UPDATED WITH VIDEO: Demonstrations take place in Swanage over wind farm (From Thisisdorset)

Yawn! I don't understand why the green brigade think that wind farms are so environmentally friendly especially when you consider the amount of energy it will take to extract the materials from the planet, manufacture the turbines, install, maintain and then replace them on a regular basis.

Equally I don't know why the NIMBY crowd are so opposed other than it spoiling their exclusive view out to sea and let's be honest is probably more to do with the potential drop in property price!

If the greens and the anti wind farm crowd were serious about saving energy and therefore not having to fall back so hard on renewables, they should be campaigning to save energy not argue over how to generate more. Turn lights off, heating down, less product packaging, buying local, holidaying locally, walk/cycle more, fix things instead of throwing things out etc etc but what's the point unless the whole world joins in.

Forget all this global warming stuff as the world is screwed anyway. Until we limit the world population then there will always be an increasing demand for space, food, fuel and energy leading to meltdown.

tramp_about_town wrote:
Yawn! I don't understand why the green brigade think that wind farms are so environmentally friendly especially when you consider the amount of energy it will take to extract the materials from the planet, manufacture the turbines, install, maintain and then replace them on a regular basis.

Equally I don't know why the NIMBY crowd are so opposed other than it spoiling their exclusive view out to sea and let's be honest is probably more to do with the potential drop in property price!

If the greens and the anti wind farm crowd were serious about saving energy and therefore not having to fall back so hard on renewables, they should be campaigning to save energy not argue over how to generate more. Turn lights off, heating down, less product packaging, buying local, holidaying locally, walk/cycle more, fix things instead of throwing things out etc etc but what's the point unless the whole world joins in.

Forget all this global warming stuff as the world is screwed anyway. Until we limit the world population then there will always be an increasing demand for space, food, fuel and energy leading to meltdown.

Its interesting that I live in Swanage and I'm opposed to Navitus not because it's in my back yard but because the whole Govt policy that wants to impose wind power is futile (China is massively increasing CO2 levels as we speak) and very very very expensive. Oh and did I mention the bird migration route from Durlston (I can see a sort of avian Gallipoli happening twice a year).

Ever since greenham common closed these nutters have struggled to find a cause to waste their time on.............

I will bet one of these protesters will be dressed up as a bird to voice their patheic bird extermination theory.

Its rent a mob again.

Fairness and reasonableness of subsidies apart and if the dubious incentives look like prevailing, no doubt someone somewhere will ensure that Government is able to access an adequate "in escrow" account (created by Navitus) to fund any failure on the part of Navitus to protect the livelihoods of people affected by their proposals including any eventual failure to remove promptly all redundant structures (including cables, etc) to not only restore the seabed but also to ensure safety when navigating by ship or submarine.

It is relevant to note that many local businesses do rely upon tourism and that UNESCO has stated that Le Mont St Michel would lose its world heritage status if a windfarm was actually built off-shore to that place - even though the windfarm concerned was expected to be further off-shore than the one now being suggested by Navitus.

timwel wrote:

tramp_about_town wrote:
Yawn! I don't understand why the green brigade think that wind farms are so environmentally friendly especially when you consider the amount of energy it will take to extract the materials from the planet, manufacture the turbines, install, maintain and then replace them on a regular basis.

Equally I don't know why the NIMBY crowd are so opposed other than it spoiling their exclusive view out to sea and let's be honest is probably more to do with the potential drop in property price!

If the greens and the anti wind farm crowd were serious about saving energy and therefore not having to fall back so hard on renewables, they should be campaigning to save energy not argue over how to generate more. Turn lights off, heating down, less product packaging, buying local, holidaying locally, walk/cycle more, fix things instead of throwing things out etc etc but what's the point unless the whole world joins in.

Forget all this global warming stuff as the world is screwed anyway. Until we limit the world population then there will always be an increasing demand for space, food, fuel and energy leading to meltdown.

Its interesting that I live in Swanage and I'm opposed to Navitus not because it's in my back yard but because the whole Govt policy that wants to impose wind power is futile (China is massively increasing CO2 levels as we speak) and very very very expensive. Oh and did I mention the bird migration route from Durlston (I can see a sort of avian Gallipoli happening twice a year).

China is also the world's biggest investor in renewable energy. We're not even close to what they're doing in the Far East.

A wind farm would be the most interesting thing in Swanage.

I could not hear this woman's voice because of the wind

If it is all futile because of China's backward economy then stop buying 'made in China' goods! Then at least you'll be true to your assessments and be able to do something less than futile for the well being of Britain and the Planet.

Just think of the increased carbon footprint due to all those demonstrators speeding to Swanage to protest.

Do greens actually have a concept of the pollution they cause with their vehicles?

Wind farms are an expression of an ethical energy strategy that is perhaps beyond the ability of modern day consumers to understand .. let alone the profit driven producers.

tramp_about_town wrote:
Yawn! I don't understand why the green brigade think that wind farms are so environmentally friendly especially when you consider the amount of energy it will take to extract the materials from the planet, manufacture the turbines, install, maintain and then replace them on a regular basis.

Equally I don't know why the NIMBY crowd are so opposed other than it spoiling their exclusive view out to sea and let's be honest is probably more to do with the potential drop in property price!

If the greens and the anti wind farm crowd were serious about saving energy and therefore not having to fall back so hard on renewables, they should be campaigning to save energy not argue over how to generate more. Turn lights off, heating down, less product packaging, buying local, holidaying locally, walk/cycle more, fix things instead of throwing things out etc etc but what's the point unless the whole world joins in.

Forget all this global warming stuff as the world is screwed anyway. Until we limit the world population then there will always be an increasing demand for space, food, fuel and energy leading to meltdown.

Its a farce before we build these wind farms why dont we have a look at our coal reserves im assuming theres no coal in around Swanage or of course we will have to ask the NIMBYS. How dreadful that all these people are only concerned about their house prices and sea view when the countries in such a mess

How about a generous energy discount to anyone living within sight of the wind farm?

Then there will be less NIMBYs and more WNIMBYs

Dorsetshire has its local and county councils subsidised to the tune of 75% from the national treasury.
Then when it has the opportunity to contribute to the national good through its natural resources, it sticks two fingers up.

How often do birds fly into things? They are a little brighter than we are with our cars.

I say build it and see how it goes, we won't know till its working. At the end of the day it's not a permanent scar on any landscape/seascape as if it's no good it can be dismantled leaving no trace. I'm more for wave and tidal power myself and would like to see the Severn Barrier built.

Greens do campaign for people to reduce their energy use but that's taking too long. Already the predicted effects of climate change have started to happen so clean energy is urgently needed now and we have to use the ones that are available now.
The pro and anti protesters today were a very civilised lot, discussing their different opinions with each other and swapping leaflets. It just shows you that making a point doesn't mean fighting.

Forget These useless windmills let's get fracking and soon.

MeenyMiny wrote:
Greens do campaign for people to reduce their energy use but that's taking too long. Already the predicted effects of climate change have started to happen so clean energy is urgently needed now and we have to use the ones that are available now.
The pro and anti protesters today were a very civilised lot, discussing their different opinions with each other and swapping leaflets. It just shows you that making a point doesn't mean fighting.

I'm afraid there is no such thing as clean energy. That's the problem with the green campaign, it's confusing and open to debate and contest.

Stick to one agenda which is to not save energy or produce "clean" energy but to reduce energy. All this talk of clean or renewable energy is just a con. If you reduce the demand you reduce the supply.

Glad it all went well and no one wasted any energy fighting. Hope the leaflets were recycled!

TILT !!!

Finbarr Finkelstein wrote:
I could not hear this woman's voice because of the wind

Yeah easterly wind , the opposite direction to the way the turbines will be pointing. Better keep the power stations running ;)

After the Sunday dinner I've just had (lots of sprouts and cabbage), navitus would do well dropping off one of their turbines round my house for a few megawatts of my 'green' energy!!!

Its a wind up!

l'anglais wrote:
Dorsetshire has its local and county councils subsidised to the tune of 75% from the national treasury.
Then when it has the opportunity to contribute to the national good through its natural resources, it sticks two fingers up.

How often do birds fly into things? They are a little brighter than we are with our cars.

er quite often

but it will be much more successful at 200m high on the bird migration route from Durlston so don't concern yourself


http://www.dorsetech
o.co.uk/news/localne
ws/8252862.Portland_
school_turns_off_win
d_turbine_to_halt_se
abird_slaughter/

Portland school turns off wind turbine to halt seabird slaughter
10:00am Saturday 3rd July 2010 in
• By Laura Kitching »
A £20,000 wind turbine brought in to make a Portland primary school more environmentally friendly has been turned off because it was killing seabirds.
er, quite often l'anglais

http://www.dorsetech
o.co.uk/news/localne
ws/8252862.Portland_
school_turns_off_win
d_turbine_to_halt_se
abird_slaughter

Headteacher Stuart McLeod, of Southwell Community Primary School, said they ‘tried everything’ to solve the problem but had no choice but to shut it down.
In the past few months the nine metre high generator has taken the lives of 14 birds – far higher than the manufacturer’s estimate of one per year.

saynomore wrote:
I will bet one of these protesters will be dressed up as a bird to voice their patheic bird extermination theory.

http://www.dorsetech
o.co.uk/news/localne
ws/8252862.Portland_
school_turns_off_win
d_turbine_to_halt_se
abird_slaughter

l'anglais wrote:
Dorsetshire has its local and county councils subsidised to the tune of 75% from the national treasury.
Then when it has the opportunity to contribute to the national good through its natural resources, it sticks two fingers up.

How often do birds fly into things? They are a little brighter than we are with our cars.

No that can't be right Dorset receive one of the lowest Central Govt Contributions (about 28% I think). Looks like you got it the wrong way around! That's why the roads are shot. Sawnage has some of the highest CT rates.

Anyway back to the topic in hand :)

Some questions answered about wind farms. My friend studies the effects of wind farms at uni and he has passed this on to me ;)


Wind farm create ( free electricity. )

This is not true. The electricity generated by wind turbines is much more costly than that from conventional power stations, because the price has to include enough to cover the subsidies paid to the wind farm companies for operating them. UK electricity prices have already gone up, and are predicted to go up by a further third over the next decade, to pay for our commitment to renewables.

Wind power is reliable because the wind is always blowing somewhere
C
That is not the case. Meteorologists can list many periods, often in very cold winter weather, when there is so little wind that the contribution to the grid is negligible. In addition, wind turbines only start generating when the wind is blowing at about 10mph, and have to be turned off for safety reasons when wind speeds reach about 55mph. In fact, on average, for about 110 days a year any individual turbine may generate no electricity at all. That means a back-up supply always has to be available – which is why no countries have been able to shut down their conventional power stations.

Wind farms provide employment

This is hardly true. There may be a small number of construction jobs on offer while the access roads to the site are being built but the on-site work to erect the actual turbines is a specialist job that will only be carried out by the contractor. Once the turbines are up, wind farms are operated remotely, sometimes even from abroad, so no ongoing local jobs are likely.

Wind farms only last for 25 years and are then removed

The key components of the turbines, namely the gears, normally last only about 10 to 12 years before they need replacing. Very few wind farms are as much as 25 years old yet – but we know of several cases where the operators have taken the opportunity to rebuild much sooner than that, erecting larger turbines than originally installed. So it is safer to assume that a wind farm, once built, will effectively be a permanent feature of the landscape.

Wind farms are not noisy

Wrong. There are plenty of examples where residents have suffered ill health effects caused by both noise (and on occasion shadow-flicker) when living too close to turbines. Some people, including some farmers, have even been forced out of their homes as a result. There is no legal setback distance from homes in the UK, though the Scottish Executive recommends 2kms as a desirable minimum.

Wind farms generate hardly any complaints

A report by the University of Salford in 2006 showed that about 20% of wind farms had already generated formal complaints. That work is currently being updated, as there are many more wind farms today than in 2006 and their technology has allegedly improved. The current work shows that the 20% level of complaints, however, remains steady.

Wind farms don’t cause a fall in house prices

Wind farm developers make this claim but there are certainly cases where people have difficulty in selling their homes once turbines are present. In one case, the vendors were legally obliged to compensate the purchasers by 20% of the house value, plus interest, for selling without having disclosed the presence of a wind farm proposal. The Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors surveyed house values near wind farms and found that about 60% had declined by amounts varying between 5% and 50%.

Wind farms have no damaging effect on tourism

The earliest wind farms had such novelty value that they were almost tourist attractions in themselves – but even the developers admit that this no longer applies. One caravan site near Harrogate, for example, has seen a drastic drop in income since four turbines were erected nearby. The Campaign for the Protection of Rural England, has recently released a ‘Tranquillity Map’ of the UK because it is clear that tourists are increasingly looking for peace and quiet when they go away from home.

Wind turbines pose no danger to birds and bats

Not true. Small birds can often avoid rotating blades at short notice (though remember that the tip of a turbine blade is moving at about 200mph) but larger birds such as eagles have much more trouble in diverting to avoid them. Birds that fly around at dusk or during the night are far more at risk than daytime birds. Bats are affected in a different way: They are seldom hit by the blades but they can suffer what is known as ‘barotrauma’ where the change in pressure near the blade tip kills them by damaging their lungs.

Wind farms are a safe form of technology

On the whole this is true (though there may be adverse health effects as noted above). Accidents can happen, however; there have been some examples in Britain of blades collapsing or flying off, and one or two cases of turbine hubs catching fire. A different concern is ‘ice throw’ which happens when ice forms on the blades, usually overnight, and may be flung off in chunks when conditions warm up. This may be a particular concern for farmers with livestock.

Lines of pylons are needed to take the power away from the site

This is not true. Typically, the cables are laid underground from the turbines within the wind farm site and are then linked to overhead lines on wooden poles to connect with the Grid. One worrying aspect, though, is that the developer of a wind farm does not have to seek planning permission for connection, or even to indicate what the proposed route for connection will be, because that is a matter for the Regional Electricity Supplier to address. Permission to the RES is more or less automatic.

Wind farms reduce CO2

Wind farms contribute very marginally to reducing CO2 mainly because an alternative power source has to be kept running at all times for the periods when the wind stops blowing. If we were to rely entirely on wind, we would need to learn to live with a very uncertain and intermittent electricity supply!

Well at least wind farms are better than nuclear power stations

Maybe. It would take about 6000 wind turbines, spread over perhaps 40 square miles to produce as much electricity as the one coal-fired power station at Ferrybridge, or nearly 3000 turbines, spread over 20 square miles, to match one of the two nuclear reactors at Hartlepool. But in both cases the power stations would still be needed as back-up for the 110 days when all those wind turbines would produce no electricity at all.

David Furmage - your friend's comments are highly contentious, and many of them, even if correct, would apply to onshore but not to offshore wind farms.

The last two would be more serious objections to Navitus if they were correct, but they are highly misleading. The variability of one renewable source is often balanced by the different variability of another renewable source, which is why a wide geographical spread of wind farms is so important. 110 days in a year with no electricity generated is, even at the individual turbine level, frankly a ridiculous exaggeration. At a system level, the figure is totally nonsensical.

Some conventional backup is needed, but it certainly does not need "to be kept running at all times for the periods when the winds stop blowing". High CO2 coal-fired power stations are not only not needed for back up, they would be totally unsuitable. Closed Cycle Gas Turbines, which are brought into play when needed (whether for a drop in supply or a surge in demand) are currently the most cost effective back up. In the longer term, there are a number of measures that can be introduced to reduce the need for back up still further, including storage devices and demand management via smart meters.

Aas for your earlier dismissal of the comment that it's almost impossible to hear the comments of the anti-wind protestor on the video clip because of the wind ("Yeah, easterly wind the opposite direction to the way the turbines will be pointing") - the turbines turn to face the wind.

The supporters on one side of the beach, the protesters on the other......where's Harry Hill when you need him? That would sort it out once and for all :-D

mooninpisces wrote:
David Furmage - your friend's comments are highly contentious, and many of them, even if correct, would apply to onshore but not to offshore wind farms.

The last two would be more serious objections to Navitus if they were correct, but they are highly misleading. The variability of one renewable source is often balanced by the different variability of another renewable source, which is why a wide geographical spread of wind farms is so important. 110 days in a year with no electricity generated is, even at the individual turbine level, frankly a ridiculous exaggeration. At a system level, the figure is totally nonsensical.

Some conventional backup is needed, but it certainly does not need "to be kept running at all times for the periods when the winds stop blowing". High CO2 coal-fired power stations are not only not needed for back up, they would be totally unsuitable. Closed Cycle Gas Turbines, which are brought into play when needed (whether for a drop in supply or a surge in demand) are currently the most cost effective back up. In the longer term, there are a number of measures that can be introduced to reduce the need for back up still further, including storage devices and demand management via smart meters.

Aas for your earlier dismissal of the comment that it's almost impossible to hear the comments of the anti-wind protestor on the video clip because of the wind ("Yeah, easterly wind the opposite direction to the way the turbines will be pointing") - the turbines turn to face the wind.

Whilst the current discussion is happening, has anyone else noticed all the power in running water going to waste without a waterwheel in sight ?

mooninpisces wrote:
David Furmage - your friend's comments are highly contentious, and many of them, even if correct, would apply to onshore but not to offshore wind farms. The last two would be more serious objections to Navitus if they were correct, but they are highly misleading. The variability of one renewable source is often balanced by the different variability of another renewable source, which is why a wide geographical spread of wind farms is so important. 110 days in a year with no electricity generated is, even at the individual turbine level, frankly a ridiculous exaggeration. At a system level, the figure is totally nonsensical. Some conventional backup is needed, but it certainly does not need "to be kept running at all times for the periods when the winds stop blowing". High CO2 coal-fired power stations are not only not needed for back up, they would be totally unsuitable. Closed Cycle Gas Turbines, which are brought into play when needed (whether for a drop in supply or a surge in demand) are currently the most cost effective back up. In the longer term, there are a number of measures that can be introduced to reduce the need for back up still further, including storage devices and demand management via smart meters. Aas for your earlier dismissal of the comment that it's almost impossible to hear the comments of the anti-wind protestor on the video clip because of the wind ("Yeah, easterly wind the opposite direction to the way the turbines will be pointing") - the turbines turn to face the wind.

Dear, oh dear, here we go again.....

Based on an operational wind speed of >4metres/sec any large turbine with a hub height of 45 metres sited on Hurn Airport would have had around 47% down time! Adding 10% for off-shoe location LOCALLY improves this by about 5%.
That equates to 146 DAYS EACH
YEAR.
Pushing the o/s gain to 20% reduces that to about 130 DAYS DEAD TIME PER YEAR.

ONLY!

Investigations into over-coming same by linking geographically widely spread Wind Farm, across Europe even, have revealed little gain and greater problems.

Large turbines carry much inertia against the fickle changes that lighter breezes undergo in terms of both strength and direction of approach and so do not extract all the power that is in wind speeds much below 10m/sec
This will greatly affect the Navitus proposal now on the table.

The Grid will demand conventional power supplies exceed Peak Demand on same by at least 10% regardless of how much renewable power we may have on line.
Gas though more convenient and clean is not as reliable as coal/nuclear in terms of stockpile and with being slow to accommodate change of demand will have to remain the baseload supplier until perhaps nuclear takes over.
Grid operators are becoming nervous about catering about wind comprising more than 10% of the duty due to both its variability and intermittency.
We should be listening and not seeking to direct!

With regard to `storage devices` perhaps we should first try inventing the horse and not the cart!
But as we cannot afford the latter even................
....................
.!

Do not confuse low level on and off-shore breezes that may have applied to Swanage for a while yesterday
while Bournemouth was calm and also the Navitus zone, viewing the yatchless horizons.

I dont see anyone compaining about Swanage railway which pumps 1000`s of tonnes of smoke into the atmosphere every year, but then i suppose because there going to be on telly its ok.

I suppose if we can't see the difference between a site 5 miles inland and one 10-20 miles out to sea, between a hub height of 45m above ground and one 90m above sea level, between one site and a grid system, and between a down time of hours per day and one of days per year, then we will end up with a meaningless figure which bears no relation to the ACTUAL performance of ACTUAL offshore wind farms in the UK.

What next can we think up to discredit the Navitus proposal?

mooninpisces wrote:
I suppose if we can't see the difference between a site 5 miles inland and one 10-20 miles out to sea, between a hub height of 45m above ground and one 90m above sea level, between one site and a grid system, and between a down time of hours per day and one of days per year, then we will end up with a meaningless figure which bears no relation to the ACTUAL performance of ACTUAL offshore wind farms in the UK. What next can we think up to discredit the Navitus proposal?

But neither do you like to hear about real off-shore installations elsewhere which I have used to evaluate Navitus potential relative to nearby Airports to each.
Let Navitus get on with its promise of erecting a 100m windtest tower out in the Bay and tell us the results!
But they will not be at all like the on/off shore breezes you get along the Prom any time of year.

a.g.o.g. - You remind me. I should have added to my list not being able to see the difference between 2 small antiquated wind turbines (at Blyth) and a field of large state of the art turbines at Navitus.

You miised the point that it is the larger turbines that suffer more the vagaries of wind direction and strength at lower velocities.
Thus larger ones off Blyth would perhaps perform no better relative to capacity.

My point was that antiquated turbines are less eficient than up-to-date ones.

efficient, even.

Modern kit will likely extract more power from a given amount of wind and so if it is rated at say 1.2 megaW instead of 1.0 you still end up with a Load Factor as a % of its potential.
Navitus using old kit might have been rated at 800 mega instead of 1000 while its LF remained the same.
But you nit-pick as usual and avoid the fundaments of the issue.

mooninpisces wrote:
David Furmage - your friend's comments are highly contentious, and many of them, even if correct, would apply to onshore but not to offshore wind farms.

The last two would be more serious objections to Navitus if they were correct, but they are highly misleading. The variability of one renewable source is often balanced by the different variability of another renewable source, which is why a wide geographical spread of wind farms is so important. 110 days in a year with no electricity generated is, even at the individual turbine level, frankly a ridiculous exaggeration. At a system level, the figure is totally nonsensical.

Some conventional backup is needed, but it certainly does not need "to be kept running at all times for the periods when the winds stop blowing". High CO2 coal-fired power stations are not only not needed for back up, they would be totally unsuitable. Closed Cycle Gas Turbines, which are brought into play when needed (whether for a drop in supply or a surge in demand) are currently the most cost effective back up. In the longer term, there are a number of measures that can be introduced to reduce the need for back up still further, including storage devices and demand management via smart meters.

Aas for your earlier dismissal of the comment that it's almost impossible to hear the comments of the anti-wind protestor on the video clip because of the wind ("Yeah, easterly wind the opposite direction to the way the turbines will be pointing") - the turbines turn to face the wind.

I was under the impression from the show given to us by the company at Swanage that the turbines would only face one way. So more false info was given to us all by them then. Do apoloigise ;).

As for water mills did mention this in another post on windfarms , that Dorset has a lot of rivers and something should be done to tap into this energy :)

David Furmage. wrote:

mooninpisces wrote: David Furmage - your friend's comments are highly contentious, and many of them, even if correct, would apply to onshore but not to offshore wind farms. The last two would be more serious objections to Navitus if they were correct, but they are highly misleading. The variability of one renewable source is often balanced by the different variability of another renewable source, which is why a wide geographical spread of wind farms is so important. 110 days in a year with no electricity generated is, even at the individual turbine level, frankly a ridiculous exaggeration. At a system level, the figure is totally nonsensical. Some conventional backup is needed, but it certainly does not need "to be kept running at all times for the periods when the winds stop blowing". High CO2 coal-fired power stations are not only not needed for back up, they would be totally unsuitable. Closed Cycle Gas Turbines, which are brought into play when needed (whether for a drop in supply or a surge in demand) are currently the most cost effective back up. In the longer term, there are a number of measures that can be introduced to reduce the need for back up still further, including storage devices and demand management via smart meters. Aas for your earlier dismissal of the comment that it's almost impossible to hear the comments of the anti-wind protestor on the video clip because of the wind ("Yeah, easterly wind the opposite direction to the way the turbines will be pointing") - the turbines turn to face the wind.

I was under the impression from the show given to us by the company at Swanage that the turbines would only face one way. So more false info was given to us all by them then. Do apoloigise ;). As for water mills did mention this in another post on windfarms , that Dorset has a lot of rivers and something should be done to tap into this energy :)

It will likely be an In-House contest as to which of the two exterior parts will be turning the most as those behemoths search,(in vain - vane?) for the Winter breezes!
The Promo videos show them all facing SW and spinning in a harmony that will likely come when Jupiter aligns with Mars etc.

The reality for realistic energy production is fracking clear.............

One comment suggests that Swanage Railway pours thousands of tons of smoke into the air. Most of what you see coming out of the chimney is steam. Take a ride on the footplate and you will see a fire burning in which the maximum energy is obtained from the coal which means burning the carbon. The railway only has on an average spread throughout the year less than 1 steam engine in steam with a peak of 5 locomotives in steam for one gala weekend a year, Since many thousands of tons of coal are not bought to operate this, how come the railway can generate more tonnage of smoke than than the tonnage of coal used. The pro windfarm group uses silly words like NIMBY as they have no real arguments to use for defence, and the statement that Swanage Railway puts thousands of tons of smoke into the atmosphere is another example of their desperation.

Something did make me think about the protest the other day , and that is How did the pro wind farm protesters arrive in swanage? I didnt see any bicycles. Are they local or shipped in? Some of their clothes were also made from oil based chemicals. Even some of the protest banners were plastic. It's a bit like campaigning against animal cruelty whilst eating a burger.

http://www.demotix.c
om/news/1723302/wind
-farm-demonstrators-
gather-swanage-seafr
ont#media-1723234

In the link above their is a picture of a green peace official with a banner stating " WE DON'T CARE ABOUT YOUR VIEW" . our small town on a peninsula relies on its natural beauty to deliver tourists, jobs, and a viable community. I find this "we dont care" attitude appaulling. Largely IT'S THE LOCATION OF THE FARM THAT PEOPLE OBJECT TO, not the actual farm itself . The argument that is going on is non-existant, just build it 15 miles off shore at the other end of the designated area.
And in another picture .. One of the banners is a very professional vinyl banner, not a cheap item to have made. I am curious as where this came from. The banners refer to "super navitus".... which seems odd. people dont just add super to a name. ( i am going to super work , in my super coat, and might have a super coffee?). Many banners refer specifically to navitus and super navitus, rather than wind power in general. If I was a suspicous chap I would wonder if navitus had shipped people in, supplied them with banners, or assisted them in a financial way, whilst trying to fake grass roots support for the media.