Protestors gather to protest over giant south coast wind farm (From Daily Echo)

Okay cut all power to Swanage & see how linking arms will power their fridges & freezers,
do these people think we can just conjure up electricity?
Can they not see what's happening to the global climate through green house gases?

The objections seem rather erroneous. 1) Reducing tourism. Really? Personally I'd make a special trip just to see these magnificent structures.
2) Wildlife. Is there evidence that wind turbines affect wildlife (more than climate change, at least?) Turbines sited innapropriately close to bird colonies do some harm, but I presume here this isn't the case.
3) I would imagine Lloyds register would be objecting if they were a shipping hazzard.

What bizarre objections. Nothing better to do. I too would make the effort go and see these turbines.
These people live in a strange world where power just magically appears. As they have now power stations on there door step they don't need to think about the consequences of coal and gas powered facilities.
I don't think wind power is the magic solution but it is a step in the right direction.

Sir Hubert wrote:
The objections seem rather erroneous. 1) Reducing tourism. Really? Personally I'd make a special trip just to see these magnificent structures.
2) Wildlife. Is there evidence that wind turbines affect wildlife (more than climate change, at least?) Turbines sited innapropriately close to bird colonies do some harm, but I presume here this isn't the case.
3) I would imagine Lloyds register would be objecting if they were a shipping hazzard.

Fully Agree....

If there were any legal problems those concerned would have a standing to stop it,,, But there has been no legal objections at all..
And is nice to see friends of earth have fully supported it...
I think daytime power cuts, to Swanage, would remind those there what the future holds without it...
Maybe hey would like the BIO-MASS station planned rof Southampton instead, which does have much more enviromental impact...
Someone down there in Dorest could make a killing from Tourist trips on open top bus to the wind far.....

But supporters, including East Dorset Friends of the Earth, say that many claims against it have been “alarmist”.

Of course: Friends of the Earth are never "Alarmist" they should all return to their caves and dragmtheir spouses around by their hair

i think these turbines look quite graceful and lets face it they have got to be better a better option than a nuke station

Typical Nimbyists.We want electriciy as long as we don't have the power stations in our area. Listen, you idiots. We have all got to put up with some things in life that we don't like. Some people didn't like the Didcot cooling towers and some didn't like the chimney at Fawley. We all tolerated them so we could have power. Stop your moaning and get on with LIFE.

Not the sort of thing I could get excited about either way, but this could be different if I still owned a sailing cruiser. Personally I think there are too many hazards out there already and we are getting Frogs and Neverlanders to make more.

A few observations.

1. If tin exploration was proposed, as a new industry in Cornwall, there would be complaints about the despoilation of the countryside.
Yet a few centuries dowen the road the remnants of this indusry are looked upon as important historical remains.
2. There was uproar in Dorset when BP announced plans for Oil extraction at Wytch Farm. I doubt many people know this is actually happening now.
3. Again uproar when a prison barge was to be moored in Portland. Bizarrely
this actually became a tourist attraction and local traders were disappointed when the barge moved away.

I dont mind teh wind farms, however they are useless. They dont work in the COLD weather at the TIME we need power the MOST!
If it is too windy, the turbines are switched off!
What is the point?

Would be better paying every home owner to have solar panels on their roof to REDUCE power demand & pay people to buy HYDROGEN cars. These two initiaves will BETTER protect our energy needs & create MORE JOBS & CUT power BILLS!

vpharm wrote:
I dont mind teh wind farms, however they are useless. They dont work in the COLD weather at the TIME we need power the MOST!
If it is too windy, the turbines are switched off!
What is the point?

Would be better paying every home owner to have solar panels on their roof to REDUCE power demand & pay people to buy HYDROGEN cars. These two initiaves will BETTER protect our energy needs & create MORE JOBS & CUT power BILLS!

Please stop with the stupid use of capital letters. Makes you look a bit simple.

""Opponents fear the offshore plant will jeopardise tourism, harm marine wildlife and hamper shipping.""

Tourism it might effect it, you never know till after they are built.

harm marine wildlife, Birds it will have a very good chance of harming, this one of the main migrations routes of birds.
Benefits to marine life, will be the growth of marine life, for other marine life to feed on.
Damage to marine life would be those creatures like the whales family that rely on the earth magnet field for navigation having it disrupted thought the magnetic field that these wind turbine will create, also it might effect the sporning times of the certain types sponges and other marine life that go by the moon pull on the earth.
Lloyds reg have express concerns, not so much of there location but what they are made off and there reflectibility of radar signals.

elvisimo wrote:

vpharm wrote:
I dont mind teh wind farms, however they are useless. They dont work in the COLD weather at the TIME we need power the MOST!
If it is too windy, the turbines are switched off!
What is the point?

Would be better paying every home owner to have solar panels on their roof to REDUCE power demand & pay people to buy HYDROGEN cars. These two initiaves will BETTER protect our energy needs & create MORE JOBS & CUT power BILLS!

Please stop with the stupid use of capital letters. Makes you look a bit simple.

Almost as simple as posting "...As they have now power stations on there door step...".
Presumably you meant "no" and "their".
Kettles and pans?

For pity sake wrote:

elvisimo wrote:

vpharm wrote:
I dont mind teh wind farms, however they are useless. They dont work in the COLD weather at the TIME we need power the MOST!
If it is too windy, the turbines are switched off!
What is the point?

Would be better paying every home owner to have solar panels on their roof to REDUCE power demand & pay people to buy HYDROGEN cars. These two initiaves will BETTER protect our energy needs & create MORE JOBS & CUT power BILLS!

Please stop with the stupid use of capital letters. Makes you look a bit simple.

Almost as simple as posting "...As they have now power stations on there door step...".
Presumably you meant "no" and "their".
Kettles and pans?

Well sed.

southy wrote:
""Opponents fear the offshore plant will jeopardise tourism, harm marine wildlife and hamper shipping.""

Tourism it might effect it, you never know till after they are built.

harm marine wildlife, Birds it will have a very good chance of harming, this one of the main migrations routes of birds.
Benefits to marine life, will be the growth of marine life, for other marine life to feed on.
Damage to marine life would be those creatures like the whales family that rely on the earth magnet field for navigation having it disrupted thought the magnetic field that these wind turbine will create, also it might effect the sporning times of the certain types sponges and other marine life that go by the moon pull on the earth.
Lloyds reg have express concerns, not so much of there location but what they are made off and there reflectibility of radar signals.

I'm surprised that you haven't offered your services to explain how glass-fibre vessels the world over use Radar Reflectors to make themselves 'visible' to radar. You do know what a Radar Reflector is I assume.

southy wrote:
""Opponents fear the offshore plant will jeopardise tourism, harm marine wildlife and hamper shipping.""

Tourism it might effect it, you never know till after they are built.

harm marine wildlife, Birds it will have a very good chance of harming, this one of the main migrations routes of birds.
Benefits to marine life, will be the growth of marine life, for other marine life to feed on.
Damage to marine life would be those creatures like the whales family that rely on the earth magnet field for navigation having it disrupted thought the magnetic field that these wind turbine will create, also it might effect the sporning times of the certain types sponges and other marine life that go by the moon pull on the earth.
Lloyds reg have express concerns, not so much of there location but what they are made off and there reflectibility of radar signals.

Southy I wont talk to you as if your stupid but let me ask you this.
If this was so bad for wildlife why would the friends of the Earth be all for it?
Come on read the whole article & you'll see it's Nimby's who are against it

loosehead wrote:

southy wrote:
""Opponents fear the offshore plant will jeopardise tourism, harm marine wildlife and hamper shipping.""

Tourism it might effect it, you never know till after they are built.

harm marine wildlife, Birds it will have a very good chance of harming, this one of the main migrations routes of birds.
Benefits to marine life, will be the growth of marine life, for other marine life to feed on.
Damage to marine life would be those creatures like the whales family that rely on the earth magnet field for navigation having it disrupted thought the magnetic field that these wind turbine will create, also it might effect the sporning times of the certain types sponges and other marine life that go by the moon pull on the earth.
Lloyds reg have express concerns, not so much of there location but what they are made off and there reflectibility of radar signals.

Southy I wont talk to you as if your stupid but let me ask you this.
If this was so bad for wildlife why would the friends of the Earth be all for it?
Come on read the whole article & you'll see it's Nimby's who are against it

Everyone agrees that alternative sources of energy are a good thing as long as it doesn't affect their back yard. Previously the Echo has caried stories about the strength of feeling against the Biomass power station that's due to be built in Southampton. Same Nimby culture, different location but everyone involved is convinced that they have a valid argument even though they enjoy the use of the Twyford Cutting and the Newbury Bypass which signalled the end of the world to last centuries Nimbys.

Torchie1 wrote:

loosehead wrote:

southy wrote:
""Opponents fear the offshore plant will jeopardise tourism, harm marine wildlife and hamper shipping.""

Tourism it might effect it, you never know till after they are built.

harm marine wildlife, Birds it will have a very good chance of harming, this one of the main migrations routes of birds.
Benefits to marine life, will be the growth of marine life, for other marine life to feed on.
Damage to marine life would be those creatures like the whales family that rely on the earth magnet field for navigation having it disrupted thought the magnetic field that these wind turbine will create, also it might effect the sporning times of the certain types sponges and other marine life that go by the moon pull on the earth.
Lloyds reg have express concerns, not so much of there location but what they are made off and there reflectibility of radar signals.

Southy I wont talk to you as if your stupid but let me ask you this.
If this was so bad for wildlife why would the friends of the Earth be all for it?
Come on read the whole article & you'll see it's Nimby's who are against it

Everyone agrees that alternative sources of energy are a good thing as long as it doesn't affect their back yard. Previously the Echo has caried stories about the strength of feeling against the Biomass power station that's due to be built in Southampton. Same Nimby culture, different location but everyone involved is convinced that they have a valid argument even though they enjoy the use of the Twyford Cutting and the Newbury Bypass which signalled the end of the world to last centuries Nimbys.

Not correct, my lady

Torchie1 wrote:

southy wrote:
""Opponents fear the offshore plant will jeopardise tourism, harm marine wildlife and hamper shipping.""

Tourism it might effect it, you never know till after they are built.

harm marine wildlife, Birds it will have a very good chance of harming, this one of the main migrations routes of birds.
Benefits to marine life, will be the growth of marine life, for other marine life to feed on.
Damage to marine life would be those creatures like the whales family that rely on the earth magnet field for navigation having it disrupted thought the magnetic field that these wind turbine will create, also it might effect the sporning times of the certain types sponges and other marine life that go by the moon pull on the earth.
Lloyds reg have express concerns, not so much of there location but what they are made off and there reflectibility of radar signals.

I'm surprised that you haven't offered your services to explain how glass-fibre vessels the world over use Radar Reflectors to make themselves 'visible' to radar. You do know what a Radar Reflector is I assume.

There are quite a few small cruisers sailing that area that do not themselves possess radar. In some weather or visibillity conditions the wind turbines could present a danger to those craft who are already limited to areas they are allowed to sail due to the high volume of traffic in the channell.

I would go and visit the wind turbine - as i dont live there I think that makes me a tourist - so one more tourist for swanage YEAY

My comments reflect those of a pragmatist rather than those of the usually dismissive extremist green lunatics and those of concerned residents worried about the effects on their backyards.
I wonder at the effectiveness of wind turbines and how much they actually contribute to the baseload power. I am aware of current concerns being expressed in Australia, not by residents but by pragmatists there who are asking similar questions.
In particular I understand wind turbines require baseload electricity to keep their turbines turning over in those occasions of nil or limited wind. I further understand that the costing for actual benefit is far greater than ubual power sources and that damage to the surrounding birdlife is somewhat catastrophic.
The problem with all "green" initiatives is that they get hijacked by the left wing green lunatics and sensible common sense analysis is avoided, discouraged or trashed and many "green" projects get thru without sufficient scrutiny and often by default.
My concerns are therefore, whether wind turbines are cost effcient and whether therefore they are effective, compared to other more normal power sources such as oil, gas or nuclear powered sources.
Oh I know the fringe green lunatics will prattle on about climate change, nuclear meltdowns etc but once again I question many of their extremist arguments that justify their stances.
Let us get back to cool, calculated rational debate based upon scientific and main stream community debate and concerns. Let us no longer be dictated to by the extremist fringe minorities, many of whom, hypocritically sponge off the very society that they seem only to ready to criticise.

loosehead wrote:

southy wrote:
""Opponents fear the offshore plant will jeopardise tourism, harm marine wildlife and hamper shipping.""

Tourism it might effect it, you never know till after they are built.

harm marine wildlife, Birds it will have a very good chance of harming, this one of the main migrations routes of birds.
Benefits to marine life, will be the growth of marine life, for other marine life to feed on.
Damage to marine life would be those creatures like the whales family that rely on the earth magnet field for navigation having it disrupted thought the magnetic field that these wind turbine will create, also it might effect the sporning times of the certain types sponges and other marine life that go by the moon pull on the earth.
Lloyds reg have express concerns, not so much of there location but what they are made off and there reflectibility of radar signals.

Southy I wont talk to you as if your stupid but let me ask you this.
If this was so bad for wildlife why would the friends of the Earth be all for it?
Come on read the whole article & you'll see it's Nimby's who are against it

i think you'll find loosy rspb were commisioned to write risk assessments for risks to birdlife at proposed windmill sites in scotland and they were recieving substantial donations from the landowners or installers(can't remember which) unsurprisingly they came up with a favourable report (even though there are numerous proven cases of eagles being wiped out by them) i would suspect foe are in a similar situation. half a dozen treehuggers get a nice lump sum that'll do nicely. another person who will no doubt be in favour will be the queen who i believe owns the seabed up to 14 miles out.a recent report said the bearings fail after 10-12 years out in the salty air ? probably 5 years.

Inform Al wrote:

Torchie1 wrote:

southy wrote:
""Opponents fear the offshore plant will jeopardise tourism, harm marine wildlife and hamper shipping.""

Tourism it might effect it, you never know till after they are built.

harm marine wildlife, Birds it will have a very good chance of harming, this one of the main migrations routes of birds.
Benefits to marine life, will be the growth of marine life, for other marine life to feed on.
Damage to marine life would be those creatures like the whales family that rely on the earth magnet field for navigation having it disrupted thought the magnetic field that these wind turbine will create, also it might effect the sporning times of the certain types sponges and other marine life that go by the moon pull on the earth.
Lloyds reg have express concerns, not so much of there location but what they are made off and there reflectibility of radar signals.

I'm surprised that you haven't offered your services to explain how glass-fibre vessels the world over use Radar Reflectors to make themselves 'visible' to radar. You do know what a Radar Reflector is I assume.

There are quite a few small cruisers sailing that area that do not themselves possess radar. In some weather or visibillity conditions the wind turbines could present a danger to those craft who are already limited to areas they are allowed to sail due to the high volume of traffic in the channell.

The proposed plans indicate the base will be about ten metres across and the total height could be up to two hundred metres. If someone is going to venture in to the English Channel and can't spot a two hundred turbine wind farm that spreads to a depth of twenty five to forty five kilometres off the coast, do you think they should be out there at all ? The area will be clearly marked on all shipping charts and the traffic will simply move to the south of it.

We are getting all the usual tosh posted here about wind as an "alternative" to baseload power generation.

It ain't.

It is people who believe this idiocy who have got us in a position where, according to Ofgem, we now face a 50% chance of power cuts if we get a hard winter in 2015 because we have not built sufficient reliable, baseload capacity.

Just for the record, National Grid tell us that even if we built DECC's worst case 23GW of onshore (currently 5GW) and 51GW of offshore (currently 2.6GW) by 2030 we would still need 30.5GW of new nuclear and some 36GW of new gas-fuelled capacity in order to keep the lights on. See the 2011 'Seven year statement'.

Wind is a parallel, erratic and intermittent system that normally produces in inverse proportion to load - check wind output at winter peak for the last 5 years. It also produces most when least needed, so we frequently have to curtail production, we are already paying millions to foreign-owned wind companies not to produce during low load periods.

£25m of your money went to producers not to produce in 2011 and this will escalate in the coming years. See the official figures on the REF website:
http://www.ref.org.u
k/energy-data/notes-
on-wind-farm-constra
int-payments

To all you who doubt the viability of Wind Power yet again I'll point out that trials are going on with a British Inventors Liquid air motor which can be used as a cheap storage for power produced by Wind & Solar plus over forms of green energy.
these companies would be fools not to use it on Wind or Solar installations if proven to be viable which at this moment look very good & has a lot of foreign companies interested in it.
So all arguments could be killed off if the Liquid Air Storage is used what arguments are you going to use then as this would give you 24hours of electricity production?

Torchie1 wrote:

Inform Al wrote:

Torchie1 wrote:

southy wrote:
""Opponents fear the offshore plant will jeopardise tourism, harm marine wildlife and hamper shipping.""

Tourism it might effect it, you never know till after they are built.

harm marine wildlife, Birds it will have a very good chance of harming, this one of the main migrations routes of birds.
Benefits to marine life, will be the growth of marine life, for other marine life to feed on.
Damage to marine life would be those creatures like the whales family that rely on the earth magnet field for navigation having it disrupted thought the magnetic field that these wind turbine will create, also it might effect the sporning times of the certain types sponges and other marine life that go by the moon pull on the earth.
Lloyds reg have express concerns, not so much of there location but what they are made off and there reflectibility of radar signals.

I'm surprised that you haven't offered your services to explain how glass-fibre vessels the world over use Radar Reflectors to make themselves 'visible' to radar. You do know what a Radar Reflector is I assume.

There are quite a few small cruisers sailing that area that do not themselves possess radar. In some weather or visibillity conditions the wind turbines could present a danger to those craft who are already limited to areas they are allowed to sail due to the high volume of traffic in the channell.

The proposed plans indicate the base will be about ten metres across and the total height could be up to two hundred metres. If someone is going to venture in to the English Channel and can't spot a two hundred turbine wind farm that spreads to a depth of twenty five to forty five kilometres off the coast, do you think they should be out there at all ? The area will be clearly marked on all shipping charts and the traffic will simply move to the south of it.

You've obviously never been to sea in a small craft in adverse conditions. There are enough natural hazards out there without adding to them

Inform Al wrote:

Torchie1 wrote:

Inform Al wrote:

Torchie1 wrote:

southy wrote:
""Opponents fear the offshore plant will jeopardise tourism, harm marine wildlife and hamper shipping.""

Tourism it might effect it, you never know till after they are built.

harm marine wildlife, Birds it will have a very good chance of harming, this one of the main migrations routes of birds.
Benefits to marine life, will be the growth of marine life, for other marine life to feed on.
Damage to marine life would be those creatures like the whales family that rely on the earth magnet field for navigation having it disrupted thought the magnetic field that these wind turbine will create, also it might effect the sporning times of the certain types sponges and other marine life that go by the moon pull on the earth.
Lloyds reg have express concerns, not so much of there location but what they are made off and there reflectibility of radar signals.

I'm surprised that you haven't offered your services to explain how glass-fibre vessels the world over use Radar Reflectors to make themselves 'visible' to radar. You do know what a Radar Reflector is I assume.

There are quite a few small cruisers sailing that area that do not themselves possess radar. In some weather or visibillity conditions the wind turbines could present a danger to those craft who are already limited to areas they are allowed to sail due to the high volume of traffic in the channell.

The proposed plans indicate the base will be about ten metres across and the total height could be up to two hundred metres. If someone is going to venture in to the English Channel and can't spot a two hundred turbine wind farm that spreads to a depth of twenty five to forty five kilometres off the coast, do you think they should be out there at all ? The area will be clearly marked on all shipping charts and the traffic will simply move to the south of it.

You've obviously never been to sea in a small craft in adverse conditions. There are enough natural hazards out there without adding to them

So why go to sea in adverse conditions in a small boat?

In a car you have to pass an MOT & you have to have working lights are you people telling me it's okay to put to sea without Sonar/Radar?
surely all ships/yachts /cruisers should have these safety devices or shouldn't be on the water?
a rowing boat/dinghy shouldn't be going that fast to hit a wind turbine.
so surely the question has to be is it the fault of the Wind Turbine farm or the vessels that go out in adverse conditions with out all possible safety devices on board working?

loosehead wrote:
In a car you have to pass an MOT & you have to have working lights are you people telling me it's okay to put to sea without Sonar/Radar?
surely all ships/yachts /cruisers should have these safety devices or shouldn't be on the water?
a rowing boat/dinghy shouldn't be going that fast to hit a wind turbine.
so surely the question has to be is it the fault of the Wind Turbine farm or the vessels that go out in adverse conditions with out all possible safety devices on board working?

What you are saying is that thanks to the profits the Frogs and Neverlanders want to make by creating more hazards off Britains coast, ordinary sailors will need to spend £thousnds to invest in radar equipement. I wasn't too bothered abouit this scheme before but in view of the mindset of the loonies supporting the scheme I am now devoutly against. In my view the safety of people, whoever and wherever, is paramount.

loosehead wrote:

Inform Al wrote:

Torchie1 wrote:

Inform Al wrote:

Torchie1 wrote:

southy wrote:
""Opponents fear the offshore plant will jeopardise tourism, harm marine wildlife and hamper shipping.""

Tourism it might effect it, you never know till after they are built.

harm marine wildlife, Birds it will have a very good chance of harming, this one of the main migrations routes of birds.
Benefits to marine life, will be the growth of marine life, for other marine life to feed on.
Damage to marine life would be those creatures like the whales family that rely on the earth magnet field for navigation having it disrupted thought the magnetic field that these wind turbine will create, also it might effect the sporning times of the certain types sponges and other marine life that go by the moon pull on the earth.
Lloyds reg have express concerns, not so much of there location but what they are made off and there reflectibility of radar signals.

I'm surprised that you haven't offered your services to explain how glass-fibre vessels the world over use Radar Reflectors to make themselves 'visible' to radar. You do know what a Radar Reflector is I assume.

There are quite a few small cruisers sailing that area that do not themselves possess radar. In some weather or visibillity conditions the wind turbines could present a danger to those craft who are already limited to areas they are allowed to sail due to the high volume of traffic in the channell.

The proposed plans indicate the base will be about ten metres across and the total height could be up to two hundred metres. If someone is going to venture in to the English Channel and can't spot a two hundred turbine wind farm that spreads to a depth of twenty five to forty five kilometres off the coast, do you think they should be out there at all ? The area will be clearly marked on all shipping charts and the traffic will simply move to the south of it.

You've obviously never been to sea in a small craft in adverse conditions. There are enough natural hazards out there without adding to them

So why go to sea in adverse conditions in a small boat?

Conditions change, I myself sailed from off the I-O-W to Dover in record time when a hurricaine hit when force 5 had been forecast. I did not dare do anything other than run before the wind with just a jib up. This was October 1987 I think.

Don't like windfarms? Nuclear power is much more reliable, so lets build a new nuclear plant on the Isle of Wight.

Inform Al wrote:

loosehead wrote:
In a car you have to pass an MOT & you have to have working lights are you people telling me it's okay to put to sea without Sonar/Radar?
surely all ships/yachts /cruisers should have these safety devices or shouldn't be on the water?
a rowing boat/dinghy shouldn't be going that fast to hit a wind turbine.
so surely the question has to be is it the fault of the Wind Turbine farm or the vessels that go out in adverse conditions with out all possible safety devices on board working?

What you are saying is that thanks to the profits the Frogs and Neverlanders want to make by creating more hazards off Britains coast, ordinary sailors will need to spend £thousnds to invest in radar equipement. I wasn't too bothered abouit this scheme before but in view of the mindset of the loonies supporting the scheme I am now devoutly against. In my view the safety of people, whoever and wherever, is paramount.

I've not said anything about profits but it does really annoy me when boaties go out to sea in bad weather conditions & insufficient safety devices then expect the coastguard & the RNLI to rescue them for free & sometimes putting their lives at risk doing so.
No matter if this Windfarm is built those idiots are still going to get into trouble & this gives a bad name to the responsible Boaties who equip their vessels with the right equipment & who don't go to sea in adverse conditions.
You say you were caught out by a hurricane? would you have set sail if you knew there was going to be one?
The conditions would have to be really bad not to sea a whopping great wind turbine so would you really put to sea in those conditions?