Navitus Bay would damage Bournemouth's tourism and economy, council report says

Navitus Bay will be bad for Bournemouth, council report says

Navitus Bay will be bad for Bournemouth, council report says

First published in News
Last updated
by

A WIND farm off the Dorset coast would spell “huge” damage to Bournemouth’s environment and its economy, a report for the borough council has claimed.

The damning report will be submitted to the Examining Authority that will consider the Navitus Bay wind farm application.

Bournemouth Borough Council commissioned the study into the likely effects of plans for a maximum of 194 wind turbines up to 200 metres high, 13 miles from the coast of Bournemouth and Poole.

The Local Impact Report says there would be a negative impact on tourism and on the economy.

Noise during the building and operation would annoy residents and drive away visitors, it claims.

It also says construction could put water quality at risk off the town’s Blue Flag beaches and that migrating birds and bats could be at risk.

Bournemouth council held a public meeting on the plans in May.

Council leader Cllr John Beesley said: “Residents who attended our public meeting told us they are opposed to this wind farm, and now the report clearly shows that this proposal is bad for Bournemouth.

“The unequivocal evidence is that it will have a huge negative impact on our tourism economy, our residents and our environment.

“These are compelling reasons for us to object and, I hope, also convincing enough for the Planning Inspectorate to recommend refusal to the Secretary of State.”

He said Navitus’ own figures suggested 32 per cent of the resort’s seven million annual visitors would be put off coming to Bournemouth during the four-and-a-half year construction phase, with a long-term downturn of 14 per cent.

The report found any income from the project would be outweighed by the loss to the local economy.

Cllr Beesley added: “The beauty of the natural environment, and in particular the view from Bournemouth’s cliffs and seafront is the main attraction for visitors to Bournemouth. Any degree of industrialisation on this would have a negative impact on the resort and those looking to Bournemouth as a conference venue or an attractive place to study.”

Stuart Grant, senior project manager at Navitus Bay, said: “We have always said it is misleading and wrong to focus on single statistics taken from our own tourism impact survey – it is impossible to draw robust conclusions about the overall potential impact of the wind park using statistics in isolation.

“During the past five years, we have commissioned independent surveys, investigated other operational sites, and been advised by a variety of independent experts. The overall conclusion of this in-depth work was that the wind park will not have a significant impact on tourism in Dorset, Hampshire or Isle of Wight.

“We stand by this conclusion and remain committed to working with Bournemouth council to ensure the potential economic benefits of the project are realised locally.”

Comments (44)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

1:46pm Wed 23 Jul 14

twynham says...

Wind power producing just 2.4% of national demand.
http://www.gridwatch
.templar.co.uk/
Wind power producing just 2.4% of national demand. http://www.gridwatch .templar.co.uk/ twynham
  • Score: 29

2:05pm Wed 23 Jul 14

BarrHumbug says...

twynham wrote:
Wind power producing just 2.4% of national demand.
http://www.gridwatch

.templar.co.uk/
I wish the objectors would read that rather than harping on about tourism all the time.
I wonder if they have surveyed visitors to ask if they would be put off by the town centre being turned into building sites. That would certainly ruin my holiday far more so than the construction of a wind farm 12 miles out at sea!
[quote][p][bold]twynham[/bold] wrote: Wind power producing just 2.4% of national demand. http://www.gridwatch .templar.co.uk/[/p][/quote]I wish the objectors would read that rather than harping on about tourism all the time. I wonder if they have surveyed visitors to ask if they would be put off by the town centre being turned into building sites. That would certainly ruin my holiday far more so than the construction of a wind farm 12 miles out at sea! BarrHumbug
  • Score: 14

2:08pm Wed 23 Jul 14

muscliffman says...

Like all UK wind farms it will certainly be bad for Bournemouth residents own pockets.

This expensive 'green' toy like all the others will have be hugely subsidised whilst it produces a ridiculously small amount of useful electricity - and even that only when the wind is blowing.
Like all UK wind farms it will certainly be bad for Bournemouth residents own pockets. This expensive 'green' toy like all the others will have be hugely subsidised whilst it produces a ridiculously small amount of useful electricity - and even that only when the wind is blowing. muscliffman
  • Score: 15

2:24pm Wed 23 Jul 14

mooninpisces says...

muscliffman - have you ever stopped to consider the inconsistency in your (endlessly repeated) comment?

The 'subsidy' (the difference between the strike price and the market price) depends on the amount of electricity generated. If the amount generated is, as you put it, "ridiculously small" then the project won't be "hugely subsidised". The subsidy (spread over all UK consumers, not just Bournemouth residents) will only be large if there is a large amount of electricity being generated.
muscliffman - have you ever stopped to consider the inconsistency in your (endlessly repeated) comment? The 'subsidy' (the difference between the strike price and the market price) depends on the amount of electricity generated. If the amount generated is, as you put it, "ridiculously small" then the project won't be "hugely subsidised". The subsidy (spread over all UK consumers, not just Bournemouth residents) will only be large if there is a large amount of electricity being generated. mooninpisces
  • Score: -13

2:34pm Wed 23 Jul 14

Marty Caine UKIP says...

Well lets not worry too much about the site of 194 turbines that are over 40 m higher than the Blackpool Tower. My problem is the economics of the idea and no one can convince me this plan is worth the money it is going to cost.
Well lets not worry too much about the site of 194 turbines that are over 40 m higher than the Blackpool Tower. My problem is the economics of the idea and no one can convince me this plan is worth the money it is going to cost. Marty Caine UKIP
  • Score: 10

3:44pm Wed 23 Jul 14

bobsworthforever says...

Marty Caine UKIP wrote:
Well lets not worry too much about the site of 194 turbines that are over 40 m higher than the Blackpool Tower. My problem is the economics of the idea and no one can convince me this plan is worth the money it is going to cost.
Well sort of isn't Blackpool Tower on the sea front not 9 miles out to sea as for the economics of Wind Farms if they are contributing so little why are my own bills astronomic even allowing for green subsidies.As for the impact on tourism if its warm and sunny tourists flock here in great numbers if its cold and rainy they don't nothing to do with wind farms.How do I know this have I carried out a multi million pound survey no I haven't just had a look outside my front door its near the beach.
[quote][p][bold]Marty Caine UKIP[/bold] wrote: Well lets not worry too much about the site of 194 turbines that are over 40 m higher than the Blackpool Tower. My problem is the economics of the idea and no one can convince me this plan is worth the money it is going to cost.[/p][/quote]Well sort of isn't Blackpool Tower on the sea front not 9 miles out to sea as for the economics of Wind Farms if they are contributing so little why are my own bills astronomic even allowing for green subsidies.As for the impact on tourism if its warm and sunny tourists flock here in great numbers if its cold and rainy they don't nothing to do with wind farms.How do I know this have I carried out a multi million pound survey no I haven't just had a look outside my front door its near the beach. bobsworthforever
  • Score: -2

3:49pm Wed 23 Jul 14

BmthNewshound says...

Beesley and his colleagues have had far more of a negative impact on both the economy and environment of Bournemouth than Navitus ever will.
.
Beelsey and Bournemouth Tourism are using Navitus as a smoke screen to cover up Council failings in tackling the decline in the towns tourism industry which has been gaining momentum over past decades, long before Navitus was ever thought of.
.
What is putting off people visiting the resort is the lack of facilities, over zealous parking attendants, poor quality hotels and run down town centre.
.
If campaigners win and planning permission for Navitus is turned down I am confident to predict that unless there is some serious investment in visitor facilities the tourism industry in Bournemouth will continue to decline.
Beesley and his colleagues have had far more of a negative impact on both the economy and environment of Bournemouth than Navitus ever will. . Beelsey and Bournemouth Tourism are using Navitus as a smoke screen to cover up Council failings in tackling the decline in the towns tourism industry which has been gaining momentum over past decades, long before Navitus was ever thought of. . What is putting off people visiting the resort is the lack of facilities, over zealous parking attendants, poor quality hotels and run down town centre. . If campaigners win and planning permission for Navitus is turned down I am confident to predict that unless there is some serious investment in visitor facilities the tourism industry in Bournemouth will continue to decline. BmthNewshound
  • Score: 5

3:50pm Wed 23 Jul 14

Tripod says...

Another day another Navitus Bay scare story... YAWN
Another day another Navitus Bay scare story... YAWN Tripod
  • Score: -2

3:55pm Wed 23 Jul 14

muscliffman says...

mooninpisces wrote:
muscliffman - have you ever stopped to consider the inconsistency in your (endlessly repeated) comment?

The 'subsidy' (the difference between the strike price and the market price) depends on the amount of electricity generated. If the amount generated is, as you put it, "ridiculously small" then the project won't be "hugely subsidised". The subsidy (spread over all UK consumers, not just Bournemouth residents) will only be large if there is a large amount of electricity being generated.
Have you ever stopped to consider that you might be fanatically flogging a good as dead 'green' horse? And I am not going to change my mind to keep the comments more interesting either.

In my consistent view all the UK wind farm subsidy money would be far better spent building new conventional power stations of a type that do actually work properly. (Although I admire your unusual concept of inconsistent repeating........?)

And nowhere did I suggest Bournemouth residents would be especially out of pocket over Navitus - because we will share that burden with the whole of the UK as they share their wind farm costs with us.
[quote][p][bold]mooninpisces[/bold] wrote: muscliffman - have you ever stopped to consider the inconsistency in your (endlessly repeated) comment? The 'subsidy' (the difference between the strike price and the market price) depends on the amount of electricity generated. If the amount generated is, as you put it, "ridiculously small" then the project won't be "hugely subsidised". The subsidy (spread over all UK consumers, not just Bournemouth residents) will only be large if there is a large amount of electricity being generated.[/p][/quote]Have you ever stopped to consider that you might be fanatically flogging a good as dead 'green' horse? And I am not going to change my mind to keep the comments more interesting either. In my consistent view all the UK wind farm subsidy money would be far better spent building new conventional power stations of a type that do actually work properly. (Although I admire your unusual concept of inconsistent repeating........?) And nowhere did I suggest Bournemouth residents would be especially out of pocket over Navitus - because we will share that burden with the whole of the UK as they share their wind farm costs with us. muscliffman
  • Score: 12

5:46pm Wed 23 Jul 14

s-pb2 says...

Great news for Nauvitus.

With Bournemouth Council against it, this will mean that locals will be for it!
Great news for Nauvitus. With Bournemouth Council against it, this will mean that locals will be for it! s-pb2
  • Score: -15

6:03pm Wed 23 Jul 14

mooninpisces says...

muscliffman wrote:
mooninpisces wrote:
muscliffman - have you ever stopped to consider the inconsistency in your (endlessly repeated) comment?

The 'subsidy' (the difference between the strike price and the market price) depends on the amount of electricity generated. If the amount generated is, as you put it, "ridiculously small" then the project won't be "hugely subsidised". The subsidy (spread over all UK consumers, not just Bournemouth residents) will only be large if there is a large amount of electricity being generated.
Have you ever stopped to consider that you might be fanatically flogging a good as dead 'green' horse? And I am not going to change my mind to keep the comments more interesting either.

In my consistent view all the UK wind farm subsidy money would be far better spent building new conventional power stations of a type that do actually work properly. (Although I admire your unusual concept of inconsistent repeating........?)

And nowhere did I suggest Bournemouth residents would be especially out of pocket over Navitus - because we will share that burden with the whole of the UK as they share their wind farm costs with us.
On one thing we can agree - you have been consistent in repeating the same inconsistent statement. It doesn't matter if you're referring to all UK wind farms, or just Navitus Bay. Either way, if the electricity generated is "ridiculously small", it cannot be "hugely subsidised." And if it is "hugely subsidised" it cannot be "ridiculously small."
[quote][p][bold]muscliffman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]mooninpisces[/bold] wrote: muscliffman - have you ever stopped to consider the inconsistency in your (endlessly repeated) comment? The 'subsidy' (the difference between the strike price and the market price) depends on the amount of electricity generated. If the amount generated is, as you put it, "ridiculously small" then the project won't be "hugely subsidised". The subsidy (spread over all UK consumers, not just Bournemouth residents) will only be large if there is a large amount of electricity being generated.[/p][/quote]Have you ever stopped to consider that you might be fanatically flogging a good as dead 'green' horse? And I am not going to change my mind to keep the comments more interesting either. In my consistent view all the UK wind farm subsidy money would be far better spent building new conventional power stations of a type that do actually work properly. (Although I admire your unusual concept of inconsistent repeating........?) And nowhere did I suggest Bournemouth residents would be especially out of pocket over Navitus - because we will share that burden with the whole of the UK as they share their wind farm costs with us.[/p][/quote]On one thing we can agree - you have been consistent in repeating the same inconsistent statement. It doesn't matter if you're referring to all UK wind farms, or just Navitus Bay. Either way, if the electricity generated is "ridiculously small", it cannot be "hugely subsidised." And if it is "hugely subsidised" it cannot be "ridiculously small." mooninpisces
  • Score: -22

6:04pm Wed 23 Jul 14

Tripod says...

Elsewhere in this country, existing Off-Shore Wind Farms have become real havens for marine Wildlife (Seals etc.), it's called the Reef Effect; if it was managed properly and the tourist industry dug their collection heads out of the sand on Bournemouth Beach it could prove to be a real tourism boom for this area.
Elsewhere in this country, existing Off-Shore Wind Farms have become real havens for marine Wildlife (Seals etc.), it's called the Reef Effect; if it was managed properly and the tourist industry dug their collection heads out of the sand on Bournemouth Beach it could prove to be a real tourism boom for this area. Tripod
  • Score: -5

6:15pm Wed 23 Jul 14

adspacebroker says...

Bournemouth Council are an absolute joke! You will hardly notice the turbines from Bournemouth...unless you look hard.....and even then they will be insignificant. As for the construction noise....what on earth are you basing that poppycock on? The economic impact on the area will of course be MASSIVE!!! Lots of jobs in the construction and supply chain, lots of money being paid to workers who live in the area either permanently or temporarily....and guess what, they will need local shops and businesses to be able to spend it! For goodness sake wake up!!!
Bournemouth Council are an absolute joke! You will hardly notice the turbines from Bournemouth...unless you look hard.....and even then they will be insignificant. As for the construction noise....what on earth are you basing that poppycock on? The economic impact on the area will of course be MASSIVE!!! Lots of jobs in the construction and supply chain, lots of money being paid to workers who live in the area either permanently or temporarily....and guess what, they will need local shops and businesses to be able to spend it! For goodness sake wake up!!! adspacebroker
  • Score: -11

6:47pm Wed 23 Jul 14

Goldbar says...

Cllr Beesley talking out of his A*rse as always.

Definately a village missing their idiot with that bloke.
Cllr Beesley talking out of his A*rse as always. Definately a village missing their idiot with that bloke. Goldbar
  • Score: -8

6:54pm Wed 23 Jul 14

Marty Caine UKIP says...

adspacebroker wrote:
Bournemouth Council are an absolute joke! You will hardly notice the turbines from Bournemouth...unless you look hard.....and even then they will be insignificant. As for the construction noise....what on earth are you basing that poppycock on? The economic impact on the area will of course be MASSIVE!!! Lots of jobs in the construction and supply chain, lots of money being paid to workers who live in the area either permanently or temporarily....and guess what, they will need local shops and businesses to be able to spend it! For goodness sake wake up!!!
I thought someone like you would be far more concerned about the 3,000 trees they intend to chop down, 3k less to hug there
[quote][p][bold]adspacebroker[/bold] wrote: Bournemouth Council are an absolute joke! You will hardly notice the turbines from Bournemouth...unless you look hard.....and even then they will be insignificant. As for the construction noise....what on earth are you basing that poppycock on? The economic impact on the area will of course be MASSIVE!!! Lots of jobs in the construction and supply chain, lots of money being paid to workers who live in the area either permanently or temporarily....and guess what, they will need local shops and businesses to be able to spend it! For goodness sake wake up!!![/p][/quote]I thought someone like you would be far more concerned about the 3,000 trees they intend to chop down, 3k less to hug there Marty Caine UKIP
  • Score: 13

6:57pm Wed 23 Jul 14

Marty Caine UKIP says...

mooninpisces wrote:
muscliffman - have you ever stopped to consider the inconsistency in your (endlessly repeated) comment?

The 'subsidy' (the difference between the strike price and the market price) depends on the amount of electricity generated. If the amount generated is, as you put it, "ridiculously small" then the project won't be "hugely subsidised". The subsidy (spread over all UK consumers, not just Bournemouth residents) will only be large if there is a large amount of electricity being generated.
Let me ask you one simply question, do you think we should be paying foreign companies for our energy. Yes or No
[quote][p][bold]mooninpisces[/bold] wrote: muscliffman - have you ever stopped to consider the inconsistency in your (endlessly repeated) comment? The 'subsidy' (the difference between the strike price and the market price) depends on the amount of electricity generated. If the amount generated is, as you put it, "ridiculously small" then the project won't be "hugely subsidised". The subsidy (spread over all UK consumers, not just Bournemouth residents) will only be large if there is a large amount of electricity being generated.[/p][/quote]Let me ask you one simply question, do you think we should be paying foreign companies for our energy. Yes or No Marty Caine UKIP
  • Score: 13

7:13pm Wed 23 Jul 14

Townee says...

Well I didn't think the report would say anything in favour because the council was paying for it. They would have thrown their toys out of the pram if the report was positive and they paid for it (sorry we paid for it and I was t asked if I wanted them to spend my money on a waste of time).
Well I didn't think the report would say anything in favour because the council was paying for it. They would have thrown their toys out of the pram if the report was positive and they paid for it (sorry we paid for it and I was t asked if I wanted them to spend my money on a waste of time). Townee
  • Score: -12

7:33pm Wed 23 Jul 14

mudeford7 says...

The Council are trying to say it will effect the tourist trade . I dont see how they will be 13 miles away, probably not be able to see them.They might even be a Tourist attraction
The Council are trying to say it will effect the tourist trade . I dont see how they will be 13 miles away, probably not be able to see them.They might even be a Tourist attraction mudeford7
  • Score: -7

7:58pm Wed 23 Jul 14

Marty Caine UKIP says...

mudeford7 wrote:
The Council are trying to say it will effect the tourist trade . I dont see how they will be 13 miles away, probably not be able to see them.They might even be a Tourist attraction
They have to build them first and that is a five year building project, do you seriously think that turbines the size of the Gherkin building in London are going to get dropped off by helicopter? Of course it is going to be detrimental to the tourist trade over that 5 year period and if anyone says differently that are lying to you.
[quote][p][bold]mudeford7[/bold] wrote: The Council are trying to say it will effect the tourist trade . I dont see how they will be 13 miles away, probably not be able to see them.They might even be a Tourist attraction[/p][/quote]They have to build them first and that is a five year building project, do you seriously think that turbines the size of the Gherkin building in London are going to get dropped off by helicopter? Of course it is going to be detrimental to the tourist trade over that 5 year period and if anyone says differently that are lying to you. Marty Caine UKIP
  • Score: 3

8:02pm Wed 23 Jul 14

mooninpisces says...

Marty Caine UKIP wrote:
mooninpisces wrote:
muscliffman - have you ever stopped to consider the inconsistency in your (endlessly repeated) comment?

The 'subsidy' (the difference between the strike price and the market price) depends on the amount of electricity generated. If the amount generated is, as you put it, "ridiculously small" then the project won't be "hugely subsidised". The subsidy (spread over all UK consumers, not just Bournemouth residents) will only be large if there is a large amount of electricity being generated.
Let me ask you one simply question, do you think we should be paying foreign companies for our energy. Yes or No
I'm not sure what your question has to do with muscliffman's inconsistency, or the Echo article for that matter.

But the answer is no, I don't think we should be paying foreign companies for our energy. My supplier, Good Energy, is 100% British, and sourced with 100% British energy. But you probably would object to that because it's renewable energy. There are plenty of other UK suppliers - Ecotricity, for example. But then that's mainly renewable, too. For your preferred fossil fuel or nuclear generation, four of the Big Six are foreign owned, I'm afraid. But that's your choice.
[quote][p][bold]Marty Caine UKIP[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]mooninpisces[/bold] wrote: muscliffman - have you ever stopped to consider the inconsistency in your (endlessly repeated) comment? The 'subsidy' (the difference between the strike price and the market price) depends on the amount of electricity generated. If the amount generated is, as you put it, "ridiculously small" then the project won't be "hugely subsidised". The subsidy (spread over all UK consumers, not just Bournemouth residents) will only be large if there is a large amount of electricity being generated.[/p][/quote]Let me ask you one simply question, do you think we should be paying foreign companies for our energy. Yes or No[/p][/quote]I'm not sure what your question has to do with muscliffman's inconsistency, or the Echo article for that matter. But the answer is no, I don't think we should be paying foreign companies for our energy. My supplier, Good Energy, is 100% British, and sourced with 100% British energy. But you probably would object to that because it's renewable energy. There are plenty of other UK suppliers - Ecotricity, for example. But then that's mainly renewable, too. For your preferred fossil fuel or nuclear generation, four of the Big Six are foreign owned, I'm afraid. But that's your choice. mooninpisces
  • Score: -14

8:04pm Wed 23 Jul 14

cunone says...

13 miles off shore so on the distant horizon and so not exactly a major visual impact and if you can hear them from this distance well done. It may not be the answer to future needs but like all new technology it will be improved upon.
Certainly better than relying on oil and the noise from the oil extraction from Poole Harbour and that does not put tourists off.
If you have ever been up the North Sea you will see a couple of wind farms and they look great
13 miles off shore so on the distant horizon and so not exactly a major visual impact and if you can hear them from this distance well done. It may not be the answer to future needs but like all new technology it will be improved upon. Certainly better than relying on oil and the noise from the oil extraction from Poole Harbour and that does not put tourists off. If you have ever been up the North Sea you will see a couple of wind farms and they look great cunone
  • Score: -2

8:06pm Wed 23 Jul 14

justme20092009 says...

the ones moaning will just move to something else when this is sorted,,fools should get a life
the ones moaning will just move to something else when this is sorted,,fools should get a life justme20092009
  • Score: -4

8:21pm Wed 23 Jul 14

Marty Caine UKIP says...

mooninpisces wrote:
Marty Caine UKIP wrote:
mooninpisces wrote:
muscliffman - have you ever stopped to consider the inconsistency in your (endlessly repeated) comment?

The 'subsidy' (the difference between the strike price and the market price) depends on the amount of electricity generated. If the amount generated is, as you put it, "ridiculously small" then the project won't be "hugely subsidised". The subsidy (spread over all UK consumers, not just Bournemouth residents) will only be large if there is a large amount of electricity being generated.
Let me ask you one simply question, do you think we should be paying foreign companies for our energy. Yes or No
I'm not sure what your question has to do with muscliffman's inconsistency, or the Echo article for that matter.

But the answer is no, I don't think we should be paying foreign companies for our energy. My supplier, Good Energy, is 100% British, and sourced with 100% British energy. But you probably would object to that because it's renewable energy. There are plenty of other UK suppliers - Ecotricity, for example. But then that's mainly renewable, too. For your preferred fossil fuel or nuclear generation, four of the Big Six are foreign owned, I'm afraid. But that's your choice.
Well if Good Energy can supply us all with renewable energy now, why do we need Navitus Bay ? A French/Dutch conglomerate that will be being subsidised by the British taxpayers just so they can sell us energy. Even you should be able to see that is not the smartest idea in the world but then again maybe not.
[quote][p][bold]mooninpisces[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Marty Caine UKIP[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]mooninpisces[/bold] wrote: muscliffman - have you ever stopped to consider the inconsistency in your (endlessly repeated) comment? The 'subsidy' (the difference between the strike price and the market price) depends on the amount of electricity generated. If the amount generated is, as you put it, "ridiculously small" then the project won't be "hugely subsidised". The subsidy (spread over all UK consumers, not just Bournemouth residents) will only be large if there is a large amount of electricity being generated.[/p][/quote]Let me ask you one simply question, do you think we should be paying foreign companies for our energy. Yes or No[/p][/quote]I'm not sure what your question has to do with muscliffman's inconsistency, or the Echo article for that matter. But the answer is no, I don't think we should be paying foreign companies for our energy. My supplier, Good Energy, is 100% British, and sourced with 100% British energy. But you probably would object to that because it's renewable energy. There are plenty of other UK suppliers - Ecotricity, for example. But then that's mainly renewable, too. For your preferred fossil fuel or nuclear generation, four of the Big Six are foreign owned, I'm afraid. But that's your choice.[/p][/quote]Well if Good Energy can supply us all with renewable energy now, why do we need Navitus Bay ? A French/Dutch conglomerate that will be being subsidised by the British taxpayers just so they can sell us energy. Even you should be able to see that is not the smartest idea in the world but then again maybe not. Marty Caine UKIP
  • Score: 8

8:27pm Wed 23 Jul 14

MJA123 says...

twynham wrote:
Wind power producing just 2.4% of national demand.
http://www.gridwatch

.templar.co.uk/
This is a good thing isn't it? 2% sounds pretty good. One day hopefully this will be into the teens and beyond. Anyone know what the govt target is?
[quote][p][bold]twynham[/bold] wrote: Wind power producing just 2.4% of national demand. http://www.gridwatch .templar.co.uk/[/p][/quote]This is a good thing isn't it? 2% sounds pretty good. One day hopefully this will be into the teens and beyond. Anyone know what the govt target is? MJA123
  • Score: -5

8:46pm Wed 23 Jul 14

adspacebroker says...

Marty Caine UKIP wrote:
adspacebroker wrote:
Bournemouth Council are an absolute joke! You will hardly notice the turbines from Bournemouth...unless you look hard.....and even then they will be insignificant. As for the construction noise....what on earth are you basing that poppycock on? The economic impact on the area will of course be MASSIVE!!! Lots of jobs in the construction and supply chain, lots of money being paid to workers who live in the area either permanently or temporarily....and guess what, they will need local shops and businesses to be able to spend it! For goodness sake wake up!!!
I thought someone like you would be far more concerned about the 3,000 trees they intend to chop down, 3k less to hug there
Indeed I am concerned about 3,000 trees, thats why they are going to be replanted. I judge by your answer that you indeed acknowledge the hugely positive impact that this project will have on the local economy in terms of finance and local employment thus reducing the impact on the taxpayer in other ways.
[quote][p][bold]Marty Caine UKIP[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]adspacebroker[/bold] wrote: Bournemouth Council are an absolute joke! You will hardly notice the turbines from Bournemouth...unless you look hard.....and even then they will be insignificant. As for the construction noise....what on earth are you basing that poppycock on? The economic impact on the area will of course be MASSIVE!!! Lots of jobs in the construction and supply chain, lots of money being paid to workers who live in the area either permanently or temporarily....and guess what, they will need local shops and businesses to be able to spend it! For goodness sake wake up!!![/p][/quote]I thought someone like you would be far more concerned about the 3,000 trees they intend to chop down, 3k less to hug there[/p][/quote]Indeed I am concerned about 3,000 trees, thats why they are going to be replanted. I judge by your answer that you indeed acknowledge the hugely positive impact that this project will have on the local economy in terms of finance and local employment thus reducing the impact on the taxpayer in other ways. adspacebroker
  • Score: -5

9:27pm Wed 23 Jul 14

Marty Caine UKIP says...

adspacebroker wrote:
Marty Caine UKIP wrote:
adspacebroker wrote:
Bournemouth Council are an absolute joke! You will hardly notice the turbines from Bournemouth...unless you look hard.....and even then they will be insignificant. As for the construction noise....what on earth are you basing that poppycock on? The economic impact on the area will of course be MASSIVE!!! Lots of jobs in the construction and supply chain, lots of money being paid to workers who live in the area either permanently or temporarily....and guess what, they will need local shops and businesses to be able to spend it! For goodness sake wake up!!!
I thought someone like you would be far more concerned about the 3,000 trees they intend to chop down, 3k less to hug there
Indeed I am concerned about 3,000 trees, thats why they are going to be replanted. I judge by your answer that you indeed acknowledge the hugely positive impact that this project will have on the local economy in terms of finance and local employment thus reducing the impact on the taxpayer in other ways.
The you judge wrong, this is of no economic benefit whatsoever. It will have a detrimental effect on the tourist trade for 5 years but it will probably be longer, it will have to be subsidised massively by the taxpayers and the final out come is it will not produce enough energy for our needs. Which is clearly apparent when you look at America who ditched wind for fracking. Most sensible people learn from mistakes others make, unfortunately not all people are sensible are they.

Thanks for the tree comment though, next time some tree hugger start shouts about trees being chopped down I can now simply say thats ok they will just plant some more.

After all whats 3,000 Co2 eating trees going to do to the imaginary footprint anyway.
[quote][p][bold]adspacebroker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Marty Caine UKIP[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]adspacebroker[/bold] wrote: Bournemouth Council are an absolute joke! You will hardly notice the turbines from Bournemouth...unless you look hard.....and even then they will be insignificant. As for the construction noise....what on earth are you basing that poppycock on? The economic impact on the area will of course be MASSIVE!!! Lots of jobs in the construction and supply chain, lots of money being paid to workers who live in the area either permanently or temporarily....and guess what, they will need local shops and businesses to be able to spend it! For goodness sake wake up!!![/p][/quote]I thought someone like you would be far more concerned about the 3,000 trees they intend to chop down, 3k less to hug there[/p][/quote]Indeed I am concerned about 3,000 trees, thats why they are going to be replanted. I judge by your answer that you indeed acknowledge the hugely positive impact that this project will have on the local economy in terms of finance and local employment thus reducing the impact on the taxpayer in other ways.[/p][/quote]The you judge wrong, this is of no economic benefit whatsoever. It will have a detrimental effect on the tourist trade for 5 years but it will probably be longer, it will have to be subsidised massively by the taxpayers and the final out come is it will not produce enough energy for our needs. Which is clearly apparent when you look at America who ditched wind for fracking. Most sensible people learn from mistakes others make, unfortunately not all people are sensible are they. Thanks for the tree comment though, next time some tree hugger start shouts about trees being chopped down I can now simply say thats ok they will just plant some more. After all whats 3,000 Co2 eating trees going to do to the imaginary footprint anyway. Marty Caine UKIP
  • Score: 4

9:35pm Wed 23 Jul 14

yet_another_one says...

BmthNewshound wrote:
Beesley and his colleagues have had far more of a negative impact on both the economy and environment of Bournemouth than Navitus ever will.
.
Beelsey and Bournemouth Tourism are using Navitus as a smoke screen to cover up Council failings in tackling the decline in the towns tourism industry which has been gaining momentum over past decades, long before Navitus was ever thought of.
.
What is putting off people visiting the resort is the lack of facilities, over zealous parking attendants, poor quality hotels and run down town centre.
.
If campaigners win and planning permission for Navitus is turned down I am confident to predict that unless there is some serious investment in visitor facilities the tourism industry in Bournemouth will continue to decline.
Absolutely - well said.
All these NIMBY's should realise that Navitus Bay will contribute to energy generation using natural resource & not support national demand all by itself - period. How stupid can some people be ?
If all these objectors have it their way & Navitus does not go ahead, you would expect those who supposedly support our tourist industry to raise questions in their own minds WHY would the area not agree to contribute - the answer is all too obvious I'm afraid.
As for the spectacle of all these wind turbines - they will be so majestic & so very far off shore - most would not notice them after a short while just as those who live near Heathrow are oblivious to the planes taking off & landing.
[quote][p][bold]BmthNewshound[/bold] wrote: Beesley and his colleagues have had far more of a negative impact on both the economy and environment of Bournemouth than Navitus ever will. . Beelsey and Bournemouth Tourism are using Navitus as a smoke screen to cover up Council failings in tackling the decline in the towns tourism industry which has been gaining momentum over past decades, long before Navitus was ever thought of. . What is putting off people visiting the resort is the lack of facilities, over zealous parking attendants, poor quality hotels and run down town centre. . If campaigners win and planning permission for Navitus is turned down I am confident to predict that unless there is some serious investment in visitor facilities the tourism industry in Bournemouth will continue to decline.[/p][/quote]Absolutely - well said. All these NIMBY's should realise that Navitus Bay will contribute to energy generation using natural resource & not support national demand all by itself - period. How stupid can some people be ? If all these objectors have it their way & Navitus does not go ahead, you would expect those who supposedly support our tourist industry to raise questions in their own minds WHY would the area not agree to contribute - the answer is all too obvious I'm afraid. As for the spectacle of all these wind turbines - they will be so majestic & so very far off shore - most would not notice them after a short while just as those who live near Heathrow are oblivious to the planes taking off & landing. yet_another_one
  • Score: -3

9:43pm Wed 23 Jul 14

yet_another_one says...

cunone wrote:
13 miles off shore so on the distant horizon and so not exactly a major visual impact and if you can hear them from this distance well done. It may not be the answer to future needs but like all new technology it will be improved upon.
Certainly better than relying on oil and the noise from the oil extraction from Poole Harbour and that does not put tourists off.
If you have ever been up the North Sea you will see a couple of wind farms and they look great
They look majestic & people should celebrate the achievement of such things rather than be swayed by all arguments from the NIMBY's.
[quote][p][bold]cunone[/bold] wrote: 13 miles off shore so on the distant horizon and so not exactly a major visual impact and if you can hear them from this distance well done. It may not be the answer to future needs but like all new technology it will be improved upon. Certainly better than relying on oil and the noise from the oil extraction from Poole Harbour and that does not put tourists off. If you have ever been up the North Sea you will see a couple of wind farms and they look great[/p][/quote]They look majestic & people should celebrate the achievement of such things rather than be swayed by all arguments from the NIMBY's. yet_another_one
  • Score: -4

9:47pm Wed 23 Jul 14

yet_another_one says...

mooninpisces wrote:
Marty Caine UKIP wrote:
mooninpisces wrote:
muscliffman - have you ever stopped to consider the inconsistency in your (endlessly repeated) comment?

The 'subsidy' (the difference between the strike price and the market price) depends on the amount of electricity generated. If the amount generated is, as you put it, "ridiculously small" then the project won't be "hugely subsidised". The subsidy (spread over all UK consumers, not just Bournemouth residents) will only be large if there is a large amount of electricity being generated.
Let me ask you one simply question, do you think we should be paying foreign companies for our energy. Yes or No
I'm not sure what your question has to do with muscliffman's inconsistency, or the Echo article for that matter.

But the answer is no, I don't think we should be paying foreign companies for our energy. My supplier, Good Energy, is 100% British, and sourced with 100% British energy. But you probably would object to that because it's renewable energy. There are plenty of other UK suppliers - Ecotricity, for example. But then that's mainly renewable, too. For your preferred fossil fuel or nuclear generation, four of the Big Six are foreign owned, I'm afraid. But that's your choice.
Let's face it, this country has sold most of its assets to foreign investors - WHY? because UK investors seem shy to stick their necks out & that is a big problem this country faces.
[quote][p][bold]mooninpisces[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Marty Caine UKIP[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]mooninpisces[/bold] wrote: muscliffman - have you ever stopped to consider the inconsistency in your (endlessly repeated) comment? The 'subsidy' (the difference between the strike price and the market price) depends on the amount of electricity generated. If the amount generated is, as you put it, "ridiculously small" then the project won't be "hugely subsidised". The subsidy (spread over all UK consumers, not just Bournemouth residents) will only be large if there is a large amount of electricity being generated.[/p][/quote]Let me ask you one simply question, do you think we should be paying foreign companies for our energy. Yes or No[/p][/quote]I'm not sure what your question has to do with muscliffman's inconsistency, or the Echo article for that matter. But the answer is no, I don't think we should be paying foreign companies for our energy. My supplier, Good Energy, is 100% British, and sourced with 100% British energy. But you probably would object to that because it's renewable energy. There are plenty of other UK suppliers - Ecotricity, for example. But then that's mainly renewable, too. For your preferred fossil fuel or nuclear generation, four of the Big Six are foreign owned, I'm afraid. But that's your choice.[/p][/quote]Let's face it, this country has sold most of its assets to foreign investors - WHY? because UK investors seem shy to stick their necks out & that is a big problem this country faces. yet_another_one
  • Score: -11

9:53pm Wed 23 Jul 14

yet_another_one says...

Marty Caine UKIP wrote:
mudeford7 wrote:
The Council are trying to say it will effect the tourist trade . I dont see how they will be 13 miles away, probably not be able to see them.They might even be a Tourist attraction
They have to build them first and that is a five year building project, do you seriously think that turbines the size of the Gherkin building in London are going to get dropped off by helicopter? Of course it is going to be detrimental to the tourist trade over that 5 year period and if anyone says differently that are lying to you.
You are a joke & a serious problem to UKIP - move on, let us move onward & upward instead of sitting on our own backsides.
C'mon people, get real.
[quote][p][bold]Marty Caine UKIP[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]mudeford7[/bold] wrote: The Council are trying to say it will effect the tourist trade . I dont see how they will be 13 miles away, probably not be able to see them.They might even be a Tourist attraction[/p][/quote]They have to build them first and that is a five year building project, do you seriously think that turbines the size of the Gherkin building in London are going to get dropped off by helicopter? Of course it is going to be detrimental to the tourist trade over that 5 year period and if anyone says differently that are lying to you.[/p][/quote]You are a joke & a serious problem to UKIP - move on, let us move onward & upward instead of sitting on our own backsides. C'mon people, get real. yet_another_one
  • Score: -9

10:02pm Wed 23 Jul 14

Marty Caine UKIP says...

yet_another_one wrote:
Marty Caine UKIP wrote:
mudeford7 wrote:
The Council are trying to say it will effect the tourist trade . I dont see how they will be 13 miles away, probably not be able to see them.They might even be a Tourist attraction
They have to build them first and that is a five year building project, do you seriously think that turbines the size of the Gherkin building in London are going to get dropped off by helicopter? Of course it is going to be detrimental to the tourist trade over that 5 year period and if anyone says differently that are lying to you.
You are a joke & a serious problem to UKIP - move on, let us move onward & upward instead of sitting on our own backsides.
C'mon people, get real.
I think you should know that being slagged off by someone who does not even have the conviction to post comments under their own name only amuses me - keep up the good work.
[quote][p][bold]yet_another_one[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Marty Caine UKIP[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]mudeford7[/bold] wrote: The Council are trying to say it will effect the tourist trade . I dont see how they will be 13 miles away, probably not be able to see them.They might even be a Tourist attraction[/p][/quote]They have to build them first and that is a five year building project, do you seriously think that turbines the size of the Gherkin building in London are going to get dropped off by helicopter? Of course it is going to be detrimental to the tourist trade over that 5 year period and if anyone says differently that are lying to you.[/p][/quote]You are a joke & a serious problem to UKIP - move on, let us move onward & upward instead of sitting on our own backsides. C'mon people, get real.[/p][/quote]I think you should know that being slagged off by someone who does not even have the conviction to post comments under their own name only amuses me - keep up the good work. Marty Caine UKIP
  • Score: 8

10:32pm Wed 23 Jul 14

surfer75 says...

vote against the wind farm so that the frackers are free to move in right? See what tourism is left after THAT! I'll take wind turbines any day!
vote against the wind farm so that the frackers are free to move in right? See what tourism is left after THAT! I'll take wind turbines any day! surfer75
  • Score: -5

10:36pm Wed 23 Jul 14

mooninpisces says...

yet_another_one wrote:
mooninpisces wrote:
Marty Caine UKIP wrote:
mooninpisces wrote:
muscliffman - have you ever stopped to consider the inconsistency in your (endlessly repeated) comment?

The 'subsidy' (the difference between the strike price and the market price) depends on the amount of electricity generated. If the amount generated is, as you put it, "ridiculously small" then the project won't be "hugely subsidised". The subsidy (spread over all UK consumers, not just Bournemouth residents) will only be large if there is a large amount of electricity being generated.
Let me ask you one simply question, do you think we should be paying foreign companies for our energy. Yes or No
I'm not sure what your question has to do with muscliffman's inconsistency, or the Echo article for that matter.

But the answer is no, I don't think we should be paying foreign companies for our energy. My supplier, Good Energy, is 100% British, and sourced with 100% British energy. But you probably would object to that because it's renewable energy. There are plenty of other UK suppliers - Ecotricity, for example. But then that's mainly renewable, too. For your preferred fossil fuel or nuclear generation, four of the Big Six are foreign owned, I'm afraid. But that's your choice.
Let's face it, this country has sold most of its assets to foreign investors - WHY? because UK investors seem shy to stick their necks out & that is a big problem this country faces.
Absolutely. Did any British company bid to develop Navitus Bay? And if so why was its bid not successful?

The climate is not affected by who owns a wind farm, or a nuclear power station, or a coal-fired power station, or a fracking rig. What does affect it is whether the source is low-carbon or a fossil fuel.

If MC UKIP is sincere in wanting his electricity from a British source, he could switch to Good Energy or Ecotricity. That would expand renewable capacity, and, incidentally, make the need for development of offshore wind less acute. But his preferred fossil fuel and nuclear sources are mainly foreign owned, and burn resources that mainly come from abroad. So what does a dedicated follower of UKIP do? Does opposition to foreign suppliers trump opposition to renewable energy? Or, as would appear, is it the other way round?
[quote][p][bold]yet_another_one[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]mooninpisces[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Marty Caine UKIP[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]mooninpisces[/bold] wrote: muscliffman - have you ever stopped to consider the inconsistency in your (endlessly repeated) comment? The 'subsidy' (the difference between the strike price and the market price) depends on the amount of electricity generated. If the amount generated is, as you put it, "ridiculously small" then the project won't be "hugely subsidised". The subsidy (spread over all UK consumers, not just Bournemouth residents) will only be large if there is a large amount of electricity being generated.[/p][/quote]Let me ask you one simply question, do you think we should be paying foreign companies for our energy. Yes or No[/p][/quote]I'm not sure what your question has to do with muscliffman's inconsistency, or the Echo article for that matter. But the answer is no, I don't think we should be paying foreign companies for our energy. My supplier, Good Energy, is 100% British, and sourced with 100% British energy. But you probably would object to that because it's renewable energy. There are plenty of other UK suppliers - Ecotricity, for example. But then that's mainly renewable, too. For your preferred fossil fuel or nuclear generation, four of the Big Six are foreign owned, I'm afraid. But that's your choice.[/p][/quote]Let's face it, this country has sold most of its assets to foreign investors - WHY? because UK investors seem shy to stick their necks out & that is a big problem this country faces.[/p][/quote]Absolutely. Did any British company bid to develop Navitus Bay? And if so why was its bid not successful? The climate is not affected by who owns a wind farm, or a nuclear power station, or a coal-fired power station, or a fracking rig. What does affect it is whether the source is low-carbon or a fossil fuel. If MC UKIP is sincere in wanting his electricity from a British source, he could switch to Good Energy or Ecotricity. That would expand renewable capacity, and, incidentally, make the need for development of offshore wind less acute. But his preferred fossil fuel and nuclear sources are mainly foreign owned, and burn resources that mainly come from abroad. So what does a dedicated follower of UKIP do? Does opposition to foreign suppliers trump opposition to renewable energy? Or, as would appear, is it the other way round? mooninpisces
  • Score: -11

10:39pm Wed 23 Jul 14

Marty Caine UKIP says...

surfer75 wrote:
vote against the wind farm so that the frackers are free to move in right? See what tourism is left after THAT! I'll take wind turbines any day!
I guess you are just one of those people that have no idea that Wytch Farm has been fracking for over 20 years without any problems whatsoever.
[quote][p][bold]surfer75[/bold] wrote: vote against the wind farm so that the frackers are free to move in right? See what tourism is left after THAT! I'll take wind turbines any day![/p][/quote]I guess you are just one of those people that have no idea that Wytch Farm has been fracking for over 20 years without any problems whatsoever. Marty Caine UKIP
  • Score: 6

11:30pm Wed 23 Jul 14

mooninpisces says...

I've lost count of the number of times MC UKIP has made this misleading comment about Wytch Farm.

As Wytch Farm's operators, Perenco (oh dear, they're French, but never mind) have made clear, what they have practiced is low-pressure stimulation to enhance recovery of oil. That is not the same as the high-pressure fracturing to extract shale gas from low-permeability rock which is the cause of so much current concern, and which appears to be the centrepiece of UKIP's energy policy.
I've lost count of the number of times MC UKIP has made this misleading comment about Wytch Farm. As Wytch Farm's operators, Perenco (oh dear, they're French, but never mind) have made clear, what they have practiced is low-pressure stimulation to enhance recovery of oil. That is not the same as the high-pressure fracturing to extract shale gas from low-permeability rock which is the cause of so much current concern, and which appears to be the centrepiece of UKIP's energy policy. mooninpisces
  • Score: -12

11:42pm Wed 23 Jul 14

Marty Caine UKIP says...

mooninpisces wrote:
I've lost count of the number of times MC UKIP has made this misleading comment about Wytch Farm.

As Wytch Farm's operators, Perenco (oh dear, they're French, but never mind) have made clear, what they have practiced is low-pressure stimulation to enhance recovery of oil. That is not the same as the high-pressure fracturing to extract shale gas from low-permeability rock which is the cause of so much current concern, and which appears to be the centrepiece of UKIP's energy policy.
And I have lost count of the number of times I have told you to Google 'Wytch Farm Fracking'. Go on MiP give it a go, just to amuse me ;)

Now can you give me some examples of modern day fracking methods that we should be concerned about, or do you simply expect me to believe the same scaremongering Green party BS that you do ?
[quote][p][bold]mooninpisces[/bold] wrote: I've lost count of the number of times MC UKIP has made this misleading comment about Wytch Farm. As Wytch Farm's operators, Perenco (oh dear, they're French, but never mind) have made clear, what they have practiced is low-pressure stimulation to enhance recovery of oil. That is not the same as the high-pressure fracturing to extract shale gas from low-permeability rock which is the cause of so much current concern, and which appears to be the centrepiece of UKIP's energy policy.[/p][/quote]And I have lost count of the number of times I have told you to Google 'Wytch Farm Fracking'. Go on MiP give it a go, just to amuse me ;) Now can you give me some examples of modern day fracking methods that we should be concerned about, or do you simply expect me to believe the same scaremongering Green party BS that you do ? Marty Caine UKIP
  • Score: 11

12:36am Thu 24 Jul 14

yet_another_one says...

mooninpisces wrote:
yet_another_one wrote:
mooninpisces wrote:
Marty Caine UKIP wrote:
mooninpisces wrote:
muscliffman - have you ever stopped to consider the inconsistency in your (endlessly repeated) comment?

The 'subsidy' (the difference between the strike price and the market price) depends on the amount of electricity generated. If the amount generated is, as you put it, "ridiculously small" then the project won't be "hugely subsidised". The subsidy (spread over all UK consumers, not just Bournemouth residents) will only be large if there is a large amount of electricity being generated.
Let me ask you one simply question, do you think we should be paying foreign companies for our energy. Yes or No
I'm not sure what your question has to do with muscliffman's inconsistency, or the Echo article for that matter.

But the answer is no, I don't think we should be paying foreign companies for our energy. My supplier, Good Energy, is 100% British, and sourced with 100% British energy. But you probably would object to that because it's renewable energy. There are plenty of other UK suppliers - Ecotricity, for example. But then that's mainly renewable, too. For your preferred fossil fuel or nuclear generation, four of the Big Six are foreign owned, I'm afraid. But that's your choice.
Let's face it, this country has sold most of its assets to foreign investors - WHY? because UK investors seem shy to stick their necks out & that is a big problem this country faces.
Absolutely. Did any British company bid to develop Navitus Bay? And if so why was its bid not successful?

The climate is not affected by who owns a wind farm, or a nuclear power station, or a coal-fired power station, or a fracking rig. What does affect it is whether the source is low-carbon or a fossil fuel.

If MC UKIP is sincere in wanting his electricity from a British source, he could switch to Good Energy or Ecotricity. That would expand renewable capacity, and, incidentally, make the need for development of offshore wind less acute. But his preferred fossil fuel and nuclear sources are mainly foreign owned, and burn resources that mainly come from abroad. So what does a dedicated follower of UKIP do? Does opposition to foreign suppliers trump opposition to renewable energy? Or, as would appear, is it the other way round?
I guess MC UKIP just doesn't have a clue !!!
Keep on truckin' pal.
[quote][p][bold]mooninpisces[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]yet_another_one[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]mooninpisces[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Marty Caine UKIP[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]mooninpisces[/bold] wrote: muscliffman - have you ever stopped to consider the inconsistency in your (endlessly repeated) comment? The 'subsidy' (the difference between the strike price and the market price) depends on the amount of electricity generated. If the amount generated is, as you put it, "ridiculously small" then the project won't be "hugely subsidised". The subsidy (spread over all UK consumers, not just Bournemouth residents) will only be large if there is a large amount of electricity being generated.[/p][/quote]Let me ask you one simply question, do you think we should be paying foreign companies for our energy. Yes or No[/p][/quote]I'm not sure what your question has to do with muscliffman's inconsistency, or the Echo article for that matter. But the answer is no, I don't think we should be paying foreign companies for our energy. My supplier, Good Energy, is 100% British, and sourced with 100% British energy. But you probably would object to that because it's renewable energy. There are plenty of other UK suppliers - Ecotricity, for example. But then that's mainly renewable, too. For your preferred fossil fuel or nuclear generation, four of the Big Six are foreign owned, I'm afraid. But that's your choice.[/p][/quote]Let's face it, this country has sold most of its assets to foreign investors - WHY? because UK investors seem shy to stick their necks out & that is a big problem this country faces.[/p][/quote]Absolutely. Did any British company bid to develop Navitus Bay? And if so why was its bid not successful? The climate is not affected by who owns a wind farm, or a nuclear power station, or a coal-fired power station, or a fracking rig. What does affect it is whether the source is low-carbon or a fossil fuel. If MC UKIP is sincere in wanting his electricity from a British source, he could switch to Good Energy or Ecotricity. That would expand renewable capacity, and, incidentally, make the need for development of offshore wind less acute. But his preferred fossil fuel and nuclear sources are mainly foreign owned, and burn resources that mainly come from abroad. So what does a dedicated follower of UKIP do? Does opposition to foreign suppliers trump opposition to renewable energy? Or, as would appear, is it the other way round?[/p][/quote]I guess MC UKIP just doesn't have a clue !!! Keep on truckin' pal. yet_another_one
  • Score: -13

1:02am Thu 24 Jul 14

mooninpisces says...

Marty Caine UKIP wrote:
mooninpisces wrote:
I've lost count of the number of times MC UKIP has made this misleading comment about Wytch Farm.

As Wytch Farm's operators, Perenco (oh dear, they're French, but never mind) have made clear, what they have practiced is low-pressure stimulation to enhance recovery of oil. That is not the same as the high-pressure fracturing to extract shale gas from low-permeability rock which is the cause of so much current concern, and which appears to be the centrepiece of UKIP's energy policy.
And I have lost count of the number of times I have told you to Google 'Wytch Farm Fracking'. Go on MiP give it a go, just to amuse me ;)

Now can you give me some examples of modern day fracking methods that we should be concerned about, or do you simply expect me to believe the same scaremongering Green party BS that you do ?
MC UKIP - yes, google "Wytch Farm Fracking" and you find countless articles quoting Sandbanks residents and estate agents saying they're not disturbed by Wytch Farm. That is not the point. Fracking is a term that covers a number of different operations - low-pressure stimulation as carried out at Wytch Farm, and high-pressure fracturing as currently being promoted for the extraction of shale gas. The two are not the same, as both Perenco and Dorset County Council (when extending Wytch Farm's planning permission last year) have made abundantly clear. Perhaps another example will help you understand that different phenomena can be described by the same term? UKIP and the Green Party are both political parties - I presume you would agree there is a difference between them, even though they share the same category?

I was not saying anything about what we should be concerned about with high-pressure fracturing - I was simply recognising that many people (not just members of the Green party) have concerns about it. I cannot believe that you are not aware of these concerns. The fact that the Telegraph, Bloomberg etc have found local residents who are not concerned about the low-pressure stimulation carried out at Wytch farm is interesting, but not relevant to the concerns residents In Lancashire, Sussex etc have expressed (and in some cases already experienced) about high-pressure fracturing.
[quote][p][bold]Marty Caine UKIP[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]mooninpisces[/bold] wrote: I've lost count of the number of times MC UKIP has made this misleading comment about Wytch Farm. As Wytch Farm's operators, Perenco (oh dear, they're French, but never mind) have made clear, what they have practiced is low-pressure stimulation to enhance recovery of oil. That is not the same as the high-pressure fracturing to extract shale gas from low-permeability rock which is the cause of so much current concern, and which appears to be the centrepiece of UKIP's energy policy.[/p][/quote]And I have lost count of the number of times I have told you to Google 'Wytch Farm Fracking'. Go on MiP give it a go, just to amuse me ;) Now can you give me some examples of modern day fracking methods that we should be concerned about, or do you simply expect me to believe the same scaremongering Green party BS that you do ?[/p][/quote]MC UKIP - yes, google "Wytch Farm Fracking" and you find countless articles quoting Sandbanks residents and estate agents saying they're not disturbed by Wytch Farm. That is not the point. Fracking is a term that covers a number of different operations - low-pressure stimulation as carried out at Wytch Farm, and high-pressure fracturing as currently being promoted for the extraction of shale gas. The two are not the same, as both Perenco and Dorset County Council (when extending Wytch Farm's planning permission last year) have made abundantly clear. Perhaps another example will help you understand that different phenomena can be described by the same term? UKIP and the Green Party are both political parties - I presume you would agree there is a difference between them, even though they share the same category? I was not saying anything about what we should be concerned about with high-pressure fracturing - I was simply recognising that many people (not just members of the Green party) have concerns about it. I cannot believe that you are not aware of these concerns. The fact that the Telegraph, Bloomberg etc have found local residents who are not concerned about the low-pressure stimulation carried out at Wytch farm is interesting, but not relevant to the concerns residents In Lancashire, Sussex etc have expressed (and in some cases already experienced) about high-pressure fracturing. mooninpisces
  • Score: -15

10:34am Thu 24 Jul 14

TheDistrict says...

The Echo, Bournemouth Council, Local MPs, etc have done nothing but portray the negative side of the Navitus Bay project. Not once as the Echo printed the positive side of the project, or anything good about the project. Repeatedly, we here that a number of people at a meeting objected to the project, all 2700 of them, just under 10% of the Bournemouth conurbation, or was it a wider field. Whichever, this does not give an accurate figure. One would feel that if only 2700 objected, then the remainder of the 200k voted for. Of course we know this is not true, but if the larger population of Bournemouth were to offer their true opinion, they would probably say, "not bothered", "lets see if our bills will reduce", "lets see what difference it will make".

The windfarm at off Sussex has been given the go ahead without any objections, or the continuous moaning like the Bournemouth and Dorset Nimbys, led by two people who obviously do not care about our future and the environment, ie, Beesley and Conor Burns. Other windfarms around our island have been built, many as is the Sussex farm, closer to our shores, yet they too do not have the Nimbys, as we do down here.

It is high time the Echo and others looked at the positive side of this project. And as I have said before, let it happen, then everyone will find that their backyard concerns do not come to fruition.

It will happen..............
....................
....
The Echo, Bournemouth Council, Local MPs, etc have done nothing but portray the negative side of the Navitus Bay project. Not once as the Echo printed the positive side of the project, or anything good about the project. Repeatedly, we here that a number of people at a meeting objected to the project, all 2700 of them, just under 10% of the Bournemouth conurbation, or was it a wider field. Whichever, this does not give an accurate figure. One would feel that if only 2700 objected, then the remainder of the 200k voted for. Of course we know this is not true, but if the larger population of Bournemouth were to offer their true opinion, they would probably say, "not bothered", "lets see if our bills will reduce", "lets see what difference it will make". The windfarm at off Sussex has been given the go ahead without any objections, or the continuous moaning like the Bournemouth and Dorset Nimbys, led by two people who obviously do not care about our future and the environment, ie, Beesley and Conor Burns. Other windfarms around our island have been built, many as is the Sussex farm, closer to our shores, yet they too do not have the Nimbys, as we do down here. It is high time the Echo and others looked at the positive side of this project. And as I have said before, let it happen, then everyone will find that their backyard concerns do not come to fruition. It will happen.............. .................... .... TheDistrict
  • Score: -15

10:39am Thu 24 Jul 14

TheDistrict says...

In addition to the above. Has anyone taken into consideration that Beesley and Co are using this project as a cover up for the huge **** ups that they have made against tourism, such as who would want to come to Bournemouth where there is nothing to do..................
....................
.
In addition to the above. Has anyone taken into consideration that Beesley and Co are using this project as a cover up for the huge **** ups that they have made against tourism, such as who would want to come to Bournemouth where there is nothing to do.................. .................... . TheDistrict
  • Score: -13

11:08am Thu 24 Jul 14

nobodyexpectedthat says...

This article is all about the potential impact on tourism, not about subsidies, climate change, fracking, even NIMBYism. A small % of Bournemouth residents have attended a few meetings and expressed their mainly anti views of Navitus Bay. But lets not forget, the vocal minority do not make up the population of Bournemouth or represent their views. Have all residents been consulted via a survey? - No! So in truth no-one know for sure what the overall views of Bournemouth residents are.

There is plenty of evidence around the globe to suggest that offhore wind farms actually increase tourism. Does anyone really believe that visitors and tourists will not come to Bournemouth becuase of a wind farm over 12miles out to sea? Really!

On a warm sunny day in peak season if you walk along the cliffs and look around, almost 95% of tourists are on the beach, with the remainder in the town. None of them will be able to see the farm or hear it. So there is likely to be no relationship bewteen tourism and the wind farm. I bet if we were to poll all the students at BU and the Arts university, the vast majority would support the farm because they have a vested interest in protecting our environment and having a legacy of sustainable energy production for them and their children.

Navitus have conducted 5 years of research from independant sources, all of which conclude that there will be no significant impact on tourism. Indeed a recent statement about the UNESCO world hertitage status even confirmed that the farm if it goes ahead will NOT affect this status. When an organsiation that exists to help protect environment makes this sort of statement, how on earth did Boutrnemouth Council conclude the opposite?
This article is all about the potential impact on tourism, not about subsidies, climate change, fracking, even NIMBYism. A small % of Bournemouth residents have attended a few meetings and expressed their mainly anti views of Navitus Bay. But lets not forget, the vocal minority do not make up the population of Bournemouth or represent their views. Have all residents been consulted via a survey? - No! So in truth no-one know for sure what the overall views of Bournemouth residents are. There is plenty of evidence around the globe to suggest that offhore wind farms actually increase tourism. Does anyone really believe that visitors and tourists will not come to Bournemouth becuase of a wind farm over 12miles out to sea? Really! On a warm sunny day in peak season if you walk along the cliffs and look around, almost 95% of tourists are on the beach, with the remainder in the town. None of them will be able to see the farm or hear it. So there is likely to be no relationship bewteen tourism and the wind farm. I bet if we were to poll all the students at BU and the Arts university, the vast majority would support the farm because they have a vested interest in protecting our environment and having a legacy of sustainable energy production for them and their children. Navitus have conducted 5 years of research from independant sources, all of which conclude that there will be no significant impact on tourism. Indeed a recent statement about the UNESCO world hertitage status even confirmed that the farm if it goes ahead will NOT affect this status. When an organsiation that exists to help protect environment makes this sort of statement, how on earth did Boutrnemouth Council conclude the opposite? nobodyexpectedthat
  • Score: -12

12:03pm Thu 24 Jul 14

skydriver says...

At last a councillor with some common sense well done, could you push some upon the others in the area , who lack any sense whatsoever.
At last a councillor with some common sense well done, could you push some upon the others in the area , who lack any sense whatsoever. skydriver
  • Score: -13

12:18pm Thu 24 Jul 14

Marty Caine UKIP says...

nobodyexpectedthat wrote:
This article is all about the potential impact on tourism, not about subsidies, climate change, fracking, even NIMBYism. A small % of Bournemouth residents have attended a few meetings and expressed their mainly anti views of Navitus Bay. But lets not forget, the vocal minority do not make up the population of Bournemouth or represent their views. Have all residents been consulted via a survey? - No! So in truth no-one know for sure what the overall views of Bournemouth residents are.

There is plenty of evidence around the globe to suggest that offhore wind farms actually increase tourism. Does anyone really believe that visitors and tourists will not come to Bournemouth becuase of a wind farm over 12miles out to sea? Really!

On a warm sunny day in peak season if you walk along the cliffs and look around, almost 95% of tourists are on the beach, with the remainder in the town. None of them will be able to see the farm or hear it. So there is likely to be no relationship bewteen tourism and the wind farm. I bet if we were to poll all the students at BU and the Arts university, the vast majority would support the farm because they have a vested interest in protecting our environment and having a legacy of sustainable energy production for them and their children.

Navitus have conducted 5 years of research from independant sources, all of which conclude that there will be no significant impact on tourism. Indeed a recent statement about the UNESCO world hertitage status even confirmed that the farm if it goes ahead will NOT affect this status. When an organsiation that exists to help protect environment makes this sort of statement, how on earth did Boutrnemouth Council conclude the opposite?
So are you saying that the 5 years build time will not have any diverse effects on tourism then?

If you are then you are definitely wrong
[quote][p][bold]nobodyexpectedthat[/bold] wrote: This article is all about the potential impact on tourism, not about subsidies, climate change, fracking, even NIMBYism. A small % of Bournemouth residents have attended a few meetings and expressed their mainly anti views of Navitus Bay. But lets not forget, the vocal minority do not make up the population of Bournemouth or represent their views. Have all residents been consulted via a survey? - No! So in truth no-one know for sure what the overall views of Bournemouth residents are. There is plenty of evidence around the globe to suggest that offhore wind farms actually increase tourism. Does anyone really believe that visitors and tourists will not come to Bournemouth becuase of a wind farm over 12miles out to sea? Really! On a warm sunny day in peak season if you walk along the cliffs and look around, almost 95% of tourists are on the beach, with the remainder in the town. None of them will be able to see the farm or hear it. So there is likely to be no relationship bewteen tourism and the wind farm. I bet if we were to poll all the students at BU and the Arts university, the vast majority would support the farm because they have a vested interest in protecting our environment and having a legacy of sustainable energy production for them and their children. Navitus have conducted 5 years of research from independant sources, all of which conclude that there will be no significant impact on tourism. Indeed a recent statement about the UNESCO world hertitage status even confirmed that the farm if it goes ahead will NOT affect this status. When an organsiation that exists to help protect environment makes this sort of statement, how on earth did Boutrnemouth Council conclude the opposite?[/p][/quote]So are you saying that the 5 years build time will not have any diverse effects on tourism then? If you are then you are definitely wrong Marty Caine UKIP
  • Score: 14

12:58pm Thu 24 Jul 14

Ophilum says...

Lets face it the greens would love you all to believe the same old lies they trot out, we need these things like a hole in the head and they very well know this but there religion won,t allow them to say so. No to wind turbines we just cannot afford them or want them. They will stand like statues to the lies and folly of the brain dead.
Lets face it the greens would love you all to believe the same old lies they trot out, we need these things like a hole in the head and they very well know this but there religion won,t allow them to say so. No to wind turbines we just cannot afford them or want them. They will stand like statues to the lies and folly of the brain dead. Ophilum
  • Score: -7

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