The benefits for the area are renewable energy

A lot of hot air. Even on this site, I suggest that the wind does not blow constantly. This is all about getting grants from the government not renewable energy and in any case, I assume that any power generated goes into the National Grid so how does the local community benefit? The government ought to bite the bullet and source some ready-built nuclear stations from France where they are selling to other countries but not ours. I wonder if that is just chauvinism rather than common sense.

Lets have a new nuclear reactor then to replace the old atomic one. Far more sensible than wind farms surley. Us residents won't mind.
You may thin I am joking but if you don't allow wind farms then neclear mini power stations is what were all looking at!
I vote wind every time.

These schemes are just not economical. The tax payer is subsidising the developer. If no subsidy the developer would not invest as they would not see a return on their investment. Complete and utter waste of time and money.

I think winds turbines are fine, people in the UK are too mollycoddled nowadays that they now think views are more important than an energy supply. What do you think powers your computers, fresh air and lovely views?? So if you don't want them down there in Dorset why don't we build a nice big nuclear power station in Purbeck. You can't have your cake and eat it.....hypocrites.

First a correction to the above story.
The wind turbines are 125metres tall ie. 410feet and they will be built on undulating ground about 150 feet which then give or take a few feet make them 560 feet above sea level,this is a rough equivalent of the height of the Purbecks above sea level. So good news if you live on the extreme South coast as the Purbecks will block out their view.
If, however you live to the North of the Purbecks and for example at 200 feet then these turbines will be seen as taller than the Purbecks (perspective) and if viewed from the Purbeck ridge line then they will be the tallest structure around in Dorset making the proposed sundial of Baiter appear insignificant. These Wind turbines are unlikely to be built in the depths of a quarry but more likely to be built higher on the ridge of the proposed area on untouched heathland.
In fact well over 50% of the proposed area is untouched heathland.
It will be the responsibility of the landowner to ensure that the quarries are returned to heathland.
The owner of this land has identified this site for a wind farm.
The owner of this site is, surpise, also heavily involved in wind farms in other parts of the UK.
If wind farms were ultra effective then I might consider them. I also would not object to a replacement Nuclear reactor at Winfrith which at least could provide power on windless days.
I also accept that many people believe that wind farms are acceptable. Not for me nor I surmise most of the residents of Dorset or our many visitors.
Of course the one possible area that would have enough wind is the Isle of Portland but again the visual impact of that would be horrendous.

Richard Snook wrote:
First a correction to the above story. The wind turbines are 125metres tall ie. 410feet and they will be built on undulating ground about 150 feet which then give or take a few feet make them 560 feet above sea level,this is a rough equivalent of the height of the Purbecks above sea level. So good news if you live on the extreme South coast as the Purbecks will block out their view. If, however you live to the North of the Purbecks and for example at 200 feet then these turbines will be seen as taller than the Purbecks (perspective) and if viewed from the Purbeck ridge line then they will be the tallest structure around in Dorset making the proposed sundial of Baiter appear insignificant. These Wind turbines are unlikely to be built in the depths of a quarry but more likely to be built higher on the ridge of the proposed area on untouched heathland. In fact well over 50% of the proposed area is untouched heathland. It will be the responsibility of the landowner to ensure that the quarries are returned to heathland. The owner of this land has identified this site for a wind farm. The owner of this site is, surpise, also heavily involved in wind farms in other parts of the UK. If wind farms were ultra effective then I might consider them. I also would not object to a replacement Nuclear reactor at Winfrith which at least could provide power on windless days. I also accept that many people believe that wind farms are acceptable. Not for me nor I surmise most of the residents of Dorset or our many visitors. Of course the one possible area that would have enough wind is the Isle of Portland but again the visual impact of that would be horrendous.

There are plenty of wind farms in cornwall. I would submit that they add to, rather than destroy, the view.

If we are to protect our economy from the impact of spiralling oil prices, we need to think about all options available.

James :
I am surprised by your comment,and a political animal to boot!!! this is a wheeze to encourage landowners by virtue of government grants to explore this avenue. The past couple of days have been windy, but generally speaking we live in a balmy climate in this area.They are not as efficient or cost saving as you may think, and there are many contradictions to the claims that they are so eco efficient. We should be using energy from waste, and enough to heat Poundbury, there are areas just outside Dorchester that have hot springs, these heat sources aught to be explored. We have kinetic energy by virtue of our little and large harbours , and the tidal pull, we have our rivers where we only need something lying on the river bed to generate power from the gentle flow. We have tidal races around the Bill. Dorset is too confined and smallto house these huge turbines, the only windmills we ever want are the childrens ones you poke into sandcastles. By reading a very good page on the web, called Peak Oil, and then looking at 'Wolf at the door'you will see that there is an aweful lot we can encourage ourselves by saving fuel. We could demand that builders put cellars in , and that there is always a northfacing area for an old fashioned pantry in a house, and by saving water and reusing it for loos etc, these energy levels will be a welcome challenge for all householders!
I am so sad to think that I would have to challenge you on these issues!!

Well said Tru-belle!
Jimmy Young has hit on something too. He makes a very good case for building more windfarms in Cornwall where they have the space. ( tho' they are still not very effective).
So build them in Cornwall or Cumbria.
We don't have to have them in Dorset as a form of penance.

Tru Belle wrote:
James : I am surprised by your comment,and a political animal to boot!!! this is a wheeze to encourage landowners by virtue of government grants to explore this avenue. The past couple of days have been windy, but generally speaking we live in a balmy climate in this area.They are not as efficient or cost saving as you may think, and there are many contradictions to the claims that they are so eco efficient. We should be using energy from waste, and enough to heat Poundbury, there are areas just outside Dorchester that have hot springs, these heat sources aught to be explored. We have kinetic energy by virtue of our little and large harbours , and the tidal pull, we have our rivers where we only need something lying on the river bed to generate power from the gentle flow. We have tidal races around the Bill. Dorset is too confined and smallto house these huge turbines, the only windmills we ever want are the childrens ones you poke into sandcastles. By reading a very good page on the web, called Peak Oil, and then looking at 'Wolf at the door'you will see that there is an aweful lot we can encourage ourselves by saving fuel. We could demand that builders put cellars in , and that there is always a northfacing area for an old fashioned pantry in a house, and by saving water and reusing it for loos etc, these energy levels will be a welcome challenge for all householders! I am so sad to think that I would have to challenge you on these issues!!

Good points Belle. I know there are questions around efficiency (i did the numbers for one in my back garden, and quickly discounted it). I was merely commenting that i don't find them that unsightly.

As for your other suggestions, i agree that there is lots that we can do. The issue, of course, is that individually such measures are expensive. I looked at a ground source heat pump rather than gas fired heating for our home in Dorchester - it was 3 times the initial cost ! Big developments like windfarms do reduce our overall demand for fuel and they are more advanced (in the sense of proven technology).

Political animal ? Sheesh but i hope not.

When will people wake up to the harsh realities we now face. Come on you must now know about global warming. Climate change is happening at a faster rate than feared, the consequences, natural disasters and human tragedies are our responsibilty. Rising sea levels and droughts will bring millions of refugees, where shall we put them, in a quarry near East Stoke or on your doorstep? Yes a windfarm is only a small drop in the ocean but the ocean is made up of millions of drops, it is part of the solution and if you have any social responsibilty you cannot morally object. Will your grandchildren be regarding you in 40 years time, with admiration or contempt? I have seen many massive wind turbines in Germany, stood beneath them, they are not noisy and in my eyes aethestically pleasing. A little visual disturbance is a small price to pay.

Do not bother with six masts at East Stoke, as they will only reliably supply 150 homes with green energy, not a price worth paying!! Our grandchildren will think we’re mad.
Wind turbines generating electricity can, by our own country’s data, have load factors at best of 30% and technical studies have demonstrated that they have a ‘capacity credit ( ie no need for back-up) of 30% . So, on the basis of turbines of the 1.5 megawatt installed size we can expect to get a net contribution of ‘green energy’ power of 135 kilowatts from each tower. By my reckoning about enough for 25 homes, the ‘shadow’ from one tower covers a greater area!!
Compare this with load factors of 80 -90% for conventional generation, even including the new straw burning ( renewable) stations and with the capacity credit of > 75%, makes the case for wind turbines a no brainer.
Wind turbines are a useful political tool; they very visibly demonstrate action, even if that action is meaningless. Not a single wind farm would have been built without massive subsidies.
It is self evident that there is no correlation between system demand and wind generated supply. Consequently our electricity network will have to cope with the additional instability which variable wind conditions will bring, I guess this is currently (no pun intended) an irritation in their calculations. However given projections of up to 20% installed wind capacity, this will in itself require massive funding in research studies, computer modelling and grid strengthening to name but a few additional unnecessary costs. Compared with the existing power system supply matching demand on a planned and controlled basis there is no sensible argument to continue building these white ( 3 legged ) elephants.
Use the brains of our forefathers and don’t try to reinvent the wheel, have the courage of their convictions and build more modern nuclear stations as base load suppliers, with renewable carbon burning stations and tidal power such as the Severn barrage, all of which will have predictable supply patterns.
Do not bother with six masts at East Stoke, as they will only reliably supply 150 homes with green energy, not a price worth or we have to pay, on our future energy bills!!