Formal complaint lodged over wind farm plans (From Thisisdorset)

What are all these NIMBY's proposing as an alternative precisely?

The only other alternative is Nuclear, would they like a New reactor built in amongst their azaleas?

Notwithstanding the accuracy (or otherwise) of the window dressing by the non-NIMBYs, there is a real lack of information. I am glad the relevance of the UN's Aarhus Convention is being tested - hopefully with some urgency.

Decision making without adequate information is not an easy task !!!

When it comes to 'nuclear' it is hoped that the fuel will be thorium and not uranium.

He is sure that he is right but only £100 if he is wrong. Sounds like he is sure he is right.

The Dutch did not allow turbines this high in Holland, what makes this Dutch company think we will put up with this crazy height here? Many people are quite happy with wind power, but not at this incredible height, and so many of them, not to mention the fact they would be on a major bird migration route, and in the middle of the shipping lane. The windfarm off Sheringham, Norfolk (put up by a Norwegian company), is out of sight from the shore.

Good luck to him.

I would however rather the case against this wind-farm was not based upon such 'NIMBY' foundations but concentrated instead upon the base greed and futility - that arguably attends all these schemes.

Get over it.

Dont think it will make any difference. I think he should put more money on it.
1000 would be a better sum if he is that sure!!
The purbeck hills would be a good place for the turbines. Old harry to Corfe and then along the ridge way to lulworth.

Desppith the arguments from both sides, good on anyone whose willing to stand up and be counted.

l'anglais wrote:
What are all these NIMBY's proposing as an alternative precisely?

The only other alternative is Nuclear, would they like a New reactor built in amongst their azaleas?

Totally agree (twice in one week!).

ts12345 wrote:
Dont think it will make any difference. I think he should put more money on it.
1000 would be a better sum if he is that sure!!
The purbeck hills would be a good place for the turbines. Old harry to Corfe and then along the ridge way to lulworth.

ARE YOU JOKING ME OFF
OR HAVING A LAUGH
NO WAY
I HAVE NEVER BEEN SO ******* HURT IN ALL MY LIFE, WHEN I READ YOUR COMMENT
ITS A WIND UP.
GOT TO BE.

Totally flawed plan locally. The prevailing local weather/wind conditions are such that when high demand for energy occurs during the winter months the wind levels are relatively low and hence such an installation won't meet demand when it is required.
Now where have we been mis-sold things that were meant to be good for us in recent history?
(1) The BIC that has never made a profit?
(2) The IMAX that was meant to be the fututre and is finally being pulled down?
(3) The surf-reef that never worked?.

How gullable do these so called experts think we are?

awsokend wrote:

ts12345 wrote:
Dont think it will make any difference. I think he should put more money on it.
1000 would be a better sum if he is that sure!!
The purbeck hills would be a good place for the turbines. Old harry to Corfe and then along the ridge way to lulworth.

ARE YOU JOKING ME OFF
OR HAVING A LAUGH
NO WAY
I HAVE NEVER BEEN SO ******* HURT IN ALL MY LIFE, WHEN I READ YOUR COMMENT
ITS A WIND UP.
GOT TO BE.

Haha, get over yourself.

They've obviously done their research on how easy it is to get stuff through here. After all, this conurbation has hospital waste sent from all over the country to be burnt here right where people live rather than out in the countryside somewhere not many people live. BH postcode has the reputation of being the easiest pushover ever. Not quite nice to make a fuss you know.

As a Nation we cannot afford wind-driven electrical power with a Capital Cost of £/kW output near 16 times higher than the Nuclear/Gas/Coal alternatives that we will need to keep available 24/365 anyway for when the WIND DOESN`T BLOW.
Either hard enough and not at all,and which is much of the time.

Would the retired research scientist be able to see the 1m wide tip of the blade (the only part of the structure of the largest turbines that would be 200m above sea level) from 10+ miles away? As I understood it, the photomontages were meant to give an indication of what could be seen from the viewpoints with the naked eye, not with binoculars.

I think many of the comments so far seem to be either off topic or perhaps bought and paid for by Navitus. The majority of people I know, don't want a wind farm where it can be seen from Bournemouth beach, the Isle of Wight, Swanage and anywhere else on this as yet unspoilt and beautiful coastline. The proposed 218 turbines are 156 feet higher than the 500ft balloon ride in Bournemouth Gardens who advertise a vista of 20 miles. Navitus, who have very expensive professionals pressing this industrial development on us, don't care what we think, if they did they'd have moved on by now. What they do care about is the billions of £'s they'll make from their offshore factory.
As for the opponents of Mr Heasman, who is waging £100 of his own money, which charity will you be giving £100 to if he's right?

mooninpisces wrote:
Would the retired research scientist be able to see the 1m wide tip of the blade (the only part of the structure of the largest turbines that would be 200m above sea level) from 10+ miles away? As I understood it, the photomontages were meant to give an indication of what could be seen from the viewpoints with the naked eye, not with binoculars.

Maybe not, but he`d likely see the other 195 metres of not only it but an Armada of them in observed reducing in height ranks of them 10+ deep.

It was photomontage style presentation that landed us with I-sore Imax remember!

....and the birds migrating will not be able to see the blades either...until its all too late for them. Hopefully our local council will have a beach clean system in place to remove the kills that wash up on our beaches. (Its obviously all fine if you can't see anything). Maybe the local schools will have competitions to see who can collect the most corpses as part of their lessons on the Green Energy industry.

Bigger the better , they look cool much better than a massive reactor.

l'anglais wrote:
What are all these NIMBY's proposing as an alternative precisely?

The only other alternative is Nuclear, would they like a New reactor built in amongst their azaleas?

I propose shale gas, clean coal and nuclear. At least they will keep the lights on unlike useless expensive wind farms. At this very moment the total of all wind turbines in this country is supplying exactly 3.2% of this countries energy consumption. The cost of this 3.2% by way of subsidies and green taxes is massively more than that of conventional fuels.

l'anglais wrote:
What are all these NIMBY's proposing as an alternative precisely?

The only other alternative is Nuclear, would they like a New reactor built in amongst their azaleas?

Wind is not "an alternative" to base load power generation.

Suggest you read what National Grid have to say on the subject. They say that even if we built DECC's worst case 2030 wind build (23GW of onshore and 51GW offshore), we would still need 30.5GW of NEW nuclear and 36GW of NEW gas-fuelled capacity, plus 5.5GW of coal, just to keep the lights on.

Red Grouse wrote:

l'anglais wrote:
What are all these NIMBY's proposing as an alternative precisely?

The only other alternative is Nuclear, would they like a New reactor built in amongst their azaleas?

Wind is not "an alternative" to base load power generation.

Suggest you read what National Grid have to say on the subject. They say that even if we built DECC's worst case 2030 wind build (23GW of onshore and 51GW offshore), we would still need 30.5GW of NEW nuclear and 36GW of NEW gas-fuelled capacity, plus 5.5GW of coal, just to keep the lights on.

If we could still afford to switch them on that is..................

a.g.o.g. wrote:

Red Grouse wrote:

l'anglais wrote:
What are all these NIMBY's proposing as an alternative precisely?

The only other alternative is Nuclear, would they like a New reactor built in amongst their azaleas?

Wind is not "an alternative" to base load power generation.

Suggest you read what National Grid have to say on the subject. They say that even if we built DECC's worst case 2030 wind build (23GW of onshore and 51GW offshore), we would still need 30.5GW of NEW nuclear and 36GW of NEW gas-fuelled capacity, plus 5.5GW of coal, just to keep the lights on.

If we could still afford to switch them on that is..................

Nuclear is cheaper than onshore wind before we get to associated wind costs of backup, curtailment and connection/distribut
ion/grid strengthening costs. And that is before we add the subsidy costs!

Gas ditto, and may well fall in price, as it has in the US (to 2003 levels) with unconventional gas exploitation, currently fracking with huge resources of methane hydrate in prospect.

Funny how many commenters talk about subsidies for wind, and ignore the subsidies (recently extended by Osborne) for nuclear and gas.

mooninpisces wrote:
Funny how many commenters talk about subsidies for wind, and ignore the subsidies (recently extended by Osborne) for nuclear and gas.

There are no production subsidies for gas or nuclear at the moment.

Government is now introducing 'contracts for difference' which are effectively guaranteed purchase prices for thermal generation.

This is the other side of the uncontrolled, 'developer-led' wind build with prioritised access to the market.

We have surrendered control of the market to foreign-owned conglomerates who are not going to build urgently needed baseload nuclear and gas power stations without some guarantees that their product will be bought at a volume and price that will ensure a reasonable return on their investment.

Centrica has openly expressed this sentiment re. gas. As has EDF re. nuclear. It is the Windies who have put us in this position (together with the politicians who gave away control of our energy supplies and markets).

If you doubt this, look at DECC's figures for worst case 2030 wind build then ask yourself why any thermal energy company would build in the UK without guarantees on volumes and prices.

The UK has a coastline of over 7500 miles, much of which is bleak and remote. Why would anyone, without a vested interest, be in favour of placing a battery of electricity generators 8 miles from the Jurassic Coast (a UNESCO World Heritage site) & in full view of some of the most attractive coastline in the country? The proposed 218 x 650ft monsters will fill the horizon ruining an otherwise stunningly beautiful view. Before it's too late, please get involved, say no to Navitus!

Red Grouse wrote:

mooninpisces wrote:
Funny how many commenters talk about subsidies for wind, and ignore the subsidies (recently extended by Osborne) for nuclear and gas.

There are no production subsidies for gas or nuclear at the moment.

Government is now introducing 'contracts for difference' which are effectively guaranteed purchase prices for thermal generation.

This is the other side of the uncontrolled, 'developer-led' wind build with prioritised access to the market.

We have surrendered control of the market to foreign-owned conglomerates who are not going to build urgently needed baseload nuclear and gas power stations without some guarantees that their product will be bought at a volume and price that will ensure a reasonable return on their investment.

Centrica has openly expressed this sentiment re. gas. As has EDF re. nuclear. It is the Windies who have put us in this position (together with the politicians who gave away control of our energy supplies and markets).

If you doubt this, look at DECC's figures for worst case 2030 wind build then ask yourself why any thermal energy company would build in the UK without guarantees on volumes and prices.

Red Grouse says...
"We have surrendered control of the market to foreign-owned conglomerates who are not going to build urgently needed baseload nuclear and gas power stations without some guarantees that their product will be bought at a volume and price that will ensure a reasonable return on their investment."

As at July 2012, UK companies own just –
12% of offshore wind
37% of on land wind
& only 26% of ALL British Electricity Generating.
Everything else is foreign owned.!!

mooninpisces wrote:
Funny how many commenters talk about subsidies for wind, and ignore the subsidies (recently extended by Osborne) for nuclear and gas.

They both do the job - Wind doesn`t!

Red Grouse wrote:

mooninpisces wrote: Funny how many commenters talk about subsidies for wind, and ignore the subsidies (recently extended by Osborne) for nuclear and gas.

There are no production subsidies for gas or nuclear at the moment. Government is now introducing 'contracts for difference' which are effectively guaranteed purchase prices for thermal generation. This is the other side of the uncontrolled, 'developer-led' wind build with prioritised access to the market. We have surrendered control of the market to foreign-owned conglomerates who are not going to build urgently needed baseload nuclear and gas power stations without some guarantees that their product will be bought at a volume and price that will ensure a reasonable return on their investment. Centrica has openly expressed this sentiment re. gas. As has EDF re. nuclear. It is the Windies who have put us in this position (together with the politicians who gave away control of our energy supplies and markets). If you doubt this, look at DECC's figures for worst case 2030 wind build then ask yourself why any thermal energy company would build in the UK without guarantees on volumes and prices.

Yes indeed, The CON-DEM combo is managing to deliver, it seems, the worst of each
strain of political drift on a titt-for-tatt basis.

Red Grouse - "There are no production subsidies for gas or nuclear at the moment."

So, ignore the encouragement that was given to the development of North Sea oil and gas, and the "generous new tax regime" which Osborne says is necessary if shale gas is to be developed. And ignore the non-production subsidies which have underwritten nuclear since it was first introduced (not least financing the storage and disposal of radioactive waste, and covering the risk of nuclear accident which private insurers won't touch).

mooninpisces wrote:
Red Grouse - "There are no production subsidies for gas or nuclear at the moment."

So, ignore the encouragement that was given to the development of North Sea oil and gas, and the "generous new tax regime" which Osborne says is necessary if shale gas is to be developed. And ignore the non-production subsidies which have underwritten nuclear since it was first introduced (not least financing the storage and disposal of radioactive waste, and covering the risk of nuclear accident which private insurers won't touch).

With the exception of the nuclear waste (which has little to do with power production costs now), all the points you make apply as much to wind as other generators.

Perhaps you would like to discuss the ca. £100 billion costs of grid restructuring and strengthening consequent on the wind rush. Makes nuclear clean-up costs look fairly cheap!

Might be safer to stick to production subsidies paid by consumers!

Red Grouse wrote:

mooninpisces wrote: Red Grouse - "There are no production subsidies for gas or nuclear at the moment." So, ignore the encouragement that was given to the development of North Sea oil and gas, and the "generous new tax regime" which Osborne says is necessary if shale gas is to be developed. And ignore the non-production subsidies which have underwritten nuclear since it was first introduced (not least financing the storage and disposal of radioactive waste, and covering the risk of nuclear accident which private insurers won't touch).

With the exception of the nuclear waste (which has little to do with power production costs now), all the points you make apply as much to wind as other generators. Perhaps you would like to discuss the ca. £100 billion costs of grid restructuring and strengthening consequent on the wind rush. Makes nuclear clean-up costs look fairly cheap! Might be safer to stick to production subsidies paid by consumers!

Yes, having a high component of wind/renewables in the mix will be much like having to run and insure a supercar running on three of its twelve cylinders on average (of the Mr&Mrs 2.3 children variety of course), or, occasionally, screaming away on all pots in neutral because of having nowhere to use it all of a sudden, or, rather too often, just parked somewhere up the by-pass fresh out of fuel, all of a sudden too.................
......