun then. Similarly, he could have found times when the planet was very much colder, but that has nothing to do with the rapid rise in global mean temperature were are measuring today.
If we want to have clean energy, price stability, better health, a more pleasant climate, then wind turbines, solar panels and a whole raft of renewable energy production souces are available to help us get there. That isn't "religion" it's "intelligent choice" and "common sense".
In1895, Svente Arrhenius, calculated how much greenhouse gases (such as CO2 and Methane) could raise the temperature of the atmosphere. He predicted that emmisions from fossil fuels were large enough to cause global warming. That "Greenhouse Effect" theory has been verified many times over since then. Partick Moore used to work at Greenpeace, but is a communications consultant for nuclear and fossil fuel industries. He also ignores multiple lines of evidence that the warming is caused by humans. Of course he could find times when global temperatures were higher, the Earth was much closer to the Sun then. Similarly, he could have found times when the planet was very much colder, but that has nothing to do with the rapid rise in global mean temperature were are measuring today. If we want to have clean energy, price stability, better health, a more pleasant climate, then wind turbines, solar panels and a whole raft of renewable energy production souces are available to help us get there. That isn't "religion" it's "intelligent choice" and "common sense". SenseWillPrevail
  • Score: -2

2:53pm Thu 19 Jun 14

Baysider says...

SenseWillPrevail wrote:
In1895, Svente Arrhenius, calculated how much greenhouse gases (such as CO2 and Methane) could raise the temperature of the atmosphere. He predicted that emmisions from fossil fuels were large enough to cause global warming. That "Greenhouse Effect" theory has been verified many times over since then.
Partick Moore used to work at Greenpeace, but is a communications consultant for nuclear and fossil fuel industries. He also ignores multiple lines of evidence that the warming is caused by humans. Of course he could find times when global temperatures were higher, the Earth was much closer to the Sun then. Similarly, he could have found times when the planet was very much colder, but that has nothing to do with the rapid rise in global mean temperature were are measuring today.
If we want to have clean energy, price stability, better health, a more pleasant climate, then wind turbines, solar panels and a whole raft of renewable energy production souces are available to help us get there. That isn't "religion" it's "intelligent choice" and "common sense".
Do us a favour then and let the Chinese and the Indians and the Brazilians know then as whatever we spend billions on in the next few years will be nothing but gnat bite on the backside of the problem they are adding to daily. My view is we should cease ALL subsidy to wind turbine operators with as soon as legally possible and spend that money on wave and ground source technology instead. We have tides that are predicable for a hundred years yet the middle classes are obsessed with the futile industrialisation of our countryside and seascapes for no other reason than it's a visable sign that makes them feel less guilty about driving the kids to school every day and jetting around the med twice a year.
[quote][p][bold]SenseWillPrevail[/bold] wrote: In1895, Svente Arrhenius, calculated how much greenhouse gases (such as CO2 and Methane) could raise the temperature of the atmosphere. He predicted that emmisions from fossil fuels were large enough to cause global warming. That "Greenhouse Effect" theory has been verified many times over since then. Partick Moore used to work at Greenpeace, but is a communications consultant for nuclear and fossil fuel industries. He also ignores multiple lines of evidence that the warming is caused by humans. Of course he could find times when global temperatures were higher, the Earth was much closer to the Sun then. Similarly, he could have found times when the planet was very much colder, but that has nothing to do with the rapid rise in global mean temperature were are measuring today. If we want to have clean energy, price stability, better health, a more pleasant climate, then wind turbines, solar panels and a whole raft of renewable energy production souces are available to help us get there. That isn't "religion" it's "intelligent choice" and "common sense".[/p][/quote]Do us a favour then and let the Chinese and the Indians and the Brazilians know then as whatever we spend billions on in the next few years will be nothing but gnat bite on the backside of the problem they are adding to daily. My view is we should cease ALL subsidy to wind turbine operators with as soon as legally possible and spend that money on wave and ground source technology instead. We have tides that are predicable for a hundred years yet the middle classes are obsessed with the futile industrialisation of our countryside and seascapes for no other reason than it's a visable sign that makes them feel less guilty about driving the kids to school every day and jetting around the med twice a year. Baysider
  • Score: 10

3:13pm Thu 19 Jun 14

Microwave001 says...

"Ruins beauty spots"
"Spoils the landscape"

You're all missing the point. If we don't make an effort to do something now, such as build a few wind turbines, the landscape won't be there much longer anyway. Fifty years ago people were excited for the future, and now it's turned out that the future means green energy everyone is suddenly against it. I would much rather integrate turbines with the landscape and accept they exist than continue to allow coal plants to vomit foul gases into our atmosphere. We need to make the transition now, it could already be too late. Rather "spoil" the landscape than lose it forever.
"Ruins beauty spots" "Spoils the landscape" You're all missing the point. If we don't make an effort to do something now, such as build a few wind turbines, the landscape won't be there much longer anyway. Fifty years ago people were excited for the future, and now it's turned out that the future means green energy everyone is suddenly against it. I would much rather integrate turbines with the landscape and accept they exist than continue to allow coal plants to vomit foul gases into our atmosphere. We need to make the transition now, it could already be too late. Rather "spoil" the landscape than lose it forever. Microwave001
  • Score: -2

3:48pm Thu 19 Jun 14

Phixer says...

sdmxch wrote:
The question I would like to have answered is how will the power get from the sea to the land? My Local Residents Association have said there will need to be a trench dug for the cables and that it would be miles long (onshore, not including offshore) and will need to go under 2 rivers, the train line and most major roads in the area (A31, A338 etc). I haven't seen anything in the Echo about that.
The trench will go to France so that the French energy company can hold us to ransom with higher fuel bills : )
[quote][p][bold]sdmxch[/bold] wrote: The question I would like to have answered is how will the power get from the sea to the land? My Local Residents Association have said there will need to be a trench dug for the cables and that it would be miles long (onshore, not including offshore) and will need to go under 2 rivers, the train line and most major roads in the area (A31, A338 etc). I haven't seen anything in the Echo about that.[/p][/quote]The trench will go to France so that the French energy company can hold us to ransom with higher fuel bills : ) Phixer
  • Score: 3

5:24pm Thu 19 Jun 14

forest-dweller says...

twynham wrote:
As I type, wind power is producing just 2.08% of National Grid demand.
Couldn't be built if not heavily subsidised.
http://www.gridwatch

.templar.co.uk/
That's my main issue, the heavy subsidies. While I understand that all renewable energy is currently subsidised, is solar cheaper per KW? It certainly has less of a visual aspect as it can be hidden away more easily. But then there was huge objection to the planned solar farm over at Drax's place. I find it a bit incongruous. Object against Navitus Bay and you are called a dinosaur, NIMBY, etc etc but it seems more than OK to complain about a 175 acre solar farm. Which has the greatest visual impact is open to debate.
[quote][p][bold]twynham[/bold] wrote: As I type, wind power is producing just 2.08% of National Grid demand. Couldn't be built if not heavily subsidised. http://www.gridwatch .templar.co.uk/[/p][/quote]That's my main issue, the heavy subsidies. While I understand that all renewable energy is currently subsidised, is solar cheaper per KW? It certainly has less of a visual aspect as it can be hidden away more easily. But then there was huge objection to the planned solar farm over at Drax's place. I find it a bit incongruous. Object against Navitus Bay and you are called a dinosaur, NIMBY, etc etc but it seems more than OK to complain about a 175 acre solar farm. Which has the greatest visual impact is open to debate. forest-dweller
  • Score: 1

5:34pm Thu 19 Jun 14

forest-dweller says...

sdmxch wrote:
The question I would like to have answered is how will the power get from the sea to the land? My Local Residents Association have said there will need to be a trench dug for the cables and that it would be miles long (onshore, not including offshore) and will need to go under 2 rivers, the train line and most major roads in the area (A31, A338 etc). I haven't seen anything in the Echo about that.
It's on their website: http://www.navitusba
ywindpark.co.uk/onsh
ore-elements

They will have a 40 metre wide working area that goes for 22 miles. They will cut down plenty of woods etc to do so. Apparently one badger set will be destroyed, and no dormice nor bats will be disturbed. Funny thing though, even though Navitus Bay developers say this on their website, I know of more than one badger set that is going to get destroyed and as the dormice and bat survey has yet to conclude, I am not sure how they can pronounce that none will be disturbed.
[quote][p][bold]sdmxch[/bold] wrote: The question I would like to have answered is how will the power get from the sea to the land? My Local Residents Association have said there will need to be a trench dug for the cables and that it would be miles long (onshore, not including offshore) and will need to go under 2 rivers, the train line and most major roads in the area (A31, A338 etc). I haven't seen anything in the Echo about that.[/p][/quote]It's on their website: http://www.navitusba ywindpark.co.uk/onsh ore-elements They will have a 40 metre wide working area that goes for 22 miles. They will cut down plenty of woods etc to do so. Apparently one badger set will be destroyed, and no dormice nor bats will be disturbed. Funny thing though, even though Navitus Bay developers say this on their website, I know of more than one badger set that is going to get destroyed and as the dormice and bat survey has yet to conclude, I am not sure how they can pronounce that none will be disturbed. forest-dweller
  • Score: 2

7:08pm Thu 19 Jun 14

Abc1970 says...

I do like to follow these "wind farm will kill us all" stories, and once again the echo have excelled in printing a well balanced debate type article, only they forgot to print any positives again, silly them. These wind farms are all over the place in Scotland, any problems with their tourism? No! People are correct in what they say though, this wind farm will not have much impact on our energy, however a network of wind farms across the UK and surrounding coast line will. When the wind is not strong enough here, 50 miles along the coast it will be so it needs to be seen the perspective of progress. One wind farm alone will not change the world. As for energy bills, if you NIMBYs think that opposing the wind farm will somehow reduce your bills you are wrong. Energy costs will continue to rise whether or not this wind farm is built I would however prefer to pay for energy that has been produced by a natural resource i.e. wind, rather than burning fossil fuels. As for the construction costs, yes it is a lot, however how much do you honestly think it would cost to build a new nuclear power plant in the Purbecks and how much more would it cost per day to run, employing hundreds of people on a 24hr shift cycle. The benefits of this scheme far out weigh the negatives. Wind turbines are produced here in the UK by a British owned company (I know this to be fact) and the industry employs hundreds of people across the region already. With the potential of our wind farm, this would secure those jobs and as the company grows, it employs more people, which can only be a benefit to our economy. There is no PROVEN data that suggests our tourism will be affected in any way, shape or form, if anything it will increase tourism as the new marine Eco systems will attract a whole new range of visitors, plus all you NIMBYs do is moan all summer long about tourists anyway. I really wish people would look at the bigger picture with this and not focus on the two or three negative issues that have been highlighted by people wearing anoraks and UKIP
I do like to follow these "wind farm will kill us all" stories, and once again the echo have excelled in printing a well balanced debate type article, only they forgot to print any positives again, silly them. These wind farms are all over the place in Scotland, any problems with their tourism? No! People are correct in what they say though, this wind farm will not have much impact on our energy, however a network of wind farms across the UK and surrounding coast line will. When the wind is not strong enough here, 50 miles along the coast it will be so it needs to be seen the perspective of progress. One wind farm alone will not change the world. As for energy bills, if you NIMBYs think that opposing the wind farm will somehow reduce your bills you are wrong. Energy costs will continue to rise whether or not this wind farm is built I would however prefer to pay for energy that has been produced by a natural resource i.e. wind, rather than burning fossil fuels. As for the construction costs, yes it is a lot, however how much do you honestly think it would cost to build a new nuclear power plant in the Purbecks and how much more would it cost per day to run, employing hundreds of people on a 24hr shift cycle. The benefits of this scheme far out weigh the negatives. Wind turbines are produced here in the UK by a British owned company (I know this to be fact) and the industry employs hundreds of people across the region already. With the potential of our wind farm, this would secure those jobs and as the company grows, it employs more people, which can only be a benefit to our economy. There is no PROVEN data that suggests our tourism will be affected in any way, shape or form, if anything it will increase tourism as the new marine Eco systems will attract a whole new range of visitors, plus all you NIMBYs do is moan all summer long about tourists anyway. I really wish people would look at the bigger picture with this and not focus on the two or three negative issues that have been highlighted by people wearing anoraks and UKIP Abc1970
  • Score: 4

8:14pm Thu 19 Jun 14

Ophilum says...

Abc1970 wrote:
I do like to follow these "wind farm will kill us all" stories, and once again the echo have excelled in printing a well balanced debate type article, only they forgot to print any positives again, silly them. These wind farms are all over the place in Scotland, any problems with their tourism? No! People are correct in what they say though, this wind farm will not have much impact on our energy, however a network of wind farms across the UK and surrounding coast line will. When the wind is not strong enough here, 50 miles along the coast it will be so it needs to be seen the perspective of progress. One wind farm alone will not change the world. As for energy bills, if you NIMBYs think that opposing the wind farm will somehow reduce your bills you are wrong. Energy costs will continue to rise whether or not this wind farm is built I would however prefer to pay for energy that has been produced by a natural resource i.e. wind, rather than burning fossil fuels. As for the construction costs, yes it is a lot, however how much do you honestly think it would cost to build a new nuclear power plant in the Purbecks and how much more would it cost per day to run, employing hundreds of people on a 24hr shift cycle. The benefits of this scheme far out weigh the negatives. Wind turbines are produced here in the UK by a British owned company (I know this to be fact) and the industry employs hundreds of people across the region already. With the potential of our wind farm, this would secure those jobs and as the company grows, it employs more people, which can only be a benefit to our economy. There is no PROVEN data that suggests our tourism will be affected in any way, shape or form, if anything it will increase tourism as the new marine Eco systems will attract a whole new range of visitors, plus all you NIMBYs do is moan all summer long about tourists anyway. I really wish people would look at the bigger picture with this and not focus on the two or three negative issues that have been highlighted by people wearing anoraks and UKIP
What utter total rubbish you talk, say no to subsidies to all these useless schemes and then we will see common sense return to the energy sector,the siren voices of the left and greens are not to be believed, they are hot air and balderdash as you can read for yourselves. If they were so great an idea why do we need to have them subsidised at great expense on our already overpriced electricity bills in the name of the scare poison Co2 according to the greens and the warmista, yes a harmless gas that makes things grow and we would all be dead without it in the atmosphere. Time to get real on energy.
[quote][p][bold]Abc1970[/bold] wrote: I do like to follow these "wind farm will kill us all" stories, and once again the echo have excelled in printing a well balanced debate type article, only they forgot to print any positives again, silly them. These wind farms are all over the place in Scotland, any problems with their tourism? No! People are correct in what they say though, this wind farm will not have much impact on our energy, however a network of wind farms across the UK and surrounding coast line will. When the wind is not strong enough here, 50 miles along the coast it will be so it needs to be seen the perspective of progress. One wind farm alone will not change the world. As for energy bills, if you NIMBYs think that opposing the wind farm will somehow reduce your bills you are wrong. Energy costs will continue to rise whether or not this wind farm is built I would however prefer to pay for energy that has been produced by a natural resource i.e. wind, rather than burning fossil fuels. As for the construction costs, yes it is a lot, however how much do you honestly think it would cost to build a new nuclear power plant in the Purbecks and how much more would it cost per day to run, employing hundreds of people on a 24hr shift cycle. The benefits of this scheme far out weigh the negatives. Wind turbines are produced here in the UK by a British owned company (I know this to be fact) and the industry employs hundreds of people across the region already. With the potential of our wind farm, this would secure those jobs and as the company grows, it employs more people, which can only be a benefit to our economy. There is no PROVEN data that suggests our tourism will be affected in any way, shape or form, if anything it will increase tourism as the new marine Eco systems will attract a whole new range of visitors, plus all you NIMBYs do is moan all summer long about tourists anyway. I really wish people would look at the bigger picture with this and not focus on the two or three negative issues that have been highlighted by people wearing anoraks and UKIP[/p][/quote]What utter total rubbish you talk, say no to subsidies to all these useless schemes and then we will see common sense return to the energy sector,the siren voices of the left and greens are not to be believed, they are hot air and balderdash as you can read for yourselves. If they were so great an idea why do we need to have them subsidised at great expense on our already overpriced electricity bills in the name of the scare poison Co2 according to the greens and the warmista, yes a harmless gas that makes things grow and we would all be dead without it in the atmosphere. Time to get real on energy. Ophilum
  • Score: -3

10:17pm Thu 19 Jun 14

Abc1970 says...

Ophilum wrote:
Abc1970 wrote:
I do like to follow these "wind farm will kill us all" stories, and once again the echo have excelled in printing a well balanced debate type article, only they forgot to print any positives again, silly them. These wind farms are all over the place in Scotland, any problems with their tourism? No! People are correct in what they say though, this wind farm will not have much impact on our energy, however a network of wind farms across the UK and surrounding coast line will. When the wind is not strong enough here, 50 miles along the coast it will be so it needs to be seen the perspective of progress. One wind farm alone will not change the world. As for energy bills, if you NIMBYs think that opposing the wind farm will somehow reduce your bills you are wrong. Energy costs will continue to rise whether or not this wind farm is built I would however prefer to pay for energy that has been produced by a natural resource i.e. wind, rather than burning fossil fuels. As for the construction costs, yes it is a lot, however how much do you honestly think it would cost to build a new nuclear power plant in the Purbecks and how much more would it cost per day to run, employing hundreds of people on a 24hr shift cycle. The benefits of this scheme far out weigh the negatives. Wind turbines are produced here in the UK by a British owned company (I know this to be fact) and the industry employs hundreds of people across the region already. With the potential of our wind farm, this would secure those jobs and as the company grows, it employs more people, which can only be a benefit to our economy. There is no PROVEN data that suggests our tourism will be affected in any way, shape or form, if anything it will increase tourism as the new marine Eco systems will attract a whole new range of visitors, plus all you NIMBYs do is moan all summer long about tourists anyway. I really wish people would look at the bigger picture with this and not focus on the two or three negative issues that have been highlighted by people wearing anoraks and UKIP
What utter total rubbish you talk, say no to subsidies to all these useless schemes and then we will see common sense return to the energy sector,the siren voices of the left and greens are not to be believed, they are hot air and balderdash as you can read for yourselves. If they were so great an idea why do we need to have them subsidised at great expense on our already overpriced electricity bills in the name of the scare poison Co2 according to the greens and the warmista, yes a harmless gas that makes things grow and we would all be dead without it in the atmosphere. Time to get real on energy.
Too much carbon dioxide is actually harmful for us humans, I suggest you do your homework before trying to sound intelligent, at least, I think that was your point
[quote][p][bold]Ophilum[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Abc1970[/bold] wrote: I do like to follow these "wind farm will kill us all" stories, and once again the echo have excelled in printing a well balanced debate type article, only they forgot to print any positives again, silly them. These wind farms are all over the place in Scotland, any problems with their tourism? No! People are correct in what they say though, this wind farm will not have much impact on our energy, however a network of wind farms across the UK and surrounding coast line will. When the wind is not strong enough here, 50 miles along the coast it will be so it needs to be seen the perspective of progress. One wind farm alone will not change the world. As for energy bills, if you NIMBYs think that opposing the wind farm will somehow reduce your bills you are wrong. Energy costs will continue to rise whether or not this wind farm is built I would however prefer to pay for energy that has been produced by a natural resource i.e. wind, rather than burning fossil fuels. As for the construction costs, yes it is a lot, however how much do you honestly think it would cost to build a new nuclear power plant in the Purbecks and how much more would it cost per day to run, employing hundreds of people on a 24hr shift cycle. The benefits of this scheme far out weigh the negatives. Wind turbines are produced here in the UK by a British owned company (I know this to be fact) and the industry employs hundreds of people across the region already. With the potential of our wind farm, this would secure those jobs and as the company grows, it employs more people, which can only be a benefit to our economy. There is no PROVEN data that suggests our tourism will be affected in any way, shape or form, if anything it will increase tourism as the new marine Eco systems will attract a whole new range of visitors, plus all you NIMBYs do is moan all summer long about tourists anyway. I really wish people would look at the bigger picture with this and not focus on the two or three negative issues that have been highlighted by people wearing anoraks and UKIP[/p][/quote]What utter total rubbish you talk, say no to subsidies to all these useless schemes and then we will see common sense return to the energy sector,the siren voices of the left and greens are not to be believed, they are hot air and balderdash as you can read for yourselves. If they were so great an idea why do we need to have them subsidised at great expense on our already overpriced electricity bills in the name of the scare poison Co2 according to the greens and the warmista, yes a harmless gas that makes things grow and we would all be dead without it in the atmosphere. Time to get real on energy.[/p][/quote]Too much carbon dioxide is actually harmful for us humans, I suggest you do your homework before trying to sound intelligent, at least, I think that was your point Abc1970
  • Score: 5

11:55pm Thu 19 Jun 14

Yankee1 says...

Bournemouth is a tourist destination?

Most tourists look as far as the nearest pub - not the sea.
Bournemouth is a tourist destination? Most tourists look as far as the nearest pub - not the sea. Yankee1
  • Score: 1

5:21am Fri 20 Jun 14

Trolley Cub says...

Germany gets upto 60% of its power needs from Sustainable source's of generation and other nations in Europe and beyond are getting figure's of upto 75% of its Power needs from sustainable sources aswell,get with the program boys and girls,ahhh!!.As an expat I love to read some of the comments at the Echo to remind myself how parochial and uninformed some your commenter's are,especially about issues surrounding power generation.None of the above anti-wind advocate's seem to have any idea of the subsidy's that the Fossil Fuel Industry is provided with by the UK Government and by other Governments around the world that the Fossil Fuel Industry hold sway over,no idea,its very well hidden statistic. Personally I think its great to see the UK coming to terms with its energy needs,biting the bullet and introducing Sustainable source's of Power Generation,at last.Wind Generators might be a little intimidating for the sensitive souls above but probably not anymore than the unsightly Electricity Pylon's that the National Grid have installed in the last 70yrs,instead of putting them in the ground.Really its all a question of visual integration into the landscape and if your going to subsidise an Industry,subsidise one that has a future that is Independent from imported sources like Russia.Can you imagine every time Russia has a spat with the Ukraine how far down the chain is the UK,have you thought about this.When compared with the hideous mess made by Coal Mines and Fracking etc etc and I've seen them in many,many country's,do i have to spell everything out.Ok doh!,when you take a Wind Farm down because someone has managed to invent a clean easy source of unlimited Power,what mess does it leave behind,a bare patch of grass on a hillside or a hole on the sea bed and what mess does a Coal Mine make and leave behind,an Oil spill make and groundwater despoiled by Fracking etc .Sorry but for a clear sighted well travelled person like myself there's absolutely no competition,its a total mystery why the beliefs of the above comments are still holding on,I know the Brits can be a tad Nostalgic but its ridiculous in this day and age to think the way they do.Look ok at a stretch perhaps some of the above have a point and perhaps the Wind farm in Poole Bay could be sited further out to sea so these sensitive souls dont have to wake up every morning and see these manmade structure's polluting their vision.But honestly how often do any of you go to the beach,dont you think your opposition is more to do with ignoring all the out of control weather events around the world,an ignorance and a distrust of basic science,a cognitive dissonance of the facts that you cherry pick and the ones you ignore to suit some outmoded view of the world,get a life and invest in your children's future because you wont be thanked for your stupidity and one eyed ignorance,by them or their children.
Germany gets upto 60% of its power needs from Sustainable source's of generation and other nations in Europe and beyond are getting figure's of upto 75% of its Power needs from sustainable sources aswell,get with the program boys and girls,ahhh!!.As an expat I love to read some of the comments at the Echo to remind myself how parochial and uninformed some your commenter's are,especially about issues surrounding power generation.None of the above anti-wind advocate's seem to have any idea of the subsidy's that the Fossil Fuel Industry is provided with by the UK Government and by other Governments around the world that the Fossil Fuel Industry hold sway over,no idea,its very well hidden statistic. Personally I think its great to see the UK coming to terms with its energy needs,biting the bullet and introducing Sustainable source's of Power Generation,at last.Wind Generators might be a little intimidating for the sensitive souls above but probably not anymore than the unsightly Electricity Pylon's that the National Grid have installed in the last 70yrs,instead of putting them in the ground.Really its all a question of visual integration into the landscape and if your going to subsidise an Industry,subsidise one that has a future that is Independent from imported sources like Russia.Can you imagine every time Russia has a spat with the Ukraine how far down the chain is the UK,have you thought about this.When compared with the hideous mess made by Coal Mines and Fracking etc etc and I've seen them in many,many country's,do i have to spell everything out.Ok doh!,when you take a Wind Farm down because someone has managed to invent a clean easy source of unlimited Power,what mess does it leave behind,a bare patch of grass on a hillside or a hole on the sea bed and what mess does a Coal Mine make and leave behind,an Oil spill make and groundwater despoiled by Fracking etc .Sorry but for a clear sighted well travelled person like myself there's absolutely no competition,its a total mystery why the beliefs of the above comments are still holding on,I know the Brits can be a tad Nostalgic but its ridiculous in this day and age to think the way they do.Look ok at a stretch perhaps some of the above have a point and perhaps the Wind farm in Poole Bay could be sited further out to sea so these sensitive souls dont have to wake up every morning and see these manmade structure's polluting their vision.But honestly how often do any of you go to the beach,dont you think your opposition is more to do with ignoring all the out of control weather events around the world,an ignorance and a distrust of basic science,a cognitive dissonance of the facts that you cherry pick and the ones you ignore to suit some outmoded view of the world,get a life and invest in your children's future because you wont be thanked for your stupidity and one eyed ignorance,by them or their children. Trolley Cub
  • Score: 2

5:27am Fri 20 Jun 14

Son of Bad Rabbit says...

For everyone who continuously says the subsidies are so expensive, you are only correct if we adopt the apples versus pears methodology currently used. If we compare oil and gas on the same basis as renewables, including tax write off s and incentives as well as direct subsidies and government department work on behalf of the industry we discover something different.
*
We discover that the amount of money the renewable energy industry receives over six years is what the oil industry gets in one year.
*
So I agree remove ALL energy subsidies. Let's see how many people worry about these turbines then, or instead start spouting about about how much it costs to run their cars.
For everyone who continuously says the subsidies are so expensive, you are only correct if we adopt the apples versus pears methodology currently used. If we compare oil and gas on the same basis as renewables, including tax write off s and incentives as well as direct subsidies and government department work on behalf of the industry we discover something different. * We discover that the amount of money the renewable energy industry receives over six years is what the oil industry gets in one year. * So I agree remove ALL energy subsidies. Let's see how many people worry about these turbines then, or instead start spouting about about how much it costs to run their cars. Son of Bad Rabbit
  • Score: 0

8:14am Fri 20 Jun 14

Ophilum says...

Abc1970

Same old rubbish talked by you greens get a life and stop being condescending you have been found out to be liars and not to be believed
No to subsidies for the green machines. Make them pay not us through sky high electric bills in the name of the green religion and fellow travelers.
Abc1970 Same old rubbish talked by you greens get a life and stop being condescending you have been found out to be liars and not to be believed No to subsidies for the green machines. Make them pay not us through sky high electric bills in the name of the green religion and fellow travelers. Ophilum
  • Score: -1

10:51am Fri 20 Jun 14

nobodyexpectedthat says...

Son of bad Rabbit and Trolley Club, I totally agree with you. These anti renewables keep spouting nonsense about subsidies as if its the defining argument against wind power!

If the cost of decommissioning and waste storage was ever added to the KWh cost of electricity from Nuclear power then we probably would never have had a nuclear power station built. Its not a subsidy up front but its still a massive extra cost of this form of power generation.

So anti wind power people, make sure you compare apples with apples when you talk about subsidies and cost. So yes lets scrap all subsidies but also add in the 'hidden' costs associated with Oil, Coal, Gas and Nuclear and then we will see which form of electricity is expensive.

Another point many have made on here before is that the UKs future energy security depends on developing a local, sustainable, and balanced energy portfolio. Not one that relies on dirty, dwindling, fossil fuels or relies on supplies from politically unstable countries.

Wake up anti renewables or the lights will go out.
Son of bad Rabbit and Trolley Club, I totally agree with you. These anti renewables keep spouting nonsense about subsidies as if its the defining argument against wind power! If the cost of decommissioning and waste storage was ever added to the KWh cost of electricity from Nuclear power then we probably would never have had a nuclear power station built. Its not a subsidy up front but its still a massive extra cost of this form of power generation. So anti wind power people, make sure you compare apples with apples when you talk about subsidies and cost. So yes lets scrap all subsidies but also add in the 'hidden' costs associated with Oil, Coal, Gas and Nuclear and then we will see which form of electricity is expensive. Another point many have made on here before is that the UKs future energy security depends on developing a local, sustainable, and balanced energy portfolio. Not one that relies on dirty, dwindling, fossil fuels or relies on supplies from politically unstable countries. Wake up anti renewables or the lights will go out. nobodyexpectedthat
  • Score: 1

12:39pm Fri 20 Jun 14

Abc1970 says...

Ophilum wrote:
Abc1970

Same old rubbish talked by you greens get a life and stop being condescending you have been found out to be liars and not to be believed
No to subsidies for the green machines. Make them pay not us through sky high electric bills in the name of the green religion and fellow travelers.
Can I just point out for the record, I am not in any way associated with any political party, Green Party, Green Campaigners and certainly not religious, I do however enjoy traveling especially for my holidays twice a year so I thank you for taking time to comment on that. All I am doing is stating the points that most people seem to have forgotten and the Echo seem incapable of writing. What I have said is not lies, far from it, it is fact, but heaven forbid this local paper, who's purpose is to provide balanced news to the local area, should print anything even remotely positive about a wind turbine. We already have sky high energy bills, so really what difference does it make where it comes from?
[quote][p][bold]Ophilum[/bold] wrote: Abc1970 Same old rubbish talked by you greens get a life and stop being condescending you have been found out to be liars and not to be believed No to subsidies for the green machines. Make them pay not us through sky high electric bills in the name of the green religion and fellow travelers.[/p][/quote]Can I just point out for the record, I am not in any way associated with any political party, Green Party, Green Campaigners and certainly not religious, I do however enjoy traveling especially for my holidays twice a year so I thank you for taking time to comment on that. All I am doing is stating the points that most people seem to have forgotten and the Echo seem incapable of writing. What I have said is not lies, far from it, it is fact, but heaven forbid this local paper, who's purpose is to provide balanced news to the local area, should print anything even remotely positive about a wind turbine. We already have sky high energy bills, so really what difference does it make where it comes from? Abc1970
  • Score: 0

1:00pm Fri 20 Jun 14

kangaroo_joey says...

I think the biggest joke is that these things will be put in the sea to harvest wind power, well correct me if im wrong the operators have said they will be turned off in high winds, you couldnt make it up
I think the biggest joke is that these things will be put in the sea to harvest wind power, well correct me if im wrong the operators have said they will be turned off in high winds, you couldnt make it up kangaroo_joey
  • Score: 2

5:56pm Fri 20 Jun 14

jpwf says...

N Smith wrote:
Baysider wrote:
N Smith wrote:
I actually find the windmills interesting to look at, rather have them than huge energy bills and being held to ransom by foreign countries.Get on and build them.
You do realise these things are one of the most, if not the most, expensive form of energy don't you? How is that going to reduce your bill?
More propaganda, we are going to be drilling under our houses soon, drilling deeper and deeper to get to the resources .It may not be cheaper now but in the near future it certainly will.Question would you rather have a nuclear power station on your doorstep.
Actually yes! They work and we are not in an earthquake zone so pose minimal danger. They provide an also limitless amount of energy regardless of wind or for that matter sun.
[quote][p][bold]N Smith[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Baysider[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]N Smith[/bold] wrote: I actually find the windmills interesting to look at, rather have them than huge energy bills and being held to ransom by foreign countries.Get on and build them.[/p][/quote]You do realise these things are one of the most, if not the most, expensive form of energy don't you? How is that going to reduce your bill?[/p][/quote]More propaganda, we are going to be drilling under our houses soon, drilling deeper and deeper to get to the resources .It may not be cheaper now but in the near future it certainly will.Question would you rather have a nuclear power station on your doorstep.[/p][/quote]Actually yes! They work and we are not in an earthquake zone so pose minimal danger. They provide an also limitless amount of energy regardless of wind or for that matter sun. jpwf
  • Score: 2

8:18pm Fri 20 Jun 14

Ophilum says...

Another nail in the coffin of the wind turbine industry conn. QUOTE
Although the RSPB is generally in favour of wind farms, it does acknowledge some of the damage that wind turbines can do to birds “The available evidence suggests that wind farms can harm birds.”
Some recent research may persuade the RSPB to review its general policies in more detail.
ICF International published a paper stating: “Prior to 2007, fatalities documented by wind company O&M … are biased low to an unknown degree, likely resulting in an underestimate of the reduction in both fatality rates and total APWRA-wide fatalities over time.”
The disturbing truth is that some are especially vulnerable, being catapulted by the blades of a wind turbine. Also, with their wings broken, the birds, unable to fly, walk away from the vicinity to die.
In Spain, the Spanish Ornithological Society (TSOS) estimates that the country’s 18,000 wind turbines cause between six and eighteen million bird deaths a year. This works out at an average of 333 to 1,000 birds per turbine.
The TSOS is backed up by a paper by Benner et al from 1993 that estimates deaths per turbine at “..309 in Germany and 895 in Sweden.”
Bats too seem at high risk from wind farms. A study by the University of Colorado suggested that 600,000 bats are killed annually by wind turbines. It is not only onshore as bats also fly to offshore wind farms in search of insects. The turbines draw in insects by the suction effect of the blades, which the bats dutifully follow. A bit like the political Elete.
Another nail in the coffin of the wind turbine industry conn. QUOTE Although the RSPB is generally in favour of wind farms, it does acknowledge some of the damage that wind turbines can do to birds “The available evidence suggests that wind farms can harm birds.” Some recent research may persuade the RSPB to review its general policies in more detail. ICF International published a paper stating: “Prior to 2007, fatalities documented by wind company O&M … are biased low to an unknown degree, likely resulting in an underestimate of the reduction in both fatality rates and total APWRA-wide fatalities over time.” The disturbing truth is that some are especially vulnerable, being catapulted by the blades of a wind turbine. Also, with their wings broken, the birds, unable to fly, walk away from the vicinity to die. In Spain, the Spanish Ornithological Society (TSOS) estimates that the country’s 18,000 wind turbines cause between six and eighteen million bird deaths a year. This works out at an average of 333 to 1,000 birds per turbine. The TSOS is backed up by a paper by Benner et al from 1993 that estimates deaths per turbine at “..309 in Germany and 895 in Sweden.” Bats too seem at high risk from wind farms. A study by the University of Colorado suggested that 600,000 bats are killed annually by wind turbines. It is not only onshore as bats also fly to offshore wind farms in search of insects. The turbines draw in insects by the suction effect of the blades, which the bats dutifully follow. A bit like the political Elete. Ophilum
  • Score: 2

5:01pm Mon 23 Jun 14

Dorset Logic says...

Ophilum wrote:
Another nail in the coffin of the wind turbine industry conn. QUOTE
Although the RSPB is generally in favour of wind farms, it does acknowledge some of the damage that wind turbines can do to birds “The available evidence suggests that wind farms can harm birds.”
Some recent research may persuade the RSPB to review its general policies in more detail.
ICF International published a paper stating: “Prior to 2007, fatalities documented by wind company O&M … are biased low to an unknown degree, likely resulting in an underestimate of the reduction in both fatality rates and total APWRA-wide fatalities over time.”
The disturbing truth is that some are especially vulnerable, being catapulted by the blades of a wind turbine. Also, with their wings broken, the birds, unable to fly, walk away from the vicinity to die.
In Spain, the Spanish Ornithological Society (TSOS) estimates that the country’s 18,000 wind turbines cause between six and eighteen million bird deaths a year. This works out at an average of 333 to 1,000 birds per turbine.
The TSOS is backed up by a paper by Benner et al from 1993 that estimates deaths per turbine at “..309 in Germany and 895 in Sweden.”
Bats too seem at high risk from wind farms. A study by the University of Colorado suggested that 600,000 bats are killed annually by wind turbines. It is not only onshore as bats also fly to offshore wind farms in search of insects. The turbines draw in insects by the suction effect of the blades, which the bats dutifully follow. A bit like the political Elete.
In Spain they shotgun sparrows and call it a successful hunt. The windmills are small fry.
[quote][p][bold]Ophilum[/bold] wrote: Another nail in the coffin of the wind turbine industry conn. QUOTE Although the RSPB is generally in favour of wind farms, it does acknowledge some of the damage that wind turbines can do to birds “The available evidence suggests that wind farms can harm birds.” Some recent research may persuade the RSPB to review its general policies in more detail. ICF International published a paper stating: “Prior to 2007, fatalities documented by wind company O&M … are biased low to an unknown degree, likely resulting in an underestimate of the reduction in both fatality rates and total APWRA-wide fatalities over time.” The disturbing truth is that some are especially vulnerable, being catapulted by the blades of a wind turbine. Also, with their wings broken, the birds, unable to fly, walk away from the vicinity to die. In Spain, the Spanish Ornithological Society (TSOS) estimates that the country’s 18,000 wind turbines cause between six and eighteen million bird deaths a year. This works out at an average of 333 to 1,000 birds per turbine. The TSOS is backed up by a paper by Benner et al from 1993 that estimates deaths per turbine at “..309 in Germany and 895 in Sweden.” Bats too seem at high risk from wind farms. A study by the University of Colorado suggested that 600,000 bats are killed annually by wind turbines. It is not only onshore as bats also fly to offshore wind farms in search of insects. The turbines draw in insects by the suction effect of the blades, which the bats dutifully follow. A bit like the political Elete.[/p][/quote]In Spain they shotgun sparrows and call it a successful hunt. The windmills are small fry. Dorset Logic
  • Score: 0

5:10pm Mon 23 Jun 14

Graham Rees says...

Do you want the lights to go out, when coal and nuclear power is at a minimum in about 2020? P'raps u should support closing down nuclear (dangerous?) and Coal/Fossil fuel (polluting). What is your answer solar?
Please supply response in 1 sentence.
Do you want the lights to go out, when coal and nuclear power is at a minimum in about 2020? P'raps u should support closing down nuclear (dangerous?) and Coal/Fossil fuel (polluting). What is your answer solar? Please supply response in 1 sentence. Graham Rees
  • Score: 1

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

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