Proposed wind farm named (From Daily Echo)

Who cares about the name?
.
Just how dangerous would it be to shipping if this turbine array were ever to get consent and be developed?
.
Ships collide with things every now and again in our general area of the western Channel.
.
Ships are regularly noticed travelling in the wrong direction in the wrong place. This seems to be down to issues like ill-informed foreign crews or sometimes simply duff navigation, inattention and poor watch-keeping.
.
The big issue is that no one can ever rule out the possibility of collision incidents as they occur fairly regularly and at moderate intervals.
.
Sticking a large number of turbine masts in the water West of Wight amounts to encouraging a steady trickle of accidents to happen.
.
These accidents will be across a range of size and seriousness; greatest risks may occur at night, in fog, or in storm conditions.
.
Eneco, is it not just simply a bit mad to even think of siting turbines in a moderately busy sea area like this?

Danae, I am sure the people involved in this project are far more clued-in than you.
.
Eneco are the company that designed and built the Princess Amalia (Q7) wind farm off the Dutch coast.
This area is just as busy as the Solent and has been up and running for almost 3 years now. How many recorded accidents have there been in this time? None that I can find.
.
A ship is far less likely to collide with a fixed structure that has a known coordinate and a beacon than it is with another ship that is also moving.

I often wonder what security there is for off shore wind farms, what's to stop certain people from blowing them up.

Or as some have said, if a ship or sub is caught in rough seas and hits one or two, who's at fault? Or would it be a act of the man up stairs?

"Navitus Bay was suggested by Jacky Ellwood from Christchurch, Dorset. Navitus means energy in Latin."

What a ****-up. The Latin for energy is 'navitas' not 'navitus', so they can't even get the name right.

Back to school for Ms Ellwood

Danae wrote:
Who cares about the name?
.
Just how dangerous would it be to shipping if this turbine array were ever to get consent and be developed?
.
Ships collide with things every now and again in our general area of the western Channel.
.
Ships are regularly noticed travelling in the wrong direction in the wrong place. This seems to be down to issues like ill-informed foreign crews or sometimes simply duff navigation, inattention and poor watch-keeping.
.
The big issue is that no one can ever rule out the possibility of collision incidents as they occur fairly regularly and at moderate intervals.
.
Sticking a large number of turbine masts in the water West of Wight amounts to encouraging a steady trickle of accidents to happen.
.
These accidents will be across a range of size and seriousness; greatest risks may occur at night, in fog, or in storm conditions.
.
Eneco, is it not just simply a bit mad to even think of siting turbines in a moderately busy sea area like this?

You try to present a case for not building a wind farm at sea in the same way that other people argue against them on land. People don't want nuclear energy or coal fired energy. No chance of accepting oil fired energy in your back yard or a Biomass unit anywhere. Will you stand up and be counted as an objector when the lights begin to go out or the cost of electricity from French nuclear power stations goes through the roof?

Wind energy is not a reliable constant source of energy, it can only provide an occasional supporting power supply. That is fact. We have vast reserves of coal, carbon capture technology, and numerous sites suitable for tidal energy, but due to an unintelligent shortsighted cheapskate left wing government and softbrained liberal green thinking have failed to think ahead. We need safe nuclear energy. Why do we keep plugging away with windmills? because they are relatively cheap and easy, and I really believe that our governments, ( all of them) are either on the take from enrgy companies/windmill makers, or so up their own politically correct backsides that they cannot see further than their own egos and self interest.They do look quite pretty sometimes though!

Torchie1 wrote:

Danae wrote:
Who cares about the name?
.
Just how dangerous would it be to shipping if this turbine array were ever to get consent and be developed?
.
Ships collide with things every now and again in our general area of the western Channel.
.
Ships are regularly noticed travelling in the wrong direction in the wrong place. This seems to be down to issues like ill-informed foreign crews or sometimes simply duff navigation, inattention and poor watch-keeping.
.
The big issue is that no one can ever rule out the possibility of collision incidents as they occur fairly regularly and at moderate intervals.
.
Sticking a large number of turbine masts in the water West of Wight amounts to encouraging a steady trickle of accidents to happen.
.
These accidents will be across a range of size and seriousness; greatest risks may occur at night, in fog, or in storm conditions.
.
Eneco, is it not just simply a bit mad to even think of siting turbines in a moderately busy sea area like this?

You try to present a case for not building a wind farm at sea in the same way that other people argue against them on land. People don't want nuclear energy or coal fired energy. No chance of accepting oil fired energy in your back yard or a Biomass unit anywhere. Will you stand up and be counted as an objector when the lights begin to go out or the cost of electricity from French nuclear power stations goes through the roof?

Bring on the wind farm, it's much more carbon neutral than biomass although I suspect this area wouldn't have enough wind/clearance. I'd gladly have one in my back garden if there was room. Wouldn't like to comment on the viability of sea placed wind farms as I don't know enough about it but I'm learning fast about all this! Having seen the way Helius didn't do it's homework I'm hoping this company have!?

freemantlegirl2 wrote:

Torchie1 wrote:

Danae wrote:
Who cares about the name?
.
Just how dangerous would it be to shipping if this turbine array were ever to get consent and be developed?
.
Ships collide with things every now and again in our general area of the western Channel.
.
Ships are regularly noticed travelling in the wrong direction in the wrong place. This seems to be down to issues like ill-informed foreign crews or sometimes simply duff navigation, inattention and poor watch-keeping.
.
The big issue is that no one can ever rule out the possibility of collision incidents as they occur fairly regularly and at moderate intervals.
.
Sticking a large number of turbine masts in the water West of Wight amounts to encouraging a steady trickle of accidents to happen.
.
These accidents will be across a range of size and seriousness; greatest risks may occur at night, in fog, or in storm conditions.
.
Eneco, is it not just simply a bit mad to even think of siting turbines in a moderately busy sea area like this?

You try to present a case for not building a wind farm at sea in the same way that other people argue against them on land. People don't want nuclear energy or coal fired energy. No chance of accepting oil fired energy in your back yard or a Biomass unit anywhere. Will you stand up and be counted as an objector when the lights begin to go out or the cost of electricity from French nuclear power stations goes through the roof?

Bring on the wind farm, it's much more carbon neutral than biomass although I suspect this area wouldn't have enough wind/clearance. I'd gladly have one in my back garden if there was room. Wouldn't like to comment on the viability of sea placed wind farms as I don't know enough about it but I'm learning fast about all this! Having seen the way Helius didn't do it's homework I'm hoping this company have!?

"Bring on the wind farm". There are lots of other people calling "Bring on the Biomass" but deep inside every objector there's a NIMBY trying to get out.

Marchwood military port would be a good base for this development

Torchie1 wrote:

freemantlegirl2 wrote:

Torchie1 wrote:

Danae wrote:
Who cares about the name?
.
Just how dangerous would it be to shipping if this turbine array were ever to get consent and be developed?
.
Ships collide with things every now and again in our general area of the western Channel.
.
Ships are regularly noticed travelling in the wrong direction in the wrong place. This seems to be down to issues like ill-informed foreign crews or sometimes simply duff navigation, inattention and poor watch-keeping.
.
The big issue is that no one can ever rule out the possibility of collision incidents as they occur fairly regularly and at moderate intervals.
.
Sticking a large number of turbine masts in the water West of Wight amounts to encouraging a steady trickle of accidents to happen.
.
These accidents will be across a range of size and seriousness; greatest risks may occur at night, in fog, or in storm conditions.
.
Eneco, is it not just simply a bit mad to even think of siting turbines in a moderately busy sea area like this?

You try to present a case for not building a wind farm at sea in the same way that other people argue against them on land. People don't want nuclear energy or coal fired energy. No chance of accepting oil fired energy in your back yard or a Biomass unit anywhere. Will you stand up and be counted as an objector when the lights begin to go out or the cost of electricity from French nuclear power stations goes through the roof?

Bring on the wind farm, it's much more carbon neutral than biomass although I suspect this area wouldn't have enough wind/clearance. I'd gladly have one in my back garden if there was room. Wouldn't like to comment on the viability of sea placed wind farms as I don't know enough about it but I'm learning fast about all this! Having seen the way Helius didn't do it's homework I'm hoping this company have!?

"Bring on the wind farm". There are lots of other people calling "Bring on the Biomass" but deep inside every objector there's a NIMBY trying to get out.

Deep inside your comments on any Echo column, there's a frustrated tw*t who doesn't seem to have any opinions of his/her own other than to 'assume' what others are like. You sound very familiar to another person.... of course it is possible to hold more than one account on here isn't it......

I've always advocated wind and solar power, am very pro but only if it's done responsibly. Out of the 2000 people who've written to the council objecting to Biomass I haven't seen one that's said 'bring it on'... stick that up your windmill and smoke it ;)

Better name would be, wastium doshium, Latin for.......

If these contraptions are so good, why are the ones next to Millbrook roundabout always motionless?

mack chinnon wrote:
Marchwood military port would be a good base for this development

Not in your back yard then! Nimby?

freemantlegirl2 wrote:

Torchie1 wrote:

freemantlegirl2 wrote:

Torchie1 wrote:

Danae wrote:
Who cares about the name?
.
Just how dangerous would it be to shipping if this turbine array were ever to get consent and be developed?
.
Ships collide with things every now and again in our general area of the western Channel.
.
Ships are regularly noticed travelling in the wrong direction in the wrong place. This seems to be down to issues like ill-informed foreign crews or sometimes simply duff navigation, inattention and poor watch-keeping.
.
The big issue is that no one can ever rule out the possibility of collision incidents as they occur fairly regularly and at moderate intervals.
.
Sticking a large number of turbine masts in the water West of Wight amounts to encouraging a steady trickle of accidents to happen.
.
These accidents will be across a range of size and seriousness; greatest risks may occur at night, in fog, or in storm conditions.
.
Eneco, is it not just simply a bit mad to even think of siting turbines in a moderately busy sea area like this?

You try to present a case for not building a wind farm at sea in the same way that other people argue against them on land. People don't want nuclear energy or coal fired energy. No chance of accepting oil fired energy in your back yard or a Biomass unit anywhere. Will you stand up and be counted as an objector when the lights begin to go out or the cost of electricity from French nuclear power stations goes through the roof?

Bring on the wind farm, it's much more carbon neutral than biomass although I suspect this area wouldn't have enough wind/clearance. I'd gladly have one in my back garden if there was room. Wouldn't like to comment on the viability of sea placed wind farms as I don't know enough about it but I'm learning fast about all this! Having seen the way Helius didn't do it's homework I'm hoping this company have!?

"Bring on the wind farm". There are lots of other people calling "Bring on the Biomass" but deep inside every objector there's a NIMBY trying to get out.

Deep inside your comments on any Echo column, there's a frustrated tw*t who doesn't seem to have any opinions of his/her own other than to 'assume' what others are like. You sound very familiar to another person.... of course it is possible to hold more than one account on here isn't it......

I've always advocated wind and solar power, am very pro but only if it's done responsibly. Out of the 2000 people who've written to the council objecting to Biomass I haven't seen one that's said 'bring it on'... stick that up your windmill and smoke it ;)

When the insults begin to fly, it's a sign that you've lost control or am I making another assumption?