Saturday, March 12, 2011

Eneco Wind Farm open day 31 March

Eneco wind farm public info day 31 March 2011 (2pm - 8pm)? Mowlem Theatre, Swanage
ENECO announces location of offshore wind park and public information days
Eneco have announced the location of the round 3 offshore wind park located off the Hampshire and Dorset coasts and to the west of the Isle of Wight.At the closest point, the wind park will be 8.2 miles (13.2km) away from Peveril Point in Swanage. The northern boundary of the site is located 10.2 miles (16.4km) from Bournemouth and 8.4 miles (13.5km) south west of The Needles and the Isle of Wight coast (Please see map attached).
The decision on the wind park location was reached after Eneco conducted a Zone Appraisal and Planning (ZAP) process in accordance with guidance from The Crown Estate. This is a new non-statutory strategic planning process designed to give developers a view of their zone as a whole. In order to make the decision, feedback from meetings with stakeholders throughout the year and from public information days held in November 2010 was incorporated. Additionally, findings from engineering and environmental surveys also influenced the final location.
Now that the location of the wind park has been identified, Eneco will be holding a series of information days in March 2011 to communicate the results of the ZAP to the general public.

Eneco, developers of a proposed offshore wind park off the Dorset and Hampshire coasts, and to the west of the Isle of Wight, has announced the location of the project and will be holding public information days on:


34 comments:

Anonymous said...

Some years ago I wrote an April 1st item for the Gazette saying we were to have a barrier across the bay topped with wind turbines. Oh dear, oh dear it is getting closer. I suggested the turbines should also act as fans on still days and blow any fog we were afflicted with across to Bournemouth but, alas, they don't seem to have decided to run with this part of the scheme.

Anonymous said...

Wonder why they could not have put it further away.

Anonymous said...

The water gets deeper as dose the distance to the shore.

Anonymous said...

Do we need the Electric generated by the Wind Farm ?

Wytch Farm is the second largest consumer of electricity in the South next to Heathrow Airport, (used to pump water down to float the oil up).

However, BP is pulling out of Wytch Farm because it’s output is on the decline and coming towards the end of its seriously productive life.

Furthermore, if we are so desperate for electricity why did the powers that be get rid of Poole Power Station, Windfrith and refuse the 40 mgw ROIL plant on Portland which was to recycle ships oily waste with Southern Electric to stop it being dumped at sea ?

Anonymous said...

@4.01 PM

Yes.

Anonymous said...

Okay, prove/justify your argument.

Anonymous said...

I suspect BP are selling Wytch farm because they are seriously strapped for cash. By the way, the hum people hear in Purbeck could well be coming from those electric pumps.

Poole power station was built in the early 50s. It was coal powered but may have been converted to oil. They do have a finite life span you know. The same goes for reactors of course. Winfrith was research rather than power but sold the electricity from a Steam Generating Heavy Water Reactor to the grid. This was worth doing because the development and building were paid for from research funding. It ceased operation over 20 years ago when it reached the end of its design life. Whether it had a containment vessel is a moot point so it may not have been particularly disaster proof.

David Furmage said...

Have to do this in few parts ;)

The scientific community now almost unanimously agrees that burning fossil fuels for energy should be phased out as soon as possible. There are two major reasons for this. One is that the fuel is being used up at least ten thousand times faster than it is being produced, and, therefore, will only last a few more decades. The other is that burning fossil fuels releases by-products into the atmosphere, some of which enhance the so-called greenhouse effect. This is causing the planet to become warmer and our climate to become unstable.

Recreational water users like myself and others i know will feel the effects of climate change more directly than most other people. Rising sea levels will interfere with surf spots causing some to disappear altogether; episodic storm events will cause severe and unnatural coastal erosion; intense bursts of rainfall will drive land-based pollutants into the sea; and freshwater inflow due to glacial melting could interfere with ocean currents and radically 
alter coastal water 
temperatures.

The general opinion amongst scientists that action must be taken immediately to reduce the effects of climate change. One of the most important issues to address is the development and implementation of renewable, clean energy sources.

Renewable means that the energy is replaced at the same rate as it is used by us and clean means that the method of converting the energy does not release harmful by-products (particularly greenhouse gases) into the atmosphere. One difficulty at the moment is that the devices we have designed to convert energy this way are still quite cumbersome and inefficient, and we are so energy-hungry that we need a vast number of them to replace fossil-fuel-burning power stations. We have to be careful to make sure that their very presence does not degrade the environment in such a way that the environmental benefits are outweighed by the costs.

David Furmage said...

Part 3.

Tidal lagoons: These are smaller schemes than tidal barrages; they produce less power but have lower environmental impacts. A tidal lagoon is a circular concrete wall, mounted on the seabed just offshore, which artificially traps water on the incoming tide and releases it through electricity-generating turbines. It could be thought of as a kind of tidal buffer whereby the tidal energy is stored as potential energy in the lagoon and then converted to electricity in a controlled manner. However, tidal lagoons are very much an unproven technology and the environmental effects are still unpredictable. They would probably not only affect the ecosystem, but also the local wave and current regimes and, hence, the coastal morphology. To achieve a reasonable power output, a large number of these concrete structures would have to be installed along the coast.

Tidal Stream Turbines: These are simply turbines that are put in the middle of the tidal stream flow to extract energy, similar to the way a windmill extracts energy from the air. They are much smaller devices than tidal barriers or lagoons, and would have lower environmental impacts. However, their energy output per unit is also very low, so a large number of them would be required to produce a reasonable amount of power. They would probably be mounted on the seabed, in large clusters some distance from the shore to maximize tidal stream velocities. The sheer number of them required would mean that some environmental impact would be inevitable. Also, even though the principle is very simple, several practical issues still need to be resolved before the design is standardized, which could take several more years of research.

David Furmage said...

Please can you delete last two posts , thank you.

Anonymous said...

These most recent posts justify an increase in nuclear fuelled power stations set at regular intervals along sparsely populated costal regions. I wonder why the posts are incomplete with a request for deletion though.

David Furmage said...

I asked for my posts to be deleted because I posted my posts in parts ,though some parts are missing and thought it was a bit confusing.

I will try and get it right later on and start them again.

Anonymous said...

These most recent posts justify an increase in nuclear fuelled power stations set at regular intervals along sparsely populated costal regions. I wonder why the posts are incomplete with a request for deletion though.

Nuclear fuelled power stations, is this a bad joke.

Anonymous said...

No, why should it be? Safety is rigourous and well proven, particularly with latest technology within the industry.

Anonymous said...

Ref 'tidal barrages'

The fact that we are Purbeck and not Pembroke restricts the potential, Pembroke has a tidal range of circa ten metres, whereas Purbeck has one to two !
The wind farm will so interfere with the marine traffic so as to make it none viable so the ideal location for a tidal barrage would be across where the Chain Ferry is to Sandbanks and put a road bridge on it.

Just a thought.

David Furmage said...

Right let's try this again. So here we go;)

Part 1

The scientific community now almost unanimously agrees that burning fossil fuels for energy should be phased out as soon as possible. There are two major reasons for this. One is that the fuel is being used up at least ten thousand times faster than it is being produced, and, therefore, will only last a few more decades. The other is that burning fossil fuels releases by-products into the atmosphere, some of which enhance the so-called greenhouse effect. This is causing the planet to become warmer and our climate to become unstable.

Recreational water users like myself and others i know will feel the effects of climate change more directly than most other people. Rising sea levels will interfere with surf spots causing some to disappear altogether; episodic storm events will cause severe and unnatural coastal erosion; intense bursts of rainfall will drive land-based pollutants into the sea; and freshwater inflow due to glacial melting could interfere with ocean currents and radically 
alter coastal water 
temperatures.

The general opinion amongst scientists that action must be taken immediately to reduce the effects of climate change. One of the most important issues to address is the development and implementation of renewable, clean energy sources.

Renewable means that the energy is replaced at the same rate as it is used by us and clean means that the method of converting the energy does not release harmful by-products (particularly greenhouse gases) into the atmosphere. One difficulty at the moment is that the devices we have designed to convert energy this way are still quite cumbersome and inefficient, and we are so energy-hungry that we need a vast number of them to replace fossil-fuel-burning power stations. We have to be careful to make sure that their very presence does not degrade the environment in such a way that the environmental benefits are outweighed by the costs.

David Furmage said...

Part 3

Tidal Stream Turbines: These are simply turbines that are put in the middle of the tidal stream flow to extract energy, similar to the way a windmill extracts energy from the air. They are much smaller devices than tidal barriers or lagoons, and would have lower environmental impacts. However, their energy output per unit is also very low, so a large number of them would be required to produce a reasonable amount of power. They would probably be mounted on the seabed, in large clusters some distance from the shore to maximize tidal stream velocities. The sheer number of them required would mean that some environmental impact would be inevitable. Also, even though the principle is very simple, several practical issues still need to be resolved before the design is standardized, which could take several more years of research.

Summary

I am supportive of the aims of tidal energy as it has the potential to generate clean, safe, renewable energy and thus contribute towards combating climate changed.

The Problem

We need to be able to find more ways of creating energy without damaging the earth. If we are unable to do this then we will continue to cause pollution, we’ll continue to run out of our natural resources and we’ll allow the continuation of damaging climate change.

The Solution

Renewable energy and marine renewable energy devices can harness the power in wind, waves and the sun and transform this into ‘green’ electricity – electricity that is produced without creating waste products such as nuclear waste or CO as a by-product. Just as we harness energy from the sea to surf or windsurf our same playgrounds can be used in creating cleaner and safer energy. I believe that the UK (and the rest of the world) must embrace renewable energy for a cleaner and greener future!

Renewable energy needs to be harnessed, as the UK is signed up to the Kyoto Protocol. The Kyoto Protocol commits 38 industrial countries to reduce their CO2 emissions to levels less than 5% of what they were in 1990. This means a 10% reduction for the UK by 2010.

David Furmage said...

Part 4

The UK has renewable energy sources in abundance with wind and wave action a constant year round resource. They’re also at a peak in the winter when energy demands are also at there highest, so more than enough to meet our electrical demand.

There are examples of renewable energy working around the world. Opponents of renewable energy will state that we will still need power stations to back up energy sources for when the sun doesn’t shine, the wind doesn’t blow and there are no waves (sounds like a horrid day), but this is the same for every energy source. Nuclear power stations need back up power stations as they regularly go ‘down’ and are unable to get electricity to the national grid.

Whilst there has been some talk over whether or not renewable energy devices will present a threat to nearshore wave quality and “our surf”, it has been deemed by most that the impacts on surfing will be negligible. Waves provide us bodyboarders, surfers, windsurfers and kayakers with a natural source of energy to indulge our passion. There are enough waves to go round for us not to feel threatened by offshore renewable energy devices. What offshore renewables will help to bring us, however, is clean, green energy. We all need to call for consistent modelling and research in relation to the potential effects and placement of offshore renewable energy devices on surf and coastal erosion. Within a few years we will have a better idea of which renewable source of energy delivers the best performance – both in terms of harnessing energy, protecting the marine environment and all who use it for recreation.

David Furmage said...

Part 5

What can you do?

Ask yourself: “Do I need to turn this on now?”

Turn off lights when not in use.

Use energy efficient light bulbs and look for energy efficiency when buying electrical goods.

Watching less Television.

Only put the water in the kettle you need.

Use a kettle to boil water for cooking.

Place switch plugs on applications that drain standby power.

Unplug unused appliances.

Turn down your refrigerator.

Insulate your house, keep the heat in, in winter and out in summer.

Clean your refrigerator coils and fan.

Dry your clothes on a line or drying racks.

Wash your clothes in cold water.

Configure power management on your computers.

Program your heating more conservatively.

Using long underwear and more quilts in the winter.

Creating a cross draft to avoid the use of fans and air conditioners in the summer.

Shut off your gas pilots during the summer months.

Riding a bike or public transit to work as often as possible.

All of these suggestions and many more will help save the planet and oceans, most of them will save you money!!! It’s a win win situation!

Or here's another thought for you to think about........

Wind Turbines vs. Energy Saving - a case study!

Most efficientt wind farms would produce about 20 MW a year assuming that a standard 500 kW 150 ft turbine produces about 125 kW - about 25% maximum capacity. modern turbines of 1.5 MW capacity can get up to about 400 kW. 

There are 1,628,000 houses in the UK with pitched roof and no roof insulation.

3780 kWh of energy are lost by each such house each year.

Insulation to 1990 Building Regulations standard would save 3375 kWh p.a.

The annual output of a 750 kW turbine is 1.64 m units.

Insulating 485 houses would save that amount of energy each year.

New funding arrangements will give wind energy a subsidy of 2p per unit.

The annual subsidy of the turbine will be £32,850.

The cost of insulation is a one-off £122 per house, say £60,000 for 485 houses.

Over the 100 year life of the houses, the energy saving cost averages £600 pa 

Saving pollution by insulation is 55 times more cost-effective than saving it by wind turbines!

And look at the birds you save!

David  Furmage.

Anonymous said...

What annoys me is statements like “which will provide enough renewable power for between 615,000 and 820,000 homes” How misleading. The electricity consumption of a household is a fraction of their total energy use –gas, and oil making up the bulk. Then there is no account of transport and industry. I know we have to start somewhere, but what I wonder is the actual contribution of a wind farm to our total energy usage?
Nick Storer

Anonymous said...

Any better ideas, Nick?

Anonymous said...

Most governments seem to agree that the implementation of renewable energy sources needs to be part of the overall mix of supply which includes nuclear, gas etc. It is not yet clear how big a part renewable can play in the long term but effort is being applied to increase efficiency across the board.

In addition to the downsides of burning fossil fuels mentioned in the earlier post, we must add the loss of miners lives extending to thousands per annum across the globe.

Anonymous said...

Any better ideas, Nick?
Well no I’m a humble cook and as such shouldn’t have to worry about these complicated things. However I thought today’s “costing the earth” on R4 was worth a listen: http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00zf34j
and look forward to nuclear fusion bringing cheap clean power to all.

Anonymous said...

I wonder if they could design the supports for the turbines so as to provide a habitat for lobsters and give us something for the restaurants. The French are rumoured to push old cars off cliff tops to do this so welding on some debris should have the right effect.

David Furmage said...

Sorry here's

Part 2

The other problem is that most renewable energy sources are intermittent. While we can simply choose how much fossil fuel to burn in a coal-fired power station, we cannot control when the wind, the sun and or the waves will produce energy for us. One renewable energy source that might well go a little way towards alleviating this problem is tidal energy. Although the tides are not related in any way to our demand for electricity, they are, at least, highly predictable. The tides can be predicted weeks, months, years and even centuries into the future.

The movement of water on the surface of the planet due to the tides causes (a) vertical water movements at coastal locations and (b) horizontal movements of water along the coast, called tidal streams. The vertical movements are magnified in places where there is a funnelling effect, such as in estuaries, and the horizontal movements are magnified in places where the flow is constricted, such as around headlands and between islands. Importantly, both of these water motions can be exploited to turn electricity-producing turbines, hence produce electrical energy in a clean and renewable way.

In the United Kingdom, tidal ranges are large and tidal streams are strong, which means that a considerable proportion of the UKs electricity could be produced from the tides. The best areas are the English Channel, the Orkney Islands, Northern Ireland and the Bristol Channel. At around nine metres, the Bristol Channel tidal range is one of the largest in the world.

Types of tidal energy converters

The two types of tidal water movement can be exploited by tapping off a small proportion of their kinetic energy to turn electricity-generating turbines in a similar way to either hydroelectric or wind turbines. Energy can be extracted from the rise and fall of the tide by blocking off an estuary with a tidal barrage, or artificially trapping water in a tidal lagoon, and then redirecting the trapped water through a turbine. Energy can also be extracted from tidal streams if a turbine is placed directly in the water flow.

Tidal barriers: These need to be very large projects if they are to produce a reasonable amount of electrical power. The largest one in existence is at La Rance in Northern France, built in 1966. It consists of a 0.8-km wall of concrete across the estuary and generates about 240 MW of electrical power. The Severn tidal barrier near Bristol, which is still being considered, would consist of a 16-km-long wall and would generate around 9,000 MW about five percent of the UKs electricity requirements. It would cost several billion pounds to build. A huge tidal barrier like the one proposed across the Severn Estuary would have a significant affect on the environment, which, in the long term, might outweigh the benefits. The presence of a giant wall across an estuary, with two different water masses communicated only by a small opening where turbines are located, will modify the existing ecosystem in several ways; these include (a) increased concentrations of pollutants, (b) altered phytoplankton growth and (c) elimination of migratory fish species.

Tidal lagoons: These are smaller schemes than tidal barrages; they produce less power but have lower environmental impacts. A tidal lagoon is a circular concrete wall, mounted on the seabed just offshore, which artificially traps water on the incoming tide and releases it through electricity-generating turbines. It could be thought of as a kind of tidal buffer whereby the tidal energy is stored as potential energy in the lagoon and then converted to electricity in a controlled manner. However, tidal lagoons are very much an unproven technology and the environmental effects are still unpredictable. They would probably not only affect the ecosystem, but also the local wave and current regimes and, hence, the coastal morphology. To achieve a reasonable power output, a large number of these concrete structures would have to be installed along the coast.

Anonymous said...

Nice cut & paste x 5

Anonymous said...

David Furmage in his list of ways to save energy, (16/3/11 9:21pm), his 8th post on the subject has left out one major saving of power; namely; the un-plugging of his computer.

David Furmage said...

I don't have a pc , I have an I Touch4 which I power with a mini portable solar panel.;)

Anonymous said...

First of all, that was the best comeback ever. Funny Stuff.

Secondly, this wind farm is a great idea. It, combined with many other potential sites will increase the UK's Renewable Energy supply, which cant be deemed a bad thing.
I agree that nuclear is the next step for us. BUT it is also a finite source, and we havent quite worked out what to do with the waste yet.
Nuclear shouldnt become the new oil/coal, it needs to be used to help us through the transitional period from 'dirty' to 'clean' fuels and projects like this are a great step in the right direction. I believe an individual turbine produces 800x or 8000x (cant remember)more energy than it takes to create one. So keep em coming!

Luke Atkinson

Anonymous said...

refused! what the F**K is going on?

Anonymous said...

Wind power to generate electricity is all very well but what do we do when we have weather like last December? Freezing cold, demand for electricity sky high and no wind to rotate the turbines.

Tidal power? Now there's an idea worth pursuing.....

Anonymous said...

I guess on very windy days one would use the excess electricity to pump water up to a lake in Durlston; then when becalmed simply release the potential energy.

Anonymous said...

Wind power to generate electricity is all very well but what do we do when we have weather like last December? Freezing cold, demand for electricity sky high and no wind to rotate the turbines.

Mmmm what could we do?? What did we do pre gas, coal and nuclear.
Strange thing this, wondering about how to generate 'clean' electricity.

Anonymous said...

Unfortunately for the wind farm industry, there are recently published technical papers written using real world data from places like Holland that show quite clearly that not only do wind farms not save CO2 being released into the atmosphere, they also do not save any fossil fuels from being burnt. So - since they are also pretty useless at generating electricity - what use are they and why are we putting the poorest people in the country into fuel poverty to pay for them? The answer is, of course, that the developers make extremely good money from them and have the resources make them appear green. Please do your due diligence on wind farms and hopefully you will be angry enough with what you find to fight tooth and nail to stop this ludicrous increase in useless technology (which you are paying for).