Purbeck wind farm gets thumbs up (From Bournemouth Echo)

A positive decision, let's hope it gets built soon to dispel the myths perpetrated by the NIMBY's

Excellent decision. We need renewable energy sources. The NIMBYs would be the first to moan if the lights go out.

This is a very positive decision. Now let's hope other Energy Companies will follow suit.. What about siting some around "Charlies New Town" at Dorchester it would not spoil the already spoilt skyline there.

This is really pleasing - to all the people who object - we have 5 giant wind turbines near our property in France - they don't make any noise, they are constantly turning and are rather majestic. We've got to give these alternative sources a try

Bring it on. Good decision.

I approve of these machines in principal. They are, indeed, quite graceful and they make very little noise (traffic noise, and noise from crows is much worse).

However, I think we need to consider how much energy is generated, the realistic lifespan of the turbines, the "carbon cost" of manufacturing them and the cost of the energy generated (i.e. pence per kilowatt hour). Manufacturers figures tend to be rather optimistic. Could the echo publish these figures, which are rather more important than the number of supporters and objectors?

Totally agree, get them built, we need to generate alternative powere sources, forget the moaners, just get it done before the lights go out, every little helps.

Thinking about how large they will seem to those who live nearby them they will be 130 metres high (425 feet) and at least 1,000 metres away from habitations.

This may impact less than some fear.

The real question is wether, having accepted in principle, four, further windmills will gain permissions, and how well the Council will manage the Conditions, which may set far reaching precedents.

Now is the time for objectors and others of good will to investigate and refine their vigilance.

This is good news, and long overdue. I have lived near such wind farms in France and in Norfolk, and it is amazing how soon they 'fit in' to the landscape. The benefits to creating zero-emission energy is undeniable. A good start.

Now, would those who objected kindly remove their ugly protest signs illegally affixed to street signs and in verges along the A351?

"Mr Sandham stressed the wind farm would receive no subsidies, adding: “If the wind doesn’t blow, the wind farm receives no revenue.” "

Since when is a guaranteed £50 (ROC value) over and above wholesale electricity (price per MWh) not a subsidy?
Do not trust a thing that these slippery developers tell you. They have only one interest at heart and that is certainly not saving the planet. Capitalism and enviromentalism do not fit into the same sentence.

I am pleased that someone has taken the first step to counter fear of the unknown. Most opposition to wind turbines is nimbyism however it's dressed up and encouraged by those who have a financial interest in the older polluting technologies. Quack science and exageration is employed to pursuede people that this is something other than a safe, clean technology. These applications should be considered against normal planning criteria and rejected only when they breach the criteria. If we had had the current day nimbyism back in the days when the national grid was being built then where would our electricity be coming from? Perhaps we would all have a power station at the end of our road. Waste to energy?
We need several different technologies generating electricity from mainly renewable sources, and we need to continue to cut the ammount of energy we use. We have future generations to consider.

Terry Stewart, of the Campaign to Protect Rural England, said: “There is a threat to human health.”

If CPRE had any ambition to be a credible partisipant in the planing process they would condem members scare mongering in this manner. There is no threat to human health. Mr Stewart then makes incorrect claims regarding Scottish Planning demonstrating further that he will not let facts get in the way of spouting NIMBY rhetoric.
If CPRE continue to let members make such outlandish claims under the CPRE name they will have no future as a credible organisation.

ilpoppet wrote:
Terry Stewart, of the Campaign to Protect Rural England, said: “There is a threat to human health.”

If CPRE had any ambition to be a credible partisipant in the planing process they would condem members scare mongering in this manner. There is no threat to human health. Mr Stewart then makes incorrect claims regarding Scottish Planning demonstrating further that he will not let facts get in the way of spouting NIMBY rhetoric.
If CPRE continue to let members make such outlandish claims under the CPRE name they will have no future as a credible organisation.

Whats the threat to human health that the CPRE refer to then.

What is this ' don't be frightened of the unknown ' nonsense? It is because much research has been undertaken that experts do know the risks involved.

These turbines will be hardly make any difference to the national grid, despite local people being promised cheaper power!

These Turbines will hum /swoosh if and when the rare Purbeck wind blows, and create giant shadows over precious rare heathland, and will be seen from every high point in Dorset.

This is a cack handed gesture to green energy on behalf of the the Loony wasteful Liberal councillors who sit/bicycle on Purbeck district council!

Dengie Boy wrote:
"Mr Sandham stressed the wind farm would receive no subsidies, adding: “If the wind doesn’t blow, the wind farm receives no revenue.” " Since when is a guaranteed £50 (ROC value) over and above wholesale electricity (price per MWh) not a subsidy? Do not trust a thing that these slippery developers tell you. They have only one interest at heart and that is certainly not saving the planet. Capitalism and enviromentalism do not fit into the same sentence.

And which means a 50% increase in the approx. 10p per kW hour we all pay for our domestic supply does it not when all the costs flush through and when the Nuclear option can provide electricity as cheaply and reliably as does gas.
The problem with wind is that the up-front costs are so high and its availability so variable that we`ll be buying all available power at that +50% cost whenever the wind blows I rather fancy and not when we want it particularly.

ilpoppet wrote:
Terry Stewart, of the Campaign to Protect Rural England, said: “There is a threat to human health.”

If CPRE had any ambition to be a credible partisipant in the planing process they would condem members scare mongering in this manner. There is no threat to human health. Mr Stewart then makes incorrect claims regarding Scottish Planning demonstrating further that he will not let facts get in the way of spouting NIMBY rhetoric.
If CPRE continue to let members make such outlandish claims under the CPRE name they will have no future as a credible organisation.

From the House of Commons Library November 18th 2010:

"Scotland has guidance suggesting 2km and Wales suggests 500m between a wind turbine and housing."

It's Charles Sandham who has deliberately mislead the planning authorities and the public with his statements, not CPRE.

caprimuldi wrote:

ilpoppet wrote: Terry Stewart, of the Campaign to Protect Rural England, said: “There is a threat to human health.” If CPRE had any ambition to be a credible partisipant in the planing process they would condem members scare mongering in this manner. There is no threat to human health. Mr Stewart then makes incorrect claims regarding Scottish Planning demonstrating further that he will not let facts get in the way of spouting NIMBY rhetoric. If CPRE continue to let members make such outlandish claims under the CPRE name they will have no future as a credible organisation.

From the House of Commons Library November 18th 2010: "Scotland has guidance suggesting 2km and Wales suggests 500m between a wind turbine and housing." It's Charles Sandham who has deliberately mislead the planning authorities and the public with his statements, not CPRE.

That is what we have read to-

I hope Charles Sandham and Infinergy are not pulling a fast one over the the Liberal councillors green ethos, like offering incentives just like he did to Dunoon in August2010--to donate the income from one turbine over its lifetime to the community - a total of £1.6 million over approximately 25 years! Bribery eh?

http://www.dunoon-ob
server.com/index.php
/news/1-news/717-no-
to-dunoon-windfarm

Surprise surprise, it was turned down!

Interference to radio transmitters


http://files.opendeb
ate.co.uk/files/infi
nergy/wearpoint/Appe
ndix%2017.2.pdf

Adrian XX wrote:
I approve of these machines in principal. They are, indeed, quite graceful and they make very little noise (traffic noise, and noise from crows is much worse). However, I think we need to consider how much energy is generated, the realistic lifespan of the turbines, the "carbon cost" of manufacturing them and the cost of the energy generated (i.e. pence per kilowatt hour). Manufacturers figures tend to be rather optimistic. Could the echo publish these figures, which are rather more important than the number of supporters and objectors?

These are some of the questions I had to find out for myself before deciding to support this application.
I have been told that the 'carbon cost' of a wind turbine is usually repaid in 8-12 months, in this instance slightly less because gravel for concrete will come from on site (it's an old gravel pit coming to the end of it's life).
The lifespan is expected to be 25 years.
I think the current cost of onshore wind is around 3p per kwh.
And even allowing for wind variability they are expected to generate over 21 million domestic units of electricity per year.

a.g.o.g. wrote:

Dengie Boy wrote: "Mr Sandham stressed the wind farm would receive no subsidies, adding: “If the wind doesn’t blow, the wind farm receives no revenue.” " Since when is a guaranteed £50 (ROC value) over and above wholesale electricity (price per MWh) not a subsidy? Do not trust a thing that these slippery developers tell you. They have only one interest at heart and that is certainly not saving the planet. Capitalism and enviromentalism do not fit into the same sentence.

And which means a 50% increase in the approx. 10p per kW hour we all pay for our domestic supply does it not when all the costs flush through and when the Nuclear option can provide electricity as cheaply and reliably as does gas. The problem with wind is that the up-front costs are so high and its availability so variable that we`ll be buying all available power at that +50% cost whenever the wind blows I rather fancy and not when we want it particularly.

The trouble with nuclear is the up-front and decommissioning costs.
The UK has a bill of £100 BILLION to clean up our current nuclear legacy, compare that to the £6 billion cuts we are now enduring and you realise nuclear is not an option.
Also would take some 15-20 years to build, which I am afraid is too late.

Dengie Boy wrote:
"Mr Sandham stressed the wind farm would receive no subsidies, adding: “If the wind doesn’t blow, the wind farm receives no revenue.” " Since when is a guaranteed £50 (ROC value) over and above wholesale electricity (price per MWh) not a subsidy? Do not trust a thing that these slippery developers tell you. They have only one interest at heart and that is certainly not saving the planet. Capitalism and enviromentalism do not fit into the same sentence.

Mr Sandham was quite correct.
ROC's (Renewable Obligation Certificates) are sold to energy companies to prove they are buying renewable energy.

But you have to generate that energy before you can sell it's certificate.

If the wind turbines don't turn, they don't generate any power and they cannot sell any ROC's.

GPWool wrote:

a.g.o.g. wrote:

Dengie Boy wrote: "Mr Sandham stressed the wind farm would receive no subsidies, adding: “If the wind doesn’t blow, the wind farm receives no revenue.” " Since when is a guaranteed £50 (ROC value) over and above wholesale electricity (price per MWh) not a subsidy? Do not trust a thing that these slippery developers tell you. They have only one interest at heart and that is certainly not saving the planet. Capitalism and enviromentalism do not fit into the same sentence.

And which means a 50% increase in the approx. 10p per kW hour we all pay for our domestic supply does it not when all the costs flush through and when the Nuclear option can provide electricity as cheaply and reliably as does gas. The problem with wind is that the up-front costs are so high and its availability so variable that we`ll be buying all available power at that +50% cost whenever the wind blows I rather fancy and not when we want it particularly.

The trouble with nuclear is the up-front and decommissioning costs. The UK has a bill of £100 BILLION to clean up our current nuclear legacy, compare that to the £6 billion cuts we are now enduring and you realise nuclear is not an option. Also would take some 15-20 years to build, which I am afraid is too late.

We are always too late and too ready to pay through the nose for the available options then offered up as being good deals!

yankee wrote:
This is good news, and long overdue. I have lived near such wind farms in France and in Norfolk, and it is amazing how soon they 'fit in' to the landscape. The benefits to creating zero-emission energy is undeniable. A good start. Now, would those who objected kindly remove their ugly protest signs illegally affixed to street signs and in verges along the A351?

totally agree with you about the ugly yellow signs.

They gave the impression that everyone in the area were against this project but at the meeting I was sat next to two people who both live in East Stoke and were very much in favour of it.

Ahead of the meeting a friend of mine put up some easy to remove signs on sticks, obviously choosing not to glue anything to road sings as the objectors had done.

Someone came along and removed them.

So he put up some more - they also got removed.

Unlike us, some people just cannot abide others having different opinions!

GPWool wrote:

yankee wrote: This is good news, and long overdue. I have lived near such wind farms in France and in Norfolk, and it is amazing how soon they 'fit in' to the landscape. The benefits to creating zero-emission energy is undeniable. A good start. Now, would those who objected kindly remove their ugly protest signs illegally affixed to street signs and in verges along the A351?

totally agree with you about the ugly yellow signs. They gave the impression that everyone in the area were against this project but at the meeting I was sat next to two people who both live in East Stoke and were very much in favour of it. Ahead of the meeting a friend of mine put up some easy to remove signs on sticks, obviously choosing not to glue anything to road sings as the objectors had done. Someone came along and removed them. So he put up some more - they also got removed. Unlike us, some people just cannot abide others having different opinions!

I don't know who you sat next to from East Stoke at the meeting, but many people from Wool and surrounding areas are angry and upset by this disgraceful application and subsequent agreement by a mainly quasi green district council- who have fallen for the duplicious claims made by this energy company!

Loamingloof wrote:
Thinking about how large they will seem to those who live nearby them they will be 130 metres high (425 feet) and at least 1,000 metres away from habitations. This may impact less than some fear. The real question is wether, having accepted in principle, four, further windmills will gain permissions, and how well the Council will manage the Conditions, which may set far reaching precedents. Now is the time for objectors and others of good will to investigate and refine their vigilance.

Unfortunately there are very few places in Dorset for such wind farms - a viable wind source, a brownfield site, outside AONB, SSSI, Conservation Areas - the list goes on, so don't worry that they will be marching all across the county.

I know a lot of environmentalists who look at our future prospects with gloom, this may have only been one small project but it has given so many people a real lift and hope that we may be able to turn the energy crises and climate catastrophe around.

Loamingloof wrote:
Thinking about how large they will seem to those who live nearby them they will be 130 metres high (425 feet) and at least 1,000 metres away from habitations.

This may impact less than some fear.

The real question is wether, having accepted in principle, four, further windmills will gain permissions, and how well the Council will manage the Conditions, which may set far reaching precedents.

Now is the time for objectors and others of good will to investigate and refine their vigilance.

Yes - 130m high at 1000m distant is about the same as a street light or telegraph pole from 100 meters away, so not the huge eyesore which everyone is led to believe.

Personally, I'd prefer nuclear solutions, but wind power is a step in the right direction in less reliance on coal and oil.

GPWool wrote:

Loamingloof wrote: Thinking about how large they will seem to those who live nearby them they will be 130 metres high (425 feet) and at least 1,000 metres away from habitations. This may impact less than some fear. The real question is wether, having accepted in principle, four, further windmills will gain permissions, and how well the Council will manage the Conditions, which may set far reaching precedents. Now is the time for objectors and others of good will to investigate and refine their vigilance.

Unfortunately there are very few places in Dorset for such wind farms - a viable wind source, a brownfield site, outside AONB, SSSI, Conservation Areas - the list goes on, so don't worry that they will be marching all across the county. I know a lot of environmentalists who look at our future prospects with gloom, this may have only been one small project but it has given so many people a real lift and hope that we may be able to turn the energy crises and climate catastrophe around.

OFF SHORE wind farms!!

Do you not understand we do not need 4 wind turbines in Purbeck. This will be seen from Aonb areas- this is on the edge of Dorset heathland, and a migratory route.

Purbeck is a sparsely populated area, and is full of old disused quarries etc, therin lies its diversity and beauty.

Stop peddling rubbish about climate and energy fears- this development will not contribute enough power for even 1,ooo homes. Wise up!

Hardy Lass wrote:

GPWool wrote:

yankee wrote: This is good news, and long overdue. I have lived near such wind farms in France and in Norfolk, and it is amazing how soon they 'fit in' to the landscape. The benefits to creating zero-emission energy is undeniable. A good start. Now, would those who objected kindly remove their ugly protest signs illegally affixed to street signs and in verges along the A351?

totally agree with you about the ugly yellow signs. They gave the impression that everyone in the area were against this project but at the meeting I was sat next to two people who both live in East Stoke and were very much in favour of it. Ahead of the meeting a friend of mine put up some easy to remove signs on sticks, obviously choosing not to glue anything to road sings as the objectors had done. Someone came along and removed them. So he put up some more - they also got removed. Unlike us, some people just cannot abide others having different opinions!

I don't know who you sat next to from East Stoke at the meeting, but many people from Wool and surrounding areas are angry and upset by this disgraceful application and subsequent agreement by a mainly quasi green district council- who have fallen for the duplicious claims made by this energy company!

oh come on, I know a few people are angry about this but we know most people in the area support it.
You will really struggle to see them from Wool, so why the anger?
What duplicitous claims would these be?
They cannot be as ridiculous as some of DARTs!

Hardy Lass wrote:

GPWool wrote:

Loamingloof wrote: Thinking about how large they will seem to those who live nearby them they will be 130 metres high (425 feet) and at least 1,000 metres away from habitations. This may impact less than some fear. The real question is wether, having accepted in principle, four, further windmills will gain permissions, and how well the Council will manage the Conditions, which may set far reaching precedents. Now is the time for objectors and others of good will to investigate and refine their vigilance.

Unfortunately there are very few places in Dorset for such wind farms - a viable wind source, a brownfield site, outside AONB, SSSI, Conservation Areas - the list goes on, so don't worry that they will be marching all across the county. I know a lot of environmentalists who look at our future prospects with gloom, this may have only been one small project but it has given so many people a real lift and hope that we may be able to turn the energy crises and climate catastrophe around.

OFF SHORE wind farms!! Do you not understand we do not need 4 wind turbines in Purbeck. This will be seen from Aonb areas- this is on the edge of Dorset heathland, and a migratory route. Purbeck is a sparsely populated area, and is full of old disused quarries etc, therin lies its diversity and beauty. Stop peddling rubbish about climate and energy fears- this development will not contribute enough power for even 1,ooo homes. Wise up!

Hardy Lass,
where do you get the notion it will not provide enough power for 1000 homes?
Listening to more of that DART rubbish?

Do the maths yourself, as I did, it's 5 times that number.

Off shore wind is twice as expensive, I'm happy to pay that, are you?
How about people struggling to make ends meet?

It's not either/or situation, we need every renewable available.

Do some research and have a reality check.

Hardy Lass wrote:

GPWool wrote:

Loamingloof wrote: Thinking about how large they will seem to those who live nearby them they will be 130 metres high (425 feet) and at least 1,000 metres away from habitations. This may impact less than some fear. The real question is wether, having accepted in principle, four, further windmills will gain permissions, and how well the Council will manage the Conditions, which may set far reaching precedents. Now is the time for objectors and others of good will to investigate and refine their vigilance.

Unfortunately there are very few places in Dorset for such wind farms - a viable wind source, a brownfield site, outside AONB, SSSI, Conservation Areas - the list goes on, so don't worry that they will be marching all across the county. I know a lot of environmentalists who look at our future prospects with gloom, this may have only been one small project but it has given so many people a real lift and hope that we may be able to turn the energy crises and climate catastrophe around.

OFF SHORE wind farms!!

Do you not understand we do not need 4 wind turbines in Purbeck. This will be seen from Aonb areas- this is on the edge of Dorset heathland, and a migratory route.

Purbeck is a sparsely populated area, and is full of old disused quarries etc, therin lies its diversity and beauty.

Stop peddling rubbish about climate and energy fears- this development will not contribute enough power for even 1,ooo homes. Wise up!

I have no time for the global warming claptrap but the fact is we do need alternative powere sources.
This project on it's own may well only generate a small amount of power but every small windfarm comes together to make an enormous new power source so if every small one was turned down we would get no where.
The excuses used to stop this are just plain stupidity, every day someone comes up with a new excuse, migrating birds, dont make me laugh, disused quarries, seems like the best place for them then.
I dont subscribe to the climate change agument but it is fact that our energy is running out and we have to find new ways or we will all be in darkness, and that includes the birds who wont be able to migrate because it will be too dark to see where their going.
Cornwal is littered with these things and there's no problems, people just dont like change or dont like change on their own doorstep, the time for excuses and argument is over, just build the things before the oil runs out.

We were promised cheaper everything when the utilities were privatised (for a song.) Here we go again. It is the same old cr*pola.

GPWool wrote:

Dengie Boy wrote: "Mr Sandham stressed the wind farm would receive no subsidies, adding: “If the wind doesn’t blow, the wind farm receives no revenue.” " Since when is a guaranteed £50 (ROC value) over and above wholesale electricity (price per MWh) not a subsidy? Do not trust a thing that these slippery developers tell you. They have only one interest at heart and that is certainly not saving the planet. Capitalism and enviromentalism do not fit into the same sentence.

Mr Sandham was quite correct. ROC's (Renewable Obligation Certificates) are sold to energy companies to prove they are buying renewable energy. But you have to generate that energy before you can sell it's certificate. If the wind turbines don't turn, they don't generate any power and they cannot sell any ROC's.

Excuse me Mr Wool?
The current value of an ROC on the market is £45. Onshore wind is given an ROC for each MWh of electricity it generates.
It also sells each MWh it produces (as does any other generator) on the wholesale electricity market. Today this peaked at £161/MWh (or 16.1pence per unit). So today for example a wind turbine operator earnt £206/MWh; £45 more than any thermal generator.
Now in my day if a farmer was paid an additional £45 per tonne of say oil seed rape he grew, over and above the market value, it was called a subsidy.
It would appear that both you and Mr Sandham have the right attributes to enter politics. It is the very fact that you both deny this as a subsidy, that should set alarm bells ringing amongst electricity consumers.

Excuse me Mr Wool?
The current value of an ROC on the market is £45. Onshore wind is given an ROC for each MWh of electricity it generates.
It also sells each MWh it produces (as does any other generator) on the wholesale electricity market. Today this peaked at £161/MWh (or 16.1pence per unit). So today for example a wind turbine operator earnt £206/MWh; £45 more than any thermal generator.
Now in my day if a farmer was paid an additional £45 per tonne of say oil seed rape he grew, over and above the market value, it was called a subsidy.
It would appear that both you and Mr Sandham have the right attributes to enter politics. It is the very fact that you both deny this as a subsidy, that should set alarm bells ringing amongst electricity consumers.

At last the NIMBYs have had a taste of their own medicine. Having spent much time in Cornwall, and close to much larger wind farms, I can without a doubt say that the noise levels are basically non existant. They are certainly not an eye sore, and one does really have to look out for them to see them.
.
It is one of the alternative energies of the future, and more environmental friendly than some others we have already used, and could still use with out such energy as wind power, both onshore, and offshore.
.
As for migatory birds, there is no proof that wind farms are dangerous to them. Birds have perfect devices to avoid such structures. How do you think they avoid buildings.
.
CPRE should be promoting such matters as wind farms so as to maintain the Rurual England they so beleive in. Is it not better than having a huge atomic/nuclear power station on the Purbecks. Could happen, being in close proximity of sea water.
.
Lets have more wind farms

Dengie Boy wrote:

GPWool wrote:

Dengie Boy wrote: "Mr Sandham stressed the wind farm would receive no subsidies, adding: “If the wind doesn’t blow, the wind farm receives no revenue.” " Since when is a guaranteed £50 (ROC value) over and above wholesale electricity (price per MWh) not a subsidy? Do not trust a thing that these slippery developers tell you. They have only one interest at heart and that is certainly not saving the planet. Capitalism and enviromentalism do not fit into the same sentence.

Mr Sandham was quite correct. ROC's (Renewable Obligation Certificates) are sold to energy companies to prove they are buying renewable energy. But you have to generate that energy before you can sell it's certificate. If the wind turbines don't turn, they don't generate any power and they cannot sell any ROC's.

Excuse me Mr Wool? The current value of an ROC on the market is £45. Onshore wind is given an ROC for each MWh of electricity it generates. It also sells each MWh it produces (as does any other generator) on the wholesale electricity market. Today this peaked at £161/MWh (or 16.1pence per unit). So today for example a wind turbine operator earnt £206/MWh; £45 more than any thermal generator. Now in my day if a farmer was paid an additional £45 per tonne of say oil seed rape he grew, over and above the market value, it was called a subsidy. It would appear that both you and Mr Sandham have the right attributes to enter politics. It is the very fact that you both deny this as a subsidy, that should set alarm bells ringing amongst electricity consumers.

I never mentioned subsidies!
Why are you making this up?
"It is the very fact that you both deny this as a subsidy".
I really don't envy your grasp of facts.

I was explaining that if the wind doesn't blow, they do not earn any money.

WIGGENSv , im with you on that .

I think that the residents have a fair choice then

Either accept the wind farms as your contribution to the national grid or do the decent thing and don't use any electricity.

Other people have lived near nuclear/oil/gas/coal power stations for years to provide you with your electricity. In comparison a few wind farms seems a small price to pay

winton50 wrote:
I think that the residents have a fair choice then Either accept the wind farms as your contribution to the national grid or do the decent thing and don't use any electricity. Other people have lived near nuclear/oil/gas/coal power stations for years to provide you with your electricity. In comparison a few wind farms seems a small price to pay

You are clearly not too sure of your geography- East Stoke is 3 miles away from a decommissioned nuclear power station Winfrith-- which actually will not be fully decommissioned untill 2035!

We also have BP Wytch Farm, in Purbeck which is the largest onshore oil field in the country.

I think this area has contributed quite enough to the energy legacy , don't you?

Plus we probably cope with your rubbish re our landfill sites!

Think before you speak please.

caprimuldi wrote:

ilpoppet wrote:
Terry Stewart, of the Campaign to Protect Rural England, said: “There is a threat to human health.”

If CPRE had any ambition to be a credible partisipant in the planing process they would condem members scare mongering in this manner. There is no threat to human health. Mr Stewart then makes incorrect claims regarding Scottish Planning demonstrating further that he will not let facts get in the way of spouting NIMBY rhetoric.
If CPRE continue to let members make such outlandish claims under the CPRE name they will have no future as a credible organisation.

From the House of Commons Library November 18th 2010:

"Scotland has guidance suggesting 2km and Wales suggests 500m between a wind turbine and housing."

It's Charles Sandham who has deliberately mislead the planning authorities and the public with his statements, not CPRE.

This aint over till the fat bird sings.

Thats right, we're talking brussel sprouts and roast potatoes.

And stuffing.

Get my drift?

caprimuldi, the house of commons library is not Scottish Planning Guidance, Scottish Planning Guidance is - the clue is in the name.
From the report above, Terry Stewart told the board similar wind farms in Scotland have to be built at least 2km from residential properties. If that were true he could back it up with the relevant Scottish planning guidance, it is not so he can not. Terry Stewart has been caught spreading a NIMBY lie, sadly a very common activity for CPRE.

Ironic isn’t it that on the day of approval there was not enough wind to generate enough electricity to boils a kettle. And that’s the problem with wind power – wind is totally unpredictable. As a result, and this is ignored by supporters, a conventional sources of supply (coal, gas or nuclear) has to be running 100% of the time at a sufficient level ready to cut in at any time to guarantee continuity of supply. So where’s the reduction in CO2?!!!!!
Given that the average wind turbine in the UK only operates at full capacity for around 26% of the time the siting of these at East Stoke seems ill advised due the sheltered position on the leeward side of the high Purbec hills from the prevailing wind.
The only way to make wind power “viable” is by massive subsidies which you and I are paying for via substantial increases of our electricity bills.
Its worth noting that commercially in the ‘real’ world no supplier of electricity would purchase electricity from a source that cannot guarantee continuity of supply. Again that’s where subsidies come in.
Yes we need to be more self sufficient in power sources but wind is an expensive unreliable source. Permanent 100% of the time generation can come from nuclear which is cheaper to build for the same amount of generation than wind turbines. Plus nuclear power stations have a life span far longer than the 25 years for a wind turbine.

caprimuldi wrote:

caprimuldi wrote:

ilpoppet wrote:
Terry Stewart, of the Campaign to Protect Rural England, said: “There is a threat to human health.”

If CPRE had any ambition to be a credible partisipant in the planing process they would condem members scare mongering in this manner. There is no threat to human health. Mr Stewart then makes incorrect claims regarding Scottish Planning demonstrating further that he will not let facts get in the way of spouting NIMBY rhetoric.
If CPRE continue to let members make such outlandish claims under the CPRE name they will have no future as a credible organisation.

From the House of Commons Library November 18th 2010:

"Scotland has guidance suggesting 2km and Wales suggests 500m between a wind turbine and housing."

It's Charles Sandham who has deliberately mislead the planning authorities and the public with his statements, not CPRE.

This aint over till the fat bird sings.

Thats right, we're talking brussel sprouts and roast potatoes.

And stuffing.

Get my drift?

Your as wrong as a wronger can wrongly be, you little monkey.

But like I said;

This aint over till the fat bird sings.

And this bird aint singing yet.

Renewable energy plans should be part of a well-planned core strategy, not done as piece meal development as and when an energy company and a land owner team up. This is energy property speculation in all but name
PDC now need to come up with a proper proposal that puts wind turbines in all the right places and will guarantee that we will have a sustainable energy supply here. They are failing in their responsibilities if all they are going to do is pass small scale projects such as this. It's pretty useless Green tokenism in my view. We need more of these all over Dorset to do the job properly. Over to PDC to work something out that really does the job.

ilpoppet wrote:
caprimuldi, the house of commons library is not Scottish Planning Guidance, Scottish Planning Guidance is - the clue is in the name.
From the report above, Terry Stewart told the board similar wind farms in Scotland have to be built at least 2km from residential properties. If that were true he could back it up with the relevant Scottish planning guidance, it is not so he can not. Terry Stewart has been caught spreading a NIMBY lie, sadly a very common activity for CPRE.

And the House Of Commons' Library is staffed by giant lizards with Vs tattooed behind their left earlobes.
Go peel the spuds poppet, I've got a goose to cook and its a ruddy big one.

By the way I think you would be wise to read the terms associated with posting on this forum. You are Sailing Very Close To The Wind.

How easily any adverse comment about wind farms is dismissed as nimbyism or those who are in the bad old dirty power indsustry. I am not either, I just love this country the way it is and I value and help protect wild life. Its time you "turbine huggers" woke up and smelt the coffee. The boot is on the other foot, there is a massive financial machine that is pushing wind farms mainly by bribing councils and farmers all under the smoke screen of "green energy". If we covered the whole country with the retched things you will only supply between 8% and 15% of all the power we need, all at massively inflated prices. Its not part of an integrated plan at all. When the lights start going out we will need Nuclear power, no one wants it, its just our only hope, we are **** footing around with a few turbines which is wasting money and taking attention and precious time away (also allowing MP's to fiddle while Rome burns hoping the next lot will fix it) from the looming crisis, the lights ARE going to go out. I dont intend to say how unfriendly these things are to normal human beings, its all been said, but I will say they slaughter birds and bats, and yes I have heard all the counter arguments. Time to get real, what would you rather look at unspoilt countryside or these things. When they are worn out and useless (which will be sooner that you think) future generations will rightly ask what on earth were you thinking about.

caprimuldi wrote:

ilpoppet wrote: caprimuldi, the house of commons library is not Scottish Planning Guidance, Scottish Planning Guidance is - the clue is in the name. From the report above, Terry Stewart told the board similar wind farms in Scotland have to be built at least 2km from residential properties. If that were true he could back it up with the relevant Scottish planning guidance, it is not so he can not. Terry Stewart has been caught spreading a NIMBY lie, sadly a very common activity for CPRE.

And the House Of Commons' Library is staffed by giant lizards with Vs tattooed behind their left earlobes. Go peel the spuds poppet, I've got a goose to cook and its a ruddy big one. By the way I think you would be wise to read the terms associated with posting on this forum. You are Sailing Very Close To The Wind.

Caprimundi,
perhaps you are sailing close to the wind if your comments are interpreted as veiled threats!

timetotell wrote:
Ironic isn’t it that on the day of approval there was not enough wind to generate enough electricity to boils a kettle. And that’s the problem with wind power – wind is totally unpredictable. As a result, and this is ignored by supporters, a conventional sources of supply (coal, gas or nuclear) has to be running 100% of the time at a sufficient level ready to cut in at any time to guarantee continuity of supply. So where’s the reduction in CO2?!!!!! Given that the average wind turbine in the UK only operates at full capacity for around 26% of the time the siting of these at East Stoke seems ill advised due the sheltered position on the leeward side of the high Purbec hills from the prevailing wind. The only way to make wind power “viable” is by massive subsidies which you and I are paying for via substantial increases of our electricity bills. Its worth noting that commercially in the ‘real’ world no supplier of electricity would purchase electricity from a source that cannot guarantee continuity of supply. Again that’s where subsidies come in. Yes we need to be more self sufficient in power sources but wind is an expensive unreliable source. Permanent 100% of the time generation can come from nuclear which is cheaper to build for the same amount of generation than wind turbines. Plus nuclear power stations have a life span far longer than the 25 years for a wind turbine.

TimeToTell, you are wrong,
wind is predictable 24-48 hours in advance, (unlike Sizewell B that keeps tripping out and leaving people without power).
Lots of turbines spread out all over the country means if the wind isn't here it probably is elsewhere - evening out the peaks & troughs.
Also wrong with the initial statement, it was a blustery evening in Purbeck.