Dorset opposition group challenges Navitus over wind farm model (From Thisisdorset)

“We have decided to temporarily remove the 3D fly-through videos on our website to give further consideration as to how they can best-presented to maximise their benefit.”
.
Translated as; b#gger, got found out!

Absolutely horrendous. Ruination of the pristine seascape. Industrialization of nature. How many sailing and boating collisions would that vast wind farm cause?

Wind power is not economically viable and is nothing but a rip off for the consumer.

The environment does not benefit
Tthe public do not benefit
Only the energy company benefits.

Even the co founder of the green party admits they got it very badly wrong with their support of wind power and yet people still keep banging the drum for it like it will save the world.

Unfortunately the for and against has become another War of words, and as with all wars the first victim is the truth!
Neither side gives a *** about anything other than having their say.

anigel wrote:
Wind power is not economically viable and is nothing but a rip off for the consumer.

The environment does not benefit
Tthe public do not benefit
Only the energy company benefits.

Even the co founder of the green party admits they got it very badly wrong with their support of wind power and yet people still keep banging the drum for it like it will save the world.

We NEED to be doing something and this is miles out to sea. Just a bunch of NIMBIES. So what other alternatives would you like, it's easy to complain, makes some worthwhile suggestions, because it's no good just burying your heads in our sandy beaches!!!

Spend the money developing tide/wave power instead. Any major government expenditure should be put into the Severn Barrage for starters.

Afcbpete wrote:

anigel wrote:
Wind power is not economically viable and is nothing but a rip off for the consumer.

The environment does not benefit
Tthe public do not benefit
Only the energy company benefits.

Even the co founder of the green party admits they got it very badly wrong with their support of wind power and yet people still keep banging the drum for it like it will save the world.

We NEED to be doing something and this is miles out to sea. Just a bunch of NIMBIES. So what other alternatives would you like, it's easy to complain, makes some worthwhile suggestions, because it's no good just burying your heads in our sandy beaches!!!

No we don't need to do SOMETHING we need to do the RIGHT thing. Wind power is hugely expensive and intermittent. Far better to develop our vast reserves of shale gas at an economic price for long term energy. Look out for the independent report estimating 100 years of recoverable shale gas reserves in this country, this is due any day now, parts of it being publicised today.

Nuclear power is the way to go before all the lights go out for good.

harrythered wrote:

Afcbpete wrote:

anigel wrote:
Wind power is not economically viable and is nothing but a rip off for the consumer.

The environment does not benefit
Tthe public do not benefit
Only the energy company benefits.

Even the co founder of the green party admits they got it very badly wrong with their support of wind power and yet people still keep banging the drum for it like it will save the world.

We NEED to be doing something and this is miles out to sea. Just a bunch of NIMBIES. So what other alternatives would you like, it's easy to complain, makes some worthwhile suggestions, because it's no good just burying your heads in our sandy beaches!!!

No we don't need to do SOMETHING we need to do the RIGHT thing. Wind power is hugely expensive and intermittent. Far better to develop our vast reserves of shale gas at an economic price for long term energy. Look out for the independent report estimating 100 years of recoverable shale gas reserves in this country, this is due any day now, parts of it being publicised today.

Shale gas you must be joking i think you will find theyve got their own NIMBYS as have the Hs2 NIMBYS.as for Andrew Langley a scientist in Mathmatical Modelling i dont beleive theirs any such thing unless he builds Lego then counts the bricks. As it happens Nuclear Powers the answer lets get on with building them as the man says before the lights go out.

When the Tories came to power in 1979 they withdrew finance to scientists and engineers who were investigating hydro-electric generation, particularly sea based. I assume that the government was under pressure from oil and nuclear companies.

Wind farms are ridiculously expensive and never perform as well as was proposed. Hydro-electric, using the sea is so much better. The main reason is that a litre of sea weighs more than 800 times the weight of a litre of air. So, hydro-electric equipment producing the same as a wind turbine would be at least 500 time smaller than wind kit and would be much cheaper and easier to maintain.

The potential of hydro-electric is so obvious that politicians of all kinds since 1979 should be prosecuted for incompetence. Its also possible that some were bribed to take on wind-farms.

bobsworthforever wrote:

harrythered wrote:

Afcbpete wrote:

anigel wrote:
Wind power is not economically viable and is nothing but a rip off for the consumer.

The environment does not benefit
Tthe public do not benefit
Only the energy company benefits.

Even the co founder of the green party admits they got it very badly wrong with their support of wind power and yet people still keep banging the drum for it like it will save the world.

We NEED to be doing something and this is miles out to sea. Just a bunch of NIMBIES. So what other alternatives would you like, it's easy to complain, makes some worthwhile suggestions, because it's no good just burying your heads in our sandy beaches!!!

No we don't need to do SOMETHING we need to do the RIGHT thing. Wind power is hugely expensive and intermittent. Far better to develop our vast reserves of shale gas at an economic price for long term energy. Look out for the independent report estimating 100 years of recoverable shale gas reserves in this country, this is due any day now, parts of it being publicised today.

Shale gas you must be joking i think you will find theyve got their own NIMBYS as have the Hs2 NIMBYS.as for Andrew Langley a scientist in Mathmatical Modelling i dont beleive theirs any such thing unless he builds Lego then counts the bricks. As it happens Nuclear Powers the answer lets get on with building them as the man says before the lights go out.

In actual fact, I believe one of the best forms of creating electricity is Hydrogen. The ONLY waste product being totally clean drinkable water!!

There is a large wind farm of the coast at Great Yarmouth ( and has been for years.) I think it looks quite attractive from the land) The distance between the turbines is very long, far greater than it would appear from a long distance view.

Having said that , the Dorset coast is very special and the wind farm should be far enough out to sea to look insignificant.

I'm all for wind turbines off the coast and , if carefully planned, inland too. I prefer the idea of two or three here and there on the land ,rather than vast farms destroying the countryside.

I have seen isolated turbines in couples near Durham and they seem to almost have a personality and do no harm while they generate.

More of the work should go to British companies and employees.

Afcbpete wrote:

anigel wrote:
Wind power is not economically viable and is nothing but a rip off for the consumer.

The environment does not benefit
Tthe public do not benefit
Only the energy company benefits.

Even the co founder of the green party admits they got it very badly wrong with their support of wind power and yet people still keep banging the drum for it like it will save the world.

We NEED to be doing something and this is miles out to sea. Just a bunch of NIMBIES. So what other alternatives would you like, it's easy to complain, makes some worthwhile suggestions, because it's no good just burying your heads in our sandy beaches!!!

Sorry I have seen ZERO proof that we need to do something, I have seen zero proof that human kind can be blamed for more than a tiny percentage of the current changes in climate. Whilst, contrary to what teh IPCC would have you believe, there is proof that the minor warming we have seen regardless of it's cause has been largely beneficial to humans on this planet and that it is in fact saving rather than costing lives. Unlike the current energy policy which is literally killing people, today in this country, who are unable to afford to heat their homes for the sake of lining peoples pockets for bird choppers rather than some fantasy fairy tale where someone who refused to move 5 cm inland over the space of centuries may possibly drown in the climate hysteria.

get on with it , heads in the sand morons

elfinia wrote:
There is a large wind farm of the coast at Great Yarmouth ( and has been for years.) I think it looks quite attractive from the land) The distance between the turbines is very long, far greater than it would appear from a long distance view.

Having said that , the Dorset coast is very special and the wind farm should be far enough out to sea to look insignificant.

I'm all for wind turbines off the coast and , if carefully planned, inland too. I prefer the idea of two or three here and there on the land ,rather than vast farms destroying the countryside.

I have seen isolated turbines in couples near Durham and they seem to almost have a personality and do no harm while they generate.

More of the work should go to British companies and employees.

I would not agree that E.ON's Scroby Sands development is quite attractive. In the eye of the beholder perhaps! Take a look at the following and see what you think. http://goo.gl/maps/Z
WJb2

Hessenford wrote:
Nuclear power is the way to go before all the lights go out for good.

"We have conducted a technical review of NBDL's computer graphics and identified problems which we believe will mislead the public on the visual impact of NBDL's proposal" - Dr Andrew Langley.

Do Challenge Navitus seriously believe that important issues about how best we respond to the challenge of climate change can be reduced to the level of which side can produce the best visual simulations?

Did people protest when windmills were invented?

... The unnatural distant object diminishing perspective of the photo`s offered and particularly the pier which clearly isn`t true to the eye demonstrates just what a bunch of scoundrels are they who aim to besmirch our virgin sea views with a circa £4 Billion host of wind turbines that likely will not, at average output, produce enough electricity to fully power 20000 average homes even let alone near a million between 7 and 9am without the support of the conventional gas/coal/nuclear stations we will have to keep on line part and full time for when there is either little wind or too much of it for them to cope with without feathering their blades to prevent them from doing a "Devon Dive".
Good to hear that they have been succesfully "Challenged"!
But whilst the aesthetics are important the potentially disasterous "Impact" of Navitus on both Sea and Migrating birds along with the local Pond Life is
utterly reprehensible as is the increasing impact of employing such nebulous means of electricity generation on both domestic and industry bills for NON PROVEN cause
The greater shame is that we are seeking now to pump-prime the Wind Market by buying some "Mature" Wind Farms from their likely cash-strapped owners in similar style to when we bought into the Banking industry. (now who made a bundle out of that bungle?).

suzigirl wrote:
Did people protest when windmills were invented?

Not sure. But many of the lighthouses that surround our coasts were opposed when they were first suggested. Now there are preservation groups that exist to save the structures after they have become obsolete. Just goes to show how subjective visual impact is.

mooninpisces wrote:

suzigirl wrote: Did people protest when windmills were invented?

Not sure. But many of the lighthouses that surround our coasts were opposed when they were first suggested. Now there are preservation groups that exist to save the structures after they have become obsolete. Just goes to show how subjective visual impact is.

One of you can`t be Morecombe as the other would then have to be Wise........

I've only just noticed that the image Andrew Langley is clutching in the Echo photo includes Durlston lighthouse. Presumably Challenge Navitus sees the presence of the lighthouse in the foreground of its photo montage as unobtrusive, but the turbines in the background as intrusive!

mooninpisces wrote:
I've only just noticed that the image Andrew Langley is clutching in the Echo photo includes Durlston lighthouse. Presumably Challenge Navitus sees the presence of the lighthouse in the foreground of its photo montage as unobtrusive, but the turbines in the background as intrusive!

Not the "Large" half by any chance then RU?

a.g.o.g. wrote:

mooninpisces wrote:

suzigirl wrote: Did people protest when windmills were invented?

Not sure. But many of the lighthouses that surround our coasts were opposed when they were first suggested. Now there are preservation groups that exist to save the structures after they have become obsolete. Just goes to show how subjective visual impact is.

One of you can`t be Morecombe as the other would then have to be Wise........

Bring me sunshine............

suzigirl wrote:
Did people protest when windmills were invented?

Did people have much more efficient, reliable and economical means of producing energy? No but we do

anigel wrote:

suzigirl wrote: Did people protest when windmills were invented?

Did people have much more efficient, reliable and economical means of producing energy? No but we do

Did Windmills have to grind corn 24/7 to be better at it than donkeys?

suzigirl wrote:

a.g.o.g. wrote:

mooninpisces wrote:

suzigirl wrote: Did people protest when windmills were invented?

Not sure. But many of the lighthouses that surround our coasts were opposed when they were first suggested. Now there are preservation groups that exist to save the structures after they have become obsolete. Just goes to show how subjective visual impact is.

One of you can`t be Morecombe as the other would then have to be Wise........

Bring me sunshine............

It figures.....Erne....
.

a.g.o.g. wrote:

anigel wrote:

suzigirl wrote: Did people protest when windmills were invented?

Did people have much more efficient, reliable and economical means of producing energy? No but we do

Did Windmills have to grind corn 24/7 to be better at it than donkeys?

I'm not sure that even made sense to you.

anigel wrote:

a.g.o.g. wrote:

anigel wrote:

suzigirl wrote: Did people protest when windmills were invented?

Did people have much more efficient, reliable and economical means of producing energy? No but we do

Did Windmills have to grind corn 24/7 to be better at it than donkeys?

I'm not sure that even made sense to you.

Answer - No,(electricity wasn`t on the Rader even then) but they do at generating electricity (and more actually)to be better than Gas /Coal/Nuclear Powered Kit!