Author: Sal
Cornwall Light & Power Wind Farm Exhibition: Dates Released
Friday, 22nd August, 2008 at 2:39 pm, Isle of Wight
Cornwall Light & Power have now officially released details of an exhibition planned for next month where they intend to put forward proposals for the wind power project at Cheverton Down near Shorwell.
The exhibition takes place at four different locations across the Wight, enabling people to every corner access to the proposals.
The new application, a collaboration between Cornwall Light & Power and Vestas will be for three modern machines, which we’re told would generate ten times more electricity than those originally approved back in 1993.
Steve Allen, Development Manager at Cornwall Light & Power, said:
“We are extremely keen to hear people’s thoughts on our revised plans for the wind cluster at Cheverton Down. The Island’s views and opinions on our proposals will be invaluable to us in the preparing a planning application for consideration by the Isle of Wight Council.”
The public exhibition schedule is as follows:
Wednesday 3rd September (3.30pm – 7.30pm), Shorwell Parish Hall, Shorwell
Thursday 4th September (5.30pm – 8pm), Wilberforce Hall, Brighstone
Friday 5th September (12noon – 8pm), Riverside Centre, Newport
Saturday 6th September (10am – 2pm), West Wight Sports Centre, Freshwater
Further information can also be found online and residents are also encouraged to contact the development team directly on 01872 226 930 or info (at) clpwindprojects.co.uk with any questions or feedback.
Image: .Martin.
Email This Story To A Friend
August 22nd, 2008 at 7:15 pm
As I write this, about 50 metres above sea level, there is not a breath of wind, so the quote:
“three modern machines, which we’re told would generate ten times more electricity than those originally approved back in 1993.”
does not make any sense.
How can these people make such predictions?
If you look at Directgov website, you will see that there has to be optimum conditions for these things to function. Not enough windspeed, they won’t work. Too much and they have to be switched off because of the danger they pose.
There will be massive resistance to these inefficient, uneconomic machines.
August 22nd, 2008 at 7:42 pm
My mind is w-i-d-e open on this one and I’ll look forward to hearing what everyone has to say.
I’d LIKE them to be a good call if I’m honest but there does seem to be a lot of mixed messages re windfarms.
*scratches head*
Keep us posted - many thanks!
August 24th, 2008 at 4:35 pm
Like Helen, I’m very open-minded and interested to see the details at the exhibition. And yes, I do live pretty close to the proposed site. This part of the Island certainly catches the wind - I can attest to that. Sounds like a gale whipping round the house as I type.
August 24th, 2008 at 4:46 pm
Get it on! I live within 1 mile of the proposed site and I give the project my full support. Vestas Blades employs nearly 500 of our Island people, including many of our young people with young families. They pay a decent wage and are keeping our future on the Island. As a grandfather, I would like more companies like this on the Island to keep our kids here for the future. Stop moaning you nimby oldies. If you don’t like it, leave!!!
Dinky
August 24th, 2008 at 6:03 pm
and encourage eco tourists to the Island. I was recently in Cambridgeshire and the wind site up there is awe inspiring and people drive miles out of their way just to look at them..
Surprisingly they turn even when there is no wind at ground level
August 24th, 2008 at 6:11 pm
@ Helen and Wendy V: That’s good. Research the subject. Ask the hard questions like, what is the optimum wind speed. You should be told between 14m/s (32 m.p.h.) and 25m/s (56 m.p.h.).
If the wind is above 56 m.p.h., the turbine HAS to shut down as it becomes in danger of breaking apart. Don’t believe me. Check the DTI website.
If the wind is below 32 m.p.h., the turbine functions at between 0% and 80% capacity depending upon the wind speed.
So to function at 100% all the time, the wind MUST blow between 32 and 56 m.p.h. every day!
What are the chances of that? Less than 25%!
@ dinky: A well thought out and reasoned response!
August 24th, 2008 at 7:51 pm
…. assuming DTI website has all the latest information then Freddie! I’ve been caught out that way on another issue. Government slow-turning cogs often lag behind industry with regards to information.
Dinky - that’s my gut reaction too but isn’t all the publicity along the lines of are they/aren’t they (windfarms) any use v confusing?
*still scratching head*
August 25th, 2008 at 2:24 am
I know, lets not bother trying every other source of energy and just drain away what we’ve got until we all live in the Dark ages. If wind farms have a 10% chance of success, that is 10% more than nothing, which is the other option at the moment
August 25th, 2008 at 7:25 am
@kj Yet another well thought out response.
Why can you adherents not have a proper debate instead of just stamping your feet like Violet Elizabeth?
Electricity generation from wind power is variable, unpredictable and uncontrollable.
6500 wind turbines (of 2 Mw capacity) would be needed to meet the Government’s target of 10% electricity generation from renewables by 2010.
Over 90% of conventional power stations would need to be kept in operation to guarantee electricity supplies.
For every one of these giant turbines, 1000 metric tonnes of concrete, or 1000 of those maxi bags you get from DIY stores, would need to be poured into the earth to maintain turbine stability, polluting the water table.
Not a very green legacy to leave behind is it?
August 25th, 2008 at 8:56 am
its only ‘ a well thought out response’ because it doesn’t agree with yours.
Am more in favour of tidel and thermal enrggy sources and research on any other forms of energy production, but not at the expense of wind, in addition to wind.
The turbine industry is still in its infancy and it may take another 100 years before it reaches any fruitition, but then if we based air travel based on Bleriots crossing of the Channel 100 years ago, we would have no air travel.
If we have NO renewable energy sources by the time current natural resources run out,’green ‘issues will be the least of our worries.
August 25th, 2008 at 9:38 am
Helen and Wendy V:
This may be of interest to you.
contains the findings of E.ON Netz, Germany AND Europes biggest provider of wind farms.
It does not make for good reading for the adherents/supporters of wind farms.
Also this:
The Wind Power Report Ed.3 2006, published by ABS Energy Research.
In particular under the heading “Key Findings” this quote:
“Wind power has been promoted for politico/environmental reasons and wind developers have benefited from substantial subsidies, leading to exaggerated claims. A reality check is needed.”
And under Reasons to buy:
“With the first real evidence of performance from some of the most authoritative sources in the power industry, the claims for wind power are being called into question”
Of course you will still get people like George Monbiot and the IPCC pooh-poohing indisputable facts, but you must make up your own mind.
August 25th, 2008 at 11:17 am
All these figure are irrelevent and are not an excuse for doing nothing.
What would your suggestions be for replacing our energy sources
August 26th, 2008 at 10:11 am
One thing came to my mind this weekend
The Tinsley (sp?) chimneys near Sheffield were demolished this weekend as they are now redundant.
If the turbines turn out to be useless surely they could be taken away again with no huge damage - of course I realise it’s not just the windmills and there is more infrastructure/loadsamoney involved but still … made me think.
Also there was a big campaign to SAVE the chimneys
August 26th, 2008 at 12:30 pm
Helen, I applaud your determination to investigate
further before making up your mind.
You have not said “All these figure are irrelevent” which seems to be kj’s thought process.
I do however, urge you to heed “wind developers have benefited from substantial subsidies”.
Go to the Exhibition and ask direct questions of CLP:
“will you be getting any subsidy from any source towards the installation and construction costs?”
When the answer is “yes”, why not ask “If this is such a great idea, why do you not bear all of costs yourselves?” “why should the taxpayer subsidise a private company?” “Where will you store the electricity/” (They can’t) “If it was winter time and little or no wind for weeks(as is often the case), how will you generate electricity?”
If you are satisfied with the responses, then fine, vote for the proposal. Just don’t jump aboard a fashionable bandwagon before thinking about the consequences.
“If the turbines turn out to be useless surely they could be taken away again with no huge damage”. Can you honestly see anyone putting their hands up to such a colossal mistake?
August 26th, 2008 at 2:16 pm
and your alternative to wind when the existing natural resources are……..
August 26th, 2008 at 4:12 pm
Hello Freddie you say “wind developers have benefited from substantial subsidies”. Please enlighten me.
August 26th, 2008 at 5:06 pm
COB, do your own research. I’m quite fed up with mindless one-liners such as
“and your alternative to wind when the existing natural resources are…”
or
“All these figure are irrelevent and are not an excuse for doing nothing.”
or
“Please enlighten me”
If you have something sensible to say to promote the other side of the wind turbine debate, then please do so. For example, wind turbines generate electricity 24 hours a day 7 days a week. But you can’t, can you, because they don’t, do they?
August 26th, 2008 at 6:26 pm
You detractors base their arguments on spurious facts. No one sujests the entire country be powered to its current levels 24 hous a day 7 days a week by wind power.
Even using your own figure of 10% (which is actually higher than mine!!!) wind as part of combined renewable resource would be great, with about 5% coming from current solar, 20% from current tidal 5% from current thermal and the balace from nucleur/split particle is realistic with the ability to improve the non-nucleur over time
We need to combine all current forms of electrical generation NOW to extend the life of the existing supply….So yes give us a half dozen windmills and supply us with 10% of our energy
August 26th, 2008 at 7:56 pm
Thats much better. To a certain extent we have a basis for some agreement, except that I would like to see the tidal element of your argument increased to at least 40%, as it is a constant source which would never vary except for about an hour a day when the tide is turning.
As far as basing my argument on spurious facts, I have to disagree. Find me a wind farm project that is sustainable without some form of subsidy.
Indeed, I believe that the horrendous rises in energy prices over the past few years has more to do with making up the losses of wind farm projects than it does with “wholesale prices”, the excuse made as the cause.
August 26th, 2008 at 10:16 pm
I did sate ‘current’. All these ‘alternative’ schemes are in their infancy and who knows where technology will lead us. If the money spent on oil in the last 50 years had been spent on other resources we could be self sufficient today.
Subsidies are a fact of life and have to be accepted in a developing industry. Don’t you think tidal, thermal and Solar will get the same subsidy?
We have to develop the resources we have, whether it develops 40% 10% or 1% of our energy requirements.
Turn that light out when you go out
I’d still like to see your ‘proposals’
August 26th, 2008 at 11:49 pm
I’m not opposed to wind generators, per se, but I do seem to recall that the energy required to make and erect them actually exceeds the amount they are expected to generate in their working life. I don’t have chapter and verse, but it sounds uncomfortably plausible (a bit like low energy bulbs, that require greater resources to make than incandescent ones, and also contain toxic elements that are tricky to dispose of).
Beware the Law of Unintended Consequences!
August 27th, 2008 at 8:36 am
Hello again Freddie
My Mindless one liner was a serious question. Can you please guide me to the subsidies you mention. There are various grant bodies for the smaller wind turbines, carbon trust, DTI, etc. However we are looking at a few thousand pounds.
With regards to turbines turning 24/7 any bank funded wind turbine development has to go through a strict wind resource analysis. They will require a data set comprising of site wind resource data using a internationally reconised set of instrumentation, orientation and recording time sets. The site is measured over a period of between one and three years. This will give an average wind speed over this period which is used amongst other analysis and resource data to ensure that the return on investment (ROI) is within a acceptable time. Normally three or four years. The wind turbines will not turn 24/7, however the average annual wind input will give an energy output. This is generally the stated annual energy yield, not a 24/7 figure.
August 27th, 2008 at 3:11 pm
@kj “Turn that light out when you go out”,
I do and the computer, TV,etc. Much good will it do.
@JP “Beware the Law of Unintended Consequences!”
Ain’t that the truth.
@ COB From being obtuse, you seem to have at least been reading up some seriously technical stuff. Well done! I did NOT suggest that turbines should work for 24/7. Read the post again and see my tongue in my cheek. There! See it?
You want me to do your research for you? OK fine! Try these sources:
National Audit Office Report 16/02/05.
Oswald Consultancy Report 07/12/06 for the Renewable Energy Foundation.
£1 billion wind farm subsidy article Daily Mail 05/02/08.
Wind Power Subsidy in UK 2006 by John Etherington PhD DIC BSc ARCS.
House of Commons Committee of Public Accounts. Renewable Energy 6th Report 2005/6
August 27th, 2008 at 3:13 pm
When You’ve read that lot, let me know. I’ll get you some more.
Have you moved that old yacht off the road by the Haven yet?
August 27th, 2008 at 5:04 pm
With a ROI of less than four years why would I need a subsidy. The government have offered to support the investment, not to finance it. As I said before please find me a direct link to a grant aid body still offering a subsidy today, not four years ago.
August 27th, 2008 at 6:15 pm
“not four years ago.”
See you have trouble with “doing the math” as well as being obtuse, COB.
Where is there any mention of the year 2004?
You should get yourself off to Specsavers!
August 27th, 2008 at 7:08 pm
Corblimey … they won’t need a wind farm with all the hot air from you two … there’ll be enough here to keep Ventnor going for a while
(only joking of course - before you both come at me with your handbags)
August 27th, 2008 at 8:18 pm
Helen, that is a very good point, but fear not, COB and I are only winding each other up.
I know that he has a good sense of humour because he is a football fan and a supporter of Christal Palace, which makes him an expert on subsidies to unprofitable businesses!
October 14th, 2008 at 6:19 pm
Dear Freddie,
You appear to have excellent understand of the ecological hypocrisy that is wind-turbine technology.
I would be immensely grateful if you could kindly e-mail on harrydawes@hotmail.com as I’d relish the opportunity to discuss this matter in more detail via a direct channel.
I live on the Island and hold grave concern at the proposal of these gargantuan Wind turbines for Cheverton Down.
I really hope to hear from you,
Kind Regards,
Harry