Cheverton Down: Island’s First Big Wind Farm Site? (Podcast)

VB breaks the story of Cheverton Down Wind Farm

We bumped into David Pugh, leader of the IW Council, at the Big Green Picnic and grabbed an interview with him, covering quite a few different subjects, not surprisingly with a lot of discussion centering on green/eco issues.

Cheverton Down: Island's First Big Wind Farm Site? (Podcast)Inevitably wind farms came up.

Wind Farms On The Island
The fact that the blades for wind turbines are produced on the Island by Vesta, but there are no wind farms on the Island is widely noted, and indeed got one of the strongest reactions from the audience at the Eco Island Conference.

An application to build one at Wellow was turned down at appeal about a year ago.

Cheverton Down: Change to a larger wind turbine?
David Pugh revealed that there was currently planning permission for three small wind turbines at Cheverton Down, between Brighstone and Shorwell.

Where the discussion got even more interesting, was where he spoke about possibly altering the current planning permission to allow for a large wind turbine site.

From what David Pugh said, it looks like there will be Wind Farms coming to the Island, “I’ve made it quite clear, if we’re to be an Eco-Island, we have to have some on-shore Wind turbines.”

Cheverton Down: Island's First Big Wind Farm Site? (Podcast)He knows that it’s not going to be an easy ride, saying he, “realises that it will involve some difficult decisions of where we place them.”

He stated that his approach was to “need to look at it as if we were cut off from the mainland,” questioning where the power would come from.

David Pugh raised the spectre of a nuclear reactor on the Wight, which could make it more a glowing green Island than green Island, “Do we want a Nuclear powerstation as was proposed for Newtown a few decades ago or wind turbines up on the hills?”

It’s clearly not as stark a decision as that, but it does draw attention.

Have a listen to the interview for yourself …

We faded out the end of the interview as it trailed into discussions about schools.

THWART – Wellow Wind Farm
Yes2Wind – Cheverton Down
Cornwall Light & Power Company

1st Image: Benleto’s Photos
2nd Image: .Martin.

Wednesday, 4th June, 2008 1:38pm

By

ShortURL: http://wig.ht/26Iw

Filed under: Environment, Green Issues, Island-wide, South Wight, podcast

Print Friendly

.



225 Comments

  1. Bertie's comment is rated +2 Vote +1 Vote -1

    4.Jun.2008 3:05pm

    “The fluctuations caused by non-firm generation of electricity from wind turbines are not noticeable above the normal rises and falls in demand on the system. In fact, it is possible to have up to 10% of the country’s needs met by intermittent energy sources such as wind”
    is a direct quote from the BWEA site
    “At present the National Grid can be operated effectively and economically with up to 20 per cent of the electricity capacity being provided by variable energy sources such as wind.”
    is a direct quote taken from the YES2WIND site.
    Come on people! At least start singing from the same hymn sheet instead of making stuff up!
    Which is it? 10? or 20?
    It is the least effective form of energy there is.
    If we’re gonna do it, lets use the only reliable source….tidal turbines. Tide comes in..tide goes out. Not brain surgery is it?

    Reply
  2. Ray Harrington-Vail's comment is rated +3 Vote +1 Vote -1

    27.Jun.2008 2:54pm

    The figure varying between 10 and 20 per cent is not really the issue. The fact is that in a windy place – the Isle of Wight – these turbines could easily produce 10% of our electricity. Three turbines near Stanley on the Falkland Islands have led to a reduction in diesel use of their power station of 20%.
    In the future we can have tidal turbines, once funding is made available and issues such as hazards to shipping are sorted out.
    Oil and gas prices are rising and Climate Change is happening – we do not have the luxury of time being on our side.
    Yes to the turbines at Cheverton!

    Reply
  3. Ray Harrington-Vail's comment is rated +3 Vote +1 Vote -1

    27.Jun.2008 2:57pm

    The Footprint Trust is urging individuals, businesses, councillors and community groups to back the proposed wind farm at Cheverton Down. At the charity’s AGM its advisory group and board further committed the organisation to support wind and other renewables. The educational organisation will seek to counteract inaccurate and misleading information being circulated against wind technology.

    Ray Harrington-Vail, the organisation’s general manager said, ‘We do not have the luxury of time being on our side to wait for other forms of renewable energy such as tidal current turbines…we need to use wind power now…and other renewables as the technology becomes available..”

    “Soaring oil prices and thus fuel prices will continue to be the norm. The days of cheap energy, something we have enjoyed for the past 50 years, is now history. 50% of all the world’s oil has now been used up – the remaining 50% will be far more difficult and costly to extract, and will be used up so much quicker. As oil becomes a scarce commodity its price will climb…no amount of fuel protests will change that fact…”

    “The Isle of Wight is almost completely dependent on imported fuel from further-a-field. Even with the new gasification plant, we will only make a small contribution to the National Grid.”

    “Power Stations are often sited a fair distance from where the energy is needed. This means that a percentage of electricity is ‘lost’ in transmission and nearly all the thermal energy is lost (in the region of 60-70% of the energy in the fuel). Producing electricity nearer to home is the ideal if we are to reduce waste of energy and use the waste thermal energy heating commercial or domestic premises.”

    “The biggest threat to the Isle of Wight is not a few wind turbines but climate change – which could see parts the Island’s unique landscape being lost to rising sea levels within the next 75 years.”

    “The Isle of Wight is an ideal site for a nuclear power station and people need to bare that in mind when opposing renewable energy options for the Island…”

    “These graceful wind turbines are a welcome sight in the ever-changing landscape of the countryside. They offer a vision of the future – one in which we harness natures energy. They are an opportunity for investment, diversity and enterprise for rural landowners, whilst only taking up a small amount of land.”

    The Footprint Trust was set up to look for ways of reducing the Isle of Wight’s ecological footprint, and supports energy conservation, reducing dependency on fossil fuels and increased use of renewable energy.

    Reply
  4. James P's comment is rated +2 Vote +1 Vote -1

    27.Jun.2008 5:09pm

    “We faded out the end of the interview as it trailed into discussions about schools”

    Shame! I’d love to ask him how he squares his ‘eco-island’ project with the additional (and longer) bus journeys shortly to be imposed on pupils as a result of his reforms! Also, if he’s trying to get people out of their cars, why the hideously expensive PFI project to make their use easier?

    As I duck below the parapet, I should add that I don’t believe that we created climate change. The climate has been changing since it was invented, and I’m old enough to remember the big ‘global cooling’ scare of the 70’s (also when there was an oil crisis, funnily enough). Now it’s become a fast moving gravy train for researchers, PR men and politicians, none of whom now have the nerve to jump off. More here: http://tinyurl.com/4b7x8u

    Reply
  5. Sal's comment is rated +2 Vote +1 Vote -1

    27.Jun.2008 6:02pm

    @ James – it just so happens that we do have his view on that subject. Coming soon on VB. Keep your eyes peeled.

    Reply
  6. James P's comment is rated +2 Vote +1 Vote -1

    27.Jun.2008 6:20pm

    I look forward to it, although I anticipate the usual weasel words about all the schools being within 2 miles (although not necessarily the one you want to go to), how everyone should catch the bus (which appear to be duplicated on some routes, due to administrative cock-ups), and how wonderful life will be on planet Pugh, where the aerobatic pigs are ready for take-off…

    Cynical, moi?

    Reply
  7. Bertie's comment is rated +2 Vote +1 Vote -1

    27.Jun.2008 6:29pm

    “The figure varying between 10 and 20 per cent is not really the issue.”
    Yes it is. It is precisely the issue because those whose future depend on convincing the rest of us that “we” are to blame for all this, cannot even agree on basic percentages.
    They then quote unprovable “statistics” which the gullible then believe as fact.
    “Rising sea levels” are predicted at anything between 3 to 25 metres.
    Which is it to be 3 or 25? Make your mind up.
    “Graceful” wind turbines have to be switched off if the wind exceeds a certain M.P.H. and will not work if there is no wind at all.
    “50% of all the world’s oil has now been used up”
    Where does this “statistic” come from? BP? Shell?
    “which could see parts the Island’s unique landscape being lost to rising sea levels within the next 75 years.”
    Places like Blackgang and Luccombe have been subject to soil erosion and disappearing into the sea for hundreds of years, but if we embrace wind turbines,… it will stop?
    If you believe that you should really get out more.
    James P, do not duck below the parapet. That is what these people bank on. Fear!
    It has become very fashionable to prophesy untold doom whilst earning a living or gaining funding by doing so.
    The next time we are enduring a force 10, disrupting shipping, fallen trees, etc., ask yourself, are these charlatans a serious threat to take on mother nature with their sound bites?

    Reply
  8. Bertie's comment is rated +2 Vote +1 Vote -1

    30.Jun.2008 9:20pm

    What’s up Ray, cat got your tongue?

    Reply
  9. James P's comment is rated +2 Vote +1 Vote -1

    30.Jun.2008 10:14pm

    “50% of all the world’s oil has now been used up – the remaining 50% will be far more difficult and costly to extract”

    That sounds like a non-sequitur to me. Iraq has 112bn barrels ready and waiting (so now you know what the war was really about) and several other major producers have enough to maintain current production levels for over 100 years.

    Clearly, demand is now affecting price, so we need to get used to paying rather more, but I’m not sure that’s a bad thing. Anything that encourages local production and discourages the unnecessary transport of food and livestock around the world is fine by me, but we still have time to develop some sensible green alternatives, i.e. things that are not quite so weather-dependent as windmills!

    Reply
  10. Tony Robson's comment is rated +2 Vote +1 Vote -1

    1.Jul.2008 11:46am

    Wind and tide are one of the few abundant natural resources this Island has available. Scotland will generate 40% of it’s energy from renewables in a couple of years time. The technical challenges have been overcome. We should encourage and not challenge development of renewables here on environmental and economic grounds.

    There may be plenty of oil left, but we have to be around to use it….

    Reply
  11. Bertie's comment is rated +2 Vote +1 Vote -1

    1.Jul.2008 3:58pm

    I was discussing these issues with a few of our younger residents on Saturday and it was very refreshing to hear their scepticism of these “statistics” produced by those with vested interests.
    One of them did however say to me “If your generation didn’t fly everywhere, things would not be as bad.”
    I gently reminded him that, according to OFFICIAL Directgov stats, the UK is responsible for just under 2% of the worlds CO2 emissions.
    Air travel in the UK is responsible for 6.3% of all UK emissions, or put another way..0.126 of 1%.
    His face was a picture. Slam dunk!

    Reply
  12. Jonathan's comment is rated +2 Vote +1 Vote -1

    24.Jul.2008 5:01pm

    Wind farms are marvellous. They’re graceful and dignified, they look fantastic, they’re one of those things like waves that you can’t take your eyes off, they leave a very small footprint, and once they’re in all the electricity they produce is free. OK, so you have to recoup your investment, but with energy prices going up all the time that will be a shorter period than we might expect. I say put them up and enjoy them, and be the envy of all those elsewhere paying more and more for resources that are going to be scarcer and scarcer. People who talk about how much oil there is are forgetting that China and India’s needs for oil are growing at something like 30% per year. I’d rather not have to fight them for it.

    Reply
  13. Don Adams's comment is rated +2 Vote +1 Vote -1

    2.Oct.2008 12:22pm

    For some reason I have missed seeing the details of the planned Cheverton Down installation. Please remind me folks, what was the route of the necessary pylons? I doubt the output could ever be clipped on to the existing supply – far too many amps involved surely.

    And what was the “Capacity Factor” quoted – its usually hidden in the small print? That’s the actual output they expect to get instead of the up-front salesman’s figure which refers to an ideal circumstance of what would be produced if the wind blew at above Force 5 and below Force 10 without variation. To the best of my knowledge, in this country a figure above 30% of the ideal has never been achieved yet. In addition the capacity factor may not include down time for maintenance and repair. These machines are not always that reliable : I have read that a Thames estuary installation has needed much repairing.

    As for some people trying to scare us about a Newtown atomic powerstation, I think that idea is a total non-starter. Newtown is a notorious area for subsidence and the last thing you want in an atomic power station is cracked foundations! Not that proximity to such a power station worries anyone on the Island presently – we all know that there are several just seventy miles down wind of us in France.

    Reply
  14. James Villiers's comment is rated +2 Vote +1 Vote -1

    23.Oct.2008 4:06am

    The commercial wind turbine (the largest industrial equipment known to mankind) is promoted as a majestic symbol of modern humanity’s concern for it’s habitat, and posing as such, it’s encroaching into areas where it has no right to be. Up close, in targeted communities that have become ground zero, it’s ironic that so little concern should exist for the human beings there, as their worlds are transformed by forests of giant machines into alien, surreal environments.

    With meaningless rehearsed lines, developers parrot each other almost word for word to lure the unsuspecting landowner into believing that their signatures on the dotted line will somehow alleviate the consequences of traditionally generated electricity and help make the world a better place, when in truth modern commercial wind development introduces new and frightening human health issues and ruins natural environments wherever it goes, leaving behind token installations, that to the chagrin of the locals, have no true merit.

    Grand scale wind turbines were a joke 20 years ago and they’re still a joke today. But the industry that’s evolved around three decades of disappointing government environmental policy will not be denied. They’ve carved a niche for themselves that conveniently fulfils the needs of politicians who must appear environmentally concerned and helps them appease demands by powerful environmental lobby groups. On the local level, commercial wind is peddled as an honorable way to make a few easy ‘bucks’.

    There are approximately 65,000 operating wind turbines in the world today, already far too many by some’s standards. But even a tripling of this number, using the industry’s own touted statistics, couldn’t reduce global warming by more than 2%. Steadily rising energy demand and the fact that wind does not displace other fuels equally would further reduce any possible benefit.

    Other countries have been resisting wind development for years, and by their example it’s clear that perhaps only the devastating effects of development itself will put an end to the folly. In the meantime, politicians and wind farm executives have a convenient soapbox from which to preach, all the while having no idea that rural communities everywhere are losing their natural environments to savvy entrepreneurs as they descend like locusts in an attempt to beat deadlines and precede the inevitable swell of opposition as their true agendas become obvious.

    Reply
  15. James P's comment is rated +2 Vote +1 Vote -1

    23.Oct.2008 9:08am

    “new and frightening human health issues”

    Which are..?

    Reply
  16. steve s's comment is rated +2 Vote +1 Vote -1

    23.Oct.2008 9:25am

    Come on James, it’s obvious.
    If one of those things fell on you it could cause a great deal of damage!

    Reply
  17. Arthur Grabbit's comment is rated +2 Vote +1 Vote -1

    23.Oct.2008 11:52am

    Of course! I’d forgotten the H&S aspects. Those blades could give you a nasty headache if you climbed up too high, as well…

    Reply
  18. Tony's comment is rated +2 Vote +1 Vote -1

    23.Oct.2008 2:38pm

    Read James’s posting… his reference to ground zero and alien surreal environments are nothing more than the meaningless rehearsed lines he derides.

    Scotland plans 50% energy from renewables by 2010 and the UK have pledged 20%. The Ardrossan Wind Farm on the west coast of Scotland has been “overwhelmingly accepted by local people”. Instead of spoiling the landscape, they believe it has enhanced the area: “The turbines are impressive looking, bring a calming effect to the town and, contrary to the belief that they would be noisy, we have found them to be silent workhorses”.

    Scotland are now developing and deploying underwater windfarms to harness the energy of the moon and the tides.

    So will James sit writing his
    “meaningless rehearsed lines” as his lights dim and his bills rise. Or will he join the rest of the world and face up to the fact that fossil fuels are running out and there is no alternative to renewable or nuclear…. or maybe he will find a way to harness some of his own hot air.

    Reply
  19. James Villiers's comment is rated +2 Vote +1 Vote -1

    27.Oct.2008 2:28am

    Tony

    I suspect you also believe that energy saving lightbulbs are a great invention in comparison to traditional filament or halogen bulbs?!

    The survey conducted in Scotland regarding windfarms, like all surveys, harnesses the opinion of ‘the masses’. Eastenders consistently attracts one of the highest viewing figures of all televison channels, the UKs fastest selling car of 2007 was a Ford Focus, the last number 1 single that actually had any substance or quality probably goes back to around 1982.

    My point is that surveys count for nothing and sometimes people need protecting from themselves. This is touching on a slightly deeper point but a very important one. Democracy is failing ‘rural England’ where a significantly large proportion of the population have become increasingly uneducated, uncultered or hold unsuitable beliefs regarding the rural environment to such an extent that it would shock their ancestors.

    Humans are remarkably adaptable. The windfarms have become “overwhelmingly accepted by local people”. Ever looked at a photo of your street from 100 years ago? Notice the sparsity of vegetation, the lack of trees and hedgrows, the street clutter?? Doesn’t stop people believing they live in a nice rural area or does it reduce the demand for your £600,000 house from outsiders.

    The changes are slow and insidious, wind farms are yet another one of the insidious cancers destroying rural landscapes ‘planted’ about 200 years too early too. We are predicting an unlikely and unproven problem not actively providing a solution to a current one.

    Turn your heating down and switch off half your lights Tony and we might be able to let our great great grandchildren enjoy some of the simple pleasures of our unique landscape that we too are still able to enjoy.

    Reply
  20. kj's comment is rated +2 Vote +1 Vote -1

    27.Oct.2008 10:11am

    what utter tosh.

    Rural landscapes have been ruined by coal fired power stations for years..Go to Abbots Bromley in the Midlands..100 years ago the ipotomy of rural England…they still have their stag dance but the back drop is 3 huge chimneys that put wind turbines to shame..but that is ‘theri ruatl’ landscape, not ours…our countryside is already destroyed by 200 years of industrial development that keeps us in the manner we expect to be kept, but kills us at the same time.

    Wind farms may be ugly, may only provide 10% of our total energy requirements, but they are humans ways of doing something to aid our plight.

    Surveys are easily derides when they don’t agree with your opinion..doesn’t stop them being true though.

    If rural communities are going to survive they need to localise resources and that includes energy production…so nucleur power station, Coal powered power station (for the 200 years you claim) or a combined renewable energy source starting with wind farms..which one do you want ruining ‘your’ rural landscape.

    Reply
  21. James P's comment is rated +2 Vote +1 Vote -1

    27.Oct.2008 11:07am

    “Ever looked at a photo of your street from 100 years ago?”

    Ever looked at a photo of the countryside from 100 years ago? – No pylons, no dual carriageways, no flyovers, no power stations…

    Why are windmills considered such a blight on the landscape? As I’ve said elsewhere, I’ve lived close to a coal-fired power station, and it wasn’t pretty. The cooling towers were as tall as the proposed wind turbines and far more massive, and in the right (or possibly wrong weather) could produce their own clouds!

    ThWART bangs on about the height of the wind turbines, but they are dwarfed by the existing mast at Chillerton (750′) and the chimney across the water at Fawley (650′) which no-one seems to complain about. At least the turbines are designed with some regard to aesthetics.

    Tony is exhorted to turn his heating down and turn off his lights, but you don’t approve of CFL lamps that consume 80% less power? Please explain.

    Reply
  22. steve s's comment is rated +2 Vote +1 Vote -1

    27.Oct.2008 12:19pm

    AND, Mr Villiers, you forgot about Kylie’s ‘Can’t get you out of my head’! Way later than ’83.

    Reply
  23. James P's comment is rated +2 Vote +1 Vote -1

    27.Oct.2008 1:34pm

    Glad to see someone is paying attention to the important issues, Steve! 2001 it was… :-)

    Reply
  24. Lizzy's comment is rated +2 Vote +1 Vote -1

    27.Oct.2008 5:37pm

    Keep this story running for a few more weeks and we will have enough hot air to keep us warm into the next millenium methinks!

    Reply
  25. James Villiers's comment is rated +2 Vote +1 Vote -1

    28.Oct.2008 5:04pm

    @James P
    CFL lamps. Hmmmm. Goes back to the Eastenders, Ford Focus, Kylie Minogue issue again.
    Either you get it or you don’t.

    ”Ever looked at a photo of the countryside from 100 years ago? – No pylons, no dual carriageways, no flyovers, no power stations…”
    AND
    ”so nucleur power station, Coal powered power station or a combined renewable energy source starting with wind farms..which one do you want ruining ‘your’ rural landscape.”

    All comes down to the location of the proposed wind farms and the fact that you need several thousand times more wind farms to create the same energy production.
    I am amazed that you can compare the two.

    If you are wondering why we don’t have more nuclear power stations to solve our problem then google it.

    Reply
  26. kj's comment is rated +2 Vote +1 Vote -1

    28.Oct.2008 5:31pm

    but nobody pretends that wind farms are going to provide the same energy production…thats why its seen as part of a combined policy.

    I thought everybody got that!!!!!!!

    Reply
  27. Colin's comment is rated +2 Vote +1 Vote -1

    28.Oct.2008 7:28pm

    “I thought everybody got that”
    Indeed they do. I researched the possibility and viability of a domestic turbine.
    The best I could hope for was between 10% and 20%, depending on the wind of course, contribution to my electricity supply (in line with BWEA predictions).
    I used 2,840 KwH of electricity in the last 12 months at a cost of just over £352.
    Purchase and installation cost of turbine, assuming Planning permission, would be around £1,800.
    At 20% it would take 21 years to break even.
    Worst case scenario, 51 YEARS to break even!
    WHY would anyone with half a brain do that?

    Reply
  28. kj's comment is rated +2 Vote +1 Vote -1

    28.Oct.2008 7:37pm

    The most efficient use of a home turbine is to have it heat a seperate tank of water that feeds your boiler/emmersion heater

    Reply
  29. James P's comment is rated +2 Vote +1 Vote -1

    28.Oct.2008 9:29pm

    “CFL lamps. Hmmmm. Goes back to the Eastenders, Ford Focus, Kylie Minogue issue again.
    Either you get it or you don’t.”

    You seem to be saying that if something is popular, it must be wrong (so much for democracy!). I thought your objection to CF lamps would be more sophisticated than that…

    Reply
  30. James Villiers's comment is rated +2 Vote +1 Vote -1

    29.Oct.2008 4:18am

    “CFL lamps. Hmmmm. Goes back to the Eastenders, Ford Focus, Kylie Minogue issue again.
    Either you get it or you don’t.”

    James P, sorry you are one of the people that just doesn’t get it! This goes back to my argument that democracy does indeed fail when there are more people who think this way than the other, its an inherent flaw of democracy that leads me to a feelng of great fear for the future.

    ”I thought your objection to CF lamps would be more sophisticated than that…”

    It is actually quite a sophisticated argument because as societies have evolved they have become more cultured and cultivated, to reach a peak of conduct and etiquette toward others and the old saying ‘they dont make em like that anymore’ was coined for a good reason. Things WERE made better, there was more attention to detail in all areas of life, no-one expected to live off others(eg. the state) without losing all respect and dignity. In 1950’s England no-one would dream of going out the house as one may dress today, no-one would behave towards other people in the way they do today, peoples own personal conduct and values toward others were impeccable, you had to look hard to find an exception to the rule.

    We now live in the age of the common man in Britain, I don’t have anything personal against any human, whatever background, creed, religion or way of life, however when that person represents the majority and thus forces his way upon the ‘illuminati’, who may now only exist as a minority, then thats where democracy is no longer a safe form of governing.

    This minority is not wrong, far from it, this minority represents that what once was the ruling elite, the successful, the intelligent, the highly cultured and sophisticated members of society who demand more than just to live, work and die.

    Democracy inevitably takes the tone of the lower portions of society, and, if there are great diversities, degrades the higher or put another way, ‘two wolves and a sheep deciding what’s for dinner.’

    We have already passed the peak of society and we are now on the downslide as you can see by looking around you.
    How does this relate to Windfarms? The people deciding on the important issues that affect quality of life are appeasing the majority, indeed statistically they are more likely to be one of them, therefore it becomes an easy decision to make.
    Landscapes carpeted in Windfarms because the simple uneducated masses are easy to convince and spoonfeed through the media, energy saving lightbulbs that create a cold artificial un-homely light, cars and houses that all look the same, tracksuits and hoodies for all! A truly dumbed down, ugly and monochrome future for us all.

    ps. I was told kj works for Vesta the turbine manufacturing company.

    Reply
  31. steve s's comment is rated +2 Vote +1 Vote -1

    29.Oct.2008 8:55am

    So now we know where JV is coming from. He’s not just a NIMBY he’s Illuminatus!
    Come and join us on the forum, James The ‘enlightening video’ thread would be a good place to start!

    Reply
  32. kj's comment is rated +2 Vote +1 Vote -1

    29.Oct.2008 11:50am

    ‘works for Vesta’ hahahaha

    What and have a proper job…no chance

    Reply
  33. kj's comment is rated +2 Vote +1 Vote -1

    29.Oct.2008 11:55am

    from the CP today

    “A VENTNOR councillor has suggested installing a wind turbine near the Winter Gardens to help power it.
    Cllr Buster Bartlett came up with the idea during a debate that looked into ways of making the building more fuel-efficient.
    He said installing the turbine was a feasible power alternative.
    “They will have three at Ventnor Golf Club, so why can’t we have one here,” he asked the town council?
    The Isle of Wight Council has appointed an officer to scutinise ways of making fuel savings and offering advice. The town council is seeking a meeting with the officer soon, said town clerk John Farrant.
    Former Ventnor mayor Cllr Brian Lucas said: “We need to be more energy-efficient. This building is particularly inefficient in terms of its insulation and layout.”

    Reply
  34. James P's comment is rated +2 Vote +1 Vote -1

    29.Oct.2008 12:33pm

    “join us on the forum”

    If I did that, I’d get even less work done!

    And no, I don’t work for Vesta, either :-)

    Reply
  35. James P's comment is rated +2 Vote +1 Vote -1

    29.Oct.2008 2:42pm

    Blimey JV – your glass really is half-empty, isn’t it? I don’t have time for a detailed reply, but I’m (just) old enough to remember the ton-up gangs, teddy boys and flick knives of the 50’s, so I’m not sure it was that wonderful an age. Nowadays, I ride a motorbike for pleasure, enjoy a fabulous choice of entertainment, music, clothes and food, and live in a delightful corner of the globe where, unaccountably, people are arguing about a clean, renewable source of energy!

    Reply
  36. Wendy V's comment is rated +2 Vote +1 Vote -1

    29.Oct.2008 3:39pm

    I’m also bemused by JV’s comment (32) and realise a full reply would become an (off-topic) essay. Maybe I’ll confine myself to saying that growing up in a town where coalmining was the main industry until the pit closures of the 1980s gave me a very different view of history. And of Britain’s evolving landscape.

    Reply
  37. Colin's comment is rated +2 Vote +1 Vote -1

    30.Oct.2008 2:32pm

    In response to my post about the viability of installing a domestic turbine, kj wrote:
    The most efficient use of a home turbine is to have it heat a seperate tank of water that feeds your boiler/emmersion heater
    So you are suggesting I spend £1,800 to heat a hot water tank?
    Are you quite mad?

    Reply
  38. kj's comment is rated +2 Vote +1 Vote -1

    30.Oct.2008 3:34pm

    I said it was the most efficient use of a home turbine, You raise the water atemprature a few degrees and it saves your boiler/immersion working so hard to heat the water.

    Didn’t say it was viable :-)

    Reply
  39. holidaymaker's comment is rated +2 Vote +1 Vote -1

    31.Oct.2008 7:29pm

    One mans thing of grace and beauty is another mans windmill they are not a solution and will only enhance a mains supply NO energy is free …………….only advice (unless you work for the council)

    Reply
  40. musoactivator's comment is rated +2 Vote +1 Vote -1

    2.Nov.2008 12:33pm

    In the industrial revolution, it was considered the vast coal towers were reaching out to God and considered to be a vision of progress.

    Now our PM is asking the gulf region for oil stabilisation and IMF contributions so Britain(Unstable economy) can build a better future? Afterall, our Nuclear energy options are owned by the French.

    Bring on the self-sufficiency I say.

    Reply
  41. AW's comment is rated +2 Vote +1 Vote -1

    16.Nov.2008 7:11pm

    This whole debt is driven by “we have to save the planet” and “fear of nuclear power”. The facts are that wind turbines do not work as a reliable power source SO therefore NO conventional power station can be turned off.
    The fact that Vestas has a factory here and therefore the Island should have turbines??? I believe many components for jetliners are made at factories on the Island, should we ask for Heathrows third runway to be built on the Island???
    Basically the windfarm claim that to save our environment we need wind turbines, thus DESTROYING the environment.
    “I sorry but for your own SAFETY we’re going to have to kill you”

    Reply
  42. musoactivator's comment is rated +2 Vote +1 Vote -1

    17.Nov.2008 4:14pm

    The debt probably equates to the cost of recent wars.

    Reply
  43. James Villiers's comment is rated +2 Vote +1 Vote -1

    18.Nov.2008 3:59am

    AND I THINK THAT AW SHOULD CLOSE THIS FORUM AS HE HAS HIT THE NAIL RIGHT ON THE HEAD!
    AND IT ONLY TOOK 6 MONTHS FOR SOMEONE TO SAY IT!? AMAZING.

    ”NO conventional power station can be turned off”

    GOODBYE!

    Reply
  44. Arthur Grabbit's comment is rated +2 Vote +1 Vote -1

    18.Nov.2008 9:09am

    “DESTROYING the environment”

    As opposed to nuclear (untreatable toxic waste) or fossil fuel (limited resources – the clue’s in the name)? Wind power is a small but useful step towards solving a difficult problem. A slight change to a few people’s skyline is pretty bearable, IMHO. As far as I know, Holland has not been laid waste by its windmills…

    Reply
  45. kj's comment is rated +2 Vote +1 Vote -1

    18.Nov.2008 9:56am

    How do turbines destroy the enviroment. Some might find them ugly, but then so is a barn or a row of cowsheds. If we can produce 10% of our energy from a clean source, thats 10% away from polluting power stations.

    I’d rather see three turbines than 3 giant chimneys belching smoke…but then the belching chimneys are ruining someone elses enviroment not ours.

    The reality is that what we really need on Cheverton down is a nucleur power station just for the Island, we could then sever our links to the national grid. Lets start a petition to build a Nucleur Power Station at Cheverton or Wellow

    Reply
  46. musoactivator's comment is rated +2 Vote +1 Vote -1

    18.Nov.2008 2:05pm

    JV. Your what is wrong in the world. Not the common man.

    Reply
  47. James Villiers's comment is rated +2 Vote +1 Vote -1

    19.Nov.2008 2:21am

    @musoactivator

    Well at least we know now that you are one of ‘them’. So of course you would say I am what is wrong with the world. It all goes back to the classic British class war, so you would of course think this country is better now that it’s overun by people like you. hmmmm.

    Your contribution to this forum is this:
    ”In the industrial revolution, it was considered the vast coal towers were reaching out to God and considered to be a vision of progress.”

    How on earth can anyone compare Great Britain of the 18th century and 19th century to now!!!??
    With a population of 5 million versus 60 million, vast swathes of untouched unmanaged countryside then, no internal combustion engine vehicles etc etc

    This is about aesthetics and the countryside and as AW points out, wind will NEVER replace conventional power stations only supplement it at best.
    Read above musoactivator, your type don’t care about things like the countryside, so it leaves us with a very difficult battle.

    Come on wake up, as I posted originally, other countries have been here, done that and subsequently stopped further wind developments.

    BTW Eastenders has just started………..

    Reply
  48. musoactivator's comment is rated +2 Vote +1 Vote -1

    19.Nov.2008 4:24am

    @JV

    My type? Oh please. Humanity is classless. You choose to divide with your words. Your way suggests continuing wars to secure oil supplies and your own prosperity. So in the long run does war cost less than investing in better, safer, efficient technology and power resources over the past/next 50 years?

    If you fail to see the comparison then I am sorry for your short-sightedness (See post 41 above it), not the value of my part-quoted contribution!!??

    Face it, our coal & oil industries have peaked and been drained. Russia are rubbing their hands at the prospect of Europe’s future energy reliance.
    Think about that as your grandchildren live in a ransom held Britain, bankrupt with it’s need to secure imported energy……STILL governed by the capitalist, elitist minority you feel so a part of and admire.

    Maybe you can watch Dallas. I’m off to soak up some more BBC 24

    PS – You should try objectively watching zeitgeist for a few enlightenments.

    Reply
  49. Tommy's comment is rated +2 Vote +1 Vote -1

    19.Nov.2008 9:06am

    muso, you wrote:
    “our coal & oil industries have peaked and been drained.”
    Wrong.
    Shell and BP are finding new oil and gas fields all the time. British coal mines could be reopened and were still producing coal at the time of closure.
    “Russia are rubbing their hands at the prospect of Europe’s future energy reliance.”
    Wrong.
    Headline from The Times of 13 November 2008:
    “Producers in turmoil as Russian oil hits $10 a barrel.
    Leading Russian oil producers, including TNK-BP, BP’s Russian affiliate, are grappling with a collapse in profits from the export of Siberian oil.”
    Hmmn, $10 a barrel, not EXACTLY a ransom, is it?

    Reply
  50. musoactivator's comment is rated +2 Vote +1 Vote -1

    19.Nov.2008 3:35pm

    Not yet a ransom Tommy no. We are talking in about 30 years. America & Middle East will do as much as possible to keep Russia out of the market until then. Does Murdoch still own the Times? Oooh lets re-assure our Times readers about the Western economy. Most of them must have shares and we can’t have them rattled right now.

    If Britain is finding more, then why aren’t we exporting/stockpiling our own oil and coal like back in the heyday? Why are we paying stupid prices for our energy from abroad?

    All I’m saying is that we need to be self sufficient, I don’t care if that’s part nuclear, part turbine as long as the world can keep spinning around.

    Truth is, nobody is wrong and nobody is right..Just depends what your agenda is.

    It seems too much ‘in my lifetime’ thinking going on in this argument.

    So Tommy, next you’ll be saying that Iraq & Afghanistan has nothing to do with oil?

    How do you confuse the masses?…Give them too much information.

    Next!

    Reply
  51. kj's comment is rated +2 Vote +1 Vote -1

    19.Nov.2008 3:45pm

    Over half the world has reached and exceeded peak oil production. This doesn’t mean they’ve run out, just that they will and soon. Before that happens the producers will begin to hoard oil for their own consumption thus the price will always rise. Self sufficiency should have started 30 years ago and we may be to late to stave of an energy crisis, but we must do what we can

    JV insists on ignoring every post that says ‘of course wind won’t replace fossil fuels, but will provide up to 10% of a combined renewable program that will’

    Reply
  52. musoactivator's comment is rated +2 Vote +1 Vote -1

    19.Nov.2008 7:14pm

    JV I have no real issue with you, I have no particular political leaning and have been drawn out of a semi-interest into justifying my sweeping point. Lets look at this again shall we? A bit more in depth.

    To bring up ‘my type’ again. Read Rudyard Kypling’s IF. All you need to know about my type.
    Knowledge does not necessarily constitute wisdom unluckily for you, or for that matter, prudence. So, your ‘facts’ mean nothing to me.

    I can empathize with your fears & reasoning about society but I think we are well down that road now and it’s still the elite that have steered us all there. Brings it on to another of your classic lines.

    “This minority is not wrong, far from it, this minority represents that what once was the ruling elite, the successful, the intelligent, the highly cultured and sophisticated members of society who demand more than just to live, work and die.”

    Like this is just the sole right of the largely inherited few? Tones of a slave master. Almost supremacist vibes going on here.

    “Democracy inevitably takes the tone of the lower portions of society, and, if there are great diversities, degrades the higher or put another way, ‘two wolves and a sheep deciding what’s for dinner.'”

    Have you heard yourself? Democracy should rule with a common-sense and fairness. Another classless characteristic. Democracy takes the tone of poor leadership and corruption. The ‘lower portions’ (as you prefer to name it) of society hardly even vote!

    How on earth can anyone compare Great Britain of the 18th century and 19th century to now!!!??
    With a population of 5 million versus 60 million, vast swathes of untouched unmanaged countryside then, no internal combustion engine vehicles etc etc

    Exactly! Those times have gone. More people, less land. Change. The responsibility is to do it in the most sensible manner.

    “Landscapes carpeted in Windfarms because the simple uneducated masses are easy to convince and spoonfeed through the media, energy saving lightbulbs that create a cold artificial un-homely light, cars and houses that all look the same, tracksuits and hoodies for all! A truly dumbed down, ugly and monochrome future for us all.”

    Read 1984, get over it. Replace the word ‘windfarms’ with ‘electric pylons.’ Whats your point? Perhaps you need to join some nostalgia group or something to re-live the past. You are the people you surround yourself with. You can always move. Consider yourself lucky in that respect.

    Us, them but not we? That’s a basic problem with the world. Your contributions represent that well. Globalization and all it’s issues are coming on quick because fast capitalist schemes have diverted cash from future stability of a nation.

    Whether it’s in Cheverton or not, it’s the same issue. My mother used to have a nice tea-tray it read ‘ O God and Heavenly Father,
    Grant to us the serenity of mind to accept that which cannot be changed; the courage to change that which can be changed, and the wisdom to know the one from the other, through Jesus Christ our Lord, Amen.

    Reply
  53. James Villiers's comment is rated +2 Vote +1 Vote -1

    24.Nov.2008 1:52am

    Thats more like it Musoactivator!! NOW you have contributed properly to the forum and we can see your true colours! And actually your colours seem, for the main part, quite pleasing.

    Zeitgeist, 1984, If….well ok I know enough about them to see where you are coming from but I will endeavour to look them up again. However I am NOT a Captilast!! I am, without doubt, relishing the supposedly ‘deep recession’ thats coming, if it ever actually comes! There is no Capitalist here, sorry.

    So YES energy will become a big, big problem in the next 30-50 years but wind is no way to even PARTLY solve it, unless it one of those things that people attach to their houses or sheds to run their 40w lightbulbs on. I don’t have a problem with that, in fact I find that quite endearing and that’s TRUE self sufficiency. Grow your own veg too if you want. But windfarms? isn’t this forum about windfarms?!! I don’t even live on the IOW by the way but windfarms will never be the way forward as the destruction outweighs the gain and all for 5%, 10% blah blah blah….. If its Nuclear then so be it.

    My grandmother also had a tea tray that read the same thing but also another that read “I don’t know what the key to success is, but the key to failure is trying to please everyone.”!

    Reply
  54. musoactivator's comment is rated +2 Vote +1 Vote -1

    1.Jan.2009 9:54pm

  55. Tommy's comment is rated +2 Vote +1 Vote -1

    2.Jan.2009 2:31pm

    As the article to which you referred me contains this:
    “Another spokesman said the Russian gas export monopoly had stepped up volumes for European consumers beyond Ukraine.”,
    I fail to see what point you are making.
    I do not live in Kiev or any other part of the Ukraine and this is a dispute between Russia and the Ukraine, who are refusing to pay the going European rate for gas.
    I think you are becoming a little confused in that gas is a tangible form of energy and is available at a price. Wind is neither tangible, predictable or even less, reliable.
    I was unfortunate enough to have spent the Christmas holiday on the mainland in Lincolnshire.
    We visited a seaside town called Skegness on two occasions.
    Apart from being one of the most dreary places I have ever seen, there is an offshore “windfarm” of some 60 turbines.
    Both days we were there the turbines were NOT turning AT ALL.
    It was minus 1 degree C and 0 degrees and therefore essential to have household gas and electrical heating appliances on, but the good old turbines were of no use. DOH!
    I note also that there is still no sign of the Ventnor Golf Club application which was due to be submitted before Christmas.
    Maybe they have realised that the good old “Wool over the eyes” trick has at last been sussed!

    Reply
  56. musoactivator's comment is rated +2 Vote +1 Vote -1

    2.Jan.2009 5:35pm

    No, not making any major points Tommy but still saying we need to be self-sufficient as much as possible to avoid being held to ransom in the future.

    Maybe naive but can’t these wind turbines be made to rotate to catch the wind? Surely a combination of wave, wind & solar could cut our dependency on imported fuel considerably?

    Don’t envy your Skegness trip but hope you had a nice festive season regardless.

    Reply
  57. James Villiers's comment is rated +2 Vote +1 Vote -1

    3.Jan.2009 3:59am

    I heard that if you get 2 gyroscopes and put them on a piece of string they will keep spinning forever, now if we simply harness the energy from these and then channel this energy into a nearby windfarm to make the turbines rotate ‘to catch the wind’ so it looks like they are doing something useful then that might solve the problem of these ubiquitous non-rotating turbines, they must be such bad PR for Vesta and the other turbine companies.

    Reply
  58. James P's comment is rated +2 Vote +1 Vote -1

    4.Jan.2009 7:15pm

    All power stations, even nuclear ones, have days off for maintenance, and there must be very few days in the UK when the wind isn’t blowing usefully somewhere round its coast. Uranium fuel for nuclear power is just as limited a resource as oil and coal, and likely to become more so if that particular bandwagon gets rolling. Wind and waves and tide are at least ever-present and free, and I really fail to see the objection to large windmills if their backers have a commercial proposition. Vestas’ order book is full, I gather, so that rather confirms their viability.

    As for wind not being tangible, I suggest that Tommy takes a trip offshore in a Force 10 gale to experience some tangibility!

    Reply
  59. Tommy's comment is rated +2 Vote +1 Vote -1

    5.Jan.2009 2:03pm

    James,
    “and there must be very few days in the UK when the wind isn’t blowing usefully somewhere”
    I would respectfully suggest that if you have to rely on wishful thinking to back up an argument, then that argument has very little substance.
    To further suggest that just because Vesta have a full order book (who says so? Vesta?) therefore that makes the technology viable is, quite frankly, ludicrous.

    Reply
  60. Steve's comment is rated +2 Vote +1 Vote -1

    5.Jan.2009 3:51pm

    Tommy

    The two offshore wind farms of Skegness, Lynn and Inner Dowsing, are at the commissioning stages and are not fully online yet.

    Vestas, GE, Suzlon, Siemens and Enercon, all have huge order books and the supply chain for all components (bearing, gearboxes, etc) is at near tipping point.

    Average lead time for delivery of turbines has increased from six months a year ago to anywhere between 24 and 36 months. Siemens has stated that new orders will not be delivered until 2012.

    The driver is due to rising oil prices, tougher emission laws and fear of climate change. Ludicrus no……… fact yes!

    Reply
  61. Tommy's comment is rated +2 Vote +1 Vote -1

    5.Jan.2009 5:36pm

    Steve,
    “The driver is due to rising oil prices,fact yes! ”
    Why do you people insist on making stuff up?
    Go here:
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7810886.stm
    and you will clearly see that as at todays date 05/01/09, the price of oil is now $40 a barrel.
    Early last year it stood at $150 a barrel.
    So PLEASE stop making stuff up.

    Reply
  62. James P's comment is rated +2 Vote +1 Vote -1

    5.Jan.2009 5:41pm

    Thanks, Steve, for saving me some homework!

    My comment about the wind blowing somewhere most of the time was not wishful thinking, but just an observation that I hoped was stating the obvious! A decent wind (greater than Force 4) blows off St.Catherines about 55% of the time, and in the Hebrides it’s nearer 80%, so my suggestion seems reasonable to me. There’s also more of it in the winter, which is a useful advantage over solar, although I’ve nothing against any form of free energy. Right now, anything that reduces our dependence on imports is worth doing, IMO!

    Reply
  63. James P's comment is rated +2 Vote +1 Vote -1

    5.Jan.2009 5:44pm

    Tommy – has your gas and electricity become cheaper? Mine hasn’t!

    Reply
  64. Tommy's comment is rated +2 Vote +1 Vote -1

    5.Jan.2009 5:50pm

    No, it hasn’t.
    That is not the point.
    You say :
    “Thanks, Steve, for saving me some homework!”
    Pity he did not DO his homework.
    Unless you also believe it is alright to make up figures, as Steve has done, to bolster an argument. Do you James?

    Reply
  65. Steve's comment is rated +2 Vote +1 Vote -1

    5.Jan.2009 7:39pm

    My earlier comment “The driver is due to rising oil prices, tougher emission laws and fear of climate change. Ludicrous no……… fact yes!” stands Tommy.

    Today, the price of a barrel of oil is less than last year, however to plan, finance and install a wind farm takes many years. Therefore my comment on the rising oil prices as being a driver stands true.

    Reply
  66. James P's comment is rated +2 Vote +1 Vote -1

    5.Jan.2009 7:46pm

    “alright to make up figures”

    Which are..?

    Reply
  67. James P's comment is rated +2 Vote +1 Vote -1

    5.Jan.2009 11:31pm

    “to plan .. a wind farm takes many years”

    It certainly does here!

    I also think that oil and gas prices will rise again soon enough, and that future generations will goggle at the low prices we paid for so long. Of course, the world economy may contract hard enough to prevent it, but then we won’t have any money anyway, so back to square one!

    Reply
  68. musoactivator's comment is rated +2 Vote +1 Vote -1

    6.Jan.2009 1:02pm

  69. Tommy's comment is rated +2 Vote +1 Vote -1

    6.Jan.2009 4:45pm

    Oh Gawd! The BBC, OPEC, This is Money, Ernst & Young and AFP… to name but a few among dozens, clearly state that oil prices “fell by 58% in 2008″ from $150 per barrel in July.
    Even now, on 6 January, with the Gaza crisis and the Middle East in turmoil yet again, a barrel of crude stands at $48.
    But Steve refuses to accept these proven facts, preferring instead to make up his own wishful thinking “Facts”.
    How can anybody take these people seriously?
    Someone who says “Today, the price of a barrel of oil is less than last year”, (which is wot I writ) yet, in the same post (67) says “Therefore my comment on the rising oil prices as being a driver stands true.”
    If the price is “less than last year”, how can “rising oil prices” stand true???????
    Enough is enough, if you cannot even agree with yourself and if you cannot acccept the word of the worlds oil producers (OPEC), then there is little objectivity in trying to debate the issue further, so I will say goodnight as I do not have a degree in obtusity from Hallam.

    Reply
  70. V's comment is rated +2 Vote +1 Vote -1

    6.Jan.2009 5:03pm

    Do you nievely believe that what we pay for oil has anything to do with anything…oil prices have been ‘imaginately’ played with for decades.

    THE truth is that within our life times supplies will become scarce…and then run out and we are already to late top do anything about it.

    So when your oil/solid fuel/gas fired PS runs out, maybe I’ll still get 10% of my energy requirements from wind power (unless THWARTS get their way in which case I’m stockpilling batteries for my torch)

    Reply
  71. James P's comment is rated +2 Vote +1 Vote -1

    6.Jan.2009 5:11pm

    “Today, the price of a barrel of oil is less than last year”

    That looks like selective quotation! The next word was “however” followed by the reasonable enough assumption that the longer term trend would be upwards. Ten years ago, you may remember, oil was around $10 a barrel, and I think it’s safe to assume it’s not likely to be that cheap again.

    Fossil fuels and uranium are finite resources – wind, tide and solar are effectively for ever and, to coin a phrase, free at the point of delivery. Unless someone can make a practical fusion reactor (a pocket-sized star, in effect) we will end up depending on renewable energy sooner or later. Sooner sounds good to me.

    Reply
  72. James P's comment is rated +2 Vote +1 Vote -1

    6.Jan.2009 5:15pm

    “a barrel of crude stands at $48″

    In post 63 (yesterday) it was $40! A 20% increase in 24 hours.. :-)

    Reply
  73. Steve's comment is rated +2 Vote +1 Vote -1

    6.Jan.2009 7:28pm

    Tommy, I apologise for my poor grammar and substandard education. By all means pull my words apart, but you still can’t buy a wind turbine within a sensible time frame. They have very large order books. So the question to you is why?

    And you will reply with the same old tosh because you don’t know. You are too proud to admit that turbine sales have increased dramatically over the past five years.

    While we are being pedantic, it’s Vestas not Vesta, (which is wot I writ)

    Reply
  74. Tommy's comment is rated +2 Vote +1 Vote -1

    6.Jan.2009 8:18pm

    “”a barrel of crude stands at $48″

    In post 63 (yesterday) it was $40! A 20% increase in 24 hours.. ”

    And in the context of being $150 last July???

    In the words of Denis Healey, you two really are “Silly Billys” and that gentlemen is my last word as you are making yourselves look foolish and doing more damage to your argument with every post.
    Thank you and goodnight.

    Reply
  75. James P's comment is rated +2 Vote +1 Vote -1

    7.Jan.2009 9:57am

    Come on, Steve – you take the hat with the bells on and I’ll wave the stick with a bladder on it!

    We’re not going to convince Tommy until oil is back to $150, even though that was the result of money speculation (hedge fund managers again) rather than supply and demand.

    To be picky, though, since when was July
    “early last year” (post 63)..?

    Reply
  76. Tommy's comment is rated +2 Vote +1 Vote -1

    8.Jan.2009 2:01pm

    Yet more bad press for you guys.
    After a 213 ft. blade sheared off one of these turbines in Lincolnshire, the CEO for the insurers GCube, said:
    ” This type of incident happens about five or six times a year.”
    “It does happen that a blade will sometimes just come off a machine for one reason or another,” he said. “The main reason is the blade may shear.”

    Not very safe then, as well as being hopelessly inefficient.
    In response to some wag (maybe from on here) who suggested that it may gave been the work of a UFO, Mr. McLachlan said:

    “We don’t normally see things like aircraft – or UFOs – hitting them. It’s usually a mechanical failure that causes the blade to separate from the main hub.”

    Nice!
    Especially if you happen to be walking on Cheverton or up at the Golf Club.

    Reply
  77. James P's comment is rated +2 Vote +1 Vote -1

    8.Jan.2009 2:22pm

    Doesn’t explain the dents in the other blade though.

    I’m not aware of anyone ever being hit by a broken blade, so the odds are rather less than being struck by lightning or winning the lottery. If it really worries you, then don’t go near one!

    Reply
  78. Mezza's comment is rated +2 Vote +1 Vote -1

    8.Jan.2009 2:26pm

    Phew – not always 100% safe as this youtube vid shows

    http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=QL-cRuYAxg0

    Reply
  79. Tommy's comment is rated +2 Vote +1 Vote -1

    8.Jan.2009 3:01pm

    10. James P Says:
    June 30th, 2008 at 10:14 pm
    “50% of all the world’s oil has now been used up – the remaining 50% will be far more difficult and costly to extract”

    That sounds like a non-sequitur to me. Iraq has 112bn barrels ready and waiting (so now you know what the war was really about) and several other major producers have enough to maintain current production levels for over 100 years.

    Clearly, demand is now affecting price, so we need to get used to paying rather more, but I’m not sure that’s a bad thing. Anything that encourages local production and discourages the unnecessary transport of food and livestock around the world is fine by me, but we still have time to develop some sensible green alternatives, i.e. things that are not quite so weather-dependent as windmills!”

    James P
    As you are so fond of quoting previous posts, do you recall posting the above 6 months ago?
    I particularly like the quote “we still have time to develop some sensible green alternatives, i.e. things that are not quite so weather-dependent as windmills!”
    So, in the space of 6 months, you have done a complete Uturn.
    You have a big future in politics.

    Reply
  80. steve s's comment is rated +2 Vote +1 Vote -1

    8.Jan.2009 3:34pm

    76. Tommy: ” And that, gentlemen, is my last word…”
    I rather thought it was too much to hope for. ;-)

    Reply
  81. Tommy's comment is rated +2 Vote +1 Vote -1

    8.Jan.2009 3:54pm

    Steve,
    You could surely not expect me to pass up the chance of stating:
    a) the danger of one of these things shearing off and the potential resultant damage to property and more importantly, people, especially as the CEO of the Insurance Company involved says that it happens 5 or 6 times a year (at least HE is being honest)
    and
    b) how James has miraculously been converted from a sceptic to a fervent supporter of what he called “weather dependent windmills”, in 6 months
    I’m not saying that is my last word…………see you in Shorwell and you won’t be “shouted down”, but you must come up with something more substantial than “They look nice and 10% is better than nothiing”

    Reply
  82. musoactivator's comment is rated +2 Vote +1 Vote -1

    8.Jan.2009 4:33pm

    More Russian-ness

    http://uk.news.yahoo.com/4/20090108/twl-eu-warns-russia-over-gas-supply-41f21e0.html

    …..reassuring to know we have a diverse supply of oil from everywhere else.

    The question remains, what will replace oil for our grand-children?

    So a dodgy blade falls off? Dosn’t start a war does it? (Perhaps on here. heheh) Chernobyll springs to mind aswell…..Accidents happen but oil WILL run out for the masses.

    Reply
  83. windy miller's comment is rated +2 Vote +1 Vote -1

    8.Jan.2009 6:41pm

    The argument over renewable energy is one thing but what is ignored is the reliability of any power supply. Wind turbines on Cheverton Down will be very unpredictable. The output will be variable and while the wind direction changes power is REQUIRED by the turbines to steer them. If they prove to get a lot of use then the servicing and breakdown costs rise. All the time and no matter how they perform the installer will receive a tax payers subsidy each and every year over over £250,000 per turbine. Plus any power produced HAS to be bought by the grid at inflated price and this cost is passed directly on to – the consumer. As the wind is not predictable or reliable a back up source of power has to be running in the back ground.
    Wind turbines as a power solution is akin to running a bus service to cut car costs. This bus service will not have a timetable and when you are lucky enough to be able to use it you will have to have your car ready with the engine running so you can jump in it at a minutes notice as the bus is liable to stop at any time with little if any warning.

    Reply
  84. James P's comment is rated +2 Vote +1 Vote -1

    8.Jan.2009 8:28pm

    “You have a big future in politics”

    Absolutely not! For one thing, I’m quite happy to revise my opinion in the light of understanding, or, to quote Keynes: “When the facts change, I change my mind — what do you do, sir?”

    At the time, I (and many others) thought that the price of oil was going up because of demand. It turns out that it was speculation by people who nearly caused the total collapse of the banking system! I still hold the view that tide and wave power hold out longer term benefits, but I’ve always been in favour of green alternatives. As I recall, the comment quoted was in response to some hysterical remarks that the oil was running out rapidly and we were all doomed!

    I have no objection to windmills on aesthetic grounds, and since we have a pre-eminent maker of them locally, it seems perverse not to advertise the fact.

    Reply
  85. V's comment is rated +2 Vote +1 Vote -1

    9.Jan.2009 10:13am

    This has been posted before

    and these people are REAL experts

    Reply
  86. James P's comment is rated +2 Vote +1 Vote -1

    9.Jan.2009 11:59am

    Applying Malthusian principles to oil seems perfectly sound, but at the risk of going off-topic and upsetting the polically correct, his original piece about human population is the root of the real problem. Even he didn’t have the solution, though, and neither do I, so we will probably have to rely on war or catastrophe, as usual. Whether that will coincide with the end of fossil fuels remains to be seen – before then, probably…

    Reply
  87. James P's comment is rated +2 Vote +1 Vote -1

    9.Jan.2009 12:03pm

    polically = politically
    Stupid keyboard :-)

    Reply
  88. musoactivator's comment is rated +2 Vote +1 Vote -1

    9.Jan.2009 12:36pm

    One child per person

    Reply
  89. James P's comment is rated +2 Vote +1 Vote -1

    9.Jan.2009 1:13pm

    Per person or per couple? Serius question, although possibly academic!

    Reply
  90. James P's comment is rated +2 Vote +1 Vote -1

    9.Jan.2009 1:13pm

    Serius? oops!

    Reply
  91. musoactivator's comment is rated +2 Vote +1 Vote -1

    9.Jan.2009 1:34pm

    lol…person of course but if we’re in real trouble we may need a decade of ‘per couple’. :op

    Reply
  92. Tommy's comment is rated +2 Vote +1 Vote -1

    9.Jan.2009 4:46pm

    Windy,
    Reality checks are no good! You are wasting your time.
    All they do is sidetrack you onto the price of oil or “Malthusian principles”, some old geezer who lived over 200 years ago, who seemed to bang on about the population explosion, but who is, of course, very relevant to to the debate about the efficacy of wind turbines in the 21st century.
    I love the bus service analogy, but again, they deliberately won’t see it’s relevance. Mind you, it might be a different story if these monsters were sited at Arreton and kept JP awake all night.
    After all, they don’t want the British moto-cross Championship there for a few days a year. Oh no! not in my back yard!
    There was an excellent letter in todays CP ending in “it is worthy of note that since Christmas Day, 11 days ago there has been insufficient wind (above force 3) to operate a wind turbine”.
    This at a time of year, with temperatures well below freezing, which brings me neatly back to the bus service analogy.
    They have fallen into what I shall call the CLAP trap! LOL.

    Reply
  93. James P's comment is rated +2 Vote +1 Vote -1

    9.Jan.2009 7:06pm

    As it happens, I do have a small wind generator (courtesy of the Highways dept) on my boundary, and since it makes less noise than the wind in the trees, I’ve never heard it. It is supported by a solar panel, and the sign it powers continues to operate.

    WRT the moto-cross, don’t include me among the local Nimbys. I live closer to it than any of them and have always been in favour – and I wrote to the planning committee to say so.

    As for reality checks, may I enquire what plans you would make for the ultimate exhaustion of fossil fuels?

    Reply
  94. V's comment is rated +2 Vote +1 Vote -1

    9.Jan.2009 7:26pm

    dig a hole and stick his head in it :-)

    fingers in ears and go LALALALALALALALALALAL until it goes away..

    Reply
  95. seb's comment is rated +2 Vote +1 Vote -1

    11.Jan.2009 4:21pm

    let’s extract some energy from the sun.

    for those who missed it : here’s the UFO story – i expect there’ll be a cover-up – perhaps we should disuss it in the conspiracy section so that if aliens do decide to intervene definitively in human affairs they’ll know that IOWers are on their side!!

    http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/ufos/article2108149.ece

    Reply
  96. windy miller's comment is rated +2 Vote +1 Vote -1

    15.Jan.2009 11:21am

    If things were as bad as reported why is the solution offered, namely wind turbines, be one that requires the so called planet destroying power stations to continue to run in the background. Also all solutions seem to be more TAX. So maybe it isn’t “save the planet for your children” instead it’s more “pay more for the planet and your children can continue paying”
    I would say that energy saving and conservation is the way forward but to correlate a solution to the presented problem then I would be more persuaded if initiatives of ZERO tax on home energy production products and relaxed or dropped planning permissions for their installations.
    I would say that either the authorities are extremely stupid to present a solution that will not address the problem or the problem doesn’t exist. OR, the authorities feel the public are too stupid to realise the inconsonance of the solution to presented problem and simply believe anything presented to them often enough.

    Reply
  97. V's comment is rated +2 Vote +1 Vote -1

    15.Jan.2009 11:36am

    Yet again…….and again….it is not the solution, it is part of the solution.

    Wind can supply 10% of our renewable energy the rest has to come from somewhere else.

    Why do the anti-turbine people ignore this again and again and keep repeating that turbines are not the solution. Nobody says they are, just part of it

    Reply
  98. James P's comment is rated +2 Vote +1 Vote -1

    15.Jan.2009 2:03pm

    “just part of it”

    As, of course, are all other types of power generation, which is why we have a National Grid. You could no more power the country exclusively with coal, gas, oil, hydro-electric or nuclear – the whole point is that you have more capacity than you need to allow for down-time and temporary shortages.

    Look at those countries that have recently been blacked-out by the Ukrainian gas crisis if you need an illustration of the wisdom of diversity…

    Reply
  99. simon's comment is rated +2 Vote +1 Vote -1

    15.Jan.2009 2:13pm

  100. windy miller's comment is rated +2 Vote +1 Vote -1

    15.Jan.2009 9:17pm

    This is the most threating argument I have read on here:- Ray states “The Isle of Wight is an ideal site for a nuclear power station and people need to bare that in mind when opposing renewable energy options for the Island…”

    Ray will call round your house and skin your children alive if you do not agree to wind farms. Threats , threats and more threats.

    Read the scoping plan on the council site about the impact of these towers. It does not mention anything about the foundation block that will need to be excavated from the downs and then filled with concrete. Or maybe they will anchor the towers with a few six inch screws.

    Reply
  101. James P's comment is rated +2 Vote +1 Vote -1

    15.Jan.2009 9:19pm

    Thank you Simon. I notice that electrical solar cells (as opposed to the hot water variety) are coming down in price and going up in efficency. Dick Strawbridge fitted a set on a recent edition of ‘It isn’t easy being green’ and it was giving over 2 kilowatts on a relatively dull day. I went to a lecture he gave to the I.Mech.E recently and it was both entertaining and informative. I asked him about electrical self-sufficiency, and he said he hoped to be selling electricity back to the grid (he has a windmill as well) this year.

    Reply
  102. James P's comment is rated +2 Vote +1 Vote -1

    15.Jan.2009 9:23pm

    “It does not mention anything about the foundation block that will need to be excavated from the downs and then filled with concrete”

    Presumably because it pretty obvious that they would need some sort of foundation. What’s your house built on, Windy?

    Reply
  103. minty's comment is rated +2 Vote +1 Vote -1

    15.Jan.2009 10:34pm

    Any chance of putting this post to bed? The few, persistant posters on here are most boring and keep arguing the same point. Can we move along the bus, please. ding, ding!!!!

    Reply
  104. James P's comment is rated +2 Vote +1 Vote -1

    15.Jan.2009 10:48pm

    You don’t have to read them, Minty! Some people are just more obtuse than others, that’s all.. :-)

    Reply
  105. Tommy's comment is rated +2 Vote +1 Vote -1

    16.Jan.2009 11:48am

    “Some people are just more obtuse than others”
    You speak for yourself!
    I see that the application has still not been registered for comment because “the council wants more information on the scheme lodged with it, particularly about the potential loss of trees”.
    According to CLAP, they had consulted extensively with the council over a very long period. It seems very unprofessional therefore, if they omitted required information, especially regarding the trees .
    I also note that there is still no sign of the V.G.C. application.
    They must still be dotting those infernal “i’s” and crossing those difficult “t’s”

    Reply
    • Stewart Blackmore's comment is rated +2 Vote +1 Vote -1

      13.Apr.2009 8:03pm

      Well Tommy, I’ve finished dotting and crossing now – what a job; almost as painful as reading some of the self serving blogs on here! Oh – and our application hasn’t been ‘bounced back’ due to lack of information. Aren’t we good……Must’ve liked the way I dotted and crossed!

      Reply
  106. T@4's comment is rated +2 Vote +1 Vote -1

    18.Jan.2009 3:58pm

    Mast foundations? Scoping report?
    The scoping report is meant to show what impact the turbines would have on the area of installation. And, yes James P, it would seem obvious that these turbines would require foundations, very substantial foundations at that. A few thousand cubic meters of concrete foundations is not relevant information to consider? But the scoping report seems to indicate that the impact to the Downs and the track from the road to the installation would be minimal. The industrial installation of the turbines would therefore obviously involve considerable damage to the hill side, hedge rows and trees.
    So everyone who is concerned about the damage at Tennyson Lane should consider what bulldozers, excavators, articulated delivery trucks and earth removal trucks would do to the area and Tennyson and Worsley Trails.

    Reply
  107. James P's comment is rated +2 Vote +1 Vote -1

    19.Jan.2009 10:49am

    I fail to see the comparison with an historic lane that has apparently been vandalised by people who may not even own it! The scoping report you refer to says that the impact will be “minimal”, but from that you infer that it will involve “considerable damage”. Which is it?

    Clearly, you don’t want wind turbines, so what’s your view on power stations? OK, as long as they’re somewhere else, presumably.

    Reply
  108. V's comment is rated +2 Vote +1 Vote -1

    19.Jan.2009 10:54am

    I think we should form a register of all people opposed to Turbines ( and wave power etc) and, if and when these alternative power supplies become available..blacklist their addresses for the percentage of power produced.

    See if their house value stays the same in 30 years time when thye can only heat and light it for half the year

    Reply
  109. Tommy's comment is rated +2 Vote +1 Vote -1

    19.Jan.2009 11:20am

    Here he goes again quoting CLAP propaganda “The scoping report you refer to says that the impact will be “minimal”
    You would hardly expect them to say anything else would you?
    If it’s “minimal”, why do the council want more information about the impact on trees?
    You moan about Tennyson Lane and the trees there, but it’s OK for CLAP to do it, is it?
    WHY don’t you answer the question if this is such a good thing, why do they need the taxpayer to contribute £300,000.
    @ V “I think we should form a register of all people opposed to Turbines ( and wave power etc) ”
    Who said anything bad about wave power? You just make it up as you go along.

    Reply
  110. V's comment is rated +2 Vote +1 Vote -1

    19.Jan.2009 11:59am

  111. James P's comment is rated +2 Vote +1 Vote -1

    19.Jan.2009 12:44pm

    “Here he goes again quoting CLAP propaganda”

    Er, I was quoting T@4, actually…

    I’m not dodging the question of the alleged £300k – I didn’t introduce the figure, and I don’t know where it came from. Do you?

    Perhaps you would like to answer the question as to what we should use for electrical power in the long term? Oil, coal and gas are some way away from running out, but they will get a lot more expensive as demand increases (China is building a whole UK’s-worth of power stations every year), which will make renewables ever more cost-effective by comparison.

    Wind turbines may even represent a useful bit of forward planning!

    Reply
  112. James P's comment is rated +2 Vote +1 Vote -1

    19.Jan.2009 12:53pm

    V – well spotted. I loved this bit: “the worst affected area could see wave height reduced by as much as 11 per cent”, which I think means that the worst possible scenario is that it might just be noticeable.. :-)

    Reply
  113. V's comment is rated +2 Vote +1 Vote -1

    19.Jan.2009 3:18pm

    THe £300,000 amount is based on a TimesOnline article over the weekend…written by achap who is a self confessed anti-turbine.

    Doesn’t meen its wrong, but would hope for a another source to corroberate, maybe in the right context

    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article3257728.ece

    Reply
  114. Tommy's comment is rated +2 Vote +1 Vote -1

    19.Jan.2009 6:56pm

    To use an IT magazine article 2 years old provoked by a bunch of surfers just goes to prove the paucity of your argument, but it did make me laugh!
    I am on record as a firm supporter of tidal and wave power, because they both WORK, unlike your precious windmills.
    The link to IOW weather has been done before and shows that the average windspeed is about 8-9 m.p.h. The BWEA predictions show that a speed of 11 m.p.h. is required just to turn the blades and reach maximum efficiency at 33 m.p.h.
    Thanks for proving the case against them!

    Reply
  115. V's comment is rated +2 Vote +1 Vote -1

    19.Jan.2009 7:52pm

    BWEA link is quoted elsewhere and says 4-5mph

    Reply
  116. T@4's comment is rated +2 Vote +1 Vote -1

    19.Jan.2009 8:35pm

    James P. Given that thousands of tons of earth would have to be removed from the downs and replaced with concrete, delivery of 49m blades the impact on the hedge rows and trees in the area would be VERY destructive. Unless they do it with a couple of shovels and a Honda acty van!! (James P, that is sarcasm don’t ask which is it)

    V -(I think we should form a register of all people opposed to Turbines ( and wave power etc) and, if and when these alternative power supplies become available..blacklist their addresses for the percentage of power produced.)
    Perhaps Greenpeace should be held accountable for stopping 30years of advancement in nuclear power product and giving us so called MMGW?? Maybe their offices should have the power turned off!?

    James P – my view on power stations? They are great. They supply electricity so I am able to read a book at night.
    What’s you opinion on wastes of money and follies??

    As for Ray’s point “The Isle of Wight is an ideal site for a nuclear power station and people need to bare that in mind when opposing renewable energy options for the Island…” If the Island is a great site for nuclear power then wind turbines installation would only give the green light to a power station. This would be as the Island would be viewed as an industrial site and therefore would drop in value for protection.

    Reply
  117. V's comment is rated +2 Vote +1 Vote -1

    19.Jan.2009 9:06pm

    I’m all in favour of producing safe nucleur energy and beleive it will provide up to 50% of our future requirements..a further 10 from wind, 20 from Wave, 10 from solar and the balance from economy of use and other plans (thermal, hydro)

    Of course the more effecient the renewable sources come over time with developmemt (starting now) the % requirement on nucleur would drop..hopefully to nothing

    Reply
  118. James P's comment is rated +2 Vote +1 Vote -1

    19.Jan.2009 9:09pm

    “paucity of your argument”

    What argument was that, then? We were just sharing amusement at the over-reaction of surfers to the thought that their waves might be affected. Rather like the people who worry that windmills might affect tourism, I suppose…

    Average windspeed isn’t a terribly useful measure, I’m afraid, as it includes periods when there is no wind, which rather offsets the periods when there is a useful amount. There is wind above Force 4 about 55% of the time, which is rather better than the availability of sunshine for solar power, which I think also has a useful contribution.

    Reply
  119. Tommy's comment is rated +2 Vote +1 Vote -1

    19.Jan.2009 9:30pm

    “BWEA link is quoted elsewhere and says 4-5mph”
    Read it again!
    It says 4- METRES PER SECOND! DOH!
    @JP”Average windspeed isn’t a terribly useful measure, I’m afraid, as it includes periods when there is no wind,” No, of course, we wouldn’t want to admit that there are periods (17 days since Christmas) when there is no wind, would we?
    “There is wind above Force 4 about 55% of the time”
    Would you post the link to the origin of that statistic, please?

    Reply
  120. James P's comment is rated +2 Vote +1 Vote -1

    19.Jan.2009 10:24pm

    “What’s your opinion on wastes of money and follies??”

    Much the same as yours, I expect. It’s the definitions we probably disagree about…

    Reply
  121. James P's comment is rated +2 Vote +1 Vote -1

    19.Jan.2009 10:38pm

    Tommy, since you ask:

    http://www.windfinder.com/windstats/windstatistic_isle_of_wight.htm

    BTW, if you’re concerned about taxpayers’ money, I would ask the Council how much it costs them (i.e. us) to prop up their pension fund. That’s the main reason they’re permanently broke, and it will make your £300k look like petty cash!

    Reply
  122. v's comment is rated +2 Vote +1 Vote -1

    19.Jan.2009 11:04pm

    Re BWEA site… I was hasty and wrong :-(
    …and I have been reading this

    http://www.windaction.org/opinions/9816

    Although my enthusiasm has been blunted, it remains that we have to develope resources to supplement and eventually replace fossil fuels.

    When Bleriot flew the channel it was not hailed as the beginning of a new age..it was seen as a one off heroic event with no future. But for the persistance of a few men..we would not have had the developements we have now ( and some would say the pollution to go with it) We have to develop what we have and I would still welcome turbines to the Island

    Reply
  123. v's comment is rated +2 Vote +1 Vote -1

    19.Jan.2009 11:22pm

    In the interest of clarity Most turbines start to work at wind speeds between 9.9mph and 11.17mph and reach maximum efficiency at 33mph

    Reply
  124. Tommy's comment is rated +2 Vote +1 Vote -1

    20.Jan.2009 10:22am

    At last! Well done v for injecting a dose of reality into this debate.
    The speeds you quoted above are indeed the correct speeds as confirmed by all concerned in wind turbines, but then your realism sidetracks us, like Jimmy always does, to the Bleriot analogy.
    Air travel is very useful. Wind turbines are the equivalent to an ashtray on a motorbike. They work OK if the bike is not moving!
    JP is a lost cause, as when faced with a serious question, he fumbles around looking for “an out”.
    In this instance, he directs us to a WindSurfers site, based in GERMANY, whose banner contains a montage of wind turbines and that after saying:
    “We were just sharing amusement at the over-reaction of surfers to the thought that their waves might be affected.”
    I know where I would prefer to get factual information about IOW wether and it wouldn’t be from a German WindSurfing website!
    Then we have the sidetrack to Council Officers pensions.
    DON”T even go there!

    Reply
  125. James P's comment is rated +2 Vote +1 Vote -1

    20.Jan.2009 11:01am

    Oh for Heaven’s sake Tommy – you asked me where the 55% figure came from and I told you! Why would a German site lie about the wind off St.Catherine’s (or anywhere else)?

    They are probably more appropriate here, as Isle of Wight Weather measures the wind in Newport, which is useful for those of us deciding what to wear, but not so representative of the open air on the Downs.

    YOU were the one banging on about money and, as I recall, a rather tortuous bus analogy. Pots and kettles..?

    Reply
  126. v's comment is rated +2 Vote +1 Vote -1

    20.Jan.2009 11:02am

    But without actual turbines in actual position how will turbine technology develope further so that lower wind speeds are required to drive them.

    Surely this is the whole point of the subsidy….to drive forward the technology without its total reliance on the market….which I am again in favour of…and suspect you must be in favour of, but not in using IOW as a test base

    Reply
  127. v's comment is rated +2 Vote +1 Vote -1

    20.Jan.2009 11:10am

    Butterfly Paragliding off of Chale will have access to the vey latest wind speeds at various heights

    try

    http://www.nats-uk.ead-it.com/public/index.php.html

    http://www.xcweather.co.uk/ this one does the job

    Reply
  128. James P's comment is rated +2 Vote +1 Vote -1

    20.Jan.2009 11:49am

    I quite agree, V (posts 124 and 128), but you’ll have to wait a few decades before some of the local troglodytes come round!

    Like you, and contrary to what Tommy appears to think, I’m not pro-wind power to the exclusion of everything else. I got sucked into this debate simply to try and correct some of the ThWART-inspired disinformation that was appearing and that seems to get the Daily Mail readers and Nimbys so agitated.

    As others have noted, the only real issue here is whether you think that turbines are an eyesore – as an engineer, I find them awe-inspiring, but I appreciate that beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I expect there was a vocal mediaeval minority against Salisbury Cathedral when that was built, too.. :-)

    Reply
  129. T@4's comment is rated +2 Vote +1 Vote -1

    20.Jan.2009 11:49am

    V – “I’m all in favour of producing safe nucleur energy and beleive it will provide up to 50% of our future requirements..a further 10 from wind, 20 from Wave, 10 from solar and the balance from economy of use and other plans ”

    What ever figure you give for wind power contributions has to be added on top of 100% of energy requirements as wind power is SO unpredictable and unreliable.

    JP -“BTW, if you’re concerned about taxpayers’ money, I would ask the Council how much it costs them (i.e. us) to prop up their pension fund. That’s the main reason they’re permanently broke, and it will make your £300k look like petty cash!”

    Ah, that sounds like a campaign – “say yes to wind turbines or you will have a nuclear power station here instead. As a bonus wind turbines will also get rid of civil servants”

    Reply
  130. T@4's comment is rated +2 Vote +1 Vote -1

    20.Jan.2009 11:51am

    JP -“I quite agree, V (posts 124 and 128), but you’ll have to wait a few decades before some of the local troglodytes come round!”

    Ah name calling, feel better now do you!

    Reply
  131. James P's comment is rated +2 Vote +1 Vote -1

    20.Jan.2009 11:57am

    I do, actually, but I wasn’t referring to you (or anyone else) in particular!

    Reply
  132. T@4's comment is rated +2 Vote +1 Vote -1

    20.Jan.2009 11:58am

    JP -“As others have noted, the only real issue here is whether you think that turbines are an eyesore”

    The REAL contention is are they appropriately site(for a vestas showroom that would be yes), and will they delivery a reliable and predictable supply? Unpredictable makes the energy production virtual useless.

    Reply
  133. v's comment is rated +2 Vote +1 Vote -1

    20.Jan.2009 12:00pm

    not true….decent records exist of the the running times of turbines 12% was one of the lowest in America, 26% one of the highest.

    Between 10 and 12% of requirements at CURRENT LEVEL OF TECHNOLOGY is the most quoted amount even by sceptical sites.

    Of course technology doesn’t stand still, so you could only expect these figures to improve

    Reply
  134. steve s's comment is rated +2 Vote +1 Vote -1

    20.Jan.2009 12:02pm

    Since power generated by turbine can be stored, doesn’t that make the ‘It won’t work when it’s not windy’ argument something of a red herring?

    Reply
  135. v's comment is rated +2 Vote +1 Vote -1

    20.Jan.2009 12:06pm

    Yes I think the Isalnd is an appropriate site for an Island company to showcase its projects, and that they should be placed in a site that produces the right enviroment for them to tested.

    We should be working at being at the forfront of these technolgies, not dragging along behind like the Island has in the past

    Reply
  136. T@4's comment is rated +2 Vote +1 Vote -1

    20.Jan.2009 12:08pm

    V – 12% , 26% it doesn’t matter. They are statistic that show nothing. You could say you could supply enough buses to replace car journeies. But if the buses were to run; one day at night,the next at noon, the next at 10am, the next not at all, it makes the the whole idea stupid. If you can not say when the power will be delivered it is useless.

    Reply
  137. T@4's comment is rated +2 Vote +1 Vote -1

    20.Jan.2009 12:10pm

    Steve S –Power can be stored? How?

    Reply
  138. steve s's comment is rated +2 Vote +1 Vote -1

    20.Jan.2009 12:39pm

    Errrr, in batteries, I think.

    Reply
  139. steve s's comment is rated +2 Vote +1 Vote -1

    20.Jan.2009 12:43pm

    I believe there are other storage methods currently under investigation, but, I suspect, either way, your bus timetable won’t be quite as erratic as you suggest.

    Reply
  140. v's comment is rated +2 Vote +1 Vote -1

    20.Jan.2009 12:46pm

    “But if the buses were to run; one day at night,the next at noon, the next at 10am, the next not at all, it makes the the whole idea stupid. If you can not say when the power will be delivered it is useless.”

    But if the buses don’t run, you can take the train, get a cab or if all else fails take your car..so you analogy is correct and justifys wind turbines.

    If the Turbines aren’t working ( and don’t forget they are only adding to the current system..not stand alone)then there is the wave/solar/thermal/hydro system also adding to the supply required.

    And Steve is correct, the energy can be stored. Small turbines can be used to charge batteries which can hold that charge up to a year…bigger turbines..bigger batteries.

    Reply
  141. musoactivator's comment is rated +2 Vote +1 Vote -1

    20.Jan.2009 12:57pm

    Just a bit of unbiased, from both sides of the coin, official wind opinion.

    http://uk.news.yahoo.com/18/20090113/tsc-home-turbines-fail-to-deliver-as-pro-c6db719.html

    Reply
  142. James P's comment is rated +2 Vote +1 Vote -1

    20.Jan.2009 1:06pm

    “other storage methods”

    Such as the pumped storage facility at Dinorwig, which can effectively store surplus power from anywhere in the UK.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dinorwig_Power_Station

    Reply
  143. James P's comment is rated +2 Vote +1 Vote -1

    20.Jan.2009 1:12pm

    Muso – interesting article, but does that picture look photo-shopped to you? Roof mounted turbines don’t normally look like that…

    Reply
  144. musoactivator's comment is rated +2 Vote +1 Vote -1

    20.Jan.2009 3:12pm

    I actually could not say…more than likely…the article seemed relevant to the lively debate. Especially the part of UK being the windiest country in Europe. I’m still pro alternative power but not for the benefit of any crafty commercial entity. Infact, would it not be better in these current times that it was a nationalised rather than a private endeavour?

    I noticed also the army want more leave between tours….National service to be re-introduced? Either way, the country needs to create some employment and quick. Local government wage culls I’m all for in financing the plan.

    Reply
  145. T@4's comment is rated +2 Vote +1 Vote -1

    20.Jan.2009 3:57pm

    V -“But if the buses don’t run, you can take the train, get a cab or if all else fails take your car..so you analogy is correct and justifies wind turbines.”
    So, how many car owners would pay for a service this unpredictable? And pay for it whether it delivers or not. Also given a choice how many car owners would choose to take a bus instead of a car?

    Steve -“Errrr, in batteries, I think” What size batteries would be needed? Maybe this facility could be situated on the Island, Ah, I can see it now Battery Island. AONB- area of oversized & numerous batteries!

    The storage at Dinorwig was to utilise predictable over runs from nuclear power. Again the major part of energy supply IS timing. Wind power to power another power source! Why take one power source when you can have two!

    Muso – the relevance of home power generation is a good one. Why is this not put forward as a good option? To tie in the saving the planet problem why aren’t these type of product given ZERO VAT? Reason, the corporations and governments will not glean riches and value from the nations labour.

    Reply
  146. Tommy's comment is rated +2 Vote +1 Vote -1

    20.Jan.2009 5:08pm

    muso “I’m still pro alternative power but not for the benefit of any crafty commercial entity”
    So am I. Bring on Neptune!
    I’m warming to you muso:
    “the country needs to create some employment ”
    “EMPLOYMENT” being the key word and not some get rich quick strike while the iron is hot scheme backed by the put-upon tax payer.
    Is there ANY venture that is NOT being baled out by the poor old tax payer? Banks, Charities, Wind Farms. Pay your own way!
    How many of these BWEA, Yes2 Wind, Footprint Trust type organisations have sprung up over the last 10 years? Creating “jobs” which have no substance except for brainwashing our children into believing their parents are killing the planet because they drive a 4X4, or terrorising them them with statements like “The biggest threat to the Isle of Wight is not a few wind turbines but climate change – which could see parts the Island’s unique landscape being lost to rising sea levels within the next 75 years”, with no factual evidence to back up such spurious claims other than The Footprint Trust says so.
    Fortunately, as will soon be demonstrated, this is still (just) a democracy and the argument will be won with facts and reasoned debate and not predictions, misleading information and wishful thinking.

    Reply
  147. James P's comment is rated +2 Vote +1 Vote -1

    21.Jan.2009 3:24pm

    “this one does the job” (post 129)

    That won’t do, V, it uses American data! I’d suggest the British Met Office, but they get theirs from a European satellite, operated by the Germans (again). I guess it’s back to licking our fingers and sticking them out the window.. :-)

    Reply
  148. Steve's comment is rated +2 Vote +1 Vote -1

    21.Jan.2009 3:48pm

    The site you want is the DTI windspeed database. This will give an average wind speed in m/s of a UK post code.

    Reply
  149. Wendy V's comment is rated +2 Vote +1 Vote -1

    21.Jan.2009 3:58pm

    I’m pretty sure that when the planning application goes in (if the council ever stops batting it back!) it will have to include wind speeds taken at the site itself.

    I suspect the postcode wind-speed search would be a tad vague.

    Reply
  150. James P's comment is rated +2 Vote +1 Vote -1

    21.Jan.2009 4:13pm

    If you can bear its German origins, the one I quoted in Post 123 is pretty thorough – one of my seafaring friends uses the site all the time. The wind measured at St.Catherines is probably a fair guide to that on the Downs, although I’ve no doubt that the Cheverton transmitter has some records of its own.

    Reply
  151. James P's comment is rated +2 Vote +1 Vote -1

    21.Jan.2009 4:15pm

    Did I say Cheverton? Sorry, meant Chillerton!

    Reply
  152. James P's comment is rated +2 Vote +1 Vote -1

    21.Jan.2009 6:29pm

  153. steve s's comment is rated +2 Vote +1 Vote -1

    23.Jan.2009 11:59am

    I couldn’t help noticing how windy it’s been around these parts of late. I bet those blades would be spinning like a good ‘un. ;-)

    Reply
  154. simon's comment is rated +2 Vote +1 Vote -1

    23.Jan.2009 12:03pm

    The wind turbine at Niton school was going bonkers yesterday – reading 13 knots -> 6.68 m / s

    Reply
  155. Wendy V's comment is rated +2 Vote +1 Vote -1

    23.Jan.2009 12:28pm

    Niton school has a wind turbine? How’d that get past ThWART?!

    Reply
  156. v's comment is rated +2 Vote +1 Vote -1

    23.Jan.2009 1:44pm

    They told them it was a mobile phone mast

    Reply
  157. Tim's comment is rated +2 Vote +1 Vote -1

    23.Jan.2009 5:46pm

    Regarding the intermitant nature of wind power, there are projects in the progress that hope to solve this.

    Here the turbine is used to power an electrolyzer which seperates hydrogen and oxygen from water and hence stores the power locally as hydrogen. A networked hydrogen fuel cell can then be used to produce power on demand.

    Reply
  158. steve s's comment is rated +2 Vote +1 Vote -1

    23.Jan.2009 6:00pm

    Then we could all run our cars off it. Brilliant!

    Reply
  159. Tommy's comment is rated +2 Vote +1 Vote -1

    25.Jan.2009 3:09pm

    “Regarding the intermitant nature of wind power, there are projects in the progress that hope to solve this”
    Assuming that someone can understand what “projects in the progress” means, what would they be then, Timmy?
    Steve S, James P and Wendy (I’m a seriously unbiased reporter, but hell bent on promoting wind turbines) V up on Chevvy Chase, blowing their hot air to augment the IOW wind.
    Stats for Jan which are (based on the IOW and NOT some German windsurfing or Peruvian kite flyers website):
    Average wind speed:
    1st. Jan 4.2, then 4.5, 3.6, 0.7, 7.4, 3.4, 1.7, 0.2, 1.4 0.4, 8.9, 13.4 (12th Jan),4.3, 2.3, 5.6, 7.0 12.6 (17th Jan), 9.8, 8.7, 3.5, 5.0, 8.9, 9.4, 3.2, and 9.3 (today, 25 Jan). Copyright http://www.isleofwightweather.co.uk
    You will notice Timmy that on only 2 days out of 25 did the wind speed exceed 10 m.p.h. Where are you going to store that? On a Energizer AAA battery?
    But, of course that data was recorded without the anemometer on a stick attached to the helium balloon up on Chevvy, where it was blowing at least 30 m.p.h. according to a local named Mr. Walter Mitty.
    “I couldn’t help noticing how windy it’s been around these parts of late. ” c. Steve S. Perhaps the wind would not be so bad if the Maharajah was given a miss for a couple of evenings!
    And poor old Simon says “The wind turbine at Niton school was going bonkers yesterday – reading 13 knots -> 6.68 m / s”
    WOW! All of FOURTEEN m.p.h. Batten down the hatches!
    Enough to keep the schools light bulbs going for at least 25 minutes!
    Try and open your minds to a planning application which will not only WORK, but will not cost the taxpayer any subsidy.
    TCP/29446/P at Wootton is based on a sound technology…tidal power. The tide comes in and goes out twice a day every day.
    Nice and windy today again eh Steve? Almost blew out a candle.

    Reply
  160. James P's comment is rated +2 Vote +1 Vote -1

    25.Jan.2009 4:02pm

    Tommy – I’m not even going to try to explain why average speeds aren’t useful here (I mentioned it in post 120, but you chose to highlight the windless days).

    Also ignoring the fact that isleofwightweather measures its windspeeds in Newport, not somewhere exposed, I would just like to see the planners allow one large-scale application, and let that decide whether this was a practical proposition or not. If the wind is as feeble and unreliable as you claim, then presumably they would pack up and go home, pronouncing the Island as a hopeless prospect for wind farmers. If, however, it proved economically viable and helped supplement general consumption, then we could all enjoy the nice warm feeling that comes with reducing our dependence on imported fuel.

    I realise some people don’t like the look of the things, and that’s a debate worth having, but the rest is just economics.

    Reply
  161. T@4's comment is rated +2 Vote +1 Vote -1

    25.Jan.2009 4:53pm

    James P – [i]”I would just like to see the planners allow one large-scale application, and let that decide whether this was a practical proposition or not. If the wind is as feeble and unreliable as you claim, then presumably they would pack up and go home, pronouncing the Island as a hopeless prospect for wind farmers.”[i]

    I would like to see an industrial turbine installer volunteer to put a turbine in place without the payment of a huge yearly subsidy(taxpayers money), a tie in that the grid has to buy any electricity produced at inflated prices(passed on to consumers) and does not receive a ROC that they can sell on to other industry for a profit.

    Somehow I think you will not get companies lining up to participate in this type of proposal.

    Reply
  162. Tommy's comment is rated +2 Vote +1 Vote -1

    25.Jan.2009 4:56pm

    Jimmy, “but you chose to highlight the windless days”.
    What, you don’t want to count them then? How realistic! 23 virtually windless days out of 25 is pretty serious.
    “Also ignoring the fact that isleofwightweather measures its windspeeds in Newport”
    Not true JP. Bleakdown, Sandown, Cowes, Ryde, St. Catherines (YES the German site), Brighstone and Freshwater. 8 sites in total.
    “I would just like to see the planners allow one large-scale application”
    Why? If that happened we would be swamped with others, as well you should know. That is how the planning system works. Get someone to pave the way then use that as a precedent.
    Before you can say CLAP, there will be turbines everywhere.
    “If the wind is as feeble and unreliable as you claim”
    I DON’T claim! If you will not accept proven data collected by IOW weather, but prefer instead to quote some German windsurfing website, then maybe your intransigence is based on some ulterior motive.
    “I realise some people don’t like the look of the things, and that’s a debate worth having” Not really. I couldn’t care less what they look like.
    The looks have little bearing on the efficacy.
    I quite liked the look of the Sinclair C5, but it didn’t WORK. It was also quite dangerous. That is what killed it.
    Why don’t you give this up and put your support into the tidal application I quoted.

    Reply
  163. James P's comment is rated +2 Vote +1 Vote -1

    25.Jan.2009 10:12pm

    “23 virtually windless days out of 25″

    “there will be turbines everywhere”

    “I couldn’t care less what they look like”

    Sorry – your point escapes me.

    Reply
  164. v's comment is rated +2 Vote +1 Vote -1

    25.Jan.2009 11:09pm

    Because all the experts have agreed that a feasible tidal turbine is at least 20 years away and by then it will be too late…we have what we have…an infant technolgy relying on insufficient resources. why? because we have abused our other resources out of (near) existance.

    Wind turbines are our best option now…maybe not our best option ever, but the best we have now

    Reply
  165. James P's comment is rated +2 Vote +1 Vote -1

    26.Jan.2009 11:19am

    “Not true JP. Bleakdown, Sandown, Cowes, Ryde, St. Catherines (YES the German site), Brighstone and Freshwater.”

    But the figures you quoted *were* from Newport!

    http://www.isleofwightweather.co.uk/historical_data.htm

    Unfortunately, they are still averages, which by definition includes both higher and lower figures – as shown on the table, when on more than half the days there was some wind over 20mph.

    The information here is a lot more useful…

    http://www.isleofwightweather.co.uk/wind_data.htm

    Reply
  166. Tim's comment is rated +2 Vote +1 Vote -1

    26.Jan.2009 11:40am

    “projects in the progress”…So sorry to make a typo. I assume you are attempting to be condescending by calling me “Timmy”. Nice.

    I was referring to http://www.nrel.gov/hydrogen/proj_wind_hydrogen.html

    That’s the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, part of the U.S Department of Energy.

    Reply
  167. James P's comment is rated +2 Vote +1 Vote -1

    26.Jan.2009 12:00pm

    “Timmy”

    Don’t take it too hard, Tim. He calls me Jimmy, and I’ve never even been to Glasgow.. :-)

    Reply
  168. T@4's comment is rated +2 Vote +1 Vote -1

    26.Jan.2009 12:12pm

    v Says:
    Yesterday at 11:09 pm
    Because all the experts have agreed that a feasible tidal turbine is at least 20 years away and by then it will be too late…we have what we have…an infant technolgy relying on insufficient resources. why? because we have abused our other resources out of (near) existance.

    V- Please explain this? What resources are near to dissappearance?

    Reply
  169. James P's comment is rated +2 Vote +1 Vote -1

    26.Jan.2009 12:31pm

    “TCP/29446/P at Wootton”

    That makes interesting reading, and could well be a worthwhile project, but nowhere in the application can I find an estimate of the amount of power it’s expected to produce!

    I’ve spent many happy hours sailing up and down Wootton Creek and I can’t see the volume of water involved being enough to make a worthwhile contribution. This isn’t a criticism of tidal power in general, but it needs volume to work, in much the same way that wind turbines need to be large to be useful.

    I wish the Wootton project well, but hasn’t anyone done the sums?

    Reply
  170. steve s's comment is rated +2 Vote +1 Vote -1

    26.Jan.2009 12:34pm

    Sailing in Wooton Creek, Jim? Surely not…you’d need wind and that only happens once or twice a month. ;-)

    Stevie (before Tommy gets there)

    Reply
  171. Tommy's comment is rated +2 Vote +1 Vote -1

    26.Jan.2009 12:35pm

    “Sorry – your point escapes me.”
    Yes, that is painfully obvious, but then I,like AW, JV, T@4 and windymiller, can see this for what it is, but then we are what you have condescendingly referred to as “the local Troglodytes”
    For you and Tim to take umbrage at Timmy and Jimmy is, therefore, quite laughable.
    windymiller now seems to be very much in favour on the “Whats going to Happen” thread on the forum, even with the wind farm supporters, despite saying “We are continually confronted by the media with a spectre of Man Made Global Warming with every extreme weather event anywhere on the planet reported with hysteria and blamed on MMGW. And the solution being pushed on the public is carbon credits, carbon offsetting, renewable energy from windmills that are inefficient, unpredictable and unreliable.”.
    Even Steve S seems to have been converted saying “Windy’s post was great and you know it.”
    Totally agree.
    @v “Because all the experts have agreed that a feasible tidal turbine is at least 20 years away ” Yet more guesswork!
    Who are all these “Ex-perts”? Maybe they (and you too) should have a look at one proposed here on the island, TCP/29446/P, which could be only weeks away. Great news eh?
    Get behind it!

    Reply
  172. steve s's comment is rated +2 Vote +1 Vote -1

    26.Jan.2009 12:42pm

    Wahay, a new all time number one…and it’s still got legs!

    Reply
  173. James P's comment is rated +2 Vote +1 Vote -1

    26.Jan.2009 1:30pm

    “you’d need wind and that only happens once or twice a month”

    That’s why I gave up! :-)

    Reply
  174. James P's comment is rated +2 Vote +1 Vote -1

    26.Jan.2009 1:36pm

    “can see this for what it is”

    You’ll still have to explain it, I’m afraid. If there’s no wind, why are you worried that “there will be turbines everywhere”? You don’t even care what they look like!

    @steve – at least we’ve overtaken the BNP…

    Reply
  175. windymiller's comment is rated +2 Vote +1 Vote -1

    26.Jan.2009 1:42pm

    Tommy – “windymiller now seems to be very much in favour on the “Whats going to Happen” thread on the forum, even with the wind farm supporters, ”
    I am slightly confused by this. The post on the other thread was to highlight that people need to apply filters when assessing information from the media and governments.
    The full paragraph you quote is;-“We are continually confronted by the media with a spectre of Man Made Global Warming with every extreme weather event anywhere on the planet reported with hysteria and blamed on MMGW. And the solution being pushed on the public is carbon credits, carbon offsetting, renewable energy from windmills that are inefficient, unpredictable and unreliable. Basically the solution to stop the melting glaciers is pay more tax.”

    The full post indicates that “solutions” being offered basically pay more TAX. Therefore the solution will not be effected in solving the “problem”. As the problem and the solution are presented by the same source the incoherence with the solution to problem would indicate that the problem does not exist.
    Windfarms are a tax/corporate moneymaking venture tapping taxpayers directly, that is disguised as a solution to a problem that does not exist.

    Reply
  176. musoactivator's comment is rated +2 Vote +1 Vote -1

    26.Jan.2009 1:44pm

    Wind? What if we could harness the hot air from this thread? lol
    Sorry couldnay resist and wanted to help keep the legs running. :D

    Reply
  177. James P's comment is rated +2 Vote +1 Vote -1

    26.Jan.2009 2:04pm

    “a problem that does not exist”

    That being the ultimate exhaustion of fossil fuels? It looks like a problem to me.

    Reply
  178. Tommy's comment is rated +2 Vote +1 Vote -1

    26.Jan.2009 3:33pm

    @windy, maybe I did not word the post well enough.
    The point I was making was that with your post on MMGW you have summed up the situation correctly.
    As a bonus, you appear to have converted at least one sceptic, steve s, who said “windys post was great”.
    JP, on the other hand, six months ago agreed with you and I and now for some inexplicable reason is a staunch supporter of CLAP, is allegedly an engineer, yet refuses to accept that if there is little or no wind, this so called technology will not work, quoting bizarre figures like the wind blows to the necessary speed 55% of the time, when it patently does not. And also:
    “That being the ultimate exhaustion of fossil fuels? It looks like a problem to me.”
    As we continue to post this hot air (been said before muso, but lol anyway) and JP sails his dinghy down the Medina, there are people all over the world working in places like Inuvik and Tuktoyaktuk for companies like MGM Energy.
    They are discovering new gas and oil fields all the time, working in the most inhospitable conditions -40 celsius on the ice cap. According to the gospel preached by these self interest groups, vested interest “charities” and thousands of others whose “jobs” depend on suckering people, it’s all over unless we agree to their point of view and I’m not that stupid.

    Reply
  179. James P's comment is rated +2 Vote +1 Vote -1

    26.Jan.2009 5:18pm

    “bizarre figures like the wind blows to the necessary speed 55% of the time, when it patently does not”

    Tell me, why would a German website designed to provide information for windsurfers, whose interest in the wind is probably even greater than yours, make stuff up? If they say it blows at more than Force 4 (13-18 mph) for more than half the time off St Catherine’s, I see no reason to disbelieve it. Why do you think they’re wrong?

    I think the Germans stopped broadcasting black propaganda some time ago…

    Reply
  180. steve s's comment is rated +2 Vote +1 Vote -1

    26.Jan.2009 5:40pm

    @ Tommy.
    Please don’t keep claiming me as a convert to your view.
    I thought Windy’s post was good, that’s all. I’ve been neither fiercely pro or con, still to be persuaded either way but able to recognise that fossil fuels are likely to, at some point, run out.

    Reply
  181. James P's comment is rated +2 Vote +1 Vote -1

    26.Jan.2009 5:50pm

    “fossil fuels are likely to, at some point, run out”

    Thank you Steve. I think it’s definite! :-)

    Of course, we may have been wiped out by an asteroid, an epidemic or WW3 before then, but don’t let me spoil your evening…

    Reply
  182. Tim's comment is rated +2 Vote +1 Vote -1

    27.Jan.2009 12:03pm

    According to the government’s own wind database http://www.berr.gov.uk I get 6.5 meters per second at 45m for PO41, which is an AVERAGE speed of 14.5 miles per hour or about a Force 4

    Reply
  183. Tommy's comment is rated +2 Vote +1 Vote -1

    27.Jan.2009 1:18pm

    Tim, according to JP “I’m not even going to try to explain why average speeds aren’t useful here”
    So, if we accept JPs argument, your last post is irrelevant! See, this is the problem, even amongst themselves the pro-lobby cannot agree.
    Even if we accept (and I do) that PO41 gets an AVERAGE of 14.5 m.p.h., it is still way short of what is required.
    According to the DTI Efficiency and Performance Wind Energy Fact sheet 14 available at http://www.dti.gov.uk, the blades just begin to turn at 7.8 m.p.h (3.5 m.p.s) and reach peak efficiency at 32 m.ph (14.2 m.p.s)
    They cut out/become dangerous at 55 m.p.h. (25 m.p.s).
    If you read off the graph at figure 1 on the FACT sheet, you will see that 14.5 m.p.h equates to about 25-30% capacity.
    It also states “At very low wind speeds the turbine is unable to generate electricity”
    So once again, I pose the question WHY install an expensive tax payer subsidised piece of kit that will only work, at best, one day in 4 according to your best case scenario?
    Why would ANYBODY want to do that unless there was a guaranteed income from the poor old put upon tax payer?
    Why don’t you write to CLAP and ask them to install them at their own financial risk, no subsidy, they just get income from the electricity generated?
    Like T@4 said, nobody in their right mind would do it!

    Reply
  184. James P's comment is rated +2 Vote +1 Vote -1

    27.Jan.2009 8:22pm

    The difference, Tommy, is that Tim recognises that an average speed represents a mean figure well below the maximum, whereas you cling to the belief that a low average means no wind. In short, he understands averages and you don’t.

    BTW, where *do* you get ‘one day in 4′ from?

    Reply
  185. Tommy's comment is rated +2 Vote +1 Vote -1

    27.Jan.2009 9:18pm

    For an engineer and therefore, a supposedly educated man, your grasp of the written word is tenuous to say the least, JP.
    Remember saying this @167 “Unfortunately, they are still averages, which by definition includes both higher and lower figures ” ?
    Make your mind up!
    Have I not said above “Even if we accept (and I do) that PO41 gets an AVERAGE of 14.5 m.p.h.”
    Would you show me from where you derive your statement “whereas you cling to the belief that a low average means no wind”?
    A low average means just that.
    14.5 m.p.h would not be good enough when peak is 33 m.p.h.
    I am beginning to seriously suspect that you are just p***ing about for the sake of an argument.
    “one day in four?” 25%, as far as this local troglodyte can understand, is 1 in 4. Unless, of course, you know different and I fully anticipate that you probably do! What do you make it? 55?
    BTW, are you hoping to make the 200th post?
    Go on, admit it, you are, aren’t you?
    I vote for muso to be the record breaker.

    Reply
  186. v's comment is rated +2 Vote +1 Vote -1

    27.Jan.2009 10:40pm

    Tommy..if wind farms where built with no subsidy at the land-owners risk would you support them…or just change tack and start calling them an eyesore

    Reply
  187. James P's comment is rated +2 Vote +1 Vote -1

    27.Jan.2009 11:08pm

    >Would you show me from where you derive your statement “whereas you cling to the belief that a low average means no wind”?

    Gladly. The string of figures you post in 161 you go on to describe in 164 as “23 virtually windless days out of 25″!

    Indeed, on the 14th (possibly in celebration of my birthday) the average speed was 2.3mph, but the maximum was 19mph, i.e. quite enough to generate some power.

    >“one day in four?” 25%, as far as this local troglodyte can understand, is 1 in 4.

    I was afraid that was what you meant, but I was trying to give you the benefit of the doubt. Using an average windspeed to deduce that the power output at that speed translates to usable power for only a quarter of the time simply confirms your tenuous grasp of arithmetic.

    The DTI site that you appear to have some confidence in mentions that wind turbines in the UK produce some power 75% of the time, or as you would probably prefer to express it, no power at all for one day in four!

    The same site publishes the annual report for one in N.Wales, showing that it produced 36% of its capacity for the year, i.e. it was producing an average (sorry, but it is) of 60% power for 60% of the time.

    I’m beginning to wonder if my 55% figure isn’t a bit low…

    Reply
  188. Tommy's comment is rated +2 Vote +1 Vote -1

    28.Jan.2009 9:32am

    “Tommy..if wind farms where built with no subsidy at the land-owners risk would you support them”
    I would support them, v, but that will never happen because the egg that lays the interminable golden goose, having been removed, will leave the operator/developer only the income from the electricity generated.
    Best “figures” for a 2Mw turbine give that income at about £250,000 p.a.
    Installation and commissioning costs are about £2,000,000.
    Therefore, best case is 8 years to break even, but with shutdowns, maintenance etc., that probably equates to 9-10 years.
    How many businesses would invest £2mil. and expect no profit for 10 years?
    Factor in the subsidy and that timespan comes down to 4-
    5 years.

    Reply
  189. James P's comment is rated +2 Vote +1 Vote -1

    28.Jan.2009 10:23am

    “the egg that lays the interminable golden goose”

    And you accuse me of a tenuous grasp of the written word!

    As for a 12% return on investment, that doesn’t sound too bad to me. In the long term, energy will only get more expensive.

    Reply
  190. musoactivator's comment is rated +2 Vote +1 Vote -1

    28.Jan.2009 10:54am

    Thought Id just add a pointless phrase here for Tommy.

    Reply
  191. Tommy's comment is rated +2 Vote +1 Vote -1

    28.Jan.2009 1:35pm

    muso only 7 to go….
    I remember some “entrepreneur” who set up a company which sold “London Fog” in a tin can and there were mugs who used to buy it.
    This is a better wheeze. Get the taxpayer to subsidise your “business” and then sell them back the produce at a vastly inflated price.
    Get paid twice! Neat, huh?

    Reply
  192. James P's comment is rated +2 Vote +1 Vote -1

    28.Jan.2009 2:29pm

    So how would you feel about tidal power being subsidised? The Severn Barrage, if it goes ahead, will be “publicly led as a project and publicly owned as an asset” according to the Sustainable Development Commission, so that will be 100% subsidy, then…

    It doesn’t bother me unduly – Governments will always waste our money somehow, be it on banks, wars or IT, but I’d still rather we explored alternatives while there is still some oil and gas in the ground.

    Reply
  193. steve s's comment is rated +2 Vote +1 Vote -1

    28.Jan.2009 2:36pm

    So, Tommy, are you saying that’s not real London Fog in the tin on my mantle piece?
    @ James. “Governments will always waste our money” Ain’t that the truth.

    Reply
  194. Tommy's comment is rated +2 Vote +1 Vote -1

    28.Jan.2009 3:22pm

    I would have little or no problem with a publicly led project being publicly owned and therefore, the subsidy that goes with that.
    Where I would have a problem is with the government of the day flogging another so called publicly owned asset off to some foreign company as they have done with most of our Utilities.
    What I object to most strongly is paying a private company to fund this project. If CLAP believe in this, let them fund it themselves. Same goes for the Golf Club (which has gone very quiet of late).
    @steve, you still have a mantelpiece? Thats cute.
    “Governments will always waste our money”
    That doesn’t mean that we should sit back and let them do it.

    Reply
  195. James P's comment is rated +2 Vote +1 Vote -1

    28.Jan.2009 3:55pm

    And if the little tidal scheme at Wootton picks up a grant, will you disown that, too?

    Reply
  196. Tim's comment is rated +2 Vote +1 Vote -1

    28.Jan.2009 5:38pm

    Average wind speed is more complicated than you would first think – it’s actually the mean of a probability density distribution (Weibull Distribution). If you look at wind averages in the obvious way you are actually underestimating the power available by 100%

    Basically really windy days are quite rare but moderate days are quite common so the graph is not symmetrical.

    In order to caculate how many days a turbine is producing power you need to add up all the tiny segments beneath the Weibull graph between the turbine’s min and max operating speeds.

    There is an excellent web site explaining all this at http://www.windpower.org/en/tour/wres/bottle.htm

    Prehaps this is what JP meant when saying average wind speed isn’t useful here?

    Reply
  197. Tommy's comment is rated +2 Vote +1 Vote -1

    28.Jan.2009 6:28pm

    “tidal scheme at Wootton picks up a grant, will you disown that,”
    Depends on whether it is a one off payment or a lifetimes commitment to subsidise someones business.
    muso, over to you to make the 200 not out!

    Reply
  198. v's comment is rated +2 Vote +1 Vote -1

    28.Jan.2009 8:07pm

    I’ve just linked a generator up to my keyboard and discovered I can generate enough energy to power my whole computer just from typing

    Reply
  199. v's comment is rated +2 Vote +1 Vote -1

    28.Jan.2009 8:11pm

    Tommy said

    “How many businesses would invest £2mil. and expect no profit for 10 years?
    Factor in the subsidy and that timespan comes down to 4-5 years.”

    This is exactly why they have a subsidy! This technology has to be developed for far longer than 10 years to a make it really viable. Not developing it is not an option, so it has to be subsidised

    Reply
  200. James P's comment is rated +2 Vote +1 Vote -1

    28.Jan.2009 9:40pm

    “this is what JP meant”

    It is, Tim. Thank you!

    That’s why a big turbine will start turning and produce a few kilowatts at 10mph, but will produce Megawatts at 30mph.

    Slightly off-topic, but here’s an interesting story for those who ponder man-made global warming:

    http://tinyurl.com/aawoj5

    Reply
  201. Tommy's comment is rated +2 Vote +1 Vote -1

    29.Jan.2009 10:04am

    Really Tim, if you are going to try to help the uncommitted to make up their mind, you shouldn’t direct them to a pro wind turbine site which comes out with cr*p like:
    ” Look at the smallest and largest bottle in the picture. Both have exactly the same shape. One is 0.24 m tall, the other is 0.76 m tall. How tall is the average bottle?”
    Many people would not know the answer, so the author is saying to them “Listen to me, I’m smarter than you, I know more than you do”
    What V would call “a sanctimonious snob”
    This is the smoke and mirrors garbage that these people publish to confuse and convert.
    If I wish to purchase my wine in the 0.76m bottle (and I usually do), what possible relevance is it to me how tall the “average” bottle is?
    It’s well known that if someone drives their car at 56m.p.h., it will give them the optimum fuel consumption, or would you even disagree with that?
    Assuming you concur, what are the chances of actually being able to do that for a reasonable time? No doubt you or JP will have some spurious percentage that you can make up, but in reality, it is near to zero.
    You would be restricted by speed limits, road works, traffic lights, roundabouts and even the WEATHER conditions.
    Similarly, if the optimum speed for wind turbines is 33 m.p.h., what are the chances of actually achieving that on a reasonably regular basis. Again the answer is very, very little.
    The difference between the two, is that the car works at it’s optimum at about half the speed that it is capable of doing, whereas the turbine works at it’s optimum at wind speeds rarely recorded here.
    @V “Not developing it is not an option” What? There is no option? Is this a police state now? Do as V says or she’ll compile a list of your addresses and publish them on the web! Are dissenters to be tarred and feathered BNP style?
    JP, own up, you’re really Al Gore aren’t you!

    Reply
  202. steve s's comment is rated +2 Vote +1 Vote -1

    29.Jan.2009 10:17am

    I think you’ll find that V is a ‘he’ ;-)

    Reply
  203. v's comment is rated +2 Vote +1 Vote -1

    29.Jan.2009 12:40pm

    I’ll just go and check.

    Reply
  204. James P's comment is rated +2 Vote +1 Vote -1

    29.Jan.2009 12:48pm

    “..or would you even disagree with that?”

    I’m sure you know the answer by now, Tommy! There isn’t a single speed at which all cars are most fuel-efficient, as it depends on gearing and our friend aerodynamics. 56mph sounds a bit high to me, but I dare say it applies to some.

    However, to pursue your analogy, wind turbines don’t need to run at full power any more than you need to drive flat out everywhere. They produce useful power at lower wind speeds, in proportion to the power of the wind, which increases much more rapidly than the linear speed – roughly following a cube law (like the bottles) so that doubling the speed increases the power by a factor of eight.

    WRT subsidies, I imagine that the tidal generator at Wootton will sell into the same market as the wind turbines, i.e. one where a higher price is paid to encourage similar developments. I’ve no problem with that.

    I think you’ll find I’m not Al Gore. If you read the link I posted in 202, you’ll see that we have very different ideas…

    Reply
  205. Tommy's comment is rated +2 Vote +1 Vote -1

    29.Jan.2009 12:50pm

    “I think you’ll find that V is a ‘he’”
    Even worse!

    Reply
  206. Tommy's comment is rated +2 Vote +1 Vote -1

    29.Jan.2009 1:03pm

    “56mph sounds a bit high to me,”
    I just knew it would.

    Reply
  207. James P's comment is rated +2 Vote +1 Vote -1

    29.Jan.2009 1:12pm

    “I just knew it would.”

    I aim to please.. :-)

    Reply
  208. v's comment is rated +2 Vote +1 Vote -1

    30.Jan.2009 12:20pm

  209. Peter Timmer's comment is rated +2 Vote +1 Vote -1

    23.Feb.2009 10:32am

    Hello, people of Wight

    We have some islands in the north of Holland and their policy is to be 100% sustainable in the year 2020. As example we visit the Isle of Samso in Denmark where the people itself explore several windmills, sun- and bioplants.
    We think the Isle of Wight with more than 130.000 inhabitants (and 2,7 million visitors) uses about 10 PJ and with 20% energysaving you will need about 8PJ for electricity, heating and transportfuels, including ferries. Together with biomass and your 5500 cows you can reach about 10% sustainable with biogas/biofuelplants and another 10% with sun and geothermic energy. To make the Isle complete energy-/CO2-neutral you needed -in our vision- an offshore windpark with 6×6 windmills of 10MW each and about 20 smaller onshore mills.
    I am interested in storage a part of windenergy into hydrogen (green gas for fuelcells and heating) and in the development of waterpower. Perhaps we can brainstorm about this, when we visit your Isle in july this year on holiday.

    Peter Timmer
    MEA-adviesburo
    Dronrijp, Netherlands
    http://www.mea-adviesburo.nl

    Reply
  210. James P's comment is rated +2 Vote +1 Vote -1

    23.Feb.2009 10:59am

    “6×6 windmills of 10MW each and about 20 smaller onshore mills”

    Careful, Peter – you’ll give some of our residents a heart attack! Unfortunately, the energy situation will have to become much worse before our planners consider such a thing, but of course that may happen sooner than we think.

    There is more discussion on this thread:
    http://ventnorblog.com/island-turbine-action-group-interview-with-kerri-trickey-podcast/

    I’m sure Kerri Trickey would like to talk to you – I’d be pleased to meet you, too.

    Reply
  211. INSIDER's comment is rated +3 Vote +1 Vote -1

    23.Feb.2009 11:18am

    @Peter Timmer
    Well yes Peter but your country’s leaders are serious about eco issues where for ours just use them as a cynical ploy to advance their political ambitions.

    Reply
  212. Tommy's comment is rated +2 Vote +1 Vote -1

    23.Feb.2009 4:41pm

    Peter,
    Just a few questions if I may:
    1). Is mea-adviesburo not the same, or similar, as our British Wind Energy Authority, which is not know for it’s impartiality? See here:
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00hv3l8/Inside_Out_South_East_18_02_2009/
    2). Do you not have the biggest oil refinery in Europe?
    (A bit of an unfair question really, because I worked there for Shell)
    3). Have Shell not said that they want to invest heavily in Pernis to increase the capacity from the present 416,000 barrels a day to approx. 600,000 barrels a day, thereby giving the lie to the soothsayers who keep telling us that we have reached “Peak Oil”.
    4). Is the reasoning behind the Shell proposal that refining margins (difference between barrel of crude oil and barrel of petrol) in Europe fluctuate between $2 and $5, those in the US between $10 and $17.
    The reason for that, being environmental criteria, AKA The Al Gore Syndrome, putting a brake on capacity expansion in the US.
    And finally
    5). If one of the largest oil producers in the history of the world are willing to invest so heavily in the expansion of capacity in Holland and President Chavez of Venezuela has just signed a deal to supply China with as much oil as they need for the foreseeable future (he says 200 years, but that is debatable}, what makes you believe that wind turbines have a future in energy production, when official figures show they only produce 27.4% of their capacity?
    Oh, sorry
    6). Do have a brainstorm with JP. I’ll get my umbrella out!

    Reply
  213. v's comment is rated +2 Vote +1 Vote -1

    23.Feb.2009 5:27pm

    You can still increase production after ‘peak’ (peak oil) it just means you use it up quicker.

    Politically quite astute to do so, empty as fast as possible so that the local government doesn’t snatch it all back and hoard their own oil for the future.

    Reply
  214. James P's comment is rated +2 Vote +1 Vote -1

    23.Feb.2009 5:53pm

    “what makes you believe that wind turbines have a future in energy production”

    Probably because he’s surrounded by them!

    Reply
  215. Peter Timmer's comment is rated +1 Vote +1 Vote -1

    23.Feb.2009 7:07pm

    Hello v, JP, Tommy and others

    For v: Indeed its important to start with energysaving (Trias Energetica)
    For JP: Yes, in Holland we have 2000 windmills at the moment with a capacity of about 2000MW and the intention of the gouvernment is to grow to more than 9000MW (6000MW offshore). I believe in a mixture of renewable sources; for instance to make my office energy-neutral I use heath from the earth with a heatpump, sunenergy, a biomass-finnoven and a small windmill.
    For Tommy: No, I am not related to any big concern; I have my own independent advising office and help buildingowners, farmers, villages and gouvernments to use sustainable energy (and lower the CO2-emission). To increase the efficiency of the windmills you can connect the coming Nordsea-windparks and/or storage windenergy into H2 (hydrogen) or waterpumping.

    Reply
    • Cicero's comment is rated +1 Vote +1 Vote -1

      9.Nov.2013 8:49am

      @Peter Timmer “I have my own independent advising office and help buildingowners, farmers, villages and gouvernments to use sustainable energy (and lower the CO2-emission).”

      Hardly an independent view then? :-))

      Reply
  216. seb's comment is rated +2 Vote +1 Vote -1

    25.Feb.2009 8:35am

    yesterday’s `you and yours` dealt with green issues including wind farms.

    click tuesday to hear.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/youandyours/

    Reply
  217. seb's comment is rated +2 Vote +1 Vote -1

    28.Mar.2009 12:23pm

    wind farm controversy covered in `any questions` – about 40 minutes into programme.

    anyone wanting to respond can contact `any answers`.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/news/anyquestions.shtml

    Reply
  218. Wendy V's comment is rated +2 Vote +1 Vote -1

    28.Mar.2009 6:32pm

    Thanks for the link, Seb. Listened via the “listen again” feature.

    Reply
  219. James P's comment is rated +4 Vote +1 Vote -1

    29.Mar.2009 3:22pm

    I’m not sure which programme I heard it on (one of the above) but I recall the comment that many wind farms end up having to install a viewpoint car park for visitors to watch from.

    I guess access to such a thing might be cause for complaint, but it does rather undermine the ‘eyesore’ argument!

    Reply
    • Cicero's comment not rated yet. Add your vote Vote +1 Vote -1

      9.Nov.2013 8:54am

      No real rebuttal of the “eyesore” argument because people are naturally curious and will also stop to watch an accident or violent event.

      A more reliable measure would be to report how many of those “car parks” have toilets and fast-food vans to deal with the alleged volume of visitors?

      Reply
  220. JohnR's comment is rated +1 Vote +1 Vote -1

    9.Nov.2013 5:49pm

    Interesting article in todays Mail.

    Couple win landmark battle to have 10 wind turbines taken down because they spoil the view from their dream home in France

    Erik Wallecan and his wife Ingrid live in an 18th Century Chateau

    They bought the property in Pas-de-Calais in 1996

    Ten wind turbines went up spoiling their view in 2007

    The Wallecans launched a civil action against La Compagnie du Vent

    A couple have won a landmark legal battle to have 10 wind turbines taken down because they spoil the view from their dream home in France.

    In a judgement which could have widespread implication across Europe, including Britain, the husband and wife successfully argued that the 360ft high structures ruined their quality of life.

    As well as agreeing that the turbines ‘spoiled the view’, judges noted the ‘groaning and whistling’ and ‘unsightliness of white and red flashing lights’.

    Erik Wallecan and his wife Ingrid have won a landmark legal battle to have 10 wind turbines taken down because they spoil the view from their dream home in France

    Now the company responsible has to take them down, and pay large fines and legal expenses.

    It is seen as a major victory for those campaigning against wind farms, and those who believe their spread is destroying both beloved countryside and cultural heritages.

    Erik Wallecan, a retired vet, and his wife Ingrid bought the 18th Century Chateau de Flers in the Pas-de-Calais, in northern France, in 1996, after moving from nearby Belgium.

    Their restoration of the house and its 42 acres became a labour of love, and they also turned adjoining buildings into a guesthouse.

    But when, in 2007, the ten wind turbines went up, they were horrified to suddenly lose their ‘bucolic and rustic’ view.

    They first spotted them on returning from a trip to Anvers, in Belgium, with Mr Wallecan telling Le Monde: ‘The first evening when we arrived in the chateau after their construction, there was a
    firework display and we wondered where these lights were coming from.

    ‘We were not even aware that these projects existed.

    ‘Three huge turbines are visible when gazing across the gardens from the bay windows in the chateau’s grand salon.

    ‘Every day we have to suffer the visual and noise pollution. I can see the turbines from everywhere in the house, from every room.’

    The Wallecans launched a civil action against La Compagnie du Vent (The Wind Company), a subsidiary of the energy giant GDF Suez, which runs the turbines.

    Judges in Montpellier ruled that the structures blighted the countryside, causing the ‘total disfigurement of a bucolic and rustic landscape’.

    The company was ordered to pay the Wallecans the equivalent of £31,500 in damages and to remove the wind farm within four months or face a fine of £450 per day per turbine.

    La Compagnie du Vent said it would appeal the judgement, but Philippe Bodereau, the Wallecans’ lawyer said: ‘People are often too scared to take action and suffer in silence.

    ‘Today we are saying no – justice has been done and this shows all those who suffer wind farms with a sense of powerlessness that the fight is not vain, that one can have one’s life respected — one’s right to peace.’

    In August, a French court banned a local council from erecting turbines near the Mont Saint Michel abbey in Normandy, after Unesco warned they could cost France’s most visited provincial tourist site its World Heritage status.

    A plan to build a vast offshore wind farm within view of several Normandy D-Day beaches has also been condemned as ‘an insult to the memory of the thousands who died there’.

    Britain is a world leader in wind farm technology, with new installations continually being erected across the country, often in areas which provoke criticism.

    Reply
  221. Laurel's comment not rated yet. Add your vote Vote +1 Vote -1

    11.Nov.2013 12:11pm

    Howdy just wanted to give you a quick heads up and let you know a few of the pictures aren’t loading correctly.
    I’m not sure why but I think its a linking issue. I’ve
    tried it in two different internet browsers and both
    show the same results.

    Reply

Add comment

Login to your account.
If you do not have an account, reserve your own name and receive exclusive special offers - just sign up for an On The Wight account

.