Seabed to be drilled as research for proposed Navitus Bay wind farm

Seabed to be drilled as research for proposed Navitus Bay wind farm

INVESTIGATION: The Horizon Geobay vessel which will conduct the drilling

Mike Unsworth

First published in News

THE firm behind proposals for a large wind farm off the Bournemouth coast has commissioned a further site investigation of the sea bed.

Navitus Bay Development Ltd (NBDL), a joint venture between Eneco Wind UK and EDF Energy Renewables, wants to erect as many as 194 wind turbines 13 miles off Bournemouth and Poole.

This latest investigation, which involves drilling bore holes and extracting cores of the sea bed material, will help engineers select the most suitable foundations, should the project get the official go-ahead in 2015.

NBDL’s proposals – for wind turbines that could stand up to 200 metres tall – have split local opinion, with many on both sides of the wind farm debate protesting against and supporting the green energy scheme.

Navitus Bay, which started initial site investigations earlier this month, has contracted Horizon Geosciences Ltd, the Bristol-based geotechnical survey specialists.

They’ll be using their state-of-the-art vessel Horizon GeoBay, which is fitted with specialised water jets that hold it stationary in the water, allowing for accurate drilling of the sea bed over a range of tidal swells.

NBDL project director Mike Unsworth said: “In parallel with seeking consent for the project, it is vital that we continue to gather additional information about the site conditions to help inform our detailed design of the proposed offshore wind park.

“This new survey will complement the existing wealth of information and data.

“This latest investigation is the next step in the process of engineering an optimum design for the wind turbine foundations.

“We are pleased to be working with Horizon and have every confidence that the team will provide us with all the data we need.”

Comments (29)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

11:58am Wed 13 Aug 14

Redgolfer says...

Pour good money after bad as it aint going to get the go ahead and you can try and bully people all you like ???
Pour good money after bad as it aint going to get the go ahead and you can try and bully people all you like ??? Redgolfer
  • Score: 15

12:23pm Wed 13 Aug 14

BarrHumbug says...

Redgolfer wrote:
Pour good money after bad as it aint going to get the go ahead and you can try and bully people all you like ???
Another way of looking at it is would they waste the money on this if they hadn't already been given the go-ahead ???

The decision lays with the Crown Estate and Central Government, no amount of objections from local residents/councillor
s/MP's/RSPB or Tourist Board will make any difference ;-)
[quote][p][bold]Redgolfer[/bold] wrote: Pour good money after bad as it aint going to get the go ahead and you can try and bully people all you like ???[/p][/quote]Another way of looking at it is would they waste the money on this if they hadn't already been given the go-ahead ??? The decision lays with the Crown Estate and Central Government, no amount of objections from local residents/councillor s/MP's/RSPB or Tourist Board will make any difference ;-) BarrHumbug
  • Score: 14

12:55pm Wed 13 Aug 14

loadabull says...

It's a shame that so few people are concerned with the bit that's important, ie. the sea-bed. The hi-tech jets on the vessel probably blast the sea bed so much that anything living will be destroyed, not to mention the vibrations causing problems to marine life. Still as we don't live there and we won't see it, I guess (like the majority) I shouldn't worry.
I do wonder though if the turbines will have any influence on the aircraft that may fly in future Air Shows. I mean the Red Arrows love to sweep the bay, will that also be lost as well. Aviators - your opinion would be interesting.
It's a shame that so few people are concerned with the bit that's important, ie. the sea-bed. The hi-tech jets on the vessel probably blast the sea bed so much that anything living will be destroyed, not to mention the vibrations causing problems to marine life. Still as we don't live there and we won't see it, I guess (like the majority) I shouldn't worry. I do wonder though if the turbines will have any influence on the aircraft that may fly in future Air Shows. I mean the Red Arrows love to sweep the bay, will that also be lost as well. Aviators - your opinion would be interesting. loadabull
  • Score: 11

12:57pm Wed 13 Aug 14

Townee says...

Redgolfer wrote:
Pour good money after bad as it aint going to get the go ahead and you can try and bully people all you like ???
Says you. Oh look a pig flying low. It will happen then you can eat your words. The sooner the better, it will give visitors something to watch and look at instead of just a boring view of nothing but sea.
[quote][p][bold]Redgolfer[/bold] wrote: Pour good money after bad as it aint going to get the go ahead and you can try and bully people all you like ???[/p][/quote]Says you. Oh look a pig flying low. It will happen then you can eat your words. The sooner the better, it will give visitors something to watch and look at instead of just a boring view of nothing but sea. Townee
  • Score: -16

1:16pm Wed 13 Aug 14

Phixer says...

"...will help engineers select the most suitable foundations, should the project get the official go-ahead in 2015."

Dear old Echo cubs - there's a spelling mistake in this paragraph. Should read "... WHEN the project gets the official go-ahead in 2015."

There is no reason to spend money on exploration unless the decision has already been made.
"...will help engineers select the most suitable foundations, should the project get the official go-ahead in 2015." Dear old Echo cubs - there's a spelling mistake in this paragraph. Should read "... WHEN the project gets the official go-ahead in 2015." There is no reason to spend money on exploration unless the decision has already been made. Phixer
  • Score: 8

1:56pm Wed 13 Aug 14

TheDistrict says...

Just go ahead Navitus, and do not listen to such rants as Redgolfer above. I support this project, and from the outset, not because I am Green, but because I believe that we do need alternative power. As for all the negative responses, this from people who do not think, do not listen, and more importantly do not care about our energy future.

Anyone knows that some damage to the seabed may occur, but if they do, they will also know that it will repair itself, as did the Surf Reef, now a flourishing marine life reef.

I just wish the negative people would shut up and listen to the positive thinking.
Just go ahead Navitus, and do not listen to such rants as Redgolfer above. I support this project, and from the outset, not because I am Green, but because I believe that we do need alternative power. As for all the negative responses, this from people who do not think, do not listen, and more importantly do not care about our energy future. Anyone knows that some damage to the seabed may occur, but if they do, they will also know that it will repair itself, as did the Surf Reef, now a flourishing marine life reef. I just wish the negative people would shut up and listen to the positive thinking. TheDistrict
  • Score: -15

2:45pm Wed 13 Aug 14

BarrHumbug says...

loadabull wrote:
It's a shame that so few people are concerned with the bit that's important, ie. the sea-bed. The hi-tech jets on the vessel probably blast the sea bed so much that anything living will be destroyed, not to mention the vibrations causing problems to marine life. Still as we don't live there and we won't see it, I guess (like the majority) I shouldn't worry.
I do wonder though if the turbines will have any influence on the aircraft that may fly in future Air Shows. I mean the Red Arrows love to sweep the bay, will that also be lost as well. Aviators - your opinion would be interesting.
Your user name suits you well?
You really wouldn't see much if the air display took place 12 miles out at sea would you. The Red Arrows use Hawker trainer jets, i'm pretty sure they have a turning circle smaller than 12 miles, so I don't think you need to worry about that ;)
[quote][p][bold]loadabull[/bold] wrote: It's a shame that so few people are concerned with the bit that's important, ie. the sea-bed. The hi-tech jets on the vessel probably blast the sea bed so much that anything living will be destroyed, not to mention the vibrations causing problems to marine life. Still as we don't live there and we won't see it, I guess (like the majority) I shouldn't worry. I do wonder though if the turbines will have any influence on the aircraft that may fly in future Air Shows. I mean the Red Arrows love to sweep the bay, will that also be lost as well. Aviators - your opinion would be interesting.[/p][/quote]Your user name suits you well? You really wouldn't see much if the air display took place 12 miles out at sea would you. The Red Arrows use Hawker trainer jets, i'm pretty sure they have a turning circle smaller than 12 miles, so I don't think you need to worry about that ;) BarrHumbug
  • Score: -9

3:09pm Wed 13 Aug 14

Reason8 says...

This proposed windfarm is in the wrong place. This area is a world heritage site, with spectacular views. Not only will this , if it goes ahead, we will lose the heritage site status. It will definitely affect tourism to the area, during construction, which will be 5 years. This will have a knock on effect for employment and businesses. Also 22 miles including the New Forest will have to be carved up to lay the cables, and 3,500 mature oaks destroyed. I don't call that green!!! Navitus themselves have conducted their own survey which says that it will definitely effect tourism. We have some of best views in the country from our coastline. Let's not spoil them.
This proposed windfarm is in the wrong place. This area is a world heritage site, with spectacular views. Not only will this , if it goes ahead, we will lose the heritage site status. It will definitely affect tourism to the area, during construction, which will be 5 years. This will have a knock on effect for employment and businesses. Also 22 miles including the New Forest will have to be carved up to lay the cables, and 3,500 mature oaks destroyed. I don't call that green!!! Navitus themselves have conducted their own survey which says that it will definitely effect tourism. We have some of best views in the country from our coastline. Let's not spoil them. Reason8
  • Score: 19

3:38pm Wed 13 Aug 14

Redgolfer says...

TheDistrict wrote:
Just go ahead Navitus, and do not listen to such rants as Redgolfer above. I support this project, and from the outset, not because I am Green, but because I believe that we do need alternative power. As for all the negative responses, this from people who do not think, do not listen, and more importantly do not care about our energy future.

Anyone knows that some damage to the seabed may occur, but if they do, they will also know that it will repair itself, as did the Surf Reef, now a flourishing marine life reef.

I just wish the negative people would shut up and listen to the positive thinking.
Is MY view more of a rant than your view, no I do not think so, I just think that to start with wind power is not the way forward, look at all the statistics that have been produced so far, your argument about the surf reef is as stupid as the people who THOUGHT it would work in the first place or the same people who put plastic objects on the sand and call it progress.
[quote][p][bold]TheDistrict[/bold] wrote: Just go ahead Navitus, and do not listen to such rants as Redgolfer above. I support this project, and from the outset, not because I am Green, but because I believe that we do need alternative power. As for all the negative responses, this from people who do not think, do not listen, and more importantly do not care about our energy future. Anyone knows that some damage to the seabed may occur, but if they do, they will also know that it will repair itself, as did the Surf Reef, now a flourishing marine life reef. I just wish the negative people would shut up and listen to the positive thinking.[/p][/quote]Is MY view more of a rant than your view, no I do not think so, I just think that to start with wind power is not the way forward, look at all the statistics that have been produced so far, your argument about the surf reef is as stupid as the people who THOUGHT it would work in the first place or the same people who put plastic objects on the sand and call it progress. Redgolfer
  • Score: 15

3:55pm Wed 13 Aug 14

penhalereturns says...

Navitus Bay Development Ltd must be looking at some serious money from taxpayers considering the way they are pushing for this poxy wind farm.
Navitus Bay Development Ltd must be looking at some serious money from taxpayers considering the way they are pushing for this poxy wind farm. penhalereturns
  • Score: 18

5:23pm Wed 13 Aug 14

BarrHumbug says...

Reason8 wrote:
This proposed windfarm is in the wrong place. This area is a world heritage site, with spectacular views. Not only will this , if it goes ahead, we will lose the heritage site status. It will definitely affect tourism to the area, during construction, which will be 5 years. This will have a knock on effect for employment and businesses. Also 22 miles including the New Forest will have to be carved up to lay the cables, and 3,500 mature oaks destroyed. I don't call that green!!! Navitus themselves have conducted their own survey which says that it will definitely effect tourism. We have some of best views in the country from our coastline. Let's not spoil them.
So wind energy isn't inefficient then, or massively over subsidised its just in the wrong place? Does that mean then you'd be quite happy if they built it off the coast of Scotland or Norfolk, or Sussex or Devon, anywhere as long as its not here?
[quote][p][bold]Reason8[/bold] wrote: This proposed windfarm is in the wrong place. This area is a world heritage site, with spectacular views. Not only will this , if it goes ahead, we will lose the heritage site status. It will definitely affect tourism to the area, during construction, which will be 5 years. This will have a knock on effect for employment and businesses. Also 22 miles including the New Forest will have to be carved up to lay the cables, and 3,500 mature oaks destroyed. I don't call that green!!! Navitus themselves have conducted their own survey which says that it will definitely effect tourism. We have some of best views in the country from our coastline. Let's not spoil them.[/p][/quote]So wind energy isn't inefficient then, or massively over subsidised its just in the wrong place? Does that mean then you'd be quite happy if they built it off the coast of Scotland or Norfolk, or Sussex or Devon, anywhere as long as its not here? BarrHumbug
  • Score: 4

6:38pm Wed 13 Aug 14

penhalereturns says...

BarrHumbug wrote:
Reason8 wrote:
This proposed windfarm is in the wrong place. This area is a world heritage site, with spectacular views. Not only will this , if it goes ahead, we will lose the heritage site status. It will definitely affect tourism to the area, during construction, which will be 5 years. This will have a knock on effect for employment and businesses. Also 22 miles including the New Forest will have to be carved up to lay the cables, and 3,500 mature oaks destroyed. I don't call that green!!! Navitus themselves have conducted their own survey which says that it will definitely effect tourism. We have some of best views in the country from our coastline. Let's not spoil them.
So wind energy isn't inefficient then, or massively over subsidised its just in the wrong place? Does that mean then you'd be quite happy if they built it off the coast of Scotland or Norfolk, or Sussex or Devon, anywhere as long as its not here?
Inefficient, massively over subsidised, definitely in the wrong place, I'd be happy to see it built on the moon, or preferably not anywhere.
[quote][p][bold]BarrHumbug[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Reason8[/bold] wrote: This proposed windfarm is in the wrong place. This area is a world heritage site, with spectacular views. Not only will this , if it goes ahead, we will lose the heritage site status. It will definitely affect tourism to the area, during construction, which will be 5 years. This will have a knock on effect for employment and businesses. Also 22 miles including the New Forest will have to be carved up to lay the cables, and 3,500 mature oaks destroyed. I don't call that green!!! Navitus themselves have conducted their own survey which says that it will definitely effect tourism. We have some of best views in the country from our coastline. Let's not spoil them.[/p][/quote]So wind energy isn't inefficient then, or massively over subsidised its just in the wrong place? Does that mean then you'd be quite happy if they built it off the coast of Scotland or Norfolk, or Sussex or Devon, anywhere as long as its not here?[/p][/quote]Inefficient, massively over subsidised, definitely in the wrong place, I'd be happy to see it built on the moon, or preferably not anywhere. penhalereturns
  • Score: 1

6:54pm Wed 13 Aug 14

Reason8 says...

penhalereturns wrote:
BarrHumbug wrote:
Reason8 wrote:
This proposed windfarm is in the wrong place. This area is a world heritage site, with spectacular views. Not only will this , if it goes ahead, we will lose the heritage site status. It will definitely affect tourism to the area, during construction, which will be 5 years. This will have a knock on effect for employment and businesses. Also 22 miles including the New Forest will have to be carved up to lay the cables, and 3,500 mature oaks destroyed. I don't call that green!!! Navitus themselves have conducted their own survey which says that it will definitely effect tourism. We have some of best views in the country from our coastline. Let's not spoil them.
So wind energy isn't inefficient then, or massively over subsidised its just in the wrong place? Does that mean then you'd be quite happy if they built it off the coast of Scotland or Norfolk, or Sussex or Devon, anywhere as long as its not here?
Inefficient, massively over subsidised, definitely in the wrong place, I'd be happy to see it built on the moon, or preferably not anywhere.
My personal opinion is that wind energy is inefficient but as the Government is committed to wind energy as part of its renewables target then my point was that there are other sites that will have zero impact on the Governments commitment to preserving our Heritage and zero impact on tourism which is non existent in a number of the other designated and available sites. It is not a matter of NIMBY ism it is a matter of practical and positive alternatives to the current proposals.
[quote][p][bold]penhalereturns[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BarrHumbug[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Reason8[/bold] wrote: This proposed windfarm is in the wrong place. This area is a world heritage site, with spectacular views. Not only will this , if it goes ahead, we will lose the heritage site status. It will definitely affect tourism to the area, during construction, which will be 5 years. This will have a knock on effect for employment and businesses. Also 22 miles including the New Forest will have to be carved up to lay the cables, and 3,500 mature oaks destroyed. I don't call that green!!! Navitus themselves have conducted their own survey which says that it will definitely effect tourism. We have some of best views in the country from our coastline. Let's not spoil them.[/p][/quote]So wind energy isn't inefficient then, or massively over subsidised its just in the wrong place? Does that mean then you'd be quite happy if they built it off the coast of Scotland or Norfolk, or Sussex or Devon, anywhere as long as its not here?[/p][/quote]Inefficient, massively over subsidised, definitely in the wrong place, I'd be happy to see it built on the moon, or preferably not anywhere.[/p][/quote]My personal opinion is that wind energy is inefficient but as the Government is committed to wind energy as part of its renewables target then my point was that there are other sites that will have zero impact on the Governments commitment to preserving our Heritage and zero impact on tourism which is non existent in a number of the other designated and available sites. It is not a matter of NIMBY ism it is a matter of practical and positive alternatives to the current proposals. Reason8
  • Score: 0

7:10pm Wed 13 Aug 14

Reason8 says...

BarrHumbug wrote:
Redgolfer wrote:
Pour good money after bad as it aint going to get the go ahead and you can try and bully people all you like ???
Another way of looking at it is would they waste the money on this if they hadn't already been given the go-ahead ???

The decision lays with the Crown Estate and Central Government, no amount of objections from local residents/councillor

s/MP's/RSPB or Tourist Board will make any difference ;-)
The French Government blocked the Mont Michel proposed wind farm. Multi national, multi million pound corporations spend huge amounts to stand a chance of winning any contracts and clearly do not expect to win every time. Where is your evidence that Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport will approve this proposal especially as the present Minister may not be in office after the May 2015 general Election and the Ministers decision cannot be made until after that date.
[quote][p][bold]BarrHumbug[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Redgolfer[/bold] wrote: Pour good money after bad as it aint going to get the go ahead and you can try and bully people all you like ???[/p][/quote]Another way of looking at it is would they waste the money on this if they hadn't already been given the go-ahead ??? The decision lays with the Crown Estate and Central Government, no amount of objections from local residents/councillor s/MP's/RSPB or Tourist Board will make any difference ;-)[/p][/quote]The French Government blocked the Mont Michel proposed wind farm. Multi national, multi million pound corporations spend huge amounts to stand a chance of winning any contracts and clearly do not expect to win every time. Where is your evidence that Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport will approve this proposal especially as the present Minister may not be in office after the May 2015 general Election and the Ministers decision cannot be made until after that date. Reason8
  • Score: 0

7:15pm Wed 13 Aug 14

Marty Caine says...

TheDistrict wrote:
Just go ahead Navitus, and do not listen to such rants as Redgolfer above. I support this project, and from the outset, not because I am Green, but because I believe that we do need alternative power. As for all the negative responses, this from people who do not think, do not listen, and more importantly do not care about our energy future.

Anyone knows that some damage to the seabed may occur, but if they do, they will also know that it will repair itself, as did the Surf Reef, now a flourishing marine life reef.

I just wish the negative people would shut up and listen to the positive thinking.
Lets just ignore the fact that it is not fit for purpose and will end up being a rusting eyesore in 30 years time then, is that the wonderful legacy you really want to leave behind?
[quote][p][bold]TheDistrict[/bold] wrote: Just go ahead Navitus, and do not listen to such rants as Redgolfer above. I support this project, and from the outset, not because I am Green, but because I believe that we do need alternative power. As for all the negative responses, this from people who do not think, do not listen, and more importantly do not care about our energy future. Anyone knows that some damage to the seabed may occur, but if they do, they will also know that it will repair itself, as did the Surf Reef, now a flourishing marine life reef. I just wish the negative people would shut up and listen to the positive thinking.[/p][/quote]Lets just ignore the fact that it is not fit for purpose and will end up being a rusting eyesore in 30 years time then, is that the wonderful legacy you really want to leave behind? Marty Caine
  • Score: 0

7:39pm Wed 13 Aug 14

penhalereturns says...

Reason8 wrote:
penhalereturns wrote:
BarrHumbug wrote:
Reason8 wrote:
This proposed windfarm is in the wrong place. This area is a world heritage site, with spectacular views. Not only will this , if it goes ahead, we will lose the heritage site status. It will definitely affect tourism to the area, during construction, which will be 5 years. This will have a knock on effect for employment and businesses. Also 22 miles including the New Forest will have to be carved up to lay the cables, and 3,500 mature oaks destroyed. I don't call that green!!! Navitus themselves have conducted their own survey which says that it will definitely effect tourism. We have some of best views in the country from our coastline. Let's not spoil them.
So wind energy isn't inefficient then, or massively over subsidised its just in the wrong place? Does that mean then you'd be quite happy if they built it off the coast of Scotland or Norfolk, or Sussex or Devon, anywhere as long as its not here?
Inefficient, massively over subsidised, definitely in the wrong place, I'd be happy to see it built on the moon, or preferably not anywhere.
My personal opinion is that wind energy is inefficient but as the Government is committed to wind energy as part of its renewables target then my point was that there are other sites that will have zero impact on the Governments commitment to preserving our Heritage and zero impact on tourism which is non existent in a number of the other designated and available sites. It is not a matter of NIMBY ism it is a matter of practical and positive alternatives to the current proposals.
The only positive alternatives to windmills is nuclear, every minute these windfarms are considered pushes us closer to the lights going out, stop pandering to the green idiots and get building nuclear.
[quote][p][bold]Reason8[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]penhalereturns[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BarrHumbug[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Reason8[/bold] wrote: This proposed windfarm is in the wrong place. This area is a world heritage site, with spectacular views. Not only will this , if it goes ahead, we will lose the heritage site status. It will definitely affect tourism to the area, during construction, which will be 5 years. This will have a knock on effect for employment and businesses. Also 22 miles including the New Forest will have to be carved up to lay the cables, and 3,500 mature oaks destroyed. I don't call that green!!! Navitus themselves have conducted their own survey which says that it will definitely effect tourism. We have some of best views in the country from our coastline. Let's not spoil them.[/p][/quote]So wind energy isn't inefficient then, or massively over subsidised its just in the wrong place? Does that mean then you'd be quite happy if they built it off the coast of Scotland or Norfolk, or Sussex or Devon, anywhere as long as its not here?[/p][/quote]Inefficient, massively over subsidised, definitely in the wrong place, I'd be happy to see it built on the moon, or preferably not anywhere.[/p][/quote]My personal opinion is that wind energy is inefficient but as the Government is committed to wind energy as part of its renewables target then my point was that there are other sites that will have zero impact on the Governments commitment to preserving our Heritage and zero impact on tourism which is non existent in a number of the other designated and available sites. It is not a matter of NIMBY ism it is a matter of practical and positive alternatives to the current proposals.[/p][/quote]The only positive alternatives to windmills is nuclear, every minute these windfarms are considered pushes us closer to the lights going out, stop pandering to the green idiots and get building nuclear. penhalereturns
  • Score: 3

8:11pm Wed 13 Aug 14

Hessenford says...

penhalereturns wrote:
Reason8 wrote:
penhalereturns wrote:
BarrHumbug wrote:
Reason8 wrote:
This proposed windfarm is in the wrong place. This area is a world heritage site, with spectacular views. Not only will this , if it goes ahead, we will lose the heritage site status. It will definitely affect tourism to the area, during construction, which will be 5 years. This will have a knock on effect for employment and businesses. Also 22 miles including the New Forest will have to be carved up to lay the cables, and 3,500 mature oaks destroyed. I don't call that green!!! Navitus themselves have conducted their own survey which says that it will definitely effect tourism. We have some of best views in the country from our coastline. Let's not spoil them.
So wind energy isn't inefficient then, or massively over subsidised its just in the wrong place? Does that mean then you'd be quite happy if they built it off the coast of Scotland or Norfolk, or Sussex or Devon, anywhere as long as its not here?
Inefficient, massively over subsidised, definitely in the wrong place, I'd be happy to see it built on the moon, or preferably not anywhere.
My personal opinion is that wind energy is inefficient but as the Government is committed to wind energy as part of its renewables target then my point was that there are other sites that will have zero impact on the Governments commitment to preserving our Heritage and zero impact on tourism which is non existent in a number of the other designated and available sites. It is not a matter of NIMBY ism it is a matter of practical and positive alternatives to the current proposals.
The only positive alternatives to windmills is nuclear, every minute these windfarms are considered pushes us closer to the lights going out, stop pandering to the green idiots and get building nuclear.
Couldn't agree more, the sheer amount of energy used in building and siting these things far outweighs the return they generate, nuclear is the only option to stop us going into total darkness, forget the greens and the tree huggers and all the other nutjob loonies and get a few nuclear power stations built now.
[quote][p][bold]penhalereturns[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Reason8[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]penhalereturns[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BarrHumbug[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Reason8[/bold] wrote: This proposed windfarm is in the wrong place. This area is a world heritage site, with spectacular views. Not only will this , if it goes ahead, we will lose the heritage site status. It will definitely affect tourism to the area, during construction, which will be 5 years. This will have a knock on effect for employment and businesses. Also 22 miles including the New Forest will have to be carved up to lay the cables, and 3,500 mature oaks destroyed. I don't call that green!!! Navitus themselves have conducted their own survey which says that it will definitely effect tourism. We have some of best views in the country from our coastline. Let's not spoil them.[/p][/quote]So wind energy isn't inefficient then, or massively over subsidised its just in the wrong place? Does that mean then you'd be quite happy if they built it off the coast of Scotland or Norfolk, or Sussex or Devon, anywhere as long as its not here?[/p][/quote]Inefficient, massively over subsidised, definitely in the wrong place, I'd be happy to see it built on the moon, or preferably not anywhere.[/p][/quote]My personal opinion is that wind energy is inefficient but as the Government is committed to wind energy as part of its renewables target then my point was that there are other sites that will have zero impact on the Governments commitment to preserving our Heritage and zero impact on tourism which is non existent in a number of the other designated and available sites. It is not a matter of NIMBY ism it is a matter of practical and positive alternatives to the current proposals.[/p][/quote]The only positive alternatives to windmills is nuclear, every minute these windfarms are considered pushes us closer to the lights going out, stop pandering to the green idiots and get building nuclear.[/p][/quote]Couldn't agree more, the sheer amount of energy used in building and siting these things far outweighs the return they generate, nuclear is the only option to stop us going into total darkness, forget the greens and the tree huggers and all the other nutjob loonies and get a few nuclear power stations built now. Hessenford
  • Score: 3

8:42pm Wed 13 Aug 14

Lord Spring says...

If these holes are drilled in the sea bed then surely the sea will drain into them and there will be no sea left .
That's what happens when I try to puddle my garden plants in.
If these holes are drilled in the sea bed then surely the sea will drain into them and there will be no sea left . That's what happens when I try to puddle my garden plants in. Lord Spring
  • Score: 2

9:31pm Wed 13 Aug 14

TheDistrict says...

Redgolfer wrote:
TheDistrict wrote:
Just go ahead Navitus, and do not listen to such rants as Redgolfer above. I support this project, and from the outset, not because I am Green, but because I believe that we do need alternative power. As for all the negative responses, this from people who do not think, do not listen, and more importantly do not care about our energy future.

Anyone knows that some damage to the seabed may occur, but if they do, they will also know that it will repair itself, as did the Surf Reef, now a flourishing marine life reef.

I just wish the negative people would shut up and listen to the positive thinking.
Is MY view more of a rant than your view, no I do not think so, I just think that to start with wind power is not the way forward, look at all the statistics that have been produced so far, your argument about the surf reef is as stupid as the people who THOUGHT it would work in the first place or the same people who put plastic objects on the sand and call it progress.
Again you are talking as if you are completely conversant with the project that justifies your negativity. I do not justify I know all about the project but I do know enough to understand and realise that this project is needed, it will not interfere with the heritage site being the distance it is from shore, nor will interfere with wild life or sea life and definately will not interfere with airshows or even the Red Arrows.

What it will provide is a new energy resource, something that is needed by everyone and not just those who support the project.

Like you I am entitled to my opinion in that I believe that this project will go ahead.
[quote][p][bold]Redgolfer[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]TheDistrict[/bold] wrote: Just go ahead Navitus, and do not listen to such rants as Redgolfer above. I support this project, and from the outset, not because I am Green, but because I believe that we do need alternative power. As for all the negative responses, this from people who do not think, do not listen, and more importantly do not care about our energy future. Anyone knows that some damage to the seabed may occur, but if they do, they will also know that it will repair itself, as did the Surf Reef, now a flourishing marine life reef. I just wish the negative people would shut up and listen to the positive thinking.[/p][/quote]Is MY view more of a rant than your view, no I do not think so, I just think that to start with wind power is not the way forward, look at all the statistics that have been produced so far, your argument about the surf reef is as stupid as the people who THOUGHT it would work in the first place or the same people who put plastic objects on the sand and call it progress.[/p][/quote]Again you are talking as if you are completely conversant with the project that justifies your negativity. I do not justify I know all about the project but I do know enough to understand and realise that this project is needed, it will not interfere with the heritage site being the distance it is from shore, nor will interfere with wild life or sea life and definately will not interfere with airshows or even the Red Arrows. What it will provide is a new energy resource, something that is needed by everyone and not just those who support the project. Like you I am entitled to my opinion in that I believe that this project will go ahead. TheDistrict
  • Score: 1

10:20pm Wed 13 Aug 14

Abc1970 says...

Marty Caine wrote:
TheDistrict wrote:
Just go ahead Navitus, and do not listen to such rants as Redgolfer above. I support this project, and from the outset, not because I am Green, but because I believe that we do need alternative power. As for all the negative responses, this from people who do not think, do not listen, and more importantly do not care about our energy future.

Anyone knows that some damage to the seabed may occur, but if they do, they will also know that it will repair itself, as did the Surf Reef, now a flourishing marine life reef.

I just wish the negative people would shut up and listen to the positive thinking.
Lets just ignore the fact that it is not fit for purpose and will end up being a rusting eyesore in 30 years time then, is that the wonderful legacy you really want to leave behind?
The reason they last 30 years is that planning permission is only granted for a set amount of time. With household solar panels planning is only granted for 25 years. As long as solar panels are maintained and planning applications reapplied for, there is no reason why that can't last forever. The same principle applies to wind turbines. They will be maintained regularly (probably employing many local people) and will last forever, or at least for as long as there is wind to power them. This wind farm alone will not solve the national energy crisis for evermore, it has never claimed to, however this wind farm will form part of a network of wind farms and solar farms which, when all working together will provide a renewable and cleaner energy than we have at the moment. Why can't people see this
[quote][p][bold]Marty Caine[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]TheDistrict[/bold] wrote: Just go ahead Navitus, and do not listen to such rants as Redgolfer above. I support this project, and from the outset, not because I am Green, but because I believe that we do need alternative power. As for all the negative responses, this from people who do not think, do not listen, and more importantly do not care about our energy future. Anyone knows that some damage to the seabed may occur, but if they do, they will also know that it will repair itself, as did the Surf Reef, now a flourishing marine life reef. I just wish the negative people would shut up and listen to the positive thinking.[/p][/quote]Lets just ignore the fact that it is not fit for purpose and will end up being a rusting eyesore in 30 years time then, is that the wonderful legacy you really want to leave behind?[/p][/quote]The reason they last 30 years is that planning permission is only granted for a set amount of time. With household solar panels planning is only granted for 25 years. As long as solar panels are maintained and planning applications reapplied for, there is no reason why that can't last forever. The same principle applies to wind turbines. They will be maintained regularly (probably employing many local people) and will last forever, or at least for as long as there is wind to power them. This wind farm alone will not solve the national energy crisis for evermore, it has never claimed to, however this wind farm will form part of a network of wind farms and solar farms which, when all working together will provide a renewable and cleaner energy than we have at the moment. Why can't people see this Abc1970
  • Score: 0

11:24pm Wed 13 Aug 14

Marty Caine says...

Abc1970 wrote:
Marty Caine wrote:
TheDistrict wrote:
Just go ahead Navitus, and do not listen to such rants as Redgolfer above. I support this project, and from the outset, not because I am Green, but because I believe that we do need alternative power. As for all the negative responses, this from people who do not think, do not listen, and more importantly do not care about our energy future.

Anyone knows that some damage to the seabed may occur, but if they do, they will also know that it will repair itself, as did the Surf Reef, now a flourishing marine life reef.

I just wish the negative people would shut up and listen to the positive thinking.
Lets just ignore the fact that it is not fit for purpose and will end up being a rusting eyesore in 30 years time then, is that the wonderful legacy you really want to leave behind?
The reason they last 30 years is that planning permission is only granted for a set amount of time. With household solar panels planning is only granted for 25 years. As long as solar panels are maintained and planning applications reapplied for, there is no reason why that can't last forever. The same principle applies to wind turbines. They will be maintained regularly (probably employing many local people) and will last forever, or at least for as long as there is wind to power them. This wind farm alone will not solve the national energy crisis for evermore, it has never claimed to, however this wind farm will form part of a network of wind farms and solar farms which, when all working together will provide a renewable and cleaner energy than we have at the moment. Why can't people see this
I think people see what you are saying, it is just that most sensible people don't believe a word of it, these wind farms are not fit for purpose, they will garner the government subsidies for as long as they can and once they stop they will simply abandon them. That is the cold hard facts of the wind farm scam. Now why can't you see that ?

Why do you think Germany is currently building 6 new coal powered power stations whilst at the same time ordering us to demolish ours, surely they don't need them with wind farms and solar panels that you speak of ?
[quote][p][bold]Abc1970[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Marty Caine[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]TheDistrict[/bold] wrote: Just go ahead Navitus, and do not listen to such rants as Redgolfer above. I support this project, and from the outset, not because I am Green, but because I believe that we do need alternative power. As for all the negative responses, this from people who do not think, do not listen, and more importantly do not care about our energy future. Anyone knows that some damage to the seabed may occur, but if they do, they will also know that it will repair itself, as did the Surf Reef, now a flourishing marine life reef. I just wish the negative people would shut up and listen to the positive thinking.[/p][/quote]Lets just ignore the fact that it is not fit for purpose and will end up being a rusting eyesore in 30 years time then, is that the wonderful legacy you really want to leave behind?[/p][/quote]The reason they last 30 years is that planning permission is only granted for a set amount of time. With household solar panels planning is only granted for 25 years. As long as solar panels are maintained and planning applications reapplied for, there is no reason why that can't last forever. The same principle applies to wind turbines. They will be maintained regularly (probably employing many local people) and will last forever, or at least for as long as there is wind to power them. This wind farm alone will not solve the national energy crisis for evermore, it has never claimed to, however this wind farm will form part of a network of wind farms and solar farms which, when all working together will provide a renewable and cleaner energy than we have at the moment. Why can't people see this[/p][/quote]I think people see what you are saying, it is just that most sensible people don't believe a word of it, these wind farms are not fit for purpose, they will garner the government subsidies for as long as they can and once they stop they will simply abandon them. That is the cold hard facts of the wind farm scam. Now why can't you see that ? Why do you think Germany is currently building 6 new coal powered power stations whilst at the same time ordering us to demolish ours, surely they don't need them with wind farms and solar panels that you speak of ? Marty Caine
  • Score: 0

11:50pm Wed 13 Aug 14

Yankee1 says...

Clearly the government have given the wink and nod.

It knows where the money is. To think otherwise is simply naive.
Clearly the government have given the wink and nod. It knows where the money is. To think otherwise is simply naive. Yankee1
  • Score: 1

11:54pm Wed 13 Aug 14

Yankee1 says...

One word:

Biomass. Wood pellets imported through Immingham. That will replace coal. Wind is fine, but it is not constant.

The biggest green source of energy would be a tidal barrage between Sandbanks and Shell Bay. Traffic would flow unimpeded, but Poole Harbour would become a lake with only a lock to the Channel.

It seems to me that the Isle of Portland would make an excellent onshore wind farm.
One word: Biomass. Wood pellets imported through Immingham. That will replace coal. Wind is fine, but it is not constant. The biggest green source of energy would be a tidal barrage between Sandbanks and Shell Bay. Traffic would flow unimpeded, but Poole Harbour would become a lake with only a lock to the Channel. It seems to me that the Isle of Portland would make an excellent onshore wind farm. Yankee1
  • Score: -1

8:47am Thu 14 Aug 14

cunone says...

I would rather have turbines off shore than fracking on land
I would rather have turbines off shore than fracking on land cunone
  • Score: 0

9:42am Thu 14 Aug 14

Derek of Bournemouth says...

The article in the Daily Echo entitled: "Seabed to be drilled as research for proposed Navitus Bay wind farm" confirms many serious concerns that NBOL have always tried to give the impression they know what they are doing and that they have undertaken all necessary geology investigations ~ this is now obviously completely untrue.
It would appear that NBOL are at last going to undertake a geology survey of the proposed wind farm site.
This is a survey which should have been undertaken years ago and is absolutely necessary when first investigating a site for a wind farm or in fact any structure.
If unsuitable, the whole Navitus Bay proposal has been a complete waste of time and money for all concerned.
When considering future energy sources Tidal Power and NGNPP are far more efficient than Wind power.
The article in the Daily Echo entitled: "Seabed to be drilled as research for proposed Navitus Bay wind farm" confirms many serious concerns that NBOL have always tried to give the impression they know what they are doing and that they have undertaken all necessary geology investigations ~ this is now obviously completely untrue. It would appear that NBOL are at last going to undertake a geology survey of the proposed wind farm site. This is a survey which should have been undertaken years ago and is absolutely necessary when first investigating a site for a wind farm or in fact any structure. If unsuitable, the whole Navitus Bay proposal has been a complete waste of time and money for all concerned. When considering future energy sources Tidal Power and NGNPP are far more efficient than Wind power. Derek of Bournemouth
  • Score: 3

10:29am Thu 14 Aug 14

Ophilum says...

Townee wrote:
Redgolfer wrote:
Pour good money after bad as it aint going to get the go ahead and you can try and bully people all you like ???
Says you. Oh look a pig flying low. It will happen then you can eat your words. The sooner the better, it will give visitors something to watch and look at instead of just a boring view of nothing but sea.
You must be a lefty green supporter as you just love to spend other peoples money and tell us whats good for us or else, get a life and stop the subsidies on useless wind turbines, you know it makes sense not to build it, spend the money on something useful like a nice small nuclear plant , no pet Co2 scam to worry you.
[quote][p][bold]Townee[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Redgolfer[/bold] wrote: Pour good money after bad as it aint going to get the go ahead and you can try and bully people all you like ???[/p][/quote]Says you. Oh look a pig flying low. It will happen then you can eat your words. The sooner the better, it will give visitors something to watch and look at instead of just a boring view of nothing but sea.[/p][/quote]You must be a lefty green supporter as you just love to spend other peoples money and tell us whats good for us or else, get a life and stop the subsidies on useless wind turbines, you know it makes sense not to build it, spend the money on something useful like a nice small nuclear plant , no pet Co2 scam to worry you. Ophilum
  • Score: -1

10:34am Thu 14 Aug 14

Ophilum says...

Yankee1 wrote:
One word:

Biomass. Wood pellets imported through Immingham. That will replace coal. Wind is fine, but it is not constant.

The biggest green source of energy would be a tidal barrage between Sandbanks and Shell Bay. Traffic would flow unimpeded, but Poole Harbour would become a lake with only a lock to the Channel.

It seems to me that the Isle of Portland would make an excellent onshore wind farm.
Wood is no good the sea miles from Canada cause a bl**dy great carbon footprint as big as the wind farm and the hot air by the greens,use coal it is here already don't you know . No subsidies no wind farm.
[quote][p][bold]Yankee1[/bold] wrote: One word: Biomass. Wood pellets imported through Immingham. That will replace coal. Wind is fine, but it is not constant. The biggest green source of energy would be a tidal barrage between Sandbanks and Shell Bay. Traffic would flow unimpeded, but Poole Harbour would become a lake with only a lock to the Channel. It seems to me that the Isle of Portland would make an excellent onshore wind farm.[/p][/quote]Wood is no good the sea miles from Canada cause a bl**dy great carbon footprint as big as the wind farm and the hot air by the greens,use coal it is here already don't you know . No subsidies no wind farm. Ophilum
  • Score: 0

4:54pm Thu 14 Aug 14

Nee how says...

TheDistrict wrote:
Just go ahead Navitus, and do not listen to such rants as Redgolfer above. I support this project, and from the outset, not because I am Green, but because I believe that we do need alternative power. As for all the negative responses, this from people who do not think, do not listen, and more importantly do not care about our energy future.

Anyone knows that some damage to the seabed may occur, but if they do, they will also know that it will repair itself, as did the Surf Reef, now a flourishing marine life reef.

I just wish the negative people would shut up and listen to the positive thinking.
Nice bit of dictatorship. Everyone is barking mad if they don't agree with you.
[quote][p][bold]TheDistrict[/bold] wrote: Just go ahead Navitus, and do not listen to such rants as Redgolfer above. I support this project, and from the outset, not because I am Green, but because I believe that we do need alternative power. As for all the negative responses, this from people who do not think, do not listen, and more importantly do not care about our energy future. Anyone knows that some damage to the seabed may occur, but if they do, they will also know that it will repair itself, as did the Surf Reef, now a flourishing marine life reef. I just wish the negative people would shut up and listen to the positive thinking.[/p][/quote]Nice bit of dictatorship. Everyone is barking mad if they don't agree with you. Nee how
  • Score: 0

9:51pm Tue 19 Aug 14

yet_another_one says...

Derek of Bournemouth wrote:
The article in the Daily Echo entitled: "Seabed to be drilled as research for proposed Navitus Bay wind farm" confirms many serious concerns that NBOL have always tried to give the impression they know what they are doing and that they have undertaken all necessary geology investigations ~ this is now obviously completely untrue.
It would appear that NBOL are at last going to undertake a geology survey of the proposed wind farm site.
This is a survey which should have been undertaken years ago and is absolutely necessary when first investigating a site for a wind farm or in fact any structure.
If unsuitable, the whole Navitus Bay proposal has been a complete waste of time and money for all concerned.
When considering future energy sources Tidal Power and NGNPP are far more efficient than Wind power.
Important to mention that wind turbines met 22 per cent of power demand last Sunday, while coal contributed just 13 per cent - FACT.

Wind has zero consequential carbon footprint unlike that of energy produced from coal & other fossil fuels where the carbon footprint of transportation is massive.

Nuclear is a ticking time bomb & renders land unusable for decades -
get real, Navitus should be welcomed as all these NIMBY's seem to forget what they said about Chernobyl & this is precisely the reason why the Germans are building coal fired power generation plants.
[quote][p][bold]Derek of Bournemouth[/bold] wrote: The article in the Daily Echo entitled: "Seabed to be drilled as research for proposed Navitus Bay wind farm" confirms many serious concerns that NBOL have always tried to give the impression they know what they are doing and that they have undertaken all necessary geology investigations ~ this is now obviously completely untrue. It would appear that NBOL are at last going to undertake a geology survey of the proposed wind farm site. This is a survey which should have been undertaken years ago and is absolutely necessary when first investigating a site for a wind farm or in fact any structure. If unsuitable, the whole Navitus Bay proposal has been a complete waste of time and money for all concerned. When considering future energy sources Tidal Power and NGNPP are far more efficient than Wind power.[/p][/quote]Important to mention that wind turbines met 22 per cent of power demand last Sunday, while coal contributed just 13 per cent - FACT. Wind has zero consequential carbon footprint unlike that of energy produced from coal & other fossil fuels where the carbon footprint of transportation is massive. Nuclear is a ticking time bomb & renders land unusable for decades - get real, Navitus should be welcomed as all these NIMBY's seem to forget what they said about Chernobyl & this is precisely the reason why the Germans are building coal fired power generation plants. yet_another_one
  • 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