Rampion wind farm - Turbines will be 689 feet tall !!!

[Thunder Bolt]

I don't mind windmills as they're not as ugly as pylons, but I have been told that they're not cost effective.
I would like to see a lot more done with solar power.

 

[Husty]

Permanently polluting the lands we live, feed and drink off with carcinogenic chemicals, which then leads to further pollution as the gas is used - or environmentally friendly windmills that double up as artificial reefs for sea-life.

No brainer for me.

Good. Personally, I don't think the distinction is quite as clear cut but it's good to hear you're fully behind building more windmills, the problem is the NIMBYs here who arnt.

 

[Notters]

It is possible to see the Isle of Wight from Truleigh Hill on clear days. 53 miles away.
It is also possible to see the Amex from Ditchling Beacon although I was told this would not be so.

Pfffft, it's only 37 miles. It was clear from Woodingdean the other day though, as was Portsmouth.

 

[Giraffe]

I didn't realise where they were going to be but this is the map and a projection of what they will look like. Don't see what the issue is really.

 

[Monkey Man]

I think I support the idea - clean energy that can power most of the homes in Sussex. Excellent news.

The romantic in me is a little sad that the sea won't look quite as boundless as it does currently. One of the pleasures of living on the coast is that view, seemingly to infinity, and an escape from the man-made environment.

But the energy we need has to come from somewhere and there is always some kind of environmental cost. This seems to be one of the solutions with the lowest impact.

 

[Captain Sensible]

Source? I find that hard to believe, but incredible if true.

I actually heard it from Sir Paul McCartney at a UN seminar on the environment a few years back. I have no idea if the statement was 100% accurate. Yet what is undeniable is that deforestation is the biggest source of global warming by a million miles. A few wind farms will do next to nothing in the grand scheme. It's not just that, we need to break the oil companies resistance to other fuels for transport. The amount of greenhouse gases the wind farm will save from coal fired electricity stations is negated by the pollution caused in building them and maintaining them. Its pissing in the wind, pardon the pun.

 

[knocky1]

Pfffft, it's only 37 miles. It was clear from Woodingdean the other day though, as was Portsmouth.

i have asked a crow and he says as he flies it is 48 miles from Brighton to Isle of Wight. I don't know your shorter route but may use it next week when I visit the test match at the Ageas Bowl.

 

[Tony Towner's Fridge]

Bollox opinionated and bad reporting there with statements like



'Fragile chalk grassland environments will be dug up in order to lay 17 miles of onshore power cables, half of which will run through the National Park. '

What is fragile about a chalk grassland? Dig it up lay the cable in a trench and then cover and back fill. Add new turf and let it grow back.

I also firmly believe that wind turbines are a better 8-9 mile away vista than a blank horizon.

Live with it and let's get the alternative low carbon energy output up.

Bloody NIMBY tosspots.

TNBA

TTF

 

[Notters]

Bollox opinionated and bad reporting there with statements like



'Fragile chalk grassland environments will be dug up in order to lay 17 miles of onshore power cables, half of which will run through the National Park. '

What is fragile about a chalk grassland? Dig it up lay the cable in a trench and then cover and back fill. Add new turf and let it grow back.

Very true, in fact it may even benefit from disturbance. All this will be shown in the EIA. Unfortunately, all these NIMBYs achieve is to delay things for several years, as they did with the stadium. Which in the end, costs us all money as tax payers.

 

[Tim Over Whelmed]

Incorrect. Dreadful judgement or lie

Standing on Brighton beach you can easily see Worthing Pier (100ft?) 10 Miles away...

Depends which way you're facing.

 

[Theatre of Trees]

Bollox opinionated and bad reporting there with statements like



'Fragile chalk grassland environments will be dug up in order to lay 17 miles of onshore power cables, half of which will run through the National Park. '

What is fragile about a chalk grassland? Dig it up lay the cable in a trench and then cover and back fill. Add new turf and let it grow back

Except it doesn't work like that, the whole process of maintaining chalk grassland involves long periods of sheep grazing and removing certain invasive scrub plants, you don't just lay a piece of turf.

The original chalk grassland was maintained from the 13th century onwards by huge flocks of sheep and created an eco system that was quite distinct from other areas. The flocks have dwindled, pushed out by economic reasons and a return to arable farming. With less sheep around the grassland becomes prey to scrub and bracken which pushes out other flora and fauna. What remained was then churned up during the Second World War by the Downs becoming a huge military training ground particularly artillery and tanks. A return to arable farming post war has meant very few areas survive and it is only in the last decade or so that attempts to get chalk grassland back to its former state have been made, even then these are in very few areas, Lullington Heath is the biggest in East Sussex

 

[Tony Towner's Fridge]

Except it doesn't work like that, the whole process of maintaining chalk grassland involves long periods of sheep grazing and removing certain invasive scrub plants, you don't just lay a piece of turf.

The original chalk grassland was maintained from the 13th century onwards by huge flocks of sheep and created an eco system that was quite distinct from other areas. The flocks have dwindled, pushed out by economic reasons and a return to arable farming. With less sheep around the grassland becomes prey to scrub and bracken which pushes out other flora and fauna. What remained was then churned up during the Second World War by the Downs becoming a huge military training ground particularly artillery and tanks. A return to arable farming post war has meant very few areas survive and it is only in the last decade or so that attempts to get chalk grassland back to its former state have been made, even then these are in very few areas, Lullington Heath is the biggest in East Sussex

ThaT's as may be but I know about digging trenches to lay subterranean cable and pipes and it is an easy and if correctly designed and layed a totally ecologically friendly activity. Dig a trench two meteres across , remove soil and chalk (separately) from two metres down (maximum usually far less). Lay cable, sand fill then chalk overfill with the spoil you oriignally removed. Earth on top (again from the spoil originally remvoed) lay turf (or seed) and water. It is power cable too so will not leak. What really is the issue?

TNBA

TTF

 

[Notters]

Except it doesn't work like that, the whole process of maintaining chalk grassland involves long periods of sheep grazing and removing certain invasive scrub plants, you don't just lay a piece of turf.

The original chalk grassland was maintained from the 13th century onwards by huge flocks of sheep and created an eco system that was quite distinct from other areas. The flocks have dwindled, pushed out by economic reasons and a return to arable farming. With less sheep around the grassland becomes prey to scrub and bracken which pushes out other flora and fauna. What remained was then churned up during the Second World War by the Downs becoming a huge military training ground particularly artillery and tanks. A return to arable farming post war has meant very few areas survive and it is only in the last decade or so that attempts to get chalk grassland back to its former state have been made, even then these are in very few areas, Lullington Heath is the biggest in East Sussex

I think he means replacing the existing turf, which should be easy enough if done carefully (and quickly) by a skilled JCB operator.

 

[8ace]

Wind turbines cannot be an effective source of energy until we have a European electric grid.

Explain please Notters.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

It is only pissing in the wind as the energy used to create them in the first place in non-renewable. You have to make an initial step first. I seems stupid to have an argument against building renewable energy sources of essentially we don't have enough of them already to make them clean enough to build. Makes no sense.
Also, Paul McCartney.....that world renowned scientist I am all for not using coal and gas and oil but why not get someone to speak who does the research and knows about it inside out?

I spoke to someone involved in the technology and they are not cost effective.

 

[Notters]

Explain please Notters.

I'll try! Basically if you get a high pressure system over the whole of the UK, like in the image below, there won't be enough wind to make turbines spin pretty much anywhere round our coast. Therefore, you need to have another form of more reliable energy generating the base load.

When this happens in the winter is when we get our coldest weather, and therefore when the most electricity is needed. Therefore this base load is actually a very high proportion of the UK's total electricity requirements.

This is why I've been pretty much pro-nuclear and anti-wind for some time.

If there was a grid of turbines (and other sources, e.g. solar in Spain) then this would not be a problem. But such a grid is a very long way off (though there are already exchanges of electricity between countries). Therefore these windfarms being planned/constructed at the moment are almost useless, as the base-load still needs to be generated all the time... and coal-fired plants, which we rely on at present, can't just be started up when the wind dies down. They take weeks to get back into operation.

This is how a European "supergrid" could look:

 

[beorhthelm]

I actually heard it from Sir Paul McCartney at a UN seminar on the environment a few years back. I have no idea if the statement was 100% accurate. Yet what is undeniable is that deforestation is the biggest source of global warming by a million miles. A few wind farms will do next to nothing in the grand scheme. It's not just that, we need to break the oil companies resistance to other fuels for transport. The amount of greenhouse gases the wind farm will save from coal fired electricity stations is negated by the pollution caused in building them and maintaining them. Its pissing in the wind, pardon the pun.

i would say that this "statement" is 100% not backed by any facts, aka bollox. if it were true, there wouldnt be any environmental crisis. the total UK car population would be offset by 2800 acres, or less than 4.5 sq miles. we can easily live with that.

 

[beorhthelm]

Except it doesn't work like that, the whole process of maintaining chalk grassland involves long periods of sheep grazing and removing certain invasive scrub plants, you don't just lay a piece of turf.

The original chalk grassland was maintained from the 13th century onwards by huge flocks of sheep and created an eco system that was quite distinct from other areas. The flocks have dwindled, pushed out by economic reasons and a return to arable farming. With less sheep around the grassland becomes prey to scrub and bracken which pushes out other flora and fauna. What remained was then churned up during the Second World War by the Downs becoming a huge military training ground particularly artillery and tanks. A return to arable farming post war has meant very few areas survive and it is only in the last decade or so that attempts to get chalk grassland back to its former state have been made, even then these are in very few areas, Lullington Heath is the biggest in East Sussex

all this post does is show how the loverly downs vistas that people assume to be ancient and immutable are in fact a snap shot of constantly changing environment. what is about our modern world that we deem certain view must be preserved forever, when they've only been there a few decade to hundred years? a cut a couple of dozen meters wide through the downs is hardly going to cause statistically significant damage to chalk land that has already be torn up in the past decades. and i'm not convinced they have to take the power over the downs anew, with the disused Shoreham power station there im pretty sure the infrastructure or conduits for it should already be present.

 

[8ace]

I'll try! Basically if you get a high pressure system over the whole of the UK, like in the image below, there won't be enough wind to make turbines spin pretty much anywhere round our coast. Therefore, you need to have another form of more reliable energy generating the base load.

When this happens in the winter is when we get our coldest weather, and therefore when the most electricity is needed. Therefore this base load is actually a very high proportion of the UK's total electricity requirements.

This is why I've been pretty much pro-nuclear and anti-wind for some time.

If there was a grid of turbines (and other sources, e.g. solar in Spain) then this would not be a problem. But such a grid is a very long way off (though there are already exchanges of electricity between countries). Therefore these windfarms being planned/constructed at the moment are almost useless, as the base-load still needs to be generated all the time... and coal-fired plants, which we rely on at present, can't just be started up when the wind dies down. They take weeks to get back into operation.

This is how a European "supergrid" could look:

Cheers.
Sounds like a sensible idea so it'll probably never happen.

 

[CheeseRolls]

Explain please Notters.

This is a good idea in general, but there are some specifics here that relate to the efficiencies and carbon footprint of Wind turbines. Specifically for wind, the oft repeated claim that wind turbines are not green is based on the argument that when the wind is not blowing, you have to quickly turn on other forms of generation, typically gas powered stations. These pollute more than gas powered stations that run constantly, hence wind turbines are not very green. If you increase the capacity across the channel, there is much more scope to import electricity, when either demand is high or supply is low, conversely it is also possible to export electricity when supply is high and or demand is low.