Vectis wind farm appeal now lodged

Following the council’s planning committee refusal in July, Infinergy have now lodged their appeal, which will be decided off-Island.

wind-turbine-blade-sludgeulper

This in from Infinergy, in their own words. Brief background: The original planning application in July 2011 was refused in July 2012, followed quickly by Infinergy’s announcement that they intended to appeal – Ed


Wind developer Infinergy’s appeal against Isle of Wight Council’s decision to refuse Vectis Wind Farm near Wellow has now been lodged with the Planning Inspectorate.

In July last year, Planning Committee members of Isle of Wight Council refused planning permission for Vectis Wind Farm, a five-turbine wind energy development located on arable land south of Wellow and Thorley on the West Wight.

Esbjorn Wilmar, Managing Director of Infinergy said: “We have studied the proposed site in detail over the past number of years and have demonstrated that it is one of the best locations for a wind farm on the Isle of Wight and one which deserves to be approved. Our site sits outside the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and other environmental designations. Although less vocal, there are a lot of Island residents who support the project and would be happy to see it go ahead.”

Mr Wilmar continued: “The Isle of Wight has set ambitious targets in their newly adopted Island Plan, it has a viable but unharnessed wind resource and the resolve to become an energy self-sufficient Eco Island. Unfortunately the reality is far from this, and if Eco Island is to be realised, wind farms such as Vectis are urgently needed. But whether or not Vectis Wind Farm is to make a significant contribution to these goals is of course up to the Planning Inspector.”

Mr Wilmar concluded: “We are confident that an examination of the facts about this project, at public inquiry, will conclude that it is a well-designed scheme that will help the island meet its renewable energy targets and should, on balance, be allowed to proceed.”

Location map
View the location of this story.

Wightfibre sponsors the Isle of Wight News by OnTheWight

Monday, 21st January, 2013 10:08am

By

ShortURL: http://wig.ht/2ar4

Filed under: Green Issues, Isle of Wight News, Planning, Top story, Wellow

Print Friendly

.



50 Comments

  1. Dalek's comment is rated +13 Vote +1 Vote -1

    21.Jan.2013 10:25am

    I just have a suspicion that this is more about how much money Infinergy will make from the renewable energy subsidy rather than any thought of impact on the environment locally or globally. Any decision will be based on that rather than what anyone here wants or doesn’t want to happen.

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

      21.Jan.2013 10:51am

      Surely, Dalek, all development proposals are to do with making money at the end of the day. I would rather see clean renewable energy development than yet another housing development to be honest.

      Reply
      • Dalek's comment is rated +10 Vote +1 Vote -1

        21.Jan.2013 10:57am

        Oh I am not against them specifically, but I just don’t think that they are anywhere near the answer and won’t produce that much power. They are a visible totem of renewable energy, but little more than that.

        My point is that these companies paint themselves as being green when they really are not interested in whether it’s green or not as long as it makes money. Our elected representatives, locally or nationally are after votes & money, not in that order, and if one or the other proves to be the best bet, that’s where the decision will go.

        So it’s basically down to how big the lunch is that is bought for whoever makes this decision, and who pays for it, as to which way the appeal will go.

        Reply
  2. peaceful_life's comment not rated yet. Add your vote Vote +1 Vote -1

    21.Jan.2013 11:24am

    Hi Dalek.

    In view of balance, have you considered the ammount of subsidies given to existing hydrocarbon and nuclear industries, and the environmental impact that’s already been incurred globally…which affects us all locally?

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

    21.Jan.2013 11:54am

    I know there are subsidies all over the place, but at least the hydrocarbon and nuclear industries don’t even try to suggest they are an any way green.

    Reply
  4. cynic's comment is rated +8 Vote +1 Vote -1

    21.Jan.2013 12:09pm

    How can they have a “public enquiry” for an Island project take place OFF the Island?

    Reply
  5. thetruthbeliever's comment is rated +12 Vote +1 Vote -1

    21.Jan.2013 12:15pm

    I have to say this is wind turbine business and indeed most re-newables is the most ridiculous nonsense ever. As someone who has invested a not inconsiderable amount of my own money into re-newables, I can say with confidence that the returns on these systems in energy output is negligible compared to the cost, and the only thing that makes it work is the government grants and subsidies.

    We are engaged in energy lunacy at present, paying disproportionate subsidies to venture capitalist company’s for generating relatively tiny quantities of usable energy. Funded by the way by the tax payer.

    In about 20 years time there will be a massive industry built up around reclaiming and disposing of thousands of millions of defunct solar panels, Wind turbines, solar water heating tubes and other such short lived so called renewable energy devices.

    Renewably energy systems at a corporate level are about one thing.. grabbing as much money from government and european subsidies as possible. Planning rights for such installations are bought and sold as commodities by investors.

    Sadly this has nothing to do with a green agenda or saving the planet! Anyone who thinks that plonking a few wind turbines in West Wight is going to do anything for the environment is seriously deluding themselves.

    For each tower, a volume of earth equivalent to an olympic swimming pool has to be excavated not once, but of course it then has to be filled with concrete which is also excavated and processed and transported. This is before you put a tower up. The towers themselves have to be built, transported and erected at huge environmental cost. There is nothing “green” about this!

    Eventually you end up with a blight on the landscape which generates some power when the wind is right, nothing if there is no wind and has to be shut down if it gets too windy.
    The power generated will not benefit the islanders, nor will the subsidies paid to the eventual owner of the systems.

    I cannot see any good coming from this for the environment, the island or the taxpayer.

    Thank you for reading.

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

      21.Jan.2013 12:49pm

      There are ‘costs’ in renewables yes.

      There are even higher ‘costs’ in non renewables.

      In terms of the environment ‘costs’….what source do you suggest?

      Thanks.

      Reply
      • thetruthbeliever's comment is rated +7 Vote +1 Vote -1

        21.Jan.2013 3:45pm

        Hello,

        I think the first thing here is to properly understand the real problem for the environment.

        The problem is the exponential growth in population in the developing world. And the massive energy and food demands this places on the worlds resources.

        A very useful facility to look at this is provided by Google. I have given the link below. For the last 20 years or so Western developed countries have maintained a pretty stable population. Developing nations on the other hand have skyrocketed. East Asia and Pacific having doubled to 2Billion, and south asia more than doubled to 1.5BN.

        When you switch to Co2 emisions per Capita view, you see immediately that it is the USA and Europe who are by far the biggest polluters. However as the developing nations become further “developed” and become consumers, their energy usage per capita will increase and this is the real environmental ticking time bomb.

        In the western developed countries we are addicted to oil and our technology; mobile phones, tablet computers, DVD’s, PC’s, Cars, boats, planes, busses, warm lit homes, supermarkets and so on and so on. Almost every part of our lives involves consumption and Co2 emission. Most consumer products are made now with designed obsolescence, designed to last only a few years before replacement is needed specifically to keep the supply chain churning.

        This unending consumption is the real problem in the west. A few turbines here or there to sooth our consciences will make no difference at all to the underlying problem in the west. And all the time, the massively larger populations in the developing world will start consuming.

        The unpalatable fact is that the only way we can meet the worlds energy demands of the future, without wrecking the environment is the Nuclear Energy. This is the only technology which can generate enough power “cleanly” enough to meet demand.

        Nuclear technology has advanced considerably since the days of Chernobyl and Fukashima. Chernobyl was an obsolete plant kept going long past its sell by date and Fukashima was built in an earthquake zone. You cant blame the technology for the stupid decisions of the people responsible for deploying it!

        So whether we like it or not we will never be able to build enough wind turbines to meet the energy demands of the growing global population. Not by a long, long, long (as many longs as you like) way.

        The crazy amounts of money currently being sunk into the pockets of venture capitalists would be far more usefully diverted into proper research into the safe development of nuclear energy. For the good of the global community.

        http://www.google.co.uk/publicdata/explore?ds=d5bncppjof8f9_&met_y=sp_pop_totl&tdim=true&dl=en&hl=en&q=population%20of%20planet#!ctype=l&strail=false&bcs=d&nselm=h&met_y=sp_pop_totl&scale_y=lin&ind_y=false&rdim=region&idim=region:EAP:ECA:MNA:LAC:NAC:SAS:SSA&ifdim=region&hl=en_US&dl=en&ind=false

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

          21.Jan.2013 5:25pm

          A small correction to my post above. I meant to say..

          East Asia and Pacific having doubled to 2Billion, and south asia more than doubled to 1.5BN OVER THE LAST 50 YEARS.

          Apologies for any misunderstanding.

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

          21.Jan.2013 7:02pm

          Ahh…. hence Ad homenim.

          http://www.theoildrum.com/node/3877

          ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
          As in any large heavy industry there are substantial environmental impacts of operating the nuclear fuel cycle…..

          Mining
          Open pit uranium mining has similar environmental impacts to other forms of open-pit mining, such as ecosystem removal or physical disruption, dust. leachates entering into water supplies and so on…..

          Plant Operation
          Accidents causing small to large releases of radiation can occur…..

          Waste Storage
          Waste from nuclear reactors can contain lethal doses of radiation for thousands of years……..

          SOCIAL IMPACTS
          People around the plant
          While no one living near a nuclear power plant in the US has been killed accidents are an ever present fear and risk for those living near current power plants……

          CONCLUSION
          There are great potential gains and great potential costs with nuclear power. Existing reactors seems to work well and mostly safely ALTHOUGH waste disposal problems remain…….
          …. http://www.theecologist.org/News/news_analysis/877242/should_future_generations_be_forced_to_deal_with_our_nuclear_legacy.html

          The unpalatable fact is….we won’t meet the worlds energy demands, not at current demands.

          ‘Nuclear technology has advanced considerably since the days of Chernobyl and Fukashima. Chernobyl was an obsolete plant kept going long past its sell by date and Fukashima was built in an earthquake zone. You cant blame the technology for the stupid decisions of the people responsible for deploying it!’

          Good grief, even if it were true, do you think a word of that statement is ANY consolation to the people and environment that suffered/suffering?…especially as the ramifications are still lasting… AND ongoing respectively.

          Besides…it doesn’t plug the portable liquid energy gap, and none of our waffle will negate already underway climate change.

          Is it not better to power down gracefully…. for those that come after us?

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

            21.Jan.2013 9:20pm

            Sorry,still not clear on the ad-homenim attack bit. I noticed that Cynic can also find no independentally peer reviewed works by this chap.

            Which bit did you think is not true? Nuclear technology has advanced considerably since the first designs of the 1950′s, (most of which incidentally have continued to produce electricity with an excellent safety record), and some are still being used in the UK today

            The generation IV reactors will be massively improved, being simpler in design, easier and cheaper to construct and decommission and far far more efficient. Interestingly they also allow the reuse of already spent fuel to further reduce waste output.

            It is expected that the waste will have a dangerous afterlife of only A few centuries compared to the hundreds of thousands of years of the waste materials of the older generation systems. This is entirely manageable with sensible long term planning like our norwegien friends. So these are important facts to consider when planning reliable and sustainable energy systems for the future.

            Nuclear is in reality the only way forward. It’s just a fact that people will eventually come to terms with.

  6. peaceful_life's comment is rated +1 Vote +1 Vote -1

    21.Jan.2013 12:35pm

    I’m afraid they do exactly that Dalek.

    ‘Beyond Petroleum’ after a token gesture solar acquisition and a logo change?

    Clean coal?…doesn’t exist, and never will, neither can it be scrubbed to be so.

    Nuclear has long touted itself as ‘clean’, it isn’t, I think we both/all know the dangers with it.
    http://world.edu/greenwashing-nuclear-power-and-you/

    Green gas?
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/may/29/gas-rebranded-green-energy-eu

    We must discuss these things honestly, the truth is…there is no ‘green fuel tech’ only less dirty, but as you rightly mention with global impacts (that have already impacted)…wouldn’t you think the less dirty option be the route to take?

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

      21.Jan.2013 1:07pm

      Hi Peacful_life..

      Just a one liner to question the validity and impartiality of your world.edu source. A quick check of the domain name shows it to be registered to be operating from an office suite in Denver and administrated by someone using a PO box address in Austraila. A little background reading suggest this a quack organisation set up with an agenda to run chargeable correspondence courses and generally attack mainstream peer reviewed science. I would be extremely dubious of their motives agenda and anything they put into the public domain.

      :)

      Domain Name: WORLD.EDU

      Registrant:
      World University
      125 Rampart Way
      Suite 300
      Denver, CO 80230
      UNITED STATES

      Administrative Contact:
      Kevin Ryall
      World Education Network
      PO Box 3484
      Robina Town Centre
      gold coast, qld 4230
      AUSTRALIA
      6156414587

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

        21.Jan.2013 1:20pm

        Ahhh, that’s a tad Ad homenim, why don’t we just review the content of the peice?

        Or…Maybe we could consult the Finnish government for their impartial view?

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

          21.Jan.2013 2:16pm

          Not intended to be Ad homenin attack on anyone. Just that as far as I can see this organisation has no publicly recognised credentials or authority. Further is is linked to conservation groups such as Earth Policy Institute, Conservation volunteers of Australia, Living Routes, and a number of rather dubious looking “Universities”.

          So I read the article with the appopriate levels of scepticism given the dubious nature of the origin. I particularly giggled at the blatent plug for his book at the end of the piece.

          I would certainly value input from any properly informed organisation with factual data and supported references.

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

            21.Jan.2013 3:06pm

            @truthbeliever “So I read the article with the appopriate levels of scepticism given the dubious nature of the origin. I particularly giggled at the blatent plug for his book at the end of the piece.”

            A little rsearch shows thatShel Horowitz is a highly successful American marketeer and not AFAIK, a scientist with published peer-reviewed works.

            His biography claims he completed university at the age of 19. Other entries suggest he was there between 1973-1977 which would indicate he started university aged 15. A prodigy?

            This not ad hominem but merely a precautionary check on the provenance of information.

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

            21.Jan.2013 4:21pm

            @cynic. Thank you for your comment. It is clear Shel Horowitz is an outspoken green campaigner, amongst other things. So clearly he has strong personal opinions on the subject.

            His website states he finished college at 19, but does not state what, if any qualification he finished with. His focus seems to have been on marketing not science.

            He has written several books, published many articles and clearly people are interested in his views. I am however struggling to find a single reference to a properly peer reviewed published paper??

            I would be delighted if you are able to provide some links to the same so I could review them?

            Many thanks.

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

            21.Jan.2013 5:06pm

            The process is the process.

            Substances need mined.

            Plants need built.

            Plants need maintained.

            Plants need decommissioned.

            All of which is not a ‘clean’ process.

            They do ‘go wrong’ involving quite a ‘clean’ up.

            Now, the link I provided was merely a stating of the obvious, wether or not the guy is a peer reviewed scientist or not… all of the above are just facts.

            As for being an environmentalist,I’d expect that from any earth dweller……..considering our lives depend on it.

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

            21.Jan.2013 6:19pm

            @Peaceful life “The process is the process.

            Substances need mined.

            Plants need built.

            Plants need maintained.

            Plants need decommissioned.

            All of which is not a ‘clean’ process.

            They do ‘go wrong’ involving quite a ‘clean’ up”
            ……………………..

            That also applies to all forms of energy conversion- there is no free lunch.

            Nuclear is probably worse than most since the noxious half-life of its detritus can last more than 1000 years.

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

            21.Jan.2013 6:22pm

            @the truthbeliever “I would be delighted if you are able to provide some links to the same so I could review them?”

            I am having difficulty locating any! :-))

  7. Colin's comment is rated +8 Vote +1 Vote -1

    21.Jan.2013 1:09pm

    The only thing Infinergy and the like is interested in is money. It’s not about green, or renewables or anything else. It’s money.
    How much can they get in subsidies and grants and sell the product for. Pure and simple, nothing else.

    Why have people blighted their houses with solar panels? Money. Nothing else. It was the prospect of a big cheque every year at four times the rate the energy is produced elsewhere. Why has that scheme ground to a halt?

    Money, Money, Money.

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

    21.Jan.2013 3:48pm

    Those cheering for the ostentatious on-shore wind turbines could do worse for a reality check than looking at this article, which suggests (using data rather than opinion) that the long term output of turbines falls off significantly after 10 years:

    http://www.ref.org.uk/press-releases/281-wearnandntearnhitsnwindnfarmnoutputnandneconomicnlifetime

    That wouldn’t look good for investors, would it? Hello, Mr Investor, remember all that money you put into those wind turbines ten years ago? Bit of an issue with the returns, could you stand us an extra investment for some replacement turbine units for the original towers, please? Of course these will last MUCH longer than the original ones we said would last 25 years, but only lasted 10 years…..

    Draw your own conclusions about the organisation producing the report – any study has to be paid for somehow and even the Guardian can’t decide whether they’re A Good Thing or A Bad Thing.

    Can the IOW grid even take another 5MW being driven into it? Wasn’t it originally designed to bring power over from Fawley to be consumed on the Island, rather than handling power generated on the Island? Can it support another large step up in input from generation on the Island?

    If it can’t then the planning becomes somewhat immaterial.

    Reply
  9. peaceful_life's comment is rated +1 Vote +1 Vote -1

    21.Jan.2013 7:25pm

    @cynic

    Agreed, there are no free lunches, i was just adding that those lunches are also dirty, no matter what the garnish.

    Reply
  10. YJC's comment is rated +1 Vote +1 Vote -1

    21.Jan.2013 8:00pm

    ECO-ISLAND DOES NOT SUPPORT BIG WIND!

    Reply
  11. Vanessa Churchman's comment is rated +3 Vote +1 Vote -1

    21.Jan.2013 8:47pm

    All the comments above have truth in them – however as we all know a panel of experts very rarely agree. How can you have expert witnesses in court, one defending an application and one opposing it? In whose eyes are people ‘experts’ when they can pronounce different opinions on the same subject.
    Surely the maxim should be: prevention is better than cure. So why aren’t we doing more to educate people away from what I call bad habits. Why does everybody at work have to walk around in shirt sleeves? Why are our schools like saunas? Why are shops still keeping their doors wide open in the middle of winter? Why are people using tumble dryers on sunny/windy days. The trouble is we are so spoilt we just don’t think we should change our habits. If we changed our attitude to just some of the things above we could cut our energy bills. Oh, by the way, what about all those ‘garden’ lights which either stay on or come on/off every time a fox passes by. All unnecessary and do nothing but pollute the night sky.

    Reply
  12. peaceful_life's comment not rated yet. Add your vote Vote +1 Vote -1

    21.Jan.2013 11:18pm

    @Believer.

    The Ad homenim (I never said attack. Hyperbole) tact was pitched at the straw man of Horowitz being offered as a source of peer reviewed evidence.

    In truth, it was just a quick link (without accademic jargon) to a walk through of basic known facts about the footprint of the process, a process that is NOT clean.

    In your rebuttal, you omit any form of aknowledgment(still haven’t) to the fact that the process is NOT clean, and simply focus on the character of Horowitz.

    However….at least now you’ve stated your case for being an apologist at the very least.

    “Which bit did you think is not true? Nuclear technology has advanced considerably since the first designs of the 1950′s, (most of which incidentally have continued to produce electricity with an excellent safety record), and some are still being used in the UK today”

    Advanced so much that….. we’re still using it.

    “The generation IV reactors WILL BE massively improved, being simpler in design, easier and cheaper to construct and decommission and far far more efficient. Interestingly they also allow the reuse of already spent fuel to further reduce waste output”

    Sorry. ‘will be’ doesn’t cut it.

    “IT IS EXPECTED that the waste will have a dangerous afterlife of ONLY A few centuries compared to the hundreds of thousands of years of the waste materials of the older generation systems. This is entirely manageable with sensible long term planning like our norwegien friends. So these are important facts to consider when planning reliable and SUSTAINABLE energy systems for the future”

    We need better than that I’m afraid.
    As for long term planning, look at the scale, time, planning, and energy of this…. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onkalo_spent_nuclear_fuel_repository

    “Nuclear is in reality the only way forward. It’s just a fact that people will eventually come to terms with.”

    Not if this is anything to go by.
    It may play a part in the mix, but…it’s a headache best forgotten.

    Powering down and being more frugal is best me thinks.

    Thanks.

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

      22.Jan.2013 8:01am

      @ peaceful_life…
      The point about citing the Shel Horowitz article is that as far as I can establish he his not impartial nor is an authoritative commentator on nuclear power. He clearly does not like nuclear power. That’s fine and he is entitled to his views.

      On the nuclear reactor design front, like all technologies, our understanding has improved over the decades. And the generation IV reactors will be massively more efficient outputting 100-400 times more usable energy per weight of material compared to their predecessors.

      The dangerous radioactive life of the waste is reduced to centuries.

      These are facts, the prototypes have been built and tested. Now you can deny this off you want to but you are simply burying your head in the sand and choosing not to inform yourself.

      The first generations of nuclear reactor were based on 1950′s technology. They were derived from designs for nuclear submarines.

      There is no question that older designs were less reliable, but that’s the same for any technology. It is not a reason to throw out the technology as a whole.

      When people rant on about nuclear power they dig up the same old groans. Nobody ever seems to discuss the near 450 nuclear power stations which are in use everyday around the world providing huge electrical output controllably with the ability to ramp up output on demand to meet demand; massively reducing the amount of Co2 on a global scale.

      The generation IV reator,s WILL provide more energy output with less waste, from installations which are cheaper to build and decommission, and produce waste with manageable dangerous afterlife.

      Nuclear energy is the only technology with the ability to meet the energy demands of the worlds growing population. We can deny it all we like but eventually there is no getting away from it.

      Powering down and being more frugal is a noble idea but let’s be honest, it’s not going to happen so we need to realistic.

      Further reading: http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf08.html

      Reply
  13. Colin's comment not rated yet. Add your vote Vote +1 Vote -1

    22.Jan.2013 9:29am

    Green Electric cars; there’s another winning idea and to power the cars we have to generate more electricity to charge the batteries. Why do people not buy them in their thousands? Because they would need a normal car as well for longer journeys and if everyone had one the national grid couldn’t cope.

    So, unless you have pots of money to show your green credentials, they don’t sell. The general public knows a dud when it sees one and it involves their own money.

    Now apply the arguement to power generation. When the wind doesn’t blow or the sun doesn’t shine we revert to good old reliable mainstream power generation which functions without the ridiculous subsidies thrown at the so-called green projects.

    Tidal flow is the closest available to reliable green energy and apart from a low tower supporting the blades is not too intrusive. Or hydro if you don’t mind flooding the land.

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

      22.Jan.2013 6:19pm

      Hi Colin.

      Good old reliable does recieve subsidies, always has, and Ofgem have already stated publicly that rolling black-outs will be with us by 2015. Price spikes…and increases are already here.

      Reply
  14. chas's comment is rated +4 Vote +1 Vote -1

    22.Jan.2013 11:26am

    Let’s forget the Island being green and leave that to the grass ….its time to build a nuclear power plant on the Medina and start exporting output to the mainland …..income for the Island now that’s a novelty

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

      22.Jan.2013 6:27pm

      Hi Chas.

      Building a business plan around one of the most dangerous and toxic substances known to man probably isn’t the best we can come up with, it’s not something I want to leave for future generations.

      I think the ‘green’ has long since washed away and brambled over with the thorns of business as usual.

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

        22.Jan.2013 10:21pm

        440 nuclear power plants are in use every day, month in, month out, year in year out with excellent safety records, maintaining supply. . As I’ve mentioned before, the alarmists conveniently forget this fact without offering any viable alternative.

        Wind, tidal, solar are all great fun, but they are not really green when you consider their overall carbon cost, and they cannot generate anywhere enough power to meet demand.

        Gas and coal power stations must be shut down leaving the only viable alternative.

        We must stop wasting taxpayers money on the flights of fancy an start investing it in the safe handling of nuclear energy. This is the only viable solution to meet demand in the long term.

        We can deny all we like, but eventually the lights will go out unless we invest properly in nuclear power.

        Reply
  15. cynic's comment not rated yet. Add your vote Vote +1 Vote -1

    23.Jan.2013 7:56pm

    The LA Times (3/17/2011) reported “The reactor at Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant in San Luis Obispo (California) operated for a year and a half with some emergency systems disabled, according to a 2010 safety review by the federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission.”?

    Furher, it is located a couple of miles from Parkfield on the San Andreas Fault Parkfield in central California, where a moderate-size earthquake has occurred on the average of every 20-22 years for about the last 100 years. The most recent was in 2004 measuring 6.0 on the Richter scale. It is predicted that there is a 59% chance of a 6.7 earthquake within the next 30 years.

    Nuclear plant plus likley earthquake- an accident waiting to happen?

    Reply
  16. thetruthbeliever's comment not rated yet. Add your vote Vote +1 Vote -1

    23.Jan.2013 10:04pm

    Nuclear plant plus likley earthquake- an accident waiting to happen?

    One has question the wisdom of building a Nuclear Power Plant on a fault line. It does not seem too clever to me. That said, the Diablo Canyon reactor has been built to withstand a 7.5 quake. It has prompt automatic shutdown systems which do so in the event of any significant ground movement. This along with a wide range of other safety features. The plant has been operating for 40 years with, as far as I can establish,an excellent safety record producing 18,000 GW-h of electricity every year.

    Reply
  17. cynic's comment is rated +1 Vote +1 Vote -1

    24.Jan.2013 10:16am

    @the truthbeliever “That said, the Diablo Canyon reactor has been built to withstand a 7.5 quake. It has prompt automatic shutdown systems which do so in the event of any significant ground movement.”

    Did you miss he LA Times report that said “The reactor at Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant in San Luis Obispo (California) operated for a year and a half with some emergency systems disabled, according to a 2010 safety review by the federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission.”?

    Still confident? :-))

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

      24.Jan.2013 12:14pm

      @Cynic. Yes I did read this. But like all these things it is important to establsh facts, like for example which saftey systems are we talking about? Was it the car park lighting for example? Or maybe a shortage of hi- viz jackets!

      The article is very vague in this regard stating “with some emergency systems disabled”. The sceptic in me say’s that if the reporter had anything really meaty to report the details would be splattered all over the article. So I’d love to see which systems they are referring to.

      What is very re-assuring about this though is that that there are regular saftey checks and the findings are in the public domain.

      So I would maintain the position that properly deployed and managed Nuclear power is clean, efficient and safe.

      I don’t dispute that there nasty by products, or that there are sometimes very dubious planning decisions made by people with perhaps less than honourable intentions. But the by products are all in one place and can be managed.

      I wonder how many millions of people have died in travel accidents since the introduction of motorised vehicles? Or vehicles at all for that matter. Millions I’m sure. But we don’t stop using cars, busses, lorries, trains, ships or airplanes. We make them better. We do good science to improve the technology, to minimise pollutants and improve efficiency. As it is with nuclear power. Sure mistakes are made, but we need to learn the lessons and move on. Not throw out the best system of unlimited power generation mankind has ever had.

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

        24.Jan.2013 5:36pm

        Planning.

        Time, Cost, energy input, carbon cost, who pays for it?

        Plant construction.

        Time, Cost, energy input, carbon cost, who pays for it?

        Running and maintaining.

        Safe working life expectancy, risk, energy input, carbon cost, who pays for it?

        Decommissioning plant.

        Time, cost, risk, energy input, carbon cost, who pays for it?

        Long term safe containment.

        Method, time of build(according to method),foreseeable infrastructure and available energy for containment maintenance, cost, energy input, carbon cost, who pays for it?

        Overall net energy gain ratio?
        Overall carbon output?

        Accidents.

        Contamination liklihood, clean up feasability, social and environmental impacts, psychological impacts, time, cost, carbon output, who pays for it?

        Weighed against the risk… and long term ramifications… is the EROEI ‘worth’ it?

        Are you touting fission or fusion in all this confusion?… ‘unlimited’ you say, can you explain how please?

        Thanks.

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

          24.Jan.2013 9:13pm

          Is it worth the risk? Of course. Risk in any system can be reduced to near zero with proper management.

          Unlimited? – E=mc2 once you grasp this superficially simple little forula, it becomes clear.

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

    24.Jan.2013 1:32pm

    @the truthbeliever “The article is very vague in this regard stating “with some emergency systems disabled”. The sceptic in me say’s that if the reporter had anything really meaty to report the details would be splattered all over the article. So I’d love to see which systems they are referring to.”

    Here they are…. The article is very vague in this regard stating “with some emergency systems disabled”. The sceptic in me say’s that if the reporter had anything really meaty to report the details would be splattered all over the article. So I’d love to see which systems they are referring to.

    The NRC investigators reported:

    • The plant had a single diesel-driven pump to provide emergency cooling water to a single reactor in case an earthquake cut off normal water flow. The pump could not have serviced both of the plant’s reactors if they lost normal water supply simultaneously, the NRC staff said.

    • Some doors at the plant required to protect against flooding of major safety equipment would not self-latch as required. One latch was “degraded,” they said.

    • The plant’s six emergency diesel generators were located in the same plant area, and thus vulnerable to a “common mode” failure.

    • An earthquake could cause a structural failure in the building where the fire truck is stored, and debris could block crews from using the truck.

    • PG&E planned for a contractor to provide seawater for emergency cooling, but had no backup plan if an earthquake and tsunami blocked highways to the plant. PG&E intended to rely on the California National Guard to deliver diesel fuel for emergency generators if roads were impassable, but had no memorandum of understanding in place for the deliveries.

    • Four 20-foot extension cables, used to operate fans that cool portable generators, were missing from their storage location.
    http://calcoastnews.com/2011/05/safety-violations-at-diablo-canyon-nuclear-plant/

    BTW as of Jan 17 2013, renewal of operating of Diablo Canyon and its sister San Onofre are on hold until further testing has taken place.

    Reply
  19. chas's comment is rated +1 Vote +1 Vote -1

    24.Jan.2013 3:55pm

    Ever checked out the number of Nuclear plants that are on the French coast ? and which direction does the wind blow from …..gas smell this week ! , so if there was a disaster there we would know about it , still think we ought to have one Island though

    Reply
  20. peaceful_life's comment not rated yet. Add your vote Vote +1 Vote -1

    24.Jan.2013 10:20pm

    Risk to near zero?…..you see, it’s this kind of hubris that’s landed us in a bit of a pickle.
    If you haven’t noticed…..the climate is gathering entropy, and well… ‘doing’ THINGS.
    So that’s a no no on that calculation of ‘near zero’ then.

    Far from being superficial, uncle Albert came up with something quite profound at the time, it’s gone all string n stuff now, bit of a quantum leap I know.

    Now I don’t doubt your mathematical prowess, but…I’d appreciate if you could be a bit more specific on just how many ‘unlimted’ machine thingamabobs are actually around.

    ‘Nobody ever seems to discuss the near 450 nuclear power stations’

    ’440 nuclear power plants are in use every day’

    All fun aside, it’d be really nice if you could answer some of the points put to you regarding costs, and EROEI.

    Thanks.

    Reply
  21. thetruthbeliever's comment not rated yet. Add your vote Vote +1 Vote -1

    24.Jan.2013 11:01pm

    Last time I checked 440 is NEAR 450 exactly as I said. 450 just seemed like a nice round number in the context. In any case it’s a trivial point.

    Entropy of any closed system will always increase.

    The climate has always “done things”. There is just an arrogance about humanity that makes us think the climate was put here for our convenience to suit us and that any change must be bad. There is no doubt that climate change is occurring. What the real underlying causes are and whether mankind can actually do anything predictable to alter its course are still a subject for wide debate.

    On the EROEI front. This is a non discussion. Nuclear energy has already been proven to give the best returns.

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

      25.Jan.2013 2:04am

      This planet is not a closed system though.

      I never said that climate change was bad, just that it should be taken into account when calculating risk.

      Look at Onkalo, you can’t just ignore all the embodied energy and expense of the entire process.That’s akin to getting 10p back for your initial £1 playing a bandit, them exclaiming you’ve won.

      I’d like to see some numbers on EROEI from you, ones that include the entire process.

      Thanks.

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

    4.Feb.2013 12:21pm

    BBC: Sellafield clean-up cost reaches £67.5bn

    ‘The cost of cleaning up the Sellafield nuclear waste site has reached £67.5bn with no sign of when the cost will stop rising, according to a report’

    Who pays for it?

    Did you get those EROEI numbers?

    Thanks.

    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

.