The ArgusRampion wind farm given the go-ahead by government (From The Argus)

Get involved: Send your news, views, pictures and video by texting SUPIC to 80360 or email us.

Rampion wind farm given the go-ahead by government

The Argus: Rampion wind farm given the go-ahead by government Rampion wind farm given the go-ahead by government

The government has granted permission for the 175-turbine Rampion offshore wind farm.

The farm, which will be 13km off the Sussex coast, is expected to support 750 jobs and bring around £2 billion of investment to the UK’s economy.

The government gave the scheme the green light this morning, with German energy giant Eon set to run the site.

Once built, the wind farm would generate enough electricity to power approximately 450,000 homes.

Energy and Climate Change Secretary Ed Davey said: “We’re driving investment in our energy security, and our plans have made us number one in the world for investment in offshore wind energy.

“This project is great news for Sussex, providing green jobs as well as driving business opportunities right across the country in a sector with a clear roadmap for long-term growth.”

Michael Lewis, chief operating officer, E.ON Renewables, said: "E.ON is delighted to receive development consent for the Rampion Offshore Wind Farm proposal.

"This is a key milestone for the project and we firmly believe Rampion will play an important role in helping to ensure future security of supply and make a significant contribution towards meeting the UK's renewable energy targets."

Chris Tomlinson, development manager for Rampion Wind Farm, added: "The wind farm will not only help generate jobs during both construction and operation, but also provide a boost to the port regeneration at Newhaven and the local economy."

The developer, E.ON Climate and Renewables UK Rampion Offshore Wind Ltd, is expected to start onshore construction for the site in 2015, and estimates power generation will start in 2018 or 2019.

For the wind farm to go ahead the company will need to make a final investment decision on the project, and apply for subsidies.

Comments (79)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

10:44am Wed 16 Jul 14

rolivan says...

Absolutely brilliant news.
Absolutely brilliant news. rolivan
  • Score: 4

11:08am Wed 16 Jul 14

We love Red Billy says...

At last, something to look at from the i360. @gzunder
At last, something to look at from the i360. @gzunder We love Red Billy
  • Score: 12

11:46am Wed 16 Jul 14

stevo!! says...

"The farm, which will be 13km off the Sussex coast, is expected to support 750 jobs and bring around £2 billion of investment to the UK’s economy. "

Whose jobs, exactly? People born in Sussex or Germany and Asia?

Where are those people going to live? Are they to commute from France?

" bring around £2 billion of investment to the UK’s economy. "

A meaningless phrase, especially if it includes the huge subsidies that we the people of Britain will be paying both for its construction and maintenance and the higher costs of any electricity produced.
"The farm, which will be 13km off the Sussex coast, is expected to support 750 jobs and bring around £2 billion of investment to the UK’s economy. " Whose jobs, exactly? People born in Sussex or Germany and Asia? Where are those people going to live? Are they to commute from France? " bring around £2 billion of investment to the UK’s economy. " A meaningless phrase, especially if it includes the huge subsidies that we the people of Britain will be paying both for its construction and maintenance and the higher costs of any electricity produced. stevo!!
  • Score: 5

11:57am Wed 16 Jul 14

argchat says...

stevo!! wrote:
"The farm, which will be 13km off the Sussex coast, is expected to support 750 jobs and bring around £2 billion of investment to the UK’s economy. "

Whose jobs, exactly? People born in Sussex or Germany and Asia?

Where are those people going to live? Are they to commute from France?

" bring around £2 billion of investment to the UK’s economy. "

A meaningless phrase, especially if it includes the huge subsidies that we the people of Britain will be paying both for its construction and maintenance and the higher costs of any electricity produced.
Your right to ask these questions. What I really want to know is how many jobs are going to being created in this country through the manufacture of these turbines, and if they are not being manufactured here, why not? Is this another missed opportunity.
[quote][p][bold]stevo!![/bold] wrote: "The farm, which will be 13km off the Sussex coast, is expected to support 750 jobs and bring around £2 billion of investment to the UK’s economy. " Whose jobs, exactly? People born in Sussex or Germany and Asia? Where are those people going to live? Are they to commute from France? " bring around £2 billion of investment to the UK’s economy. " A meaningless phrase, especially if it includes the huge subsidies that we the people of Britain will be paying both for its construction and maintenance and the higher costs of any electricity produced.[/p][/quote]Your right to ask these questions. What I really want to know is how many jobs are going to being created in this country through the manufacture of these turbines, and if they are not being manufactured here, why not? Is this another missed opportunity. argchat
  • Score: 29

12:19pm Wed 16 Jul 14

rolivan says...

argchat wrote:
stevo!! wrote:
"The farm, which will be 13km off the Sussex coast, is expected to support 750 jobs and bring around £2 billion of investment to the UK’s economy. "

Whose jobs, exactly? People born in Sussex or Germany and Asia?

Where are those people going to live? Are they to commute from France?

" bring around £2 billion of investment to the UK’s economy. "

A meaningless phrase, especially if it includes the huge subsidies that we the people of Britain will be paying both for its construction and maintenance and the higher costs of any electricity produced.
Your right to ask these questions. What I really want to know is how many jobs are going to being created in this country through the manufacture of these turbines, and if they are not being manufactured here, why not? Is this another missed opportunity.
The i360 was fabricated in Holland why wasn't that built in the UK?
[quote][p][bold]argchat[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]stevo!![/bold] wrote: "The farm, which will be 13km off the Sussex coast, is expected to support 750 jobs and bring around £2 billion of investment to the UK’s economy. " Whose jobs, exactly? People born in Sussex or Germany and Asia? Where are those people going to live? Are they to commute from France? " bring around £2 billion of investment to the UK’s economy. " A meaningless phrase, especially if it includes the huge subsidies that we the people of Britain will be paying both for its construction and maintenance and the higher costs of any electricity produced.[/p][/quote]Your right to ask these questions. What I really want to know is how many jobs are going to being created in this country through the manufacture of these turbines, and if they are not being manufactured here, why not? Is this another missed opportunity.[/p][/quote]The i360 was fabricated in Holland why wasn't that built in the UK? rolivan
  • Score: 15

12:27pm Wed 16 Jul 14

argchat says...

rolivan wrote:
argchat wrote:
stevo!! wrote:
"The farm, which will be 13km off the Sussex coast, is expected to support 750 jobs and bring around £2 billion of investment to the UK’s economy. "

Whose jobs, exactly? People born in Sussex or Germany and Asia?

Where are those people going to live? Are they to commute from France?

" bring around £2 billion of investment to the UK’s economy. "

A meaningless phrase, especially if it includes the huge subsidies that we the people of Britain will be paying both for its construction and maintenance and the higher costs of any electricity produced.
Your right to ask these questions. What I really want to know is how many jobs are going to being created in this country through the manufacture of these turbines, and if they are not being manufactured here, why not? Is this another missed opportunity.
The i360 was fabricated in Holland why wasn't that built in the UK?
What is it with our governments. That's probably two opportunities missed to create proper jobs in the UK. It's the first thing our politicians should be asking before any of these large projects get ticked off. It's so annoying.
[quote][p][bold]rolivan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]argchat[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]stevo!![/bold] wrote: "The farm, which will be 13km off the Sussex coast, is expected to support 750 jobs and bring around £2 billion of investment to the UK’s economy. " Whose jobs, exactly? People born in Sussex or Germany and Asia? Where are those people going to live? Are they to commute from France? " bring around £2 billion of investment to the UK’s economy. " A meaningless phrase, especially if it includes the huge subsidies that we the people of Britain will be paying both for its construction and maintenance and the higher costs of any electricity produced.[/p][/quote]Your right to ask these questions. What I really want to know is how many jobs are going to being created in this country through the manufacture of these turbines, and if they are not being manufactured here, why not? Is this another missed opportunity.[/p][/quote]The i360 was fabricated in Holland why wasn't that built in the UK?[/p][/quote]What is it with our governments. That's probably two opportunities missed to create proper jobs in the UK. It's the first thing our politicians should be asking before any of these large projects get ticked off. It's so annoying. argchat
  • Score: 17

12:31pm Wed 16 Jul 14

From beer to uncertainty says...

Wind farms are an obsolete inefficient 'green energy' pocket-lining exercise. Decommisioning goes on elsewhere whilst UK politicians carefully cup the balls of utility suppliers as customers continue to get shafted.
Wind farms are an obsolete inefficient 'green energy' pocket-lining exercise. Decommisioning goes on elsewhere whilst UK politicians carefully cup the balls of utility suppliers as customers continue to get shafted. From beer to uncertainty
  • Score: 19

12:34pm Wed 16 Jul 14

rolivan says...

From beer to uncertainty wrote:
Wind farms are an obsolete inefficient 'green energy' pocket-lining exercise. Decommisioning goes on elsewhere whilst UK politicians carefully cup the balls of utility suppliers as customers continue to get shafted.
Have a look at how many are being erected in France especially Brittany and they are building 2 offshore also . so where are they being decommissioned?
[quote][p][bold]From beer to uncertainty[/bold] wrote: Wind farms are an obsolete inefficient 'green energy' pocket-lining exercise. Decommisioning goes on elsewhere whilst UK politicians carefully cup the balls of utility suppliers as customers continue to get shafted.[/p][/quote]Have a look at how many are being erected in France especially Brittany and they are building 2 offshore also . so where are they being decommissioned? rolivan
  • Score: 1

12:37pm Wed 16 Jul 14

Saltdean Resident says...

I dont know where the Argus got 750 jobs from as even E.0n's website about the project claims 70 - 85 permanent local jobs. I guess they will go to those qualified for the job that needs doing.
I dont know where the Argus got 750 jobs from as even E.0n's website about the project claims 70 - 85 permanent local jobs. I guess they will go to those qualified for the job that needs doing. Saltdean Resident
  • Score: 7

12:43pm Wed 16 Jul 14

Saltdean Resident says...

From beer to uncertainty wrote:
Wind farms are an obsolete inefficient 'green energy' pocket-lining exercise. Decommisioning goes on elsewhere whilst UK politicians carefully cup the balls of utility suppliers as customers continue to get shafted.
One thing i found out is that at the moment we get between 5 - 10% of our daily energy from wind, today, even though not very windy its about 6%. During the storms earlier on this year it was much higher and on December 21st 18% of our leccy was produced through wind power. Yes we will always need back up from nuclear, gas and coal but that percentage is going to double over the next decade.

You can see what we're using on this website:

http://www.gridwatch
.templar.co.uk/index
.php
[quote][p][bold]From beer to uncertainty[/bold] wrote: Wind farms are an obsolete inefficient 'green energy' pocket-lining exercise. Decommisioning goes on elsewhere whilst UK politicians carefully cup the balls of utility suppliers as customers continue to get shafted.[/p][/quote]One thing i found out is that at the moment we get between 5 - 10% of our daily energy from wind, today, even though not very windy its about 6%. During the storms earlier on this year it was much higher and on December 21st 18% of our leccy was produced through wind power. Yes we will always need back up from nuclear, gas and coal but that percentage is going to double over the next decade. You can see what we're using on this website: http://www.gridwatch .templar.co.uk/index .php Saltdean Resident
  • Score: 4

12:44pm Wed 16 Jul 14

stevo!! says...

Saltdean Resident wrote:
I dont know where the Argus got 750 jobs from as even E.0n's website about the project claims 70 - 85 permanent local jobs. I guess they will go to those qualified for the job that needs doing.
The missing jobs will probably be in the construction industry.
[quote][p][bold]Saltdean Resident[/bold] wrote: I dont know where the Argus got 750 jobs from as even E.0n's website about the project claims 70 - 85 permanent local jobs. I guess they will go to those qualified for the job that needs doing.[/p][/quote]The missing jobs will probably be in the construction industry. stevo!!
  • Score: -6

12:46pm Wed 16 Jul 14

stevo!! says...

Saltdean Resident wrote:
From beer to uncertainty wrote:
Wind farms are an obsolete inefficient 'green energy' pocket-lining exercise. Decommisioning goes on elsewhere whilst UK politicians carefully cup the balls of utility suppliers as customers continue to get shafted.
One thing i found out is that at the moment we get between 5 - 10% of our daily energy from wind, today, even though not very windy its about 6%. During the storms earlier on this year it was much higher and on December 21st 18% of our leccy was produced through wind power. Yes we will always need back up from nuclear, gas and coal but that percentage is going to double over the next decade.

You can see what we're using on this website:

http://www.gridwatch

.templar.co.uk/index

.php
And on the non-windy days?

Will that remain at 6%?

The fact is that wind power is unreliable and hugely inefficient and costly.

We want to remove it from the equation if we are to keep the lights on.
[quote][p][bold]Saltdean Resident[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]From beer to uncertainty[/bold] wrote: Wind farms are an obsolete inefficient 'green energy' pocket-lining exercise. Decommisioning goes on elsewhere whilst UK politicians carefully cup the balls of utility suppliers as customers continue to get shafted.[/p][/quote]One thing i found out is that at the moment we get between 5 - 10% of our daily energy from wind, today, even though not very windy its about 6%. During the storms earlier on this year it was much higher and on December 21st 18% of our leccy was produced through wind power. Yes we will always need back up from nuclear, gas and coal but that percentage is going to double over the next decade. You can see what we're using on this website: http://www.gridwatch .templar.co.uk/index .php[/p][/quote]And on the non-windy days? Will that remain at 6%? The fact is that wind power is unreliable and hugely inefficient and costly. We want to remove it from the equation if we are to keep the lights on. stevo!!
  • Score: -8

12:52pm Wed 16 Jul 14

rolivan says...

stevo!! wrote:
Saltdean Resident wrote:
From beer to uncertainty wrote:
Wind farms are an obsolete inefficient 'green energy' pocket-lining exercise. Decommisioning goes on elsewhere whilst UK politicians carefully cup the balls of utility suppliers as customers continue to get shafted.
One thing i found out is that at the moment we get between 5 - 10% of our daily energy from wind, today, even though not very windy its about 6%. During the storms earlier on this year it was much higher and on December 21st 18% of our leccy was produced through wind power. Yes we will always need back up from nuclear, gas and coal but that percentage is going to double over the next decade.

You can see what we're using on this website:

http://www.gridwatch


.templar.co.uk/index


.php
And on the non-windy days?

Will that remain at 6%?

The fact is that wind power is unreliable and hugely inefficient and costly.

We want to remove it from the equation if we are to keep the lights on.
To be replaced by what?
[quote][p][bold]stevo!![/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Saltdean Resident[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]From beer to uncertainty[/bold] wrote: Wind farms are an obsolete inefficient 'green energy' pocket-lining exercise. Decommisioning goes on elsewhere whilst UK politicians carefully cup the balls of utility suppliers as customers continue to get shafted.[/p][/quote]One thing i found out is that at the moment we get between 5 - 10% of our daily energy from wind, today, even though not very windy its about 6%. During the storms earlier on this year it was much higher and on December 21st 18% of our leccy was produced through wind power. Yes we will always need back up from nuclear, gas and coal but that percentage is going to double over the next decade. You can see what we're using on this website: http://www.gridwatch .templar.co.uk/index .php[/p][/quote]And on the non-windy days? Will that remain at 6%? The fact is that wind power is unreliable and hugely inefficient and costly. We want to remove it from the equation if we are to keep the lights on.[/p][/quote]To be replaced by what? rolivan
  • Score: -1

12:56pm Wed 16 Jul 14

stevo!! says...

rolivan wrote:
stevo!! wrote:
Saltdean Resident wrote:
From beer to uncertainty wrote:
Wind farms are an obsolete inefficient 'green energy' pocket-lining exercise. Decommisioning goes on elsewhere whilst UK politicians carefully cup the balls of utility suppliers as customers continue to get shafted.
One thing i found out is that at the moment we get between 5 - 10% of our daily energy from wind, today, even though not very windy its about 6%. During the storms earlier on this year it was much higher and on December 21st 18% of our leccy was produced through wind power. Yes we will always need back up from nuclear, gas and coal but that percentage is going to double over the next decade.

You can see what we're using on this website:

http://www.gridwatch



.templar.co.uk/index



.php
And on the non-windy days?

Will that remain at 6%?

The fact is that wind power is unreliable and hugely inefficient and costly.

We want to remove it from the equation if we are to keep the lights on.
To be replaced by what?
The things we've always used, obviously.

Coal, gas and nuclear...the things that ran the country for centuries. The things that are there when we need them.
[quote][p][bold]rolivan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]stevo!![/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Saltdean Resident[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]From beer to uncertainty[/bold] wrote: Wind farms are an obsolete inefficient 'green energy' pocket-lining exercise. Decommisioning goes on elsewhere whilst UK politicians carefully cup the balls of utility suppliers as customers continue to get shafted.[/p][/quote]One thing i found out is that at the moment we get between 5 - 10% of our daily energy from wind, today, even though not very windy its about 6%. During the storms earlier on this year it was much higher and on December 21st 18% of our leccy was produced through wind power. Yes we will always need back up from nuclear, gas and coal but that percentage is going to double over the next decade. You can see what we're using on this website: http://www.gridwatch .templar.co.uk/index .php[/p][/quote]And on the non-windy days? Will that remain at 6%? The fact is that wind power is unreliable and hugely inefficient and costly. We want to remove it from the equation if we are to keep the lights on.[/p][/quote]To be replaced by what?[/p][/quote]The things we've always used, obviously. Coal, gas and nuclear...the things that ran the country for centuries. The things that are there when we need them. stevo!!
  • Score: -10

12:59pm Wed 16 Jul 14

Kate234 says...

What a shame. Brighton had a wonderful relaxing sea view and we have sold our biggest asset to a utility company for free. Do any green councillors MPs get consultancy money from EON?
What a shame. Brighton had a wonderful relaxing sea view and we have sold our biggest asset to a utility company for free. Do any green councillors MPs get consultancy money from EON? Kate234
  • Score: 11

1:05pm Wed 16 Jul 14

Kate234 says...

Tourism and the sea view is Brighton's biggest asset and now it will be like looking out on the North Sea wind farms. I bet it looks worst than this as these images were supplied by EON who lets face it had a vested interest.

http://www.google.co
.uk/search?q=rampion
+wind+farm+view&clie
nt=safari&rls=en&tbm
=isch&imgil=l-bXMYSQ
rltrHM%253A%253Bhttp
%253A%252F%252Ft3.gs
tatic.com%252Fimages
%253Fq%253Dtbn%253AA
Nd9GcRDj-OXgxyvmS2wZ
42yNcI0b7KnPQEHPK3eg
HpSk-MIkWCDa0EUKg%25
3B464%253B261%253Bls
-OjONi3qokiM%253Bhtt
p%25253A%25252F%2525
2Fwww.bbc.co.uk%2525
2Fnews%25252Fuk-engl
and-sussex-24741637&
source=iu&usg=__PPmS
GfYyW_DtSvZNGz-MGDbF
NqU%3D&sa=X&ei=eWnGU
8HaLeSe7AbdvYCACQ&ve
d=0CDUQ9QEwBA&biw=12
70&bih=592#facrc=_&i
mgdii=_&imgrc=l-bXMY
SQrltrHM%253A%3Bls-O
jONi3qokiM%3Bhttp%25
3A%252F%252Fnews.bbc
img.co.uk%252Fmedia%
252Fimages%252F65106
000%252Fjpg%252F_651
06658_rgb.jpg%3Bhttp
%253A%252F%252Fwww.b
bc.co.uk%252Fnews%25
2Fuk-england-sussex-
24741637%3B464%3B261
Tourism and the sea view is Brighton's biggest asset and now it will be like looking out on the North Sea wind farms. I bet it looks worst than this as these images were supplied by EON who lets face it had a vested interest. http://www.google.co .uk/search?q=rampion +wind+farm+view&clie nt=safari&rls=en&tbm =isch&imgil=l-bXMYSQ rltrHM%253A%253Bhttp %253A%252F%252Ft3.gs tatic.com%252Fimages %253Fq%253Dtbn%253AA Nd9GcRDj-OXgxyvmS2wZ 42yNcI0b7KnPQEHPK3eg HpSk-MIkWCDa0EUKg%25 3B464%253B261%253Bls -OjONi3qokiM%253Bhtt p%25253A%25252F%2525 2Fwww.bbc.co.uk%2525 2Fnews%25252Fuk-engl and-sussex-24741637& source=iu&usg=__PPmS GfYyW_DtSvZNGz-MGDbF NqU%3D&sa=X&ei=eWnGU 8HaLeSe7AbdvYCACQ&ve d=0CDUQ9QEwBA&biw=12 70&bih=592#facrc=_&i mgdii=_&imgrc=l-bXMY SQrltrHM%253A%3Bls-O jONi3qokiM%3Bhttp%25 3A%252F%252Fnews.bbc img.co.uk%252Fmedia% 252Fimages%252F65106 000%252Fjpg%252F_651 06658_rgb.jpg%3Bhttp %253A%252F%252Fwww.b bc.co.uk%252Fnews%25 2Fuk-england-sussex- 24741637%3B464%3B261 Kate234
  • Score: 0

1:37pm Wed 16 Jul 14

s_james says...

Kate234 wrote:
What a shame. Brighton had a wonderful relaxing sea view and we have sold our biggest asset to a utility company for free. Do any green councillors MPs get consultancy money from EON?
The decision was nothing to do with Brighton & Hove Council as the development isn't with the Council's area. It was made by Eric Pickles on the recommendation of the Planning Inspectorate.

I support it.
[quote][p][bold]Kate234[/bold] wrote: What a shame. Brighton had a wonderful relaxing sea view and we have sold our biggest asset to a utility company for free. Do any green councillors MPs get consultancy money from EON?[/p][/quote]The decision was nothing to do with Brighton & Hove Council as the development isn't with the Council's area. It was made by Eric Pickles on the recommendation of the Planning Inspectorate. I support it. s_james
  • Score: 1

1:37pm Wed 16 Jul 14

Up the Dyke says...

Potentially far more jobs could be lost in tourism than the 75 (not 750) gained if the wind farm spoils the view.
Potentially far more jobs could be lost in tourism than the 75 (not 750) gained if the wind farm spoils the view. Up the Dyke
  • Score: 7

1:41pm Wed 16 Jul 14

Bob_The_Ferret says...

argchat wrote:
stevo!! wrote:
"The farm, which will be 13km off the Sussex coast, is expected to support 750 jobs and bring around £2 billion of investment to the UK’s economy. "

Whose jobs, exactly? People born in Sussex or Germany and Asia?

Where are those people going to live? Are they to commute from France?

" bring around £2 billion of investment to the UK’s economy. "

A meaningless phrase, especially if it includes the huge subsidies that we the people of Britain will be paying both for its construction and maintenance and the higher costs of any electricity produced.
Your right to ask these questions. What I really want to know is how many jobs are going to being created in this country through the manufacture of these turbines, and if they are not being manufactured here, why not? Is this another missed opportunity.
From the point of view of the energy consumer paying for the electricity, and the taxpayer subsidising it, these jobs are a cost, not a benefit.
[quote][p][bold]argchat[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]stevo!![/bold] wrote: "The farm, which will be 13km off the Sussex coast, is expected to support 750 jobs and bring around £2 billion of investment to the UK’s economy. " Whose jobs, exactly? People born in Sussex or Germany and Asia? Where are those people going to live? Are they to commute from France? " bring around £2 billion of investment to the UK’s economy. " A meaningless phrase, especially if it includes the huge subsidies that we the people of Britain will be paying both for its construction and maintenance and the higher costs of any electricity produced.[/p][/quote]Your right to ask these questions. What I really want to know is how many jobs are going to being created in this country through the manufacture of these turbines, and if they are not being manufactured here, why not? Is this another missed opportunity.[/p][/quote]From the point of view of the energy consumer paying for the electricity, and the taxpayer subsidising it, these jobs are a cost, not a benefit. Bob_The_Ferret
  • Score: 8

1:43pm Wed 16 Jul 14

Fight_Back says...

Kate234 wrote:
What a shame. Brighton had a wonderful relaxing sea view and we have sold our biggest asset to a utility company for free. Do any green councillors MPs get consultancy money from EON?
I doubt you'll be able to see them 13km off shore. Even if you can, I spend plenty of time in France and they have loads of them and IMO they look majestic and do not ruin the view.
[quote][p][bold]Kate234[/bold] wrote: What a shame. Brighton had a wonderful relaxing sea view and we have sold our biggest asset to a utility company for free. Do any green councillors MPs get consultancy money from EON?[/p][/quote]I doubt you'll be able to see them 13km off shore. Even if you can, I spend plenty of time in France and they have loads of them and IMO they look majestic and do not ruin the view. Fight_Back
  • Score: 7

1:49pm Wed 16 Jul 14

Kate234 says...

Fight_Back wrote:
Kate234 wrote:
What a shame. Brighton had a wonderful relaxing sea view and we have sold our biggest asset to a utility company for free. Do any green councillors MPs get consultancy money from EON?
I doubt you'll be able to see them 13km off shore. Even if you can, I spend plenty of time in France and they have loads of them and IMO they look majestic and do not ruin the view.
You may think that but most people think they look sinister. Some people perhaps you also like majestic electricity pylons. Most people hate them.
[quote][p][bold]Fight_Back[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Kate234[/bold] wrote: What a shame. Brighton had a wonderful relaxing sea view and we have sold our biggest asset to a utility company for free. Do any green councillors MPs get consultancy money from EON?[/p][/quote]I doubt you'll be able to see them 13km off shore. Even if you can, I spend plenty of time in France and they have loads of them and IMO they look majestic and do not ruin the view.[/p][/quote]You may think that but most people think they look sinister. Some people perhaps you also like majestic electricity pylons. Most people hate them. Kate234
  • Score: -3

1:51pm Wed 16 Jul 14

Jimmy Stewart's Imaginary Rabbit says...

Regardless of the jobs this IS good news. Until we can build Thorium reactors we need all the energy-generation schemes we can get, especially those that don't consume fossil fuels.

Now just wait; a so-called 'environmentalist' will criticise it saying it'll kill all the seagulls or something. The fact they'll have used electricity to register their protest will pass them by,
Regardless of the jobs this IS good news. Until we can build Thorium reactors we need all the energy-generation schemes we can get, especially those that don't consume fossil fuels. Now just wait; a so-called 'environmentalist' will criticise it saying it'll kill all the seagulls or something. The fact they'll have used electricity to register their protest will pass them by, Jimmy Stewart's Imaginary Rabbit
  • Score: 2

1:56pm Wed 16 Jul 14

Kate234 says...

Kate234 wrote:
Fight_Back wrote:
Kate234 wrote:
What a shame. Brighton had a wonderful relaxing sea view and we have sold our biggest asset to a utility company for free. Do any green councillors MPs get consultancy money from EON?
I doubt you'll be able to see them 13km off shore. Even if you can, I spend plenty of time in France and they have loads of them and IMO they look majestic and do not ruin the view.
You may think that but most people think they look sinister. Some people perhaps you also like majestic electricity pylons. Most people hate them.
I also think if EON are saying you will see them off shore then they will be painting the best picture ever. So did the Green Party or their members get any consultancy money from EON / Rampion I wonder?
[quote][p][bold]Kate234[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Fight_Back[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Kate234[/bold] wrote: What a shame. Brighton had a wonderful relaxing sea view and we have sold our biggest asset to a utility company for free. Do any green councillors MPs get consultancy money from EON?[/p][/quote]I doubt you'll be able to see them 13km off shore. Even if you can, I spend plenty of time in France and they have loads of them and IMO they look majestic and do not ruin the view.[/p][/quote]You may think that but most people think they look sinister. Some people perhaps you also like majestic electricity pylons. Most people hate them.[/p][/quote]I also think if EON are saying you will see them off shore then they will be painting the best picture ever. So did the Green Party or their members get any consultancy money from EON / Rampion I wonder? Kate234
  • Score: 2

1:57pm Wed 16 Jul 14

Jimmy Stewart's Imaginary Rabbit says...

Kate234 wrote:
Fight_Back wrote:
Kate234 wrote:
What a shame. Brighton had a wonderful relaxing sea view and we have sold our biggest asset to a utility company for free. Do any green councillors MPs get consultancy money from EON?
I doubt you'll be able to see them 13km off shore. Even if you can, I spend plenty of time in France and they have loads of them and IMO they look majestic and do not ruin the view.
You may think that but most people think they look sinister. Some people perhaps you also like majestic electricity pylons. Most people hate them.
Sorry, another one in the 'utterly majestic' camp here! It is down to personal preference though and if you don't like them then fair enough. However I'm sure the Jack and Jill and Rottingdean windmills were denounced as hideous blots on the landscape in their time too; ditto places like Brighton station and other examples of Victorian industrial infrastructure that people want to preserve now.

You wait, when these windmills reach the end of their natiral lives I bet your (great)grandchildren will be leading the campaign to save them from demolition!
[quote][p][bold]Kate234[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Fight_Back[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Kate234[/bold] wrote: What a shame. Brighton had a wonderful relaxing sea view and we have sold our biggest asset to a utility company for free. Do any green councillors MPs get consultancy money from EON?[/p][/quote]I doubt you'll be able to see them 13km off shore. Even if you can, I spend plenty of time in France and they have loads of them and IMO they look majestic and do not ruin the view.[/p][/quote]You may think that but most people think they look sinister. Some people perhaps you also like majestic electricity pylons. Most people hate them.[/p][/quote]Sorry, another one in the 'utterly majestic' camp here! It is down to personal preference though and if you don't like them then fair enough. However I'm sure the Jack and Jill and Rottingdean windmills were denounced as hideous blots on the landscape in their time too; ditto places like Brighton station and other examples of Victorian industrial infrastructure that people want to preserve now. You wait, when these windmills reach the end of their natiral lives I bet your (great)grandchildren will be leading the campaign to save them from demolition! Jimmy Stewart's Imaginary Rabbit
  • Score: 5

1:59pm Wed 16 Jul 14

Morpheus says...

The sting in the tail - last words are "apply for subsidies". We will be paying for this through extra taxes and E.On will add to their profits. This will not provide secure energy or lower cost energy.
The sting in the tail - last words are "apply for subsidies". We will be paying for this through extra taxes and E.On will add to their profits. This will not provide secure energy or lower cost energy. Morpheus
  • Score: 3

2:07pm Wed 16 Jul 14

Fight_Back says...

Kate234 wrote:
Fight_Back wrote:
Kate234 wrote:
What a shame. Brighton had a wonderful relaxing sea view and we have sold our biggest asset to a utility company for free. Do any green councillors MPs get consultancy money from EON?
I doubt you'll be able to see them 13km off shore. Even if you can, I spend plenty of time in France and they have loads of them and IMO they look majestic and do not ruin the view.
You may think that but most people think they look sinister. Some people perhaps you also like majestic electricity pylons. Most people hate them.
Seems a tad arrogant to speak for so many people. You have proof that "most people think they look sinister" I assume ? Obviously, if YOU think they look sinister then that's fine, that is YOUR opinion.
[quote][p][bold]Kate234[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Fight_Back[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Kate234[/bold] wrote: What a shame. Brighton had a wonderful relaxing sea view and we have sold our biggest asset to a utility company for free. Do any green councillors MPs get consultancy money from EON?[/p][/quote]I doubt you'll be able to see them 13km off shore. Even if you can, I spend plenty of time in France and they have loads of them and IMO they look majestic and do not ruin the view.[/p][/quote]You may think that but most people think they look sinister. Some people perhaps you also like majestic electricity pylons. Most people hate them.[/p][/quote]Seems a tad arrogant to speak for so many people. You have proof that "most people think they look sinister" I assume ? Obviously, if YOU think they look sinister then that's fine, that is YOUR opinion. Fight_Back
  • Score: -2

2:08pm Wed 16 Jul 14

rolivan says...

Coal a thilthy product in more ways than one, Gas being produced in Russia and they are holding us to ransom over prices,Nuclear look no further than Russia and Japan to see the disastrous consequences. Wind Solar and Wave Power is the way forward.
Coal a thilthy product in more ways than one, Gas being produced in Russia and they are holding us to ransom over prices,Nuclear look no further than Russia and Japan to see the disastrous consequences. Wind Solar and Wave Power is the way forward. rolivan
  • Score: 7

2:13pm Wed 16 Jul 14

Nikski says...

So, we have approval for a project that will provide energy for 450,000 homes and create 750 jobs, yet still the negative merchants and naysayers are quickly on here talking it down....amazing! We are going to have a serious energy supply crisis in this country and climate change has been conclusively proved to be happening, but wind farms and green energy are really BAD apparently. What's your alternative, fracking? Of course, what a brilliant idea that is; all that lovely methane being released into the atmosphere and contaminated water, not to mention increased traffic levels and destruction of the countryside. Oh yes please bring it on!
So, we have approval for a project that will provide energy for 450,000 homes and create 750 jobs, yet still the negative merchants and naysayers are quickly on here talking it down....amazing! We are going to have a serious energy supply crisis in this country and climate change has been conclusively proved to be happening, but wind farms and green energy are really BAD apparently. What's your alternative, fracking? Of course, what a brilliant idea that is; all that lovely methane being released into the atmosphere and contaminated water, not to mention increased traffic levels and destruction of the countryside. Oh yes please bring it on! Nikski
  • Score: 3

2:19pm Wed 16 Jul 14

Kate234 says...

Fight_Back wrote:
Kate234 wrote:
Fight_Back wrote:
Kate234 wrote:
What a shame. Brighton had a wonderful relaxing sea view and we have sold our biggest asset to a utility company for free. Do any green councillors MPs get consultancy money from EON?
I doubt you'll be able to see them 13km off shore. Even if you can, I spend plenty of time in France and they have loads of them and IMO they look majestic and do not ruin the view.
You may think that but most people think they look sinister. Some people perhaps you also like majestic electricity pylons. Most people hate them.
Seems a tad arrogant to speak for so many people. You have proof that "most people think they look sinister" I assume ? Obviously, if YOU think they look sinister then that's fine, that is YOUR opinion.
Well known fact. People don't want them on land (unlike Dutch windmills). I ma sure on or two people like them but most people think they look like industrial monstrosities and they also kill birds in large numbers.
[quote][p][bold]Fight_Back[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Kate234[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Fight_Back[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Kate234[/bold] wrote: What a shame. Brighton had a wonderful relaxing sea view and we have sold our biggest asset to a utility company for free. Do any green councillors MPs get consultancy money from EON?[/p][/quote]I doubt you'll be able to see them 13km off shore. Even if you can, I spend plenty of time in France and they have loads of them and IMO they look majestic and do not ruin the view.[/p][/quote]You may think that but most people think they look sinister. Some people perhaps you also like majestic electricity pylons. Most people hate them.[/p][/quote]Seems a tad arrogant to speak for so many people. You have proof that "most people think they look sinister" I assume ? Obviously, if YOU think they look sinister then that's fine, that is YOUR opinion.[/p][/quote]Well known fact. People don't want them on land (unlike Dutch windmills). I ma sure on or two people like them but most people think they look like industrial monstrosities and they also kill birds in large numbers. Kate234
  • Score: -1

2:29pm Wed 16 Jul 14

s_james says...

Kate234 wrote:
Fight_Back wrote:
Kate234 wrote:
Fight_Back wrote:
Kate234 wrote:
What a shame. Brighton had a wonderful relaxing sea view and we have sold our biggest asset to a utility company for free. Do any green councillors MPs get consultancy money from EON?
I doubt you'll be able to see them 13km off shore. Even if you can, I spend plenty of time in France and they have loads of them and IMO they look majestic and do not ruin the view.
You may think that but most people think they look sinister. Some people perhaps you also like majestic electricity pylons. Most people hate them.
Seems a tad arrogant to speak for so many people. You have proof that "most people think they look sinister" I assume ? Obviously, if YOU think they look sinister then that's fine, that is YOUR opinion.
Well known fact. People don't want them on land (unlike Dutch windmills). I ma sure on or two people like them but most people think they look like industrial monstrosities and they also kill birds in large numbers.
Nonsense
[quote][p][bold]Kate234[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Fight_Back[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Kate234[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Fight_Back[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Kate234[/bold] wrote: What a shame. Brighton had a wonderful relaxing sea view and we have sold our biggest asset to a utility company for free. Do any green councillors MPs get consultancy money from EON?[/p][/quote]I doubt you'll be able to see them 13km off shore. Even if you can, I spend plenty of time in France and they have loads of them and IMO they look majestic and do not ruin the view.[/p][/quote]You may think that but most people think they look sinister. Some people perhaps you also like majestic electricity pylons. Most people hate them.[/p][/quote]Seems a tad arrogant to speak for so many people. You have proof that "most people think they look sinister" I assume ? Obviously, if YOU think they look sinister then that's fine, that is YOUR opinion.[/p][/quote]Well known fact. People don't want them on land (unlike Dutch windmills). I ma sure on or two people like them but most people think they look like industrial monstrosities and they also kill birds in large numbers.[/p][/quote]Nonsense s_james
  • Score: -1

2:30pm Wed 16 Jul 14

Saltdean Resident says...

Kate234 wrote:
Fight_Back wrote:
Kate234 wrote:
Fight_Back wrote:
Kate234 wrote:
What a shame. Brighton had a wonderful relaxing sea view and we have sold our biggest asset to a utility company for free. Do any green councillors MPs get consultancy money from EON?
I doubt you'll be able to see them 13km off shore. Even if you can, I spend plenty of time in France and they have loads of them and IMO they look majestic and do not ruin the view.
You may think that but most people think they look sinister. Some people perhaps you also like majestic electricity pylons. Most people hate them.
Seems a tad arrogant to speak for so many people. You have proof that "most people think they look sinister" I assume ? Obviously, if YOU think they look sinister then that's fine, that is YOUR opinion.
Well known fact. People don't want them on land (unlike Dutch windmills). I ma sure on or two people like them but most people think they look like industrial monstrosities and they also kill birds in large numbers.
These will be about 7 miles off shore not 700 meters, you will see them yes, but they wont be looming over us by any stretch of the imagination.
[quote][p][bold]Kate234[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Fight_Back[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Kate234[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Fight_Back[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Kate234[/bold] wrote: What a shame. Brighton had a wonderful relaxing sea view and we have sold our biggest asset to a utility company for free. Do any green councillors MPs get consultancy money from EON?[/p][/quote]I doubt you'll be able to see them 13km off shore. Even if you can, I spend plenty of time in France and they have loads of them and IMO they look majestic and do not ruin the view.[/p][/quote]You may think that but most people think they look sinister. Some people perhaps you also like majestic electricity pylons. Most people hate them.[/p][/quote]Seems a tad arrogant to speak for so many people. You have proof that "most people think they look sinister" I assume ? Obviously, if YOU think they look sinister then that's fine, that is YOUR opinion.[/p][/quote]Well known fact. People don't want them on land (unlike Dutch windmills). I ma sure on or two people like them but most people think they look like industrial monstrosities and they also kill birds in large numbers.[/p][/quote]These will be about 7 miles off shore not 700 meters, you will see them yes, but they wont be looming over us by any stretch of the imagination. Saltdean Resident
  • Score: 1

3:15pm Wed 16 Jul 14

Nikski says...

Kate234 wrote:
Fight_Back wrote:
Kate234 wrote:
Fight_Back wrote:
Kate234 wrote:
What a shame. Brighton had a wonderful relaxing sea view and we have sold our biggest asset to a utility company for free. Do any green councillors MPs get consultancy money from EON?
I doubt you'll be able to see them 13km off shore. Even if you can, I spend plenty of time in France and they have loads of them and IMO they look majestic and do not ruin the view.
You may think that but most people think they look sinister. Some people perhaps you also like majestic electricity pylons. Most people hate them.
Seems a tad arrogant to speak for so many people. You have proof that "most people think they look sinister" I assume ? Obviously, if YOU think they look sinister then that's fine, that is YOUR opinion.
Well known fact. People don't want them on land (unlike Dutch windmills). I ma sure on or two people like them but most people think they look like industrial monstrosities and they also kill birds in large numbers.
These won't be on land they'll be 13kms out to sea, so what is your point exavctly? I'm intrigued to find out how you know what 'most peole' think of them......please tell! Are you a divine being?
[quote][p][bold]Kate234[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Fight_Back[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Kate234[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Fight_Back[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Kate234[/bold] wrote: What a shame. Brighton had a wonderful relaxing sea view and we have sold our biggest asset to a utility company for free. Do any green councillors MPs get consultancy money from EON?[/p][/quote]I doubt you'll be able to see them 13km off shore. Even if you can, I spend plenty of time in France and they have loads of them and IMO they look majestic and do not ruin the view.[/p][/quote]You may think that but most people think they look sinister. Some people perhaps you also like majestic electricity pylons. Most people hate them.[/p][/quote]Seems a tad arrogant to speak for so many people. You have proof that "most people think they look sinister" I assume ? Obviously, if YOU think they look sinister then that's fine, that is YOUR opinion.[/p][/quote]Well known fact. People don't want them on land (unlike Dutch windmills). I ma sure on or two people like them but most people think they look like industrial monstrosities and they also kill birds in large numbers.[/p][/quote]These won't be on land they'll be 13kms out to sea, so what is your point exavctly? I'm intrigued to find out how you know what 'most peole' think of them......please tell! Are you a divine being? Nikski
  • Score: 0

3:15pm Wed 16 Jul 14

Maxwell's Ghost says...

I would imagine the work will go to tender to those companies with the ability to carry out the work.
Whether they choose to employ British people will be a different matter and will also depend on whether British people have the skills to apply for the jobs.
I would imagine the work will go to tender to those companies with the ability to carry out the work. Whether they choose to employ British people will be a different matter and will also depend on whether British people have the skills to apply for the jobs. Maxwell's Ghost
  • Score: 4

3:40pm Wed 16 Jul 14

Made In Sussex says...

Obviously those complaining about the visual impact all have computers and phone chargers are all completely self sufficient for their own supply of electricity to power them. Didnt think so, the same old hypocracy!
Obviously those complaining about the visual impact all have computers and phone chargers are all completely self sufficient for their own supply of electricity to power them. Didnt think so, the same old hypocracy! Made In Sussex
  • Score: 2

3:46pm Wed 16 Jul 14

Mrbrightside1 says...

Kate234 wrote:
Fight_Back wrote:
Kate234 wrote:
Fight_Back wrote:
Kate234 wrote:
What a shame. Brighton had a wonderful relaxing sea view and we have sold our biggest asset to a utility company for free. Do any green councillors MPs get consultancy money from EON?
I doubt you'll be able to see them 13km off shore. Even if you can, I spend plenty of time in France and they have loads of them and IMO they look majestic and do not ruin the view.
You may think that but most people think they look sinister. Some people perhaps you also like majestic electricity pylons. Most people hate them.
Seems a tad arrogant to speak for so many people. You have proof that "most people think they look sinister" I assume ? Obviously, if YOU think they look sinister then that's fine, that is YOUR opinion.
Well known fact. People don't want them on land (unlike Dutch windmills). I ma sure on or two people like them but most people think they look like industrial monstrosities and they also kill birds in large numbers.
haha, whats the weather like on planet Kate?
[quote][p][bold]Kate234[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Fight_Back[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Kate234[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Fight_Back[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Kate234[/bold] wrote: What a shame. Brighton had a wonderful relaxing sea view and we have sold our biggest asset to a utility company for free. Do any green councillors MPs get consultancy money from EON?[/p][/quote]I doubt you'll be able to see them 13km off shore. Even if you can, I spend plenty of time in France and they have loads of them and IMO they look majestic and do not ruin the view.[/p][/quote]You may think that but most people think they look sinister. Some people perhaps you also like majestic electricity pylons. Most people hate them.[/p][/quote]Seems a tad arrogant to speak for so many people. You have proof that "most people think they look sinister" I assume ? Obviously, if YOU think they look sinister then that's fine, that is YOUR opinion.[/p][/quote]Well known fact. People don't want them on land (unlike Dutch windmills). I ma sure on or two people like them but most people think they look like industrial monstrosities and they also kill birds in large numbers.[/p][/quote]haha, whats the weather like on planet Kate? Mrbrightside1
  • Score: -1

4:40pm Wed 16 Jul 14

Tommy Flowers says...

I calculate that with a load factor of 35%, it will power on average 52,000 homes, not 450,000 (no idea how that was calculated). So for £2 billion we get a power plant that would have cost £150 million (about 92% less) if it were a conventional plant. Plus we get environmental degradation at sea and on land - the power lines go to Bolney!
No wonder Jason Kitcat loves it.
I calculate that with a load factor of 35%, it will power on average 52,000 homes, not 450,000 (no idea how that was calculated). So for £2 billion we get a power plant that would have cost £150 million (about 92% less) if it were a conventional plant. Plus we get environmental degradation at sea and on land - the power lines go to Bolney! No wonder Jason Kitcat loves it. Tommy Flowers
  • Score: 3

5:01pm Wed 16 Jul 14

Nikski says...

Tommy Flowers wrote:
I calculate that with a load factor of 35%, it will power on average 52,000 homes, not 450,000 (no idea how that was calculated). So for £2 billion we get a power plant that would have cost £150 million (about 92% less) if it were a conventional plant. Plus we get environmental degradation at sea and on land - the power lines go to Bolney!
No wonder Jason Kitcat loves it.
So who's to say your calculation is more accurate Tommy Flowers? Why should we believe you rather than EoN? You could be correct, but equally you could be talking through your hat (or an appropriate part of human anatomy)....as for 'environmental degradation' I suspect it will be far worse if we don't choose green energy and/or continue to rely on fossil fuels and/or fracking! And you couldn't resist having a pop at Jason Kitcat there could you? Yawn
[quote][p][bold]Tommy Flowers[/bold] wrote: I calculate that with a load factor of 35%, it will power on average 52,000 homes, not 450,000 (no idea how that was calculated). So for £2 billion we get a power plant that would have cost £150 million (about 92% less) if it were a conventional plant. Plus we get environmental degradation at sea and on land - the power lines go to Bolney! No wonder Jason Kitcat loves it.[/p][/quote]So who's to say your calculation is more accurate Tommy Flowers? Why should we believe you rather than EoN? You could be correct, but equally you could be talking through your hat (or an appropriate part of human anatomy)....as for 'environmental degradation' I suspect it will be far worse if we don't choose green energy and/or continue to rely on fossil fuels and/or fracking! And you couldn't resist having a pop at Jason Kitcat there could you? Yawn Nikski
  • Score: 1

5:02pm Wed 16 Jul 14

Nikski says...

Mrbrightside1 wrote:
Kate234 wrote:
Fight_Back wrote:
Kate234 wrote:
Fight_Back wrote:
Kate234 wrote:
What a shame. Brighton had a wonderful relaxing sea view and we have sold our biggest asset to a utility company for free. Do any green councillors MPs get consultancy money from EON?
I doubt you'll be able to see them 13km off shore. Even if you can, I spend plenty of time in France and they have loads of them and IMO they look majestic and do not ruin the view.
You may think that but most people think they look sinister. Some people perhaps you also like majestic electricity pylons. Most people hate them.
Seems a tad arrogant to speak for so many people. You have proof that "most people think they look sinister" I assume ? Obviously, if YOU think they look sinister then that's fine, that is YOUR opinion.
Well known fact. People don't want them on land (unlike Dutch windmills). I ma sure on or two people like them but most people think they look like industrial monstrosities and they also kill birds in large numbers.
haha, whats the weather like on planet Kate?
Fairly damp & miserable I should think!
[quote][p][bold]Mrbrightside1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Kate234[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Fight_Back[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Kate234[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Fight_Back[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Kate234[/bold] wrote: What a shame. Brighton had a wonderful relaxing sea view and we have sold our biggest asset to a utility company for free. Do any green councillors MPs get consultancy money from EON?[/p][/quote]I doubt you'll be able to see them 13km off shore. Even if you can, I spend plenty of time in France and they have loads of them and IMO they look majestic and do not ruin the view.[/p][/quote]You may think that but most people think they look sinister. Some people perhaps you also like majestic electricity pylons. Most people hate them.[/p][/quote]Seems a tad arrogant to speak for so many people. You have proof that "most people think they look sinister" I assume ? Obviously, if YOU think they look sinister then that's fine, that is YOUR opinion.[/p][/quote]Well known fact. People don't want them on land (unlike Dutch windmills). I ma sure on or two people like them but most people think they look like industrial monstrosities and they also kill birds in large numbers.[/p][/quote]haha, whats the weather like on planet Kate?[/p][/quote]Fairly damp & miserable I should think! Nikski
  • Score: -1

5:03pm Wed 16 Jul 14

The Hatter says...

This is indeed excellent news! May this be the first of many such projects.

It's a first step towards getting the UK out of the relegation zone of European renewable generation (currently 26th of 28). http://www.independe
nt.co.uk/news/world/
politics/britain-one
-of-the-lowest-produ
cers-of-renewable-en
ergy-in-the-eu-92194
97.html

I know its a first day in the job, but Ed Davey, the minister just makes himself look a prat coming out with the 'We're No One for offshore renewables.' guff.

I seriously do not understand the argument about 'spoiling the view' Really get a grip! Would you prefer a Nuclear Power station by the marina?


As to the
This is indeed excellent news! May this be the first of many such projects. It's a first step towards getting the UK out of the relegation zone of European renewable generation (currently 26th of 28). http://www.independe nt.co.uk/news/world/ politics/britain-one -of-the-lowest-produ cers-of-renewable-en ergy-in-the-eu-92194 97.html I know its a first day in the job, but Ed Davey, the minister just makes himself look a prat coming out with the 'We're No One for offshore renewables.' guff. I seriously do not understand the argument about 'spoiling the view' Really get a grip! Would you prefer a Nuclear Power station by the marina? As to the The Hatter
  • Score: -1

5:14pm Wed 16 Jul 14

Tommy Flowers says...

Nikski wrote:
Tommy Flowers wrote:
I calculate that with a load factor of 35%, it will power on average 52,000 homes, not 450,000 (no idea how that was calculated). So for £2 billion we get a power plant that would have cost £150 million (about 92% less) if it were a conventional plant. Plus we get environmental degradation at sea and on land - the power lines go to Bolney!
No wonder Jason Kitcat loves it.
So who's to say your calculation is more accurate Tommy Flowers? Why should we believe you rather than EoN? You could be correct, but equally you could be talking through your hat (or an appropriate part of human anatomy)....as for 'environmental degradation' I suspect it will be far worse if we don't choose green energy and/or continue to rely on fossil fuels and/or fracking! And you couldn't resist having a pop at Jason Kitcat there could you? Yawn
Do your own calculations, and then we can discuss mine. (I don't think the figure in the article takes load factor into account).
The gratuitous pop at Jason Kitcat is now, I believe, a benefit enjoyed by all Brighton residents, and I didn't want to miss out.
[quote][p][bold]Nikski[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Tommy Flowers[/bold] wrote: I calculate that with a load factor of 35%, it will power on average 52,000 homes, not 450,000 (no idea how that was calculated). So for £2 billion we get a power plant that would have cost £150 million (about 92% less) if it were a conventional plant. Plus we get environmental degradation at sea and on land - the power lines go to Bolney! No wonder Jason Kitcat loves it.[/p][/quote]So who's to say your calculation is more accurate Tommy Flowers? Why should we believe you rather than EoN? You could be correct, but equally you could be talking through your hat (or an appropriate part of human anatomy)....as for 'environmental degradation' I suspect it will be far worse if we don't choose green energy and/or continue to rely on fossil fuels and/or fracking! And you couldn't resist having a pop at Jason Kitcat there could you? Yawn[/p][/quote]Do your own calculations, and then we can discuss mine. (I don't think the figure in the article takes load factor into account). The gratuitous pop at Jason Kitcat is now, I believe, a benefit enjoyed by all Brighton residents, and I didn't want to miss out. Tommy Flowers
  • Score: 1

5:22pm Wed 16 Jul 14

stevo!! says...

Made In Sussex wrote:
Obviously those complaining about the visual impact all have computers and phone chargers are all completely self sufficient for their own supply of electricity to power them. Didnt think so, the same old hypocracy!
At least the power we are using to write these posts is on tap.

Convert to wind power, and this page wouldn't exist.

HTH
[quote][p][bold]Made In Sussex[/bold] wrote: Obviously those complaining about the visual impact all have computers and phone chargers are all completely self sufficient for their own supply of electricity to power them. Didnt think so, the same old hypocracy![/p][/quote]At least the power we are using to write these posts is on tap. Convert to wind power, and this page wouldn't exist. HTH stevo!!
  • Score: 0

5:34pm Wed 16 Jul 14

tom servo says...

Fight_Back wrote:
Kate234 wrote:
What a shame. Brighton had a wonderful relaxing sea view and we have sold our biggest asset to a utility company for free. Do any green councillors MPs get consultancy money from EON?
I doubt you'll be able to see them 13km off shore. Even if you can, I spend plenty of time in France and they have loads of them and IMO they look majestic and do not ruin the view.
You have used the abbreviation for "In My Opinion" and there lies the rub.

Not everyone shares your opinion. I don't like the sight of them and I am far from alone. Some tourists to Brighton will be put off from visiting here because guess what..... they don't all share your opinion either.

Now don't get me wrong..... I'm not saying they are not needed, and I'm not saying I don't agree with the proposals, to be honest I don't know enough about the subject to start pretending I'm the font of all knowledge. However let's not kid ourselves that everyone loves these monstrosities because there are many who don't.
[quote][p][bold]Fight_Back[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Kate234[/bold] wrote: What a shame. Brighton had a wonderful relaxing sea view and we have sold our biggest asset to a utility company for free. Do any green councillors MPs get consultancy money from EON?[/p][/quote]I doubt you'll be able to see them 13km off shore. Even if you can, I spend plenty of time in France and they have loads of them and IMO they look majestic and do not ruin the view.[/p][/quote]You have used the abbreviation for "In My Opinion" and there lies the rub. Not everyone shares your opinion. I don't like the sight of them and I am far from alone. Some tourists to Brighton will be put off from visiting here because guess what..... they don't all share your opinion either. Now don't get me wrong..... I'm not saying they are not needed, and I'm not saying I don't agree with the proposals, to be honest I don't know enough about the subject to start pretending I'm the font of all knowledge. However let's not kid ourselves that everyone loves these monstrosities because there are many who don't. tom servo
  • Score: 7

6:06pm Wed 16 Jul 14

HJarrs says...

Great news. Just a shame this wasn't done 10 years ago.

In addition to the low carbon energy generated, displacing mainly dirty coal, I expect the wind farm to attract tourists to see construction and also boat trips. Rampion will be very visible from B&H.

Sure, there will be a tiny number of fuddy duddies that don't like them, but let's face it, that sort of person would hate to come to B&H anyway.

Technology is moving on apace. As energy storage methods develop wind power will play an ever more important power generating role, though we should own it as a national assert and not a foreign corporation.

If you want to read a strategy of reducing our carbon emissions to net zero while keeping the lights on, then check out the report Zero Carbon Britain. There is good discussion there regarding matching renewables to energy demand.
Great news. Just a shame this wasn't done 10 years ago. In addition to the low carbon energy generated, displacing mainly dirty coal, I expect the wind farm to attract tourists to see construction and also boat trips. Rampion will be very visible from B&H. Sure, there will be a tiny number of fuddy duddies that don't like them, but let's face it, that sort of person would hate to come to B&H anyway. Technology is moving on apace. As energy storage methods develop wind power will play an ever more important power generating role, though we should own it as a national assert and not a foreign corporation. If you want to read a strategy of reducing our carbon emissions to net zero while keeping the lights on, then check out the report Zero Carbon Britain. There is good discussion there regarding matching renewables to energy demand. HJarrs
  • Score: -5

6:43pm Wed 16 Jul 14

Tommy Flowers says...

HJarrs wrote:
Great news. Just a shame this wasn't done 10 years ago.

In addition to the low carbon energy generated, displacing mainly dirty coal, I expect the wind farm to attract tourists to see construction and also boat trips. Rampion will be very visible from B&H.

Sure, there will be a tiny number of fuddy duddies that don't like them, but let's face it, that sort of person would hate to come to B&H anyway.

Technology is moving on apace. As energy storage methods develop wind power will play an ever more important power generating role, though we should own it as a national assert and not a foreign corporation.

If you want to read a strategy of reducing our carbon emissions to net zero while keeping the lights on, then check out the report Zero Carbon Britain. There is good discussion there regarding matching renewables to energy demand.
Boat trips? No one will be allowed anywhere near it! The Thames Array has 24 hour patrols to keep intruders away.
There is no chance of a carbon-free (you mean CO2 free, surely) any time soon, and until an effective storage method is devised (also no immediate prospect) this wind farm will remain, like all the others, a total waste of money.
[quote][p][bold]HJarrs[/bold] wrote: Great news. Just a shame this wasn't done 10 years ago. In addition to the low carbon energy generated, displacing mainly dirty coal, I expect the wind farm to attract tourists to see construction and also boat trips. Rampion will be very visible from B&H. Sure, there will be a tiny number of fuddy duddies that don't like them, but let's face it, that sort of person would hate to come to B&H anyway. Technology is moving on apace. As energy storage methods develop wind power will play an ever more important power generating role, though we should own it as a national assert and not a foreign corporation. If you want to read a strategy of reducing our carbon emissions to net zero while keeping the lights on, then check out the report Zero Carbon Britain. There is good discussion there regarding matching renewables to energy demand.[/p][/quote]Boat trips? No one will be allowed anywhere near it! The Thames Array has 24 hour patrols to keep intruders away. There is no chance of a carbon-free (you mean CO2 free, surely) any time soon, and until an effective storage method is devised (also no immediate prospect) this wind farm will remain, like all the others, a total waste of money. Tommy Flowers
  • Score: 5

6:43pm Wed 16 Jul 14

Tommy Flowers says...

HJarrs wrote:
Great news. Just a shame this wasn't done 10 years ago.

In addition to the low carbon energy generated, displacing mainly dirty coal, I expect the wind farm to attract tourists to see construction and also boat trips. Rampion will be very visible from B&H.

Sure, there will be a tiny number of fuddy duddies that don't like them, but let's face it, that sort of person would hate to come to B&H anyway.

Technology is moving on apace. As energy storage methods develop wind power will play an ever more important power generating role, though we should own it as a national assert and not a foreign corporation.

If you want to read a strategy of reducing our carbon emissions to net zero while keeping the lights on, then check out the report Zero Carbon Britain. There is good discussion there regarding matching renewables to energy demand.
Boat trips? No one will be allowed anywhere near it! The Thames Array has 24 hour patrols to keep intruders away.
There is no chance of a carbon-free (you mean CO2 free, surely) any time soon, and until an effective storage method is devised (also no immediate prospect) this wind farm will remain, like all the others, a total waste of money.
[quote][p][bold]HJarrs[/bold] wrote: Great news. Just a shame this wasn't done 10 years ago. In addition to the low carbon energy generated, displacing mainly dirty coal, I expect the wind farm to attract tourists to see construction and also boat trips. Rampion will be very visible from B&H. Sure, there will be a tiny number of fuddy duddies that don't like them, but let's face it, that sort of person would hate to come to B&H anyway. Technology is moving on apace. As energy storage methods develop wind power will play an ever more important power generating role, though we should own it as a national assert and not a foreign corporation. If you want to read a strategy of reducing our carbon emissions to net zero while keeping the lights on, then check out the report Zero Carbon Britain. There is good discussion there regarding matching renewables to energy demand.[/p][/quote]Boat trips? No one will be allowed anywhere near it! The Thames Array has 24 hour patrols to keep intruders away. There is no chance of a carbon-free (you mean CO2 free, surely) any time soon, and until an effective storage method is devised (also no immediate prospect) this wind farm will remain, like all the others, a total waste of money. Tommy Flowers
  • Score: 1

6:45pm Wed 16 Jul 14

tom servo says...

HJarrs wrote:
Great news. Just a shame this wasn't done 10 years ago.

In addition to the low carbon energy generated, displacing mainly dirty coal, I expect the wind farm to attract tourists to see construction and also boat trips. Rampion will be very visible from B&H.

Sure, there will be a tiny number of fuddy duddies that don't like them, but let's face it, that sort of person would hate to come to B&H anyway.

Technology is moving on apace. As energy storage methods develop wind power will play an ever more important power generating role, though we should own it as a national assert and not a foreign corporation.

If you want to read a strategy of reducing our carbon emissions to net zero while keeping the lights on, then check out the report Zero Carbon Britain. There is good discussion there regarding matching renewables to energy demand.
You really are a dick aren't you. If you think the wind farm is actually going to attract people to the area you are out of your mind.

Boat trips to see the construction.... what an idiot.
[quote][p][bold]HJarrs[/bold] wrote: Great news. Just a shame this wasn't done 10 years ago. In addition to the low carbon energy generated, displacing mainly dirty coal, I expect the wind farm to attract tourists to see construction and also boat trips. Rampion will be very visible from B&H. Sure, there will be a tiny number of fuddy duddies that don't like them, but let's face it, that sort of person would hate to come to B&H anyway. Technology is moving on apace. As energy storage methods develop wind power will play an ever more important power generating role, though we should own it as a national assert and not a foreign corporation. If you want to read a strategy of reducing our carbon emissions to net zero while keeping the lights on, then check out the report Zero Carbon Britain. There is good discussion there regarding matching renewables to energy demand.[/p][/quote]You really are a dick aren't you. If you think the wind farm is actually going to attract people to the area you are out of your mind. Boat trips to see the construction.... what an idiot. tom servo
  • Score: 7

6:51pm Wed 16 Jul 14

Fercri Sakes says...

Tommy Flowers wrote:
I calculate that with a load factor of 35%, it will power on average 52,000 homes, not 450,000 (no idea how that was calculated). So for £2 billion we get a power plant that would have cost £150 million (about 92% less) if it were a conventional plant. Plus we get environmental degradation at sea and on land - the power lines go to Bolney!
No wonder Jason Kitcat loves it.
I'm not sure if you know this but even though most of the wind comes from the Atlantic so we do not have to pay the Lost City of Atlantis billions of pounds each year. Nor do we owe Helios, the Greek God of the Sun, for any solar energy he sends our way.

Unfortunately, fossil fuels costs a bit more to get hold of than wind and sunshine. It's all wrapped up in political wranglings, dodgy wars and the destruction of the environment.

So yes, it's cheaper to build a power station than to build windmills. But it works out much cheaper in the long run to build renewables as the 'fuel' is free.
[quote][p][bold]Tommy Flowers[/bold] wrote: I calculate that with a load factor of 35%, it will power on average 52,000 homes, not 450,000 (no idea how that was calculated). So for £2 billion we get a power plant that would have cost £150 million (about 92% less) if it were a conventional plant. Plus we get environmental degradation at sea and on land - the power lines go to Bolney! No wonder Jason Kitcat loves it.[/p][/quote]I'm not sure if you know this but even though most of the wind comes from the Atlantic so we do not have to pay the Lost City of Atlantis billions of pounds each year. Nor do we owe Helios, the Greek God of the Sun, for any solar energy he sends our way. Unfortunately, fossil fuels costs a bit more to get hold of than wind and sunshine. It's all wrapped up in political wranglings, dodgy wars and the destruction of the environment. So yes, it's cheaper to build a power station than to build windmills. But it works out much cheaper in the long run to build renewables as the 'fuel' is free. Fercri Sakes
  • Score: -1

7:07pm Wed 16 Jul 14

Tommy Flowers says...

Fercri Sakes wrote:
Tommy Flowers wrote:
I calculate that with a load factor of 35%, it will power on average 52,000 homes, not 450,000 (no idea how that was calculated). So for £2 billion we get a power plant that would have cost £150 million (about 92% less) if it were a conventional plant. Plus we get environmental degradation at sea and on land - the power lines go to Bolney!
No wonder Jason Kitcat loves it.
I'm not sure if you know this but even though most of the wind comes from the Atlantic so we do not have to pay the Lost City of Atlantis billions of pounds each year. Nor do we owe Helios, the Greek God of the Sun, for any solar energy he sends our way.

Unfortunately, fossil fuels costs a bit more to get hold of than wind and sunshine. It's all wrapped up in political wranglings, dodgy wars and the destruction of the environment.

So yes, it's cheaper to build a power station than to build windmills. But it works out much cheaper in the long run to build renewables as the 'fuel' is free.
No it doesn't. Wind tubines have a design life of about 20 years, then they have to be replaced (which costs money!)
We don't pay Hades for his oil and gas either, do we? So therefore that's free too!
[quote][p][bold]Fercri Sakes[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Tommy Flowers[/bold] wrote: I calculate that with a load factor of 35%, it will power on average 52,000 homes, not 450,000 (no idea how that was calculated). So for £2 billion we get a power plant that would have cost £150 million (about 92% less) if it were a conventional plant. Plus we get environmental degradation at sea and on land - the power lines go to Bolney! No wonder Jason Kitcat loves it.[/p][/quote]I'm not sure if you know this but even though most of the wind comes from the Atlantic so we do not have to pay the Lost City of Atlantis billions of pounds each year. Nor do we owe Helios, the Greek God of the Sun, for any solar energy he sends our way. Unfortunately, fossil fuels costs a bit more to get hold of than wind and sunshine. It's all wrapped up in political wranglings, dodgy wars and the destruction of the environment. So yes, it's cheaper to build a power station than to build windmills. But it works out much cheaper in the long run to build renewables as the 'fuel' is free.[/p][/quote]No it doesn't. Wind tubines have a design life of about 20 years, then they have to be replaced (which costs money!) We don't pay Hades for his oil and gas either, do we? So therefore that's free too! Tommy Flowers
  • Score: 0

7:09pm Wed 16 Jul 14

Gribbet says...

Tommy Flowers wrote:
Nikski wrote:
Tommy Flowers wrote:
I calculate that with a load factor of 35%, it will power on average 52,000 homes, not 450,000 (no idea how that was calculated). So for £2 billion we get a power plant that would have cost £150 million (about 92% less) if it were a conventional plant. Plus we get environmental degradation at sea and on land - the power lines go to Bolney!
No wonder Jason Kitcat loves it.
So who's to say your calculation is more accurate Tommy Flowers? Why should we believe you rather than EoN? You could be correct, but equally you could be talking through your hat (or an appropriate part of human anatomy)....as for 'environmental degradation' I suspect it will be far worse if we don't choose green energy and/or continue to rely on fossil fuels and/or fracking! And you couldn't resist having a pop at Jason Kitcat there could you? Yawn
Do your own calculations, and then we can discuss mine. (I don't think the figure in the article takes load factor into account).
The gratuitous pop at Jason Kitcat is now, I believe, a benefit enjoyed by all Brighton residents, and I didn't want to miss out.
Have you factored in the long term external costs of your budget power station?

Let me know what you come up with.
[quote][p][bold]Tommy Flowers[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Nikski[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Tommy Flowers[/bold] wrote: I calculate that with a load factor of 35%, it will power on average 52,000 homes, not 450,000 (no idea how that was calculated). So for £2 billion we get a power plant that would have cost £150 million (about 92% less) if it were a conventional plant. Plus we get environmental degradation at sea and on land - the power lines go to Bolney! No wonder Jason Kitcat loves it.[/p][/quote]So who's to say your calculation is more accurate Tommy Flowers? Why should we believe you rather than EoN? You could be correct, but equally you could be talking through your hat (or an appropriate part of human anatomy)....as for 'environmental degradation' I suspect it will be far worse if we don't choose green energy and/or continue to rely on fossil fuels and/or fracking! And you couldn't resist having a pop at Jason Kitcat there could you? Yawn[/p][/quote]Do your own calculations, and then we can discuss mine. (I don't think the figure in the article takes load factor into account). The gratuitous pop at Jason Kitcat is now, I believe, a benefit enjoyed by all Brighton residents, and I didn't want to miss out.[/p][/quote]Have you factored in the long term external costs of your budget power station? Let me know what you come up with. Gribbet
  • Score: 0

7:27pm Wed 16 Jul 14

Tommy Flowers says...

Gribbet wrote:
Tommy Flowers wrote:
Nikski wrote:
Tommy Flowers wrote:
I calculate that with a load factor of 35%, it will power on average 52,000 homes, not 450,000 (no idea how that was calculated). So for £2 billion we get a power plant that would have cost £150 million (about 92% less) if it were a conventional plant. Plus we get environmental degradation at sea and on land - the power lines go to Bolney!
No wonder Jason Kitcat loves it.
So who's to say your calculation is more accurate Tommy Flowers? Why should we believe you rather than EoN? You could be correct, but equally you could be talking through your hat (or an appropriate part of human anatomy)....as for 'environmental degradation' I suspect it will be far worse if we don't choose green energy and/or continue to rely on fossil fuels and/or fracking! And you couldn't resist having a pop at Jason Kitcat there could you? Yawn
Do your own calculations, and then we can discuss mine. (I don't think the figure in the article takes load factor into account).
The gratuitous pop at Jason Kitcat is now, I believe, a benefit enjoyed by all Brighton residents, and I didn't want to miss out.
Have you factored in the long term external costs of your budget power station?

Let me know what you come up with.
Tell you what, you calculate the additional number of families in fuel poverty / excess winter deaths caused by this wind farm, and I'll do it. OK?
[quote][p][bold]Gribbet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Tommy Flowers[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Nikski[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Tommy Flowers[/bold] wrote: I calculate that with a load factor of 35%, it will power on average 52,000 homes, not 450,000 (no idea how that was calculated). So for £2 billion we get a power plant that would have cost £150 million (about 92% less) if it were a conventional plant. Plus we get environmental degradation at sea and on land - the power lines go to Bolney! No wonder Jason Kitcat loves it.[/p][/quote]So who's to say your calculation is more accurate Tommy Flowers? Why should we believe you rather than EoN? You could be correct, but equally you could be talking through your hat (or an appropriate part of human anatomy)....as for 'environmental degradation' I suspect it will be far worse if we don't choose green energy and/or continue to rely on fossil fuels and/or fracking! And you couldn't resist having a pop at Jason Kitcat there could you? Yawn[/p][/quote]Do your own calculations, and then we can discuss mine. (I don't think the figure in the article takes load factor into account). The gratuitous pop at Jason Kitcat is now, I believe, a benefit enjoyed by all Brighton residents, and I didn't want to miss out.[/p][/quote]Have you factored in the long term external costs of your budget power station? Let me know what you come up with.[/p][/quote]Tell you what, you calculate the additional number of families in fuel poverty / excess winter deaths caused by this wind farm, and I'll do it. OK? Tommy Flowers
  • Score: -2

8:14pm Wed 16 Jul 14

Joshiman says...

From beer to uncertainty wrote:
Wind farms are an obsolete inefficient 'green energy' pocket-lining exercise. Decommisioning goes on elsewhere whilst UK politicians carefully cup the balls of utility suppliers as customers continue to get shafted.
Totally agree.Government have conned the naive .They dont work.We will not get any reduction in our bills.The suppliers ,friends in high places make all the money .What do we get richer contractors,naive save the planet enthusiasts and angry residents who can think for themselves.Mr.Pickle
s you have alienated a lot of Tory voters.
[quote][p][bold]From beer to uncertainty[/bold] wrote: Wind farms are an obsolete inefficient 'green energy' pocket-lining exercise. Decommisioning goes on elsewhere whilst UK politicians carefully cup the balls of utility suppliers as customers continue to get shafted.[/p][/quote]Totally agree.Government have conned the naive .They dont work.We will not get any reduction in our bills.The suppliers ,friends in high places make all the money .What do we get richer contractors,naive save the planet enthusiasts and angry residents who can think for themselves.Mr.Pickle s you have alienated a lot of Tory voters. Joshiman
  • Score: 5

8:32pm Wed 16 Jul 14

Nikski says...

Joshiman wrote:
From beer to uncertainty wrote:
Wind farms are an obsolete inefficient 'green energy' pocket-lining exercise. Decommisioning goes on elsewhere whilst UK politicians carefully cup the balls of utility suppliers as customers continue to get shafted.
Totally agree.Government have conned the naive .They dont work.We will not get any reduction in our bills.The suppliers ,friends in high places make all the money .What do we get richer contractors,naive save the planet enthusiasts and angry residents who can think for themselves.Mr.Pickle

s you have alienated a lot of Tory voters.
Who cares? Tory voters are alienated anyway, they are completely disconnected from reality so it's no great loss to society!
[quote][p][bold]Joshiman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]From beer to uncertainty[/bold] wrote: Wind farms are an obsolete inefficient 'green energy' pocket-lining exercise. Decommisioning goes on elsewhere whilst UK politicians carefully cup the balls of utility suppliers as customers continue to get shafted.[/p][/quote]Totally agree.Government have conned the naive .They dont work.We will not get any reduction in our bills.The suppliers ,friends in high places make all the money .What do we get richer contractors,naive save the planet enthusiasts and angry residents who can think for themselves.Mr.Pickle s you have alienated a lot of Tory voters.[/p][/quote]Who cares? Tory voters are alienated anyway, they are completely disconnected from reality so it's no great loss to society! Nikski
  • Score: 1

8:33pm Wed 16 Jul 14

Nikski says...

Tommy Flowers wrote:
Gribbet wrote:
Tommy Flowers wrote:
Nikski wrote:
Tommy Flowers wrote:
I calculate that with a load factor of 35%, it will power on average 52,000 homes, not 450,000 (no idea how that was calculated). So for £2 billion we get a power plant that would have cost £150 million (about 92% less) if it were a conventional plant. Plus we get environmental degradation at sea and on land - the power lines go to Bolney!
No wonder Jason Kitcat loves it.
So who's to say your calculation is more accurate Tommy Flowers? Why should we believe you rather than EoN? You could be correct, but equally you could be talking through your hat (or an appropriate part of human anatomy)....as for 'environmental degradation' I suspect it will be far worse if we don't choose green energy and/or continue to rely on fossil fuels and/or fracking! And you couldn't resist having a pop at Jason Kitcat there could you? Yawn
Do your own calculations, and then we can discuss mine. (I don't think the figure in the article takes load factor into account).
The gratuitous pop at Jason Kitcat is now, I believe, a benefit enjoyed by all Brighton residents, and I didn't want to miss out.
Have you factored in the long term external costs of your budget power station?

Let me know what you come up with.
Tell you what, you calculate the additional number of families in fuel poverty / excess winter deaths caused by this wind farm, and I'll do it. OK?
Now you really are spouting hysterical nonsense
[quote][p][bold]Tommy Flowers[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Gribbet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Tommy Flowers[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Nikski[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Tommy Flowers[/bold] wrote: I calculate that with a load factor of 35%, it will power on average 52,000 homes, not 450,000 (no idea how that was calculated). So for £2 billion we get a power plant that would have cost £150 million (about 92% less) if it were a conventional plant. Plus we get environmental degradation at sea and on land - the power lines go to Bolney! No wonder Jason Kitcat loves it.[/p][/quote]So who's to say your calculation is more accurate Tommy Flowers? Why should we believe you rather than EoN? You could be correct, but equally you could be talking through your hat (or an appropriate part of human anatomy)....as for 'environmental degradation' I suspect it will be far worse if we don't choose green energy and/or continue to rely on fossil fuels and/or fracking! And you couldn't resist having a pop at Jason Kitcat there could you? Yawn[/p][/quote]Do your own calculations, and then we can discuss mine. (I don't think the figure in the article takes load factor into account). The gratuitous pop at Jason Kitcat is now, I believe, a benefit enjoyed by all Brighton residents, and I didn't want to miss out.[/p][/quote]Have you factored in the long term external costs of your budget power station? Let me know what you come up with.[/p][/quote]Tell you what, you calculate the additional number of families in fuel poverty / excess winter deaths caused by this wind farm, and I'll do it. OK?[/p][/quote]Now you really are spouting hysterical nonsense Nikski
  • Score: -2

8:36pm Wed 16 Jul 14

Nikski says...

Tommy Flowers wrote:
Fercri Sakes wrote:
Tommy Flowers wrote:
I calculate that with a load factor of 35%, it will power on average 52,000 homes, not 450,000 (no idea how that was calculated). So for £2 billion we get a power plant that would have cost £150 million (about 92% less) if it were a conventional plant. Plus we get environmental degradation at sea and on land - the power lines go to Bolney!
No wonder Jason Kitcat loves it.
I'm not sure if you know this but even though most of the wind comes from the Atlantic so we do not have to pay the Lost City of Atlantis billions of pounds each year. Nor do we owe Helios, the Greek God of the Sun, for any solar energy he sends our way.

Unfortunately, fossil fuels costs a bit more to get hold of than wind and sunshine. It's all wrapped up in political wranglings, dodgy wars and the destruction of the environment.

So yes, it's cheaper to build a power station than to build windmills. But it works out much cheaper in the long run to build renewables as the 'fuel' is free.
No it doesn't. Wind tubines have a design life of about 20 years, then they have to be replaced (which costs money!)
We don't pay Hades for his oil and gas either, do we? So therefore that's free too!
Yes free apart from the enormous environmental damage...climate change anyone?
Kindergarten level arguments going on here
[quote][p][bold]Tommy Flowers[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Fercri Sakes[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Tommy Flowers[/bold] wrote: I calculate that with a load factor of 35%, it will power on average 52,000 homes, not 450,000 (no idea how that was calculated). So for £2 billion we get a power plant that would have cost £150 million (about 92% less) if it were a conventional plant. Plus we get environmental degradation at sea and on land - the power lines go to Bolney! No wonder Jason Kitcat loves it.[/p][/quote]I'm not sure if you know this but even though most of the wind comes from the Atlantic so we do not have to pay the Lost City of Atlantis billions of pounds each year. Nor do we owe Helios, the Greek God of the Sun, for any solar energy he sends our way. Unfortunately, fossil fuels costs a bit more to get hold of than wind and sunshine. It's all wrapped up in political wranglings, dodgy wars and the destruction of the environment. So yes, it's cheaper to build a power station than to build windmills. But it works out much cheaper in the long run to build renewables as the 'fuel' is free.[/p][/quote]No it doesn't. Wind tubines have a design life of about 20 years, then they have to be replaced (which costs money!) We don't pay Hades for his oil and gas either, do we? So therefore that's free too![/p][/quote]Yes free apart from the enormous environmental damage...climate change anyone? Kindergarten level arguments going on here Nikski
  • Score: 1

8:37pm Wed 16 Jul 14

Nikski says...

tom servo wrote:
HJarrs wrote:
Great news. Just a shame this wasn't done 10 years ago.

In addition to the low carbon energy generated, displacing mainly dirty coal, I expect the wind farm to attract tourists to see construction and also boat trips. Rampion will be very visible from B&H.

Sure, there will be a tiny number of fuddy duddies that don't like them, but let's face it, that sort of person would hate to come to B&H anyway.

Technology is moving on apace. As energy storage methods develop wind power will play an ever more important power generating role, though we should own it as a national assert and not a foreign corporation.

If you want to read a strategy of reducing our carbon emissions to net zero while keeping the lights on, then check out the report Zero Carbon Britain. There is good discussion there regarding matching renewables to energy demand.
You really are a dick aren't you. If you think the wind farm is actually going to attract people to the area you are out of your mind.

Boat trips to see the construction.... what an idiot.
That's an intelligent argument calling someone a dick. Well done bright boy
[quote][p][bold]tom servo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]HJarrs[/bold] wrote: Great news. Just a shame this wasn't done 10 years ago. In addition to the low carbon energy generated, displacing mainly dirty coal, I expect the wind farm to attract tourists to see construction and also boat trips. Rampion will be very visible from B&H. Sure, there will be a tiny number of fuddy duddies that don't like them, but let's face it, that sort of person would hate to come to B&H anyway. Technology is moving on apace. As energy storage methods develop wind power will play an ever more important power generating role, though we should own it as a national assert and not a foreign corporation. If you want to read a strategy of reducing our carbon emissions to net zero while keeping the lights on, then check out the report Zero Carbon Britain. There is good discussion there regarding matching renewables to energy demand.[/p][/quote]You really are a dick aren't you. If you think the wind farm is actually going to attract people to the area you are out of your mind. Boat trips to see the construction.... what an idiot.[/p][/quote]That's an intelligent argument calling someone a dick. Well done bright boy Nikski
  • Score: -3

8:41pm Wed 16 Jul 14

Tommy Flowers says...

Nikski wrote:
Tommy Flowers wrote:
Gribbet wrote:
Tommy Flowers wrote:
Nikski wrote:
Tommy Flowers wrote:
I calculate that with a load factor of 35%, it will power on average 52,000 homes, not 450,000 (no idea how that was calculated). So for £2 billion we get a power plant that would have cost £150 million (about 92% less) if it were a conventional plant. Plus we get environmental degradation at sea and on land - the power lines go to Bolney!
No wonder Jason Kitcat loves it.
So who's to say your calculation is more accurate Tommy Flowers? Why should we believe you rather than EoN? You could be correct, but equally you could be talking through your hat (or an appropriate part of human anatomy)....as for 'environmental degradation' I suspect it will be far worse if we don't choose green energy and/or continue to rely on fossil fuels and/or fracking! And you couldn't resist having a pop at Jason Kitcat there could you? Yawn
Do your own calculations, and then we can discuss mine. (I don't think the figure in the article takes load factor into account).
The gratuitous pop at Jason Kitcat is now, I believe, a benefit enjoyed by all Brighton residents, and I didn't want to miss out.
Have you factored in the long term external costs of your budget power station?

Let me know what you come up with.
Tell you what, you calculate the additional number of families in fuel poverty / excess winter deaths caused by this wind farm, and I'll do it. OK?
Now you really are spouting hysterical nonsense
Errr, right.
Tell me how you know 30ish percent of the population are fully disconnected from reality?
Oh, you can't.
I guess that means you're spouting nonsense too ( I don't know how hysterical you are).
[quote][p][bold]Nikski[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Tommy Flowers[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Gribbet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Tommy Flowers[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Nikski[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Tommy Flowers[/bold] wrote: I calculate that with a load factor of 35%, it will power on average 52,000 homes, not 450,000 (no idea how that was calculated). So for £2 billion we get a power plant that would have cost £150 million (about 92% less) if it were a conventional plant. Plus we get environmental degradation at sea and on land - the power lines go to Bolney! No wonder Jason Kitcat loves it.[/p][/quote]So who's to say your calculation is more accurate Tommy Flowers? Why should we believe you rather than EoN? You could be correct, but equally you could be talking through your hat (or an appropriate part of human anatomy)....as for 'environmental degradation' I suspect it will be far worse if we don't choose green energy and/or continue to rely on fossil fuels and/or fracking! And you couldn't resist having a pop at Jason Kitcat there could you? Yawn[/p][/quote]Do your own calculations, and then we can discuss mine. (I don't think the figure in the article takes load factor into account). The gratuitous pop at Jason Kitcat is now, I believe, a benefit enjoyed by all Brighton residents, and I didn't want to miss out.[/p][/quote]Have you factored in the long term external costs of your budget power station? Let me know what you come up with.[/p][/quote]Tell you what, you calculate the additional number of families in fuel poverty / excess winter deaths caused by this wind farm, and I'll do it. OK?[/p][/quote]Now you really are spouting hysterical nonsense[/p][/quote]Errr, right. Tell me how you know 30ish percent of the population are fully disconnected from reality? Oh, you can't. I guess that means you're spouting nonsense too ( I don't know how hysterical you are). Tommy Flowers
  • Score: 2

8:49pm Wed 16 Jul 14

Tommy Flowers says...

Nikski wrote:
Tommy Flowers wrote:
Fercri Sakes wrote:
Tommy Flowers wrote:
I calculate that with a load factor of 35%, it will power on average 52,000 homes, not 450,000 (no idea how that was calculated). So for £2 billion we get a power plant that would have cost £150 million (about 92% less) if it were a conventional plant. Plus we get environmental degradation at sea and on land - the power lines go to Bolney!
No wonder Jason Kitcat loves it.
I'm not sure if you know this but even though most of the wind comes from the Atlantic so we do not have to pay the Lost City of Atlantis billions of pounds each year. Nor do we owe Helios, the Greek God of the Sun, for any solar energy he sends our way.

Unfortunately, fossil fuels costs a bit more to get hold of than wind and sunshine. It's all wrapped up in political wranglings, dodgy wars and the destruction of the environment.

So yes, it's cheaper to build a power station than to build windmills. But it works out much cheaper in the long run to build renewables as the 'fuel' is free.
No it doesn't. Wind tubines have a design life of about 20 years, then they have to be replaced (which costs money!)
We don't pay Hades for his oil and gas either, do we? So therefore that's free too!
Yes free apart from the enormous environmental damage...climate change anyone?
Kindergarten level arguments going on here
Have you seen how the rare earth metals for turbine generators are mined and processed? Do you know how much concrete is needed for the pads, and how much CO2 is produced in its manufacture? If you did, I suspect you would be a little less glib about 'environmental damage'.
[quote][p][bold]Nikski[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Tommy Flowers[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Fercri Sakes[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Tommy Flowers[/bold] wrote: I calculate that with a load factor of 35%, it will power on average 52,000 homes, not 450,000 (no idea how that was calculated). So for £2 billion we get a power plant that would have cost £150 million (about 92% less) if it were a conventional plant. Plus we get environmental degradation at sea and on land - the power lines go to Bolney! No wonder Jason Kitcat loves it.[/p][/quote]I'm not sure if you know this but even though most of the wind comes from the Atlantic so we do not have to pay the Lost City of Atlantis billions of pounds each year. Nor do we owe Helios, the Greek God of the Sun, for any solar energy he sends our way. Unfortunately, fossil fuels costs a bit more to get hold of than wind and sunshine. It's all wrapped up in political wranglings, dodgy wars and the destruction of the environment. So yes, it's cheaper to build a power station than to build windmills. But it works out much cheaper in the long run to build renewables as the 'fuel' is free.[/p][/quote]No it doesn't. Wind tubines have a design life of about 20 years, then they have to be replaced (which costs money!) We don't pay Hades for his oil and gas either, do we? So therefore that's free too![/p][/quote]Yes free apart from the enormous environmental damage...climate change anyone? Kindergarten level arguments going on here[/p][/quote]Have you seen how the rare earth metals for turbine generators are mined and processed? Do you know how much concrete is needed for the pads, and how much CO2 is produced in its manufacture? If you did, I suspect you would be a little less glib about 'environmental damage'. Tommy Flowers
  • Score: 4

9:02pm Wed 16 Jul 14

Nikski says...

Tommy Flowers wrote:
Nikski wrote:
Tommy Flowers wrote:
Fercri Sakes wrote:
Tommy Flowers wrote:
I calculate that with a load factor of 35%, it will power on average 52,000 homes, not 450,000 (no idea how that was calculated). So for £2 billion we get a power plant that would have cost £150 million (about 92% less) if it were a conventional plant. Plus we get environmental degradation at sea and on land - the power lines go to Bolney!
No wonder Jason Kitcat loves it.
I'm not sure if you know this but even though most of the wind comes from the Atlantic so we do not have to pay the Lost City of Atlantis billions of pounds each year. Nor do we owe Helios, the Greek God of the Sun, for any solar energy he sends our way.

Unfortunately, fossil fuels costs a bit more to get hold of than wind and sunshine. It's all wrapped up in political wranglings, dodgy wars and the destruction of the environment.

So yes, it's cheaper to build a power station than to build windmills. But it works out much cheaper in the long run to build renewables as the 'fuel' is free.
No it doesn't. Wind tubines have a design life of about 20 years, then they have to be replaced (which costs money!)
We don't pay Hades for his oil and gas either, do we? So therefore that's free too!
Yes free apart from the enormous environmental damage...climate change anyone?
Kindergarten level arguments going on here
Have you seen how the rare earth metals for turbine generators are mined and processed? Do you know how much concrete is needed for the pads, and how much CO2 is produced in its manufacture? If you did, I suspect you would be a little less glib about 'environmental damage'.
Well they are hardly going to be able to construct them from recycled plastic coffee cups are they? Any form of energy production is going to have some environmental cost to begin with, but the long-term benefits are significantly higher. No I'm afraid you and your rabid wind farm haters are on the losing side now and had better get used to the idea because there are going to be a lot more of them; wait and see!
I expect one day you will be taking a trip out on a pleasure boat to see them. Enjoy the view.
[quote][p][bold]Tommy Flowers[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Nikski[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Tommy Flowers[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Fercri Sakes[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Tommy Flowers[/bold] wrote: I calculate that with a load factor of 35%, it will power on average 52,000 homes, not 450,000 (no idea how that was calculated). So for £2 billion we get a power plant that would have cost £150 million (about 92% less) if it were a conventional plant. Plus we get environmental degradation at sea and on land - the power lines go to Bolney! No wonder Jason Kitcat loves it.[/p][/quote]I'm not sure if you know this but even though most of the wind comes from the Atlantic so we do not have to pay the Lost City of Atlantis billions of pounds each year. Nor do we owe Helios, the Greek God of the Sun, for any solar energy he sends our way. Unfortunately, fossil fuels costs a bit more to get hold of than wind and sunshine. It's all wrapped up in political wranglings, dodgy wars and the destruction of the environment. So yes, it's cheaper to build a power station than to build windmills. But it works out much cheaper in the long run to build renewables as the 'fuel' is free.[/p][/quote]No it doesn't. Wind tubines have a design life of about 20 years, then they have to be replaced (which costs money!) We don't pay Hades for his oil and gas either, do we? So therefore that's free too![/p][/quote]Yes free apart from the enormous environmental damage...climate change anyone? Kindergarten level arguments going on here[/p][/quote]Have you seen how the rare earth metals for turbine generators are mined and processed? Do you know how much concrete is needed for the pads, and how much CO2 is produced in its manufacture? If you did, I suspect you would be a little less glib about 'environmental damage'.[/p][/quote]Well they are hardly going to be able to construct them from recycled plastic coffee cups are they? Any form of energy production is going to have some environmental cost to begin with, but the long-term benefits are significantly higher. No I'm afraid you and your rabid wind farm haters are on the losing side now and had better get used to the idea because there are going to be a lot more of them; wait and see! I expect one day you will be taking a trip out on a pleasure boat to see them. Enjoy the view. Nikski
  • Score: -2

9:35pm Wed 16 Jul 14

Tommy Flowers says...

Nikski wrote:
Tommy Flowers wrote:
Nikski wrote:
Tommy Flowers wrote:
Fercri Sakes wrote:
Tommy Flowers wrote:
I calculate that with a load factor of 35%, it will power on average 52,000 homes, not 450,000 (no idea how that was calculated). So for £2 billion we get a power plant that would have cost £150 million (about 92% less) if it were a conventional plant. Plus we get environmental degradation at sea and on land - the power lines go to Bolney!
No wonder Jason Kitcat loves it.
I'm not sure if you know this but even though most of the wind comes from the Atlantic so we do not have to pay the Lost City of Atlantis billions of pounds each year. Nor do we owe Helios, the Greek God of the Sun, for any solar energy he sends our way.

Unfortunately, fossil fuels costs a bit more to get hold of than wind and sunshine. It's all wrapped up in political wranglings, dodgy wars and the destruction of the environment.

So yes, it's cheaper to build a power station than to build windmills. But it works out much cheaper in the long run to build renewables as the 'fuel' is free.
No it doesn't. Wind tubines have a design life of about 20 years, then they have to be replaced (which costs money!)
We don't pay Hades for his oil and gas either, do we? So therefore that's free too!
Yes free apart from the enormous environmental damage...climate change anyone?
Kindergarten level arguments going on here
Have you seen how the rare earth metals for turbine generators are mined and processed? Do you know how much concrete is needed for the pads, and how much CO2 is produced in its manufacture? If you did, I suspect you would be a little less glib about 'environmental damage'.
Well they are hardly going to be able to construct them from recycled plastic coffee cups are they? Any form of energy production is going to have some environmental cost to begin with, but the long-term benefits are significantly higher. No I'm afraid you and your rabid wind farm haters are on the losing side now and had better get used to the idea because there are going to be a lot more of them; wait and see!
I expect one day you will be taking a trip out on a pleasure boat to see them. Enjoy the view.
If this wind farm is actually built, I will take no pleasure in gazing out to sea at one of the most ill-judged attempts to solve what is (currently and for at least the next fifty years) a non-problem, that mankind has ever devised. In twenty years, when it is derelict and you are paying your share of the decommissioning costs, I am pretty sure that you will feel the same way too. In the meantime, feel free to enjoy the full benefits of medieval technology applied to contemporary needs.
[quote][p][bold]Nikski[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Tommy Flowers[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Nikski[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Tommy Flowers[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Fercri Sakes[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Tommy Flowers[/bold] wrote: I calculate that with a load factor of 35%, it will power on average 52,000 homes, not 450,000 (no idea how that was calculated). So for £2 billion we get a power plant that would have cost £150 million (about 92% less) if it were a conventional plant. Plus we get environmental degradation at sea and on land - the power lines go to Bolney! No wonder Jason Kitcat loves it.[/p][/quote]I'm not sure if you know this but even though most of the wind comes from the Atlantic so we do not have to pay the Lost City of Atlantis billions of pounds each year. Nor do we owe Helios, the Greek God of the Sun, for any solar energy he sends our way. Unfortunately, fossil fuels costs a bit more to get hold of than wind and sunshine. It's all wrapped up in political wranglings, dodgy wars and the destruction of the environment. So yes, it's cheaper to build a power station than to build windmills. But it works out much cheaper in the long run to build renewables as the 'fuel' is free.[/p][/quote]No it doesn't. Wind tubines have a design life of about 20 years, then they have to be replaced (which costs money!) We don't pay Hades for his oil and gas either, do we? So therefore that's free too![/p][/quote]Yes free apart from the enormous environmental damage...climate change anyone? Kindergarten level arguments going on here[/p][/quote]Have you seen how the rare earth metals for turbine generators are mined and processed? Do you know how much concrete is needed for the pads, and how much CO2 is produced in its manufacture? If you did, I suspect you would be a little less glib about 'environmental damage'.[/p][/quote]Well they are hardly going to be able to construct them from recycled plastic coffee cups are they? Any form of energy production is going to have some environmental cost to begin with, but the long-term benefits are significantly higher. No I'm afraid you and your rabid wind farm haters are on the losing side now and had better get used to the idea because there are going to be a lot more of them; wait and see! I expect one day you will be taking a trip out on a pleasure boat to see them. Enjoy the view.[/p][/quote]If this wind farm is actually built, I will take no pleasure in gazing out to sea at one of the most ill-judged attempts to solve what is (currently and for at least the next fifty years) a non-problem, that mankind has ever devised. In twenty years, when it is derelict and you are paying your share of the decommissioning costs, I am pretty sure that you will feel the same way too. In the meantime, feel free to enjoy the full benefits of medieval technology applied to contemporary needs. Tommy Flowers
  • Score: 1

9:46pm Wed 16 Jul 14

HJarrs says...

Tommy Flowers wrote:
Gribbet wrote:
Tommy Flowers wrote:
Nikski wrote:
Tommy Flowers wrote:
I calculate that with a load factor of 35%, it will power on average 52,000 homes, not 450,000 (no idea how that was calculated). So for £2 billion we get a power plant that would have cost £150 million (about 92% less) if it were a conventional plant. Plus we get environmental degradation at sea and on land - the power lines go to Bolney!
No wonder Jason Kitcat loves it.
So who's to say your calculation is more accurate Tommy Flowers? Why should we believe you rather than EoN? You could be correct, but equally you could be talking through your hat (or an appropriate part of human anatomy)....as for 'environmental degradation' I suspect it will be far worse if we don't choose green energy and/or continue to rely on fossil fuels and/or fracking! And you couldn't resist having a pop at Jason Kitcat there could you? Yawn
Do your own calculations, and then we can discuss mine. (I don't think the figure in the article takes load factor into account).
The gratuitous pop at Jason Kitcat is now, I believe, a benefit enjoyed by all Brighton residents, and I didn't want to miss out.
Have you factored in the long term external costs of your budget power station?

Let me know what you come up with.
Tell you what, you calculate the additional number of families in fuel poverty / excess winter deaths caused by this wind farm, and I'll do it. OK?
If a strategy to reduce our emissions was based only on replacing generating power like for like with renewables, then maybe you would have the makings of an argument, even then we could cross subsidise if we wanted to prevent excess winter deaths, we could do that today but do not. Without renewables, the price of energy is going up if for no other reason than extraction of fossil fuels is costing more and we are signing up to Russian and Chinese funded (possibly built?) nuclear generation with high strike prices guarenteed for 30 years.

The only sensible proposals are to have a massive reduction in demand, part of which will be achieved by insulating the housing stock to a very high standard. The proper insulation of housing will, in itself reduce excess winter deaths.

So what is the cost of climate change then?
[quote][p][bold]Tommy Flowers[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Gribbet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Tommy Flowers[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Nikski[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Tommy Flowers[/bold] wrote: I calculate that with a load factor of 35%, it will power on average 52,000 homes, not 450,000 (no idea how that was calculated). So for £2 billion we get a power plant that would have cost £150 million (about 92% less) if it were a conventional plant. Plus we get environmental degradation at sea and on land - the power lines go to Bolney! No wonder Jason Kitcat loves it.[/p][/quote]So who's to say your calculation is more accurate Tommy Flowers? Why should we believe you rather than EoN? You could be correct, but equally you could be talking through your hat (or an appropriate part of human anatomy)....as for 'environmental degradation' I suspect it will be far worse if we don't choose green energy and/or continue to rely on fossil fuels and/or fracking! And you couldn't resist having a pop at Jason Kitcat there could you? Yawn[/p][/quote]Do your own calculations, and then we can discuss mine. (I don't think the figure in the article takes load factor into account). The gratuitous pop at Jason Kitcat is now, I believe, a benefit enjoyed by all Brighton residents, and I didn't want to miss out.[/p][/quote]Have you factored in the long term external costs of your budget power station? Let me know what you come up with.[/p][/quote]Tell you what, you calculate the additional number of families in fuel poverty / excess winter deaths caused by this wind farm, and I'll do it. OK?[/p][/quote]If a strategy to reduce our emissions was based only on replacing generating power like for like with renewables, then maybe you would have the makings of an argument, even then we could cross subsidise if we wanted to prevent excess winter deaths, we could do that today but do not. Without renewables, the price of energy is going up if for no other reason than extraction of fossil fuels is costing more and we are signing up to Russian and Chinese funded (possibly built?) nuclear generation with high strike prices guarenteed for 30 years. The only sensible proposals are to have a massive reduction in demand, part of which will be achieved by insulating the housing stock to a very high standard. The proper insulation of housing will, in itself reduce excess winter deaths. So what is the cost of climate change then? HJarrs
  • Score: -3

9:49pm Wed 16 Jul 14

FatherTed11 says...

Well this has completely ruined my plans for visiting the i360 every day to gaze out to sea.
Well this has completely ruined my plans for visiting the i360 every day to gaze out to sea. FatherTed11
  • Score: 5

9:50pm Wed 16 Jul 14

HJarrs says...

Tommy Flowers wrote:
Nikski wrote:
Tommy Flowers wrote:
Nikski wrote:
Tommy Flowers wrote:
Fercri Sakes wrote:
Tommy Flowers wrote:
I calculate that with a load factor of 35%, it will power on average 52,000 homes, not 450,000 (no idea how that was calculated). So for £2 billion we get a power plant that would have cost £150 million (about 92% less) if it were a conventional plant. Plus we get environmental degradation at sea and on land - the power lines go to Bolney!
No wonder Jason Kitcat loves it.
I'm not sure if you know this but even though most of the wind comes from the Atlantic so we do not have to pay the Lost City of Atlantis billions of pounds each year. Nor do we owe Helios, the Greek God of the Sun, for any solar energy he sends our way.

Unfortunately, fossil fuels costs a bit more to get hold of than wind and sunshine. It's all wrapped up in political wranglings, dodgy wars and the destruction of the environment.

So yes, it's cheaper to build a power station than to build windmills. But it works out much cheaper in the long run to build renewables as the 'fuel' is free.
No it doesn't. Wind tubines have a design life of about 20 years, then they have to be replaced (which costs money!)
We don't pay Hades for his oil and gas either, do we? So therefore that's free too!
Yes free apart from the enormous environmental damage...climate change anyone?
Kindergarten level arguments going on here
Have you seen how the rare earth metals for turbine generators are mined and processed? Do you know how much concrete is needed for the pads, and how much CO2 is produced in its manufacture? If you did, I suspect you would be a little less glib about 'environmental damage'.
Well they are hardly going to be able to construct them from recycled plastic coffee cups are they? Any form of energy production is going to have some environmental cost to begin with, but the long-term benefits are significantly higher. No I'm afraid you and your rabid wind farm haters are on the losing side now and had better get used to the idea because there are going to be a lot more of them; wait and see!
I expect one day you will be taking a trip out on a pleasure boat to see them. Enjoy the view.
If this wind farm is actually built, I will take no pleasure in gazing out to sea at one of the most ill-judged attempts to solve what is (currently and for at least the next fifty years) a non-problem, that mankind has ever devised. In twenty years, when it is derelict and you are paying your share of the decommissioning costs, I am pretty sure that you will feel the same way too. In the meantime, feel free to enjoy the full benefits of medieval technology applied to contemporary needs.
So we get to the knub of it. Really you are a climate denier.

Even the fossil fuel companies don't think this aany more. Rather they would like to get us to burn fossil fuels and then charge us for collecting, removing and storing the CO2 at vastly more cost than following the renewables route. Good business eh?
[quote][p][bold]Tommy Flowers[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Nikski[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Tommy Flowers[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Nikski[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Tommy Flowers[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Fercri Sakes[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Tommy Flowers[/bold] wrote: I calculate that with a load factor of 35%, it will power on average 52,000 homes, not 450,000 (no idea how that was calculated). So for £2 billion we get a power plant that would have cost £150 million (about 92% less) if it were a conventional plant. Plus we get environmental degradation at sea and on land - the power lines go to Bolney! No wonder Jason Kitcat loves it.[/p][/quote]I'm not sure if you know this but even though most of the wind comes from the Atlantic so we do not have to pay the Lost City of Atlantis billions of pounds each year. Nor do we owe Helios, the Greek God of the Sun, for any solar energy he sends our way. Unfortunately, fossil fuels costs a bit more to get hold of than wind and sunshine. It's all wrapped up in political wranglings, dodgy wars and the destruction of the environment. So yes, it's cheaper to build a power station than to build windmills. But it works out much cheaper in the long run to build renewables as the 'fuel' is free.[/p][/quote]No it doesn't. Wind tubines have a design life of about 20 years, then they have to be replaced (which costs money!) We don't pay Hades for his oil and gas either, do we? So therefore that's free too![/p][/quote]Yes free apart from the enormous environmental damage...climate change anyone? Kindergarten level arguments going on here[/p][/quote]Have you seen how the rare earth metals for turbine generators are mined and processed? Do you know how much concrete is needed for the pads, and how much CO2 is produced in its manufacture? If you did, I suspect you would be a little less glib about 'environmental damage'.[/p][/quote]Well they are hardly going to be able to construct them from recycled plastic coffee cups are they? Any form of energy production is going to have some environmental cost to begin with, but the long-term benefits are significantly higher. No I'm afraid you and your rabid wind farm haters are on the losing side now and had better get used to the idea because there are going to be a lot more of them; wait and see! I expect one day you will be taking a trip out on a pleasure boat to see them. Enjoy the view.[/p][/quote]If this wind farm is actually built, I will take no pleasure in gazing out to sea at one of the most ill-judged attempts to solve what is (currently and for at least the next fifty years) a non-problem, that mankind has ever devised. In twenty years, when it is derelict and you are paying your share of the decommissioning costs, I am pretty sure that you will feel the same way too. In the meantime, feel free to enjoy the full benefits of medieval technology applied to contemporary needs.[/p][/quote]So we get to the knub of it. Really you are a climate denier. Even the fossil fuel companies don't think this aany more. Rather they would like to get us to burn fossil fuels and then charge us for collecting, removing and storing the CO2 at vastly more cost than following the renewables route. Good business eh? HJarrs
  • Score: -2

10:29pm Wed 16 Jul 14

C. French says...

E.On's "Rampion" massive off-shore wind farm, up to 690ft high and as wide as Mid Sussex, should never have been approved:

1. Offshore wind farms are unreliable. E.On boasts of an installed electrical capacity of up to 700 megawatt (MW) from up to 175 turbines. This is the potential output if the wind was blowing at optimum speed all the time.

Currently all the 3,500 turbines sited around the country feed on average just 1,000 MW into the grid – no more than the output of a single, medium-sized conventional power station. Because of this unreliability, conventional power stations will still be needed on permanent standby, thereby negating any alleged CO2 savings.

2. Off-shore wind farms are an extremely expensive way to produce electricity – nine times as much as gas-fired power. E.On would not dream of building this wind farm unless they were guaranteed a huge Government subsidy. This comes in the form of a subsidy scheme, paid for by dramatically increasing our household fuel bills, whereby owners of wind turbines earn an additional £49 for every 'megawatt hour' they produce, and twice that sum for offshore wind turbines.

What other industry gets a public subsidy equivalent to 100 or even 200 per cent of the value of what it produces?

3. Offshore wind farms do not 'save the planet' by cutting our emissions of CO2.

Even if you believe that curbing our use of fossil fuels could change the Earth's climate, the CO2 reduction allegedly achieved by a wind farm over a year, would be cancelled out by a single jumbo jet flying daily between Britain and America, over the same period.

Sources:

The Real Global Warming Disaster – Christopher Booker.
The Rational Optimist – Dr Matt Ridley.

To register your disapproval of this disastrous Government decision, please like my protest facebook page:

https://www.facebook
.com/StopTheRampionO
ffshoreWindfarm/info


and sign my petition:

http://www.gopetitio
n.com/petitions/stop
-the-rampion-off-sho
re-wind-farm.html

Thank you

Chris French
Chairman
UKIP Mid Sussex
E.On's "Rampion" massive off-shore wind farm, up to 690ft high and as wide as Mid Sussex, should never have been approved: 1. Offshore wind farms are unreliable. E.On boasts of an installed electrical capacity of up to 700 megawatt (MW) from up to 175 turbines. This is the potential output if the wind was blowing at optimum speed all the time. Currently all the 3,500 turbines sited around the country feed on average just 1,000 MW into the grid – no more than the output of a single, medium-sized conventional power station. Because of this unreliability, conventional power stations will still be needed on permanent standby, thereby negating any alleged CO2 savings. 2. Off-shore wind farms are an extremely expensive way to produce electricity – nine times as much as gas-fired power. E.On would not dream of building this wind farm unless they were guaranteed a huge Government subsidy. This comes in the form of a subsidy scheme, paid for by dramatically increasing our household fuel bills, whereby owners of wind turbines earn an additional £49 for every 'megawatt hour' they produce, and twice that sum for offshore wind turbines. What other industry gets a public subsidy equivalent to 100 or even 200 per cent of the value of what it produces? 3. Offshore wind farms do not 'save the planet' by cutting our emissions of CO2. Even if you believe that curbing our use of fossil fuels could change the Earth's climate, the CO2 reduction allegedly achieved by a wind farm over a year, would be cancelled out by a single jumbo jet flying daily between Britain and America, over the same period. Sources: The Real Global Warming Disaster – Christopher Booker. The Rational Optimist – Dr Matt Ridley. To register your disapproval of this disastrous Government decision, please like my protest facebook page: https://www.facebook .com/StopTheRampionO ffshoreWindfarm/info and sign my petition: http://www.gopetitio n.com/petitions/stop -the-rampion-off-sho re-wind-farm.html Thank you Chris French Chairman UKIP Mid Sussex C. French
  • Score: 1

10:35pm Wed 16 Jul 14

FatherTed11 says...

This is going to look so ugly. Have you seen what it is going to do to the sea view?
This is going to look so ugly. Have you seen what it is going to do to the sea view? FatherTed11
  • Score: 6

10:45pm Wed 16 Jul 14

Tommy Flowers says...

HJarrs wrote:
Tommy Flowers wrote:
Gribbet wrote:
Tommy Flowers wrote:
Nikski wrote:
Tommy Flowers wrote:
I calculate that with a load factor of 35%, it will power on average 52,000 homes, not 450,000 (no idea how that was calculated). So for £2 billion we get a power plant that would have cost £150 million (about 92% less) if it were a conventional plant. Plus we get environmental degradation at sea and on land - the power lines go to Bolney!
No wonder Jason Kitcat loves it.
So who's to say your calculation is more accurate Tommy Flowers? Why should we believe you rather than EoN? You could be correct, but equally you could be talking through your hat (or an appropriate part of human anatomy)....as for 'environmental degradation' I suspect it will be far worse if we don't choose green energy and/or continue to rely on fossil fuels and/or fracking! And you couldn't resist having a pop at Jason Kitcat there could you? Yawn
Do your own calculations, and then we can discuss mine. (I don't think the figure in the article takes load factor into account).
The gratuitous pop at Jason Kitcat is now, I believe, a benefit enjoyed by all Brighton residents, and I didn't want to miss out.
Have you factored in the long term external costs of your budget power station?

Let me know what you come up with.
Tell you what, you calculate the additional number of families in fuel poverty / excess winter deaths caused by this wind farm, and I'll do it. OK?
If a strategy to reduce our emissions was based only on replacing generating power like for like with renewables, then maybe you would have the makings of an argument, even then we could cross subsidise if we wanted to prevent excess winter deaths, we could do that today but do not. Without renewables, the price of energy is going up if for no other reason than extraction of fossil fuels is costing more and we are signing up to Russian and Chinese funded (possibly built?) nuclear generation with high strike prices guarenteed for 30 years.

The only sensible proposals are to have a massive reduction in demand, part of which will be achieved by insulating the housing stock to a very high standard. The proper insulation of housing will, in itself reduce excess winter deaths.

So what is the cost of climate change then?
At the moment, £0, assuming you mean anthropogenic climate change.
[quote][p][bold]HJarrs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Tommy Flowers[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Gribbet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Tommy Flowers[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Nikski[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Tommy Flowers[/bold] wrote: I calculate that with a load factor of 35%, it will power on average 52,000 homes, not 450,000 (no idea how that was calculated). So for £2 billion we get a power plant that would have cost £150 million (about 92% less) if it were a conventional plant. Plus we get environmental degradation at sea and on land - the power lines go to Bolney! No wonder Jason Kitcat loves it.[/p][/quote]So who's to say your calculation is more accurate Tommy Flowers? Why should we believe you rather than EoN? You could be correct, but equally you could be talking through your hat (or an appropriate part of human anatomy)....as for 'environmental degradation' I suspect it will be far worse if we don't choose green energy and/or continue to rely on fossil fuels and/or fracking! And you couldn't resist having a pop at Jason Kitcat there could you? Yawn[/p][/quote]Do your own calculations, and then we can discuss mine. (I don't think the figure in the article takes load factor into account). The gratuitous pop at Jason Kitcat is now, I believe, a benefit enjoyed by all Brighton residents, and I didn't want to miss out.[/p][/quote]Have you factored in the long term external costs of your budget power station? Let me know what you come up with.[/p][/quote]Tell you what, you calculate the additional number of families in fuel poverty / excess winter deaths caused by this wind farm, and I'll do it. OK?[/p][/quote]If a strategy to reduce our emissions was based only on replacing generating power like for like with renewables, then maybe you would have the makings of an argument, even then we could cross subsidise if we wanted to prevent excess winter deaths, we could do that today but do not. Without renewables, the price of energy is going up if for no other reason than extraction of fossil fuels is costing more and we are signing up to Russian and Chinese funded (possibly built?) nuclear generation with high strike prices guarenteed for 30 years. The only sensible proposals are to have a massive reduction in demand, part of which will be achieved by insulating the housing stock to a very high standard. The proper insulation of housing will, in itself reduce excess winter deaths. So what is the cost of climate change then?[/p][/quote]At the moment, £0, assuming you mean anthropogenic climate change. Tommy Flowers
  • Score: 0

10:58pm Wed 16 Jul 14

Tommy Flowers says...

HJarrs wrote:
Tommy Flowers wrote:
Nikski wrote:
Tommy Flowers wrote:
Nikski wrote:
Tommy Flowers wrote:
Fercri Sakes wrote:
Tommy Flowers wrote:
I calculate that with a load factor of 35%, it will power on average 52,000 homes, not 450,000 (no idea how that was calculated). So for £2 billion we get a power plant that would have cost £150 million (about 92% less) if it were a conventional plant. Plus we get environmental degradation at sea and on land - the power lines go to Bolney!
No wonder Jason Kitcat loves it.
I'm not sure if you know this but even though most of the wind comes from the Atlantic so we do not have to pay the Lost City of Atlantis billions of pounds each year. Nor do we owe Helios, the Greek God of the Sun, for any solar energy he sends our way.

Unfortunately, fossil fuels costs a bit more to get hold of than wind and sunshine. It's all wrapped up in political wranglings, dodgy wars and the destruction of the environment.

So yes, it's cheaper to build a power station than to build windmills. But it works out much cheaper in the long run to build renewables as the 'fuel' is free.
No it doesn't. Wind tubines have a design life of about 20 years, then they have to be replaced (which costs money!)
We don't pay Hades for his oil and gas either, do we? So therefore that's free too!
Yes free apart from the enormous environmental damage...climate change anyone?
Kindergarten level arguments going on here
Have you seen how the rare earth metals for turbine generators are mined and processed? Do you know how much concrete is needed for the pads, and how much CO2 is produced in its manufacture? If you did, I suspect you would be a little less glib about 'environmental damage'.
Well they are hardly going to be able to construct them from recycled plastic coffee cups are they? Any form of energy production is going to have some environmental cost to begin with, but the long-term benefits are significantly higher. No I'm afraid you and your rabid wind farm haters are on the losing side now and had better get used to the idea because there are going to be a lot more of them; wait and see!
I expect one day you will be taking a trip out on a pleasure boat to see them. Enjoy the view.
If this wind farm is actually built, I will take no pleasure in gazing out to sea at one of the most ill-judged attempts to solve what is (currently and for at least the next fifty years) a non-problem, that mankind has ever devised. In twenty years, when it is derelict and you are paying your share of the decommissioning costs, I am pretty sure that you will feel the same way too. In the meantime, feel free to enjoy the full benefits of medieval technology applied to contemporary needs.
So we get to the knub of it. Really you are a climate denier.

Even the fossil fuel companies don't think this aany more. Rather they would like to get us to burn fossil fuels and then charge us for collecting, removing and storing the CO2 at vastly more cost than following the renewables route. Good business eh?
Climate denier? That's so far from reality it's not even a proper insult. With net economic benefits up to a 2 degree temperature rise, which I am not going to deny will happen; and 4% of GDP needed to mitigate as against 2% to adapt to the changes, current renewable technology is clearly a bad investment. And that includes this frankly demented proposal. Still, the Queen will do well out of it.
[quote][p][bold]HJarrs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Tommy Flowers[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Nikski[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Tommy Flowers[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Nikski[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Tommy Flowers[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Fercri Sakes[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Tommy Flowers[/bold] wrote: I calculate that with a load factor of 35%, it will power on average 52,000 homes, not 450,000 (no idea how that was calculated). So for £2 billion we get a power plant that would have cost £150 million (about 92% less) if it were a conventional plant. Plus we get environmental degradation at sea and on land - the power lines go to Bolney! No wonder Jason Kitcat loves it.[/p][/quote]I'm not sure if you know this but even though most of the wind comes from the Atlantic so we do not have to pay the Lost City of Atlantis billions of pounds each year. Nor do we owe Helios, the Greek God of the Sun, for any solar energy he sends our way. Unfortunately, fossil fuels costs a bit more to get hold of than wind and sunshine. It's all wrapped up in political wranglings, dodgy wars and the destruction of the environment. So yes, it's cheaper to build a power station than to build windmills. But it works out much cheaper in the long run to build renewables as the 'fuel' is free.[/p][/quote]No it doesn't. Wind tubines have a design life of about 20 years, then they have to be replaced (which costs money!) We don't pay Hades for his oil and gas either, do we? So therefore that's free too![/p][/quote]Yes free apart from the enormous environmental damage...climate change anyone? Kindergarten level arguments going on here[/p][/quote]Have you seen how the rare earth metals for turbine generators are mined and processed? Do you know how much concrete is needed for the pads, and how much CO2 is produced in its manufacture? If you did, I suspect you would be a little less glib about 'environmental damage'.[/p][/quote]Well they are hardly going to be able to construct them from recycled plastic coffee cups are they? Any form of energy production is going to have some environmental cost to begin with, but the long-term benefits are significantly higher. No I'm afraid you and your rabid wind farm haters are on the losing side now and had better get used to the idea because there are going to be a lot more of them; wait and see! I expect one day you will be taking a trip out on a pleasure boat to see them. Enjoy the view.[/p][/quote]If this wind farm is actually built, I will take no pleasure in gazing out to sea at one of the most ill-judged attempts to solve what is (currently and for at least the next fifty years) a non-problem, that mankind has ever devised. In twenty years, when it is derelict and you are paying your share of the decommissioning costs, I am pretty sure that you will feel the same way too. In the meantime, feel free to enjoy the full benefits of medieval technology applied to contemporary needs.[/p][/quote]So we get to the knub of it. Really you are a climate denier. Even the fossil fuel companies don't think this aany more. Rather they would like to get us to burn fossil fuels and then charge us for collecting, removing and storing the CO2 at vastly more cost than following the renewables route. Good business eh?[/p][/quote]Climate denier? That's so far from reality it's not even a proper insult. With net economic benefits up to a 2 degree temperature rise, which I am not going to deny will happen; and 4% of GDP needed to mitigate as against 2% to adapt to the changes, current renewable technology is clearly a bad investment. And that includes this frankly demented proposal. Still, the Queen will do well out of it. Tommy Flowers
  • Score: 1

11:24pm Wed 16 Jul 14

Gribbet says...

FatherTed11 wrote:
This is going to look so ugly. Have you seen what it is going to do to the sea view?
No and neither have you, nobody has because it hasn't been built yet.
[quote][p][bold]FatherTed11[/bold] wrote: This is going to look so ugly. Have you seen what it is going to do to the sea view?[/p][/quote]No and neither have you, nobody has because it hasn't been built yet. Gribbet
  • Score: 0

11:43pm Wed 16 Jul 14

Tommy Flowers says...

Gribbet wrote:
FatherTed11 wrote:
This is going to look so ugly. Have you seen what it is going to do to the sea view?
No and neither have you, nobody has because it hasn't been built yet.
You're right! What we should do, to get a good idea of how it will look is this: Imagine the world's most beautiful object - a Faberge egg, perhaps, or the face of the Madonna, superimposed 175 times in miniature close to the horizon. There, looks great, doesn't it? Can't do that? Just look at another offshore wind farm then, or at the montage produced by Eon. That'll give you a good idea, I think. I'm sure you'll agree - a magical enhancement of the natural world, produced by simply adding massive steel poles and rotating blades to a frankly dull backdrop. Sunset on the wind farm is going to be a massive seller for all the local photographers and artists, no doubt about it!
[quote][p][bold]Gribbet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]FatherTed11[/bold] wrote: This is going to look so ugly. Have you seen what it is going to do to the sea view?[/p][/quote]No and neither have you, nobody has because it hasn't been built yet.[/p][/quote]You're right! What we should do, to get a good idea of how it will look is this: Imagine the world's most beautiful object - a Faberge egg, perhaps, or the face of the Madonna, superimposed 175 times in miniature close to the horizon. There, looks great, doesn't it? Can't do that? Just look at another offshore wind farm then, or at the montage produced by Eon. That'll give you a good idea, I think. I'm sure you'll agree - a magical enhancement of the natural world, produced by simply adding massive steel poles and rotating blades to a frankly dull backdrop. Sunset on the wind farm is going to be a massive seller for all the local photographers and artists, no doubt about it! Tommy Flowers
  • Score: 0

11:44pm Wed 16 Jul 14

Gribbet says...

Tommy Flowers wrote:
Gribbet wrote:
Tommy Flowers wrote:
Nikski wrote:
Tommy Flowers wrote:
I calculate that with a load factor of 35%, it will power on average 52,000 homes, not 450,000 (no idea how that was calculated). So for £2 billion we get a power plant that would have cost £150 million (about 92% less) if it were a conventional plant. Plus we get environmental degradation at sea and on land - the power lines go to Bolney!
No wonder Jason Kitcat loves it.
So who's to say your calculation is more accurate Tommy Flowers? Why should we believe you rather than EoN? You could be correct, but equally you could be talking through your hat (or an appropriate part of human anatomy)....as for 'environmental degradation' I suspect it will be far worse if we don't choose green energy and/or continue to rely on fossil fuels and/or fracking! And you couldn't resist having a pop at Jason Kitcat there could you? Yawn
Do your own calculations, and then we can discuss mine. (I don't think the figure in the article takes load factor into account).
The gratuitous pop at Jason Kitcat is now, I believe, a benefit enjoyed by all Brighton residents, and I didn't want to miss out.
Have you factored in the long term external costs of your budget power station?

Let me know what you come up with.
Tell you what, you calculate the additional number of families in fuel poverty / excess winter deaths caused by this wind farm, and I'll do it. OK?
I wouldn't pretend I have either the means, time, or the maths skills to work that out myself. I just thought you would have factored that sort of thing into your calculations though as it would obviously be an important part of the formula wouldn't it?
[quote][p][bold]Tommy Flowers[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Gribbet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Tommy Flowers[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Nikski[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Tommy Flowers[/bold] wrote: I calculate that with a load factor of 35%, it will power on average 52,000 homes, not 450,000 (no idea how that was calculated). So for £2 billion we get a power plant that would have cost £150 million (about 92% less) if it were a conventional plant. Plus we get environmental degradation at sea and on land - the power lines go to Bolney! No wonder Jason Kitcat loves it.[/p][/quote]So who's to say your calculation is more accurate Tommy Flowers? Why should we believe you rather than EoN? You could be correct, but equally you could be talking through your hat (or an appropriate part of human anatomy)....as for 'environmental degradation' I suspect it will be far worse if we don't choose green energy and/or continue to rely on fossil fuels and/or fracking! And you couldn't resist having a pop at Jason Kitcat there could you? Yawn[/p][/quote]Do your own calculations, and then we can discuss mine. (I don't think the figure in the article takes load factor into account). The gratuitous pop at Jason Kitcat is now, I believe, a benefit enjoyed by all Brighton residents, and I didn't want to miss out.[/p][/quote]Have you factored in the long term external costs of your budget power station? Let me know what you come up with.[/p][/quote]Tell you what, you calculate the additional number of families in fuel poverty / excess winter deaths caused by this wind farm, and I'll do it. OK?[/p][/quote]I wouldn't pretend I have either the means, time, or the maths skills to work that out myself. I just thought you would have factored that sort of thing into your calculations though as it would obviously be an important part of the formula wouldn't it? Gribbet
  • Score: 1

12:05am Thu 17 Jul 14

Tommy Flowers says...

Gribbet wrote:
Tommy Flowers wrote:
Gribbet wrote:
Tommy Flowers wrote:
Nikski wrote:
Tommy Flowers wrote:
I calculate that with a load factor of 35%, it will power on average 52,000 homes, not 450,000 (no idea how that was calculated). So for £2 billion we get a power plant that would have cost £150 million (about 92% less) if it were a conventional plant. Plus we get environmental degradation at sea and on land - the power lines go to Bolney!
No wonder Jason Kitcat loves it.
So who's to say your calculation is more accurate Tommy Flowers? Why should we believe you rather than EoN? You could be correct, but equally you could be talking through your hat (or an appropriate part of human anatomy)....as for 'environmental degradation' I suspect it will be far worse if we don't choose green energy and/or continue to rely on fossil fuels and/or fracking! And you couldn't resist having a pop at Jason Kitcat there could you? Yawn
Do your own calculations, and then we can discuss mine. (I don't think the figure in the article takes load factor into account).
The gratuitous pop at Jason Kitcat is now, I believe, a benefit enjoyed by all Brighton residents, and I didn't want to miss out.
Have you factored in the long term external costs of your budget power station?

Let me know what you come up with.
Tell you what, you calculate the additional number of families in fuel poverty / excess winter deaths caused by this wind farm, and I'll do it. OK?
I wouldn't pretend I have either the means, time, or the maths skills to work that out myself. I just thought you would have factored that sort of thing into your calculations though as it would obviously be an important part of the formula wouldn't it?
Why? Eon didn't factor this in: http://www.theguardi
an.com/sustainable-b
usiness/rare-earth-m
ining-china-social-e
nvironmental-costs
[quote][p][bold]Gribbet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Tommy Flowers[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Gribbet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Tommy Flowers[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Nikski[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Tommy Flowers[/bold] wrote: I calculate that with a load factor of 35%, it will power on average 52,000 homes, not 450,000 (no idea how that was calculated). So for £2 billion we get a power plant that would have cost £150 million (about 92% less) if it were a conventional plant. Plus we get environmental degradation at sea and on land - the power lines go to Bolney! No wonder Jason Kitcat loves it.[/p][/quote]So who's to say your calculation is more accurate Tommy Flowers? Why should we believe you rather than EoN? You could be correct, but equally you could be talking through your hat (or an appropriate part of human anatomy)....as for 'environmental degradation' I suspect it will be far worse if we don't choose green energy and/or continue to rely on fossil fuels and/or fracking! And you couldn't resist having a pop at Jason Kitcat there could you? Yawn[/p][/quote]Do your own calculations, and then we can discuss mine. (I don't think the figure in the article takes load factor into account). The gratuitous pop at Jason Kitcat is now, I believe, a benefit enjoyed by all Brighton residents, and I didn't want to miss out.[/p][/quote]Have you factored in the long term external costs of your budget power station? Let me know what you come up with.[/p][/quote]Tell you what, you calculate the additional number of families in fuel poverty / excess winter deaths caused by this wind farm, and I'll do it. OK?[/p][/quote]I wouldn't pretend I have either the means, time, or the maths skills to work that out myself. I just thought you would have factored that sort of thing into your calculations though as it would obviously be an important part of the formula wouldn't it?[/p][/quote]Why? Eon didn't factor this in: http://www.theguardi an.com/sustainable-b usiness/rare-earth-m ining-china-social-e nvironmental-costs Tommy Flowers
  • Score: 0

4:50am Thu 17 Jul 14

Nosfaratu says...

Sorry, late again. Tiling kitchen !

The facts are that the view from the coast of Sussex will be permanently disfigured. What happened to the views of the people and the National Park authority ? We are facing the fact that we will be living with a clear view of an Industrial Complex.

Most of the jobs will go to experienced 'Wind Farm Engineers', not local boys. Its a travesty.
Sorry, late again. Tiling kitchen ! The facts are that the view from the coast of Sussex will be permanently disfigured. What happened to the views of the people and the National Park authority ? We are facing the fact that we will be living with a clear view of an Industrial Complex. Most of the jobs will go to experienced 'Wind Farm Engineers', not local boys. Its a travesty. Nosfaratu
  • Score: 3

7:20am Thu 17 Jul 14

HJarrs says...

C. French wrote:
E.On's "Rampion" massive off-shore wind farm, up to 690ft high and as wide as Mid Sussex, should never have been approved:

1. Offshore wind farms are unreliable. E.On boasts of an installed electrical capacity of up to 700 megawatt (MW) from up to 175 turbines. This is the potential output if the wind was blowing at optimum speed all the time.

Currently all the 3,500 turbines sited around the country feed on average just 1,000 MW into the grid – no more than the output of a single, medium-sized conventional power station. Because of this unreliability, conventional power stations will still be needed on permanent standby, thereby negating any alleged CO2 savings.

2. Off-shore wind farms are an extremely expensive way to produce electricity – nine times as much as gas-fired power. E.On would not dream of building this wind farm unless they were guaranteed a huge Government subsidy. This comes in the form of a subsidy scheme, paid for by dramatically increasing our household fuel bills, whereby owners of wind turbines earn an additional £49 for every 'megawatt hour' they produce, and twice that sum for offshore wind turbines.

What other industry gets a public subsidy equivalent to 100 or even 200 per cent of the value of what it produces?

3. Offshore wind farms do not 'save the planet' by cutting our emissions of CO2.

Even if you believe that curbing our use of fossil fuels could change the Earth's climate, the CO2 reduction allegedly achieved by a wind farm over a year, would be cancelled out by a single jumbo jet flying daily between Britain and America, over the same period.

Sources:

The Real Global Warming Disaster – Christopher Booker.
The Rational Optimist – Dr Matt Ridley.

To register your disapproval of this disastrous Government decision, please like my protest facebook page:

https://www.facebook

.com/StopTheRampionO

ffshoreWindfarm/info



and sign my petition:

http://www.gopetitio

n.com/petitions/stop

-the-rampion-off-sho

re-wind-farm.html

Thank you

Chris French
Chairman
UKIP Mid Sussex
An excellent argument for reducing air travel and for demonstrating the scale of the problem. Well done; we shouldn't be increasing airport capacity just to increase the market in weekend trips away. However, I get >550 thousand tonnes CO2 per year for a jumbo jet flying New York to London (flying 3 legs or 22 hours per day, which is just about feasible, though stretching it).

Rampion will displace 1.25 million tonnes of coal fired powerstation generated CO2 emissions.

It seems UKIP's argument is now why bother? The impact of a windfarm is soooo small. Well, every individual's impact on the environment is tiny, so why bother! That should sort the problem out.
[quote][p][bold]C. French[/bold] wrote: E.On's "Rampion" massive off-shore wind farm, up to 690ft high and as wide as Mid Sussex, should never have been approved: 1. Offshore wind farms are unreliable. E.On boasts of an installed electrical capacity of up to 700 megawatt (MW) from up to 175 turbines. This is the potential output if the wind was blowing at optimum speed all the time. Currently all the 3,500 turbines sited around the country feed on average just 1,000 MW into the grid – no more than the output of a single, medium-sized conventional power station. Because of this unreliability, conventional power stations will still be needed on permanent standby, thereby negating any alleged CO2 savings. 2. Off-shore wind farms are an extremely expensive way to produce electricity – nine times as much as gas-fired power. E.On would not dream of building this wind farm unless they were guaranteed a huge Government subsidy. This comes in the form of a subsidy scheme, paid for by dramatically increasing our household fuel bills, whereby owners of wind turbines earn an additional £49 for every 'megawatt hour' they produce, and twice that sum for offshore wind turbines. What other industry gets a public subsidy equivalent to 100 or even 200 per cent of the value of what it produces? 3. Offshore wind farms do not 'save the planet' by cutting our emissions of CO2. Even if you believe that curbing our use of fossil fuels could change the Earth's climate, the CO2 reduction allegedly achieved by a wind farm over a year, would be cancelled out by a single jumbo jet flying daily between Britain and America, over the same period. Sources: The Real Global Warming Disaster – Christopher Booker. The Rational Optimist – Dr Matt Ridley. To register your disapproval of this disastrous Government decision, please like my protest facebook page: https://www.facebook .com/StopTheRampionO ffshoreWindfarm/info and sign my petition: http://www.gopetitio n.com/petitions/stop -the-rampion-off-sho re-wind-farm.html Thank you Chris French Chairman UKIP Mid Sussex[/p][/quote]An excellent argument for reducing air travel and for demonstrating the scale of the problem. Well done; we shouldn't be increasing airport capacity just to increase the market in weekend trips away. However, I get >550 thousand tonnes CO2 per year for a jumbo jet flying New York to London (flying 3 legs or 22 hours per day, which is just about feasible, though stretching it). Rampion will displace 1.25 million tonnes of coal fired powerstation generated CO2 emissions. It seems UKIP's argument is now why bother? The impact of a windfarm is soooo small. Well, every individual's impact on the environment is tiny, so why bother! That should sort the problem out. HJarrs
  • Score: 0

8:00am Thu 17 Jul 14

HJarrs says...

Tommy Flowers wrote:
HJarrs wrote:
Tommy Flowers wrote:
Nikski wrote:
Tommy Flowers wrote:
Nikski wrote:
Tommy Flowers wrote:
Fercri Sakes wrote:
Tommy Flowers wrote:
I calculate that with a load factor of 35%, it will power on average 52,000 homes, not 450,000 (no idea how that was calculated). So for £2 billion we get a power plant that would have cost £150 million (about 92% less) if it were a conventional plant. Plus we get environmental degradation at sea and on land - the power lines go to Bolney!
No wonder Jason Kitcat loves it.
I'm not sure if you know this but even though most of the wind comes from the Atlantic so we do not have to pay the Lost City of Atlantis billions of pounds each year. Nor do we owe Helios, the Greek God of the Sun, for any solar energy he sends our way.

Unfortunately, fossil fuels costs a bit more to get hold of than wind and sunshine. It's all wrapped up in political wranglings, dodgy wars and the destruction of the environment.

So yes, it's cheaper to build a power station than to build windmills. But it works out much cheaper in the long run to build renewables as the 'fuel' is free.
No it doesn't. Wind tubines have a design life of about 20 years, then they have to be replaced (which costs money!)
We don't pay Hades for his oil and gas either, do we? So therefore that's free too!
Yes free apart from the enormous environmental damage...climate change anyone?
Kindergarten level arguments going on here
Have you seen how the rare earth metals for turbine generators are mined and processed? Do you know how much concrete is needed for the pads, and how much CO2 is produced in its manufacture? If you did, I suspect you would be a little less glib about 'environmental damage'.
Well they are hardly going to be able to construct them from recycled plastic coffee cups are they? Any form of energy production is going to have some environmental cost to begin with, but the long-term benefits are significantly higher. No I'm afraid you and your rabid wind farm haters are on the losing side now and had better get used to the idea because there are going to be a lot more of them; wait and see!
I expect one day you will be taking a trip out on a pleasure boat to see them. Enjoy the view.
If this wind farm is actually built, I will take no pleasure in gazing out to sea at one of the most ill-judged attempts to solve what is (currently and for at least the next fifty years) a non-problem, that mankind has ever devised. In twenty years, when it is derelict and you are paying your share of the decommissioning costs, I am pretty sure that you will feel the same way too. In the meantime, feel free to enjoy the full benefits of medieval technology applied to contemporary needs.
So we get to the knub of it. Really you are a climate denier.

Even the fossil fuel companies don't think this aany more. Rather they would like to get us to burn fossil fuels and then charge us for collecting, removing and storing the CO2 at vastly more cost than following the renewables route. Good business eh?
Climate denier? That's so far from reality it's not even a proper insult. With net economic benefits up to a 2 degree temperature rise, which I am not going to deny will happen; and 4% of GDP needed to mitigate as against 2% to adapt to the changes, current renewable technology is clearly a bad investment. And that includes this frankly demented proposal. Still, the Queen will do well out of it.
I don't know where you get your figures from, Lord Stern has calculated 1% of world GDP redirected towards renewables, energy efficiency and other measures should be sufficient to reduce emissions to restrict climate change to "just" 2 degrees C (and 2 degrees C may be too high to stop negative feedback and release of natural stores of global warming gases).

We are going to get "only" 2 degrees C of atmospheric warming IF we rapidly decarbonise (CO2 reduction) the world economy. Business as usual will see us sail rapidly past 2 degrees into far more dangerous territory, that will blight generations to come.
[quote][p][bold]Tommy Flowers[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]HJarrs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Tommy Flowers[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Nikski[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Tommy Flowers[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Nikski[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Tommy Flowers[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Fercri Sakes[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Tommy Flowers[/bold] wrote: I calculate that with a load factor of 35%, it will power on average 52,000 homes, not 450,000 (no idea how that was calculated). So for £2 billion we get a power plant that would have cost £150 million (about 92% less) if it were a conventional plant. Plus we get environmental degradation at sea and on land - the power lines go to Bolney! No wonder Jason Kitcat loves it.[/p][/quote]I'm not sure if you know this but even though most of the wind comes from the Atlantic so we do not have to pay the Lost City of Atlantis billions of pounds each year. Nor do we owe Helios, the Greek God of the Sun, for any solar energy he sends our way. Unfortunately, fossil fuels costs a bit more to get hold of than wind and sunshine. It's all wrapped up in political wranglings, dodgy wars and the destruction of the environment. So yes, it's cheaper to build a power station than to build windmills. But it works out much cheaper in the long run to build renewables as the 'fuel' is free.[/p][/quote]No it doesn't. Wind tubines have a design life of about 20 years, then they have to be replaced (which costs money!) We don't pay Hades for his oil and gas either, do we? So therefore that's free too![/p][/quote]Yes free apart from the enormous environmental damage...climate change anyone? Kindergarten level arguments going on here[/p][/quote]Have you seen how the rare earth metals for turbine generators are mined and processed? Do you know how much concrete is needed for the pads, and how much CO2 is produced in its manufacture? If you did, I suspect you would be a little less glib about 'environmental damage'.[/p][/quote]Well they are hardly going to be able to construct them from recycled plastic coffee cups are they? Any form of energy production is going to have some environmental cost to begin with, but the long-term benefits are significantly higher. No I'm afraid you and your rabid wind farm haters are on the losing side now and had better get used to the idea because there are going to be a lot more of them; wait and see! I expect one day you will be taking a trip out on a pleasure boat to see them. Enjoy the view.[/p][/quote]If this wind farm is actually built, I will take no pleasure in gazing out to sea at one of the most ill-judged attempts to solve what is (currently and for at least the next fifty years) a non-problem, that mankind has ever devised. In twenty years, when it is derelict and you are paying your share of the decommissioning costs, I am pretty sure that you will feel the same way too. In the meantime, feel free to enjoy the full benefits of medieval technology applied to contemporary needs.[/p][/quote]So we get to the knub of it. Really you are a climate denier. Even the fossil fuel companies don't think this aany more. Rather they would like to get us to burn fossil fuels and then charge us for collecting, removing and storing the CO2 at vastly more cost than following the renewables route. Good business eh?[/p][/quote]Climate denier? That's so far from reality it's not even a proper insult. With net economic benefits up to a 2 degree temperature rise, which I am not going to deny will happen; and 4% of GDP needed to mitigate as against 2% to adapt to the changes, current renewable technology is clearly a bad investment. And that includes this frankly demented proposal. Still, the Queen will do well out of it.[/p][/quote]I don't know where you get your figures from, Lord Stern has calculated 1% of world GDP redirected towards renewables, energy efficiency and other measures should be sufficient to reduce emissions to restrict climate change to "just" 2 degrees C (and 2 degrees C may be too high to stop negative feedback and release of natural stores of global warming gases). We are going to get "only" 2 degrees C of atmospheric warming IF we rapidly decarbonise (CO2 reduction) the world economy. Business as usual will see us sail rapidly past 2 degrees into far more dangerous territory, that will blight generations to come. HJarrs
  • Score: -1

11:00am Thu 17 Jul 14

Made In Sussex says...

stevo!! wrote:
Made In Sussex wrote:
Obviously those complaining about the visual impact all have computers and phone chargers are all completely self sufficient for their own supply of electricity to power them. Didnt think so, the same old hypocracy!
At least the power we are using to write these posts is on tap.

Convert to wind power, and this page wouldn't exist.

HTH
Power comes from various different sources, some on tap, some not which all feed into the national grid. Its irrelevant whether wind power is on tap and the UK is probably never going to be able to convert fully to wind power.

The point is we have and will rely upon wind power from time to time for some of our power needs. Its hypocritical to criticise the very same resource you are using to spread that message of criticism!!







Wind power may not be on tap but we still rely on its contributionmeet our overall energy consumption


This includes wind power when its available. Our over
[quote][p][bold]stevo!![/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Made In Sussex[/bold] wrote: Obviously those complaining about the visual impact all have computers and phone chargers are all completely self sufficient for their own supply of electricity to power them. Didnt think so, the same old hypocracy![/p][/quote]At least the power we are using to write these posts is on tap. Convert to wind power, and this page wouldn't exist. HTH[/p][/quote]Power comes from various different sources, some on tap, some not which all feed into the national grid. Its irrelevant whether wind power is on tap and the UK is probably never going to be able to convert fully to wind power. The point is we have and will rely upon wind power from time to time for some of our power needs. Its hypocritical to criticise the very same resource you are using to spread that message of criticism!! Wind power may not be on tap but we still rely on its contributionmeet our overall energy consumption This includes wind power when its available. Our over Made In Sussex
  • Score: 1

6:03pm Thu 17 Jul 14

Gribbet says...

Tommy Flowers wrote:
Gribbet wrote:
FatherTed11 wrote:
This is going to look so ugly. Have you seen what it is going to do to the sea view?
No and neither have you, nobody has because it hasn't been built yet.
You're right! What we should do, to get a good idea of how it will look is this: Imagine the world's most beautiful object - a Faberge egg, perhaps, or the face of the Madonna, superimposed 175 times in miniature close to the horizon. There, looks great, doesn't it? Can't do that? Just look at another offshore wind farm then, or at the montage produced by Eon. That'll give you a good idea, I think. I'm sure you'll agree - a magical enhancement of the natural world, produced by simply adding massive steel poles and rotating blades to a frankly dull backdrop. Sunset on the wind farm is going to be a massive seller for all the local photographers and artists, no doubt about it!
We'll just have to wait and see with our own eyes, if you're so disgusted by the view, you could likely remedy that by just removing your glasses. Judging by all the photographs we see being taken of the rusting West Pier though, I agree with you that the turbines will be a popular subject matter for local photographers, especially at sunset.
[quote][p][bold]Tommy Flowers[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Gribbet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]FatherTed11[/bold] wrote: This is going to look so ugly. Have you seen what it is going to do to the sea view?[/p][/quote]No and neither have you, nobody has because it hasn't been built yet.[/p][/quote]You're right! What we should do, to get a good idea of how it will look is this: Imagine the world's most beautiful object - a Faberge egg, perhaps, or the face of the Madonna, superimposed 175 times in miniature close to the horizon. There, looks great, doesn't it? Can't do that? Just look at another offshore wind farm then, or at the montage produced by Eon. That'll give you a good idea, I think. I'm sure you'll agree - a magical enhancement of the natural world, produced by simply adding massive steel poles and rotating blades to a frankly dull backdrop. Sunset on the wind farm is going to be a massive seller for all the local photographers and artists, no doubt about it![/p][/quote]We'll just have to wait and see with our own eyes, if you're so disgusted by the view, you could likely remedy that by just removing your glasses. Judging by all the photographs we see being taken of the rusting West Pier though, I agree with you that the turbines will be a popular subject matter for local photographers, especially at sunset. Gribbet
  • Score: 0

6:06pm Thu 17 Jul 14

Gribbet says...

Tommy Flowers wrote:
Gribbet wrote:
Tommy Flowers wrote:
Gribbet wrote:
Tommy Flowers wrote:
Nikski wrote:
Tommy Flowers wrote:
I calculate that with a load factor of 35%, it will power on average 52,000 homes, not 450,000 (no idea how that was calculated). So for £2 billion we get a power plant that would have cost £150 million (about 92% less) if it were a conventional plant. Plus we get environmental degradation at sea and on land - the power lines go to Bolney!
No wonder Jason Kitcat loves it.
So who's to say your calculation is more accurate Tommy Flowers? Why should we believe you rather than EoN? You could be correct, but equally you could be talking through your hat (or an appropriate part of human anatomy)....as for 'environmental degradation' I suspect it will be far worse if we don't choose green energy and/or continue to rely on fossil fuels and/or fracking! And you couldn't resist having a pop at Jason Kitcat there could you? Yawn
Do your own calculations, and then we can discuss mine. (I don't think the figure in the article takes load factor into account).
The gratuitous pop at Jason Kitcat is now, I believe, a benefit enjoyed by all Brighton residents, and I didn't want to miss out.
Have you factored in the long term external costs of your budget power station?

Let me know what you come up with.
Tell you what, you calculate the additional number of families in fuel poverty / excess winter deaths caused by this wind farm, and I'll do it. OK?
I wouldn't pretend I have either the means, time, or the maths skills to work that out myself. I just thought you would have factored that sort of thing into your calculations though as it would obviously be an important part of the formula wouldn't it?
Why? Eon didn't factor this in: http://www.theguardi

an.com/sustainable-b

usiness/rare-earth-m

ining-china-social-e

nvironmental-costs
Well maybe this is your chance to shine then with your meticulous calculations?
[quote][p][bold]Tommy Flowers[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Gribbet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Tommy Flowers[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Gribbet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Tommy Flowers[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Nikski[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Tommy Flowers[/bold] wrote: I calculate that with a load factor of 35%, it will power on average 52,000 homes, not 450,000 (no idea how that was calculated). So for £2 billion we get a power plant that would have cost £150 million (about 92% less) if it were a conventional plant. Plus we get environmental degradation at sea and on land - the power lines go to Bolney! No wonder Jason Kitcat loves it.[/p][/quote]So who's to say your calculation is more accurate Tommy Flowers? Why should we believe you rather than EoN? You could be correct, but equally you could be talking through your hat (or an appropriate part of human anatomy)....as for 'environmental degradation' I suspect it will be far worse if we don't choose green energy and/or continue to rely on fossil fuels and/or fracking! And you couldn't resist having a pop at Jason Kitcat there could you? Yawn[/p][/quote]Do your own calculations, and then we can discuss mine. (I don't think the figure in the article takes load factor into account). The gratuitous pop at Jason Kitcat is now, I believe, a benefit enjoyed by all Brighton residents, and I didn't want to miss out.[/p][/quote]Have you factored in the long term external costs of your budget power station? Let me know what you come up with.[/p][/quote]Tell you what, you calculate the additional number of families in fuel poverty / excess winter deaths caused by this wind farm, and I'll do it. OK?[/p][/quote]I wouldn't pretend I have either the means, time, or the maths skills to work that out myself. I just thought you would have factored that sort of thing into your calculations though as it would obviously be an important part of the formula wouldn't it?[/p][/quote]Why? Eon didn't factor this in: http://www.theguardi an.com/sustainable-b usiness/rare-earth-m ining-china-social-e nvironmental-costs[/p][/quote]Well maybe this is your chance to shine then with your meticulous calculations? Gribbet
  • Score: 0

1:14am Sun 20 Jul 14

Tommy Flowers says...

Gribbet wrote:
Tommy Flowers wrote:
Gribbet wrote:
FatherTed11 wrote:
This is going to look so ugly. Have you seen what it is going to do to the sea view?
No and neither have you, nobody has because it hasn't been built yet.
You're right! What we should do, to get a good idea of how it will look is this: Imagine the world's most beautiful object - a Faberge egg, perhaps, or the face of the Madonna, superimposed 175 times in miniature close to the horizon. There, looks great, doesn't it? Can't do that? Just look at another offshore wind farm then, or at the montage produced by Eon. That'll give you a good idea, I think. I'm sure you'll agree - a magical enhancement of the natural world, produced by simply adding massive steel poles and rotating blades to a frankly dull backdrop. Sunset on the wind farm is going to be a massive seller for all the local photographers and artists, no doubt about it!
We'll just have to wait and see with our own eyes, if you're so disgusted by the view, you could likely remedy that by just removing your glasses. Judging by all the photographs we see being taken of the rusting West Pier though, I agree with you that the turbines will be a popular subject matter for local photographers, especially at sunset.
The West Pier gave pleasure to hundreds of thousands of people, and is a reminder of Brighton's glorious past. This wind farm is an expensive folly, and when it is derelict will merely remind people of the folly of the current Gree n agenda. So, yes, it will be photographed and remembered, but for entirely different reasons.
[quote][p][bold]Gribbet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Tommy Flowers[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Gribbet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]FatherTed11[/bold] wrote: This is going to look so ugly. Have you seen what it is going to do to the sea view?[/p][/quote]No and neither have you, nobody has because it hasn't been built yet.[/p][/quote]You're right! What we should do, to get a good idea of how it will look is this: Imagine the world's most beautiful object - a Faberge egg, perhaps, or the face of the Madonna, superimposed 175 times in miniature close to the horizon. There, looks great, doesn't it? Can't do that? Just look at another offshore wind farm then, or at the montage produced by Eon. That'll give you a good idea, I think. I'm sure you'll agree - a magical enhancement of the natural world, produced by simply adding massive steel poles and rotating blades to a frankly dull backdrop. Sunset on the wind farm is going to be a massive seller for all the local photographers and artists, no doubt about it![/p][/quote]We'll just have to wait and see with our own eyes, if you're so disgusted by the view, you could likely remedy that by just removing your glasses. Judging by all the photographs we see being taken of the rusting West Pier though, I agree with you that the turbines will be a popular subject matter for local photographers, especially at sunset.[/p][/quote]The West Pier gave pleasure to hundreds of thousands of people, and is a reminder of Brighton's glorious past. This wind farm is an expensive folly, and when it is derelict will merely remind people of the folly of the current Gree n agenda. So, yes, it will be photographed and remembered, but for entirely different reasons. Tommy Flowers
  • Score: 0

1:17am Sun 20 Jul 14

Tommy Flowers says...

Gribbet wrote:
Tommy Flowers wrote:
Gribbet wrote:
Tommy Flowers wrote:
Gribbet wrote:
Tommy Flowers wrote:
Nikski wrote:
Tommy Flowers wrote:
I calculate that with a load factor of 35%, it will power on average 52,000 homes, not 450,000 (no idea how that was calculated). So for £2 billion we get a power plant that would have cost £150 million (about 92% less) if it were a conventional plant. Plus we get environmental degradation at sea and on land - the power lines go to Bolney!
No wonder Jason Kitcat loves it.
So who's to say your calculation is more accurate Tommy Flowers? Why should we believe you rather than EoN? You could be correct, but equally you could be talking through your hat (or an appropriate part of human anatomy)....as for 'environmental degradation' I suspect it will be far worse if we don't choose green energy and/or continue to rely on fossil fuels and/or fracking! And you couldn't resist having a pop at Jason Kitcat there could you? Yawn
Do your own calculations, and then we can discuss mine. (I don't think the figure in the article takes load factor into account).
The gratuitous pop at Jason Kitcat is now, I believe, a benefit enjoyed by all Brighton residents, and I didn't want to miss out.
Have you factored in the long term external costs of your budget power station?

Let me know what you come up with.
Tell you what, you calculate the additional number of families in fuel poverty / excess winter deaths caused by this wind farm, and I'll do it. OK?
I wouldn't pretend I have either the means, time, or the maths skills to work that out myself. I just thought you would have factored that sort of thing into your calculations though as it would obviously be an important part of the formula wouldn't it?
Why? Eon didn't factor this in: http://www.theguardi


an.com/sustainable-b


usiness/rare-earth-m


ining-china-social-e


nvironmental-costs
Well maybe this is your chance to shine then with your meticulous calculations?
So, no response then.
[quote][p][bold]Gribbet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Tommy Flowers[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Gribbet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Tommy Flowers[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Gribbet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Tommy Flowers[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Nikski[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Tommy Flowers[/bold] wrote: I calculate that with a load factor of 35%, it will power on average 52,000 homes, not 450,000 (no idea how that was calculated). So for £2 billion we get a power plant that would have cost £150 million (about 92% less) if it were a conventional plant. Plus we get environmental degradation at sea and on land - the power lines go to Bolney! No wonder Jason Kitcat loves it.[/p][/quote]So who's to say your calculation is more accurate Tommy Flowers? Why should we believe you rather than EoN? You could be correct, but equally you could be talking through your hat (or an appropriate part of human anatomy)....as for 'environmental degradation' I suspect it will be far worse if we don't choose green energy and/or continue to rely on fossil fuels and/or fracking! And you couldn't resist having a pop at Jason Kitcat there could you? Yawn[/p][/quote]Do your own calculations, and then we can discuss mine. (I don't think the figure in the article takes load factor into account). The gratuitous pop at Jason Kitcat is now, I believe, a benefit enjoyed by all Brighton residents, and I didn't want to miss out.[/p][/quote]Have you factored in the long term external costs of your budget power station? Let me know what you come up with.[/p][/quote]Tell you what, you calculate the additional number of families in fuel poverty / excess winter deaths caused by this wind farm, and I'll do it. OK?[/p][/quote]I wouldn't pretend I have either the means, time, or the maths skills to work that out myself. I just thought you would have factored that sort of thing into your calculations though as it would obviously be an important part of the formula wouldn't it?[/p][/quote]Why? Eon didn't factor this in: http://www.theguardi an.com/sustainable-b usiness/rare-earth-m ining-china-social-e nvironmental-costs[/p][/quote]Well maybe this is your chance to shine then with your meticulous calculations?[/p][/quote]So, no response then. Tommy Flowers
  • Score: 0

10:22am Wed 23 Jul 14

Juleyanne says...

I agree we need to find alternatives but I am concerned that these things will kill many birds. Why can't they protect the large propellors in a grill casing? Perhaps it might cost a bit more but it would save many seabirds lives, some endangered!
I agree we need to find alternatives but I am concerned that these things will kill many birds. Why can't they protect the large propellors in a grill casing? Perhaps it might cost a bit more but it would save many seabirds lives, some endangered! Juleyanne
  • Score: 0
Post a comment

Remember you are personally responsible for what you post on this site and must abide by our site terms. Do not post anything that is false, abusive or malicious. If you wish to complain, please use the ‘report this post’ link.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree