Turbines downed

Freddie · Joined: 06 Oct 2009 Posts: 34

What a result! The Officer recommendation for tha Cheverton Down Wind Farm is for REFUSAL!
And still those bozos, led now by the Newport Town Councillor who is taking the coach of the unemployed up to London, are insisting that CLAP will appeal and WIN the appeal.
Get a life woman. It's OVER
Well done to everyone who does not want to pay double what they are paying now for their electricity.
Big up to John, Jenny, Phil, Joan etc. etc. And especially Bill Murphy
EAT THAT Ventnor Blag.

Georgedubya · Joined: 20 Oct 2009 Posts: 28

Objectors should not get too carried away.
It would not be the first time that Members defied Officer recommendation and overturned their recommendation.
Having said that, if the Members of the Planning Committee, who are in the majority, Conservative, do decide to approve and go against officer recommendation, or there turns out to be another mechanism whereby this is approved, I believe that there will never be a Conservative Councillor elected in 2013.
It is on the face of it good news when one reads the officer report, but these people are not to be trusted and I wonder what was said at the meeting between Pugh and Miliband last month.
Could be - if you let this through, government grants will be commensurate with the loss of face you will suffer.
Don't celebrate till the fat lady sings.

Mo · Joined: 07 Oct 2009 Posts: 20

In response to ace "But I still need convincing either way (not with dogmatic ranting or one scientists point of view) To be in denial about it is stupid, as a gardener, I can see changes in seasons, like this Autumn.""
Its a natural phenomena ace.
Its been happening for milennia.
To address your London Smog allusion, the worst it ever got and I was there, was 1952 when 4,000 peopled died over and above the normal number, due to the smog.
The main cause estimated at 80% was from coal burning fires and hardly any wind (surprise, surprise) to disperse the resultant smoke/fog = smog!
The Met office measured that there were 3,300ng/M3 hydrocarbons in 1952.
The last measurements I can find (probably due to it being so low) was in 1992 which was 10.2ng/M3.
I can't believe that it would be any higher now.
Add to the mix the exposee of the emails from Professors of Climate Change which contain such phrases as "use the same trick" and there can be no doubt that this is just a scam to raise yet more taxes via the green bandwagon to pay for things like the latest bureaucrats in Brussels.
You profess to be ex-services, yet this government are chucking billions at Global Warming, while asking our armed forces to fight without the proper equipment.
TBH, people like Gore, Sterne and now Brown and Miliband are beneath contempt.
Still nice to have you back. Wheres Rob?

acegardener · Joined: 28 Oct 2009 Posts: 12

Georgedubya · Joined: 20 Oct 2009 Posts: 28

Oh dear I thought that I was being held responsible for:
"But to live a life of doom and gloom about reccession, war and cheating MPs and never look up and see a bit of light on the horizon"
taken from another thread.
At least we are now having a debate about it, unlike on Ventnor Blog or the UEA or the ridiculously named Department of Climate Change with the equally duplicitous Secretary of State, who is now planning 10 new nuclear power stations.
If one puts the other side of the argument to those people, one is rounded upon by a pack of wolves with cries of "Luddite" "Flat-Earther" "NIMBY" and worse. I believe that you have lost any argument or credibility when you have to resort to insults and name calling of those opposed to your views.
The biggest problem IS overpopulation, but without a hot work permit to exterminate a few billion, that won't change.
The second biggest problem is food.
The anthem of Band Aid all those years ago "Feed the world"?
Well it was difficult enough then and now it is virtually impossible.
The consequence of that is countries like Indonesia are deforesting with a vengeance.
That in turn has three further consequences.
1 The loss of habitat for wildlife, like Orang Utans
2 The planting of Palm Oil farms, which leads to more deforestation.
3 The burning of tree stumps/ground weeds and similar vegetation, leading to the emission of clouds of black smoke, which take years to disperse, because there are no trees left to help absorb the harmful gases
For every Indonesia, a huge country, there are probably another 40 smaller countries doing similar things "to the environment" and they don't care!
All they are doing is trying to survive, the most natural instinct of all.
At the opposite end of the spectrum, there are the elite, making shedloads of cash by exploiting this situation, be they banks, wind turbine companies, oil and petroleum companies or government "consultants".
What is being proposed here on the IOW is the erection of 3 wind turbines by an offshore holding company, under the CL&P vest and pants which is of benefit only to that company, its Directors and Shareholders.
If there is a genuine application for any renewable energy production which is of benefit to the island and its inhabitants, I have no doubt that it would receive almost 100% support.
talis point that "we are the architects of our own destruction" is the most telling factor, because what is sauce for the gander will undoubtedly kill the goose!

Freddie · Joined: 06 Oct 2009 Posts: 34

Yep. Debate is good. Then when we've had the debate throw it out in line with the officer recommendation. They are not going to build the three little ones. Theres not enough MONEY in it for them.
As has been said before, don't forget that the "overwhelming" support for wind turbines on the island was shown to be utterly false when Ms Trickey put up the EPetition for 3 months and got ........1,006 signatures!
On the latest postings about the recommendation for refusal on the totally unbiased hyperlocalnewsbase AKA Ventnor Brag, I could not help noticing this gem from Noddys best pal, Big Ears:
"In relation to wind turbines Denmark have cut:
2) the subsidies provided to support the wind energy business, deeming the business fully fledged and no longer in need of this support"
Maybe Big Ears should get his eyes seen to, because according to the Renewable Energy Forum;

"In the last few days Venstre, the governing party in the Danish parliament, announced that it would be phasing out subsidy for onshore wind power in order to concentrate on other renewables such as biogas and solar.
In a press statement released on the 17th of September, Lars Christian Lilleholt, energy and environment spokesman for Venstre pointed out the very heavy burden now placed on consumers to support wind power, and announced the intention of putting a cap on this in order to concentrate on other technologies.
The change of emphasis comes after a year of increasing concern over the value for money offered by the Danish wind project. In May the Renewable Energy Foundation (REF) published a major study of the Danish and German spot price markets for electricity which noted that wind power was now beginning to place real strains on those systems."
ENDS, with acknowledgements to REF.

So the biggest user of wind turbines in Europe is now finding it too much of a "very heavy burden now placed on consumers to support wind power"
Thats WHY they have cut the subsidies Big Ears. Still like the rest of your pals, don't let an "Inconvenient Truth" get in the way of your misleading propaganda!

acegardener · Joined: 28 Oct 2009 Posts: 12

Freddie · Joined: 06 Oct 2009 Posts: 34

ace, if you don't "peruse the Ventnor Blog" you will not discover the lies and misleading propaganda that these people support!
Why did you not pick up on the Denmark issue?
Do you not think that it is seriously important if so called intelligent people are deliberately misquoting what the Danish government is saying about wind turbine subsidies?
This is what people are getting away with if left unchallenged.
Lets face it Blair lied to us about WMD just so he and Bush could invade Iraq. And that b*****d nearly got the gig as Euro Pres.!!
Why should we be surprised that "they" should lie to us about a really good tax raising scam like global warming in general and wind in particular.
They are already softening us up for "huge rises in energy prices".
As for alternatives, I have to say that I have faith in my old industry.
Go punch in "Exxon" and see how several companies are now working together to bring cheap LNG to Milford Haven in Wales and another refinery in Italy.
I would much rather trust my old colleagues to come up with the goods than a bunch of bearded "professors" who get millions in grants to come up with "the right answers". Wink

BTW, what is the middle LLI stand for? I know the rest! Embarassed

acegardener · Joined: 28 Oct 2009 Posts: 12

I did not pick up on the Denmark issue because I have not and indeed do not intend to read, the report. I expect it is a million pages long and most of it will be quoted out of context by either side. Like I say I am not for nor against. More against the general public being mislead by false statements from everyone who needs to score points to 'prove' their side of the argument. You can both be very selective in what you quote.

Que Sera Sera. Nothing you, me or fred bloggs army will make a bit of difference to the final outcome. But at least you can say I shouted out loud but they would not listen. It has ben said all through history.

Oh LLI Does it look like I give a

Wight Portal · Joined: 17 Sep 2009 Posts: 89 Location: Carisbrooke

There's plenty of viable solutions out there to produce alternative energy. Unfortunately the government can't see a way of making money out of them and so do not support them.
Reducing the use of concrete in building would radically reduce the amount of rubbish we pump into the air. 50% of all the so called greenhouse gases are produced by the making and transportation of building materials.

Concrete became the must use building material after the war. It's cheap in monetary costs to produce and is easy to mould into whatever you want. We need to get back to more traditional building methods. There's roughly 4 million tons of surplus straw produced each year. Straw is a waste product and couldn't be more eco-friendly. Once baled it can be used as building blocks, producing 18" thick walls that don't need further insolation. Couple this kind of build with a solar roof and a heat pump, change your name to Green and be known as an Eco-Warrior.

Freddie · Joined: 06 Oct 2009 Posts: 34

On Monday 23rd, I sent a letter for publication to the County Press.
They, as they so often do, chose not to publish it. Probably because it offends their pro turbine agenda.
In todays CP, there are two articles relating to wind turbines on the Island.
One, bemoaning the recommendation of planning officers for refusal.
The other, some new bloke coming with a big idea for making turbines.
This is the letter they chose not to publish:
I see that fellow NIMBY and friend, John Nash, has come under attack for drawing to the attention of Senior Planning Officers what the Regulations say about wind turbines.
It is not Mr. Nashs fault that Mr. Loves interpretation of the applicable thresholds and criteria relating to EIAs differ from those contained in Schedule 2 of the 1999 Regulations which state that they will require an EIA if:
(i)The development involves the installation of more that 2 turbines, or;
(ii) The hub height of any turbine or height of any other structure exceeds 15 metres.
All that Mr. Nash did was to inform GOSE that the Planning Department were ignoring their obligations. The planning department were then duly reminded of their incorrect interpretation of the Regulations on 20 July by a letter from the Secretary of State.
There are so many companies jumping on the pot of gold bandwagon that is Wind Farms, it comes as a shock to them when decent people like Mr. Nash, John Gallimore, Jenny Crates and myself stand in the way of their plans to cover the Isle of Wight with these enormous three armed bandits, which, no matter how many times they turn, will not benefit island residents
The insults and name calling by wind farm applicants and their supporters just illustrate the absence of any argument for their deployment. Likewise the hundreds of copies of the “chain letter” of support which have recently appeared on the planning website, have no relevant planning considerations contained therein and seem to have been written by someone with a barely tenuous grasp of letter composition.
As Jenny Crates said, I am a NIMBY and proud of it, but you will not see my name, or the names Nash, Crates, Gallimore in the 4 letters of objection out of the 88 received in the wind turbine application for Osborne Middle School, which has been duly approved, because that is a turbine which benefits the community and is of a reasonable height.
This must make the pro-lobby so mad because it shows that we do not object to everything wind as they allege.
What we object to is schemes which make obscene amounts of money for offshore corporations, failing golf clubs, or inconsiderate farmers, yet have zero benefit for the local community.

Now tell me, what is wrong with that?
It does not fit the pro wind farm agenda of the anit-democratic County Press. Thats my guess.

acegardener · Joined: 28 Oct 2009 Posts: 12

Blimey it goes on a bit don't it. It is a rant with too much in it before it gets to it so called point. I can see why they would not print it. Short and simple is the answer, you lost me after the first 2 lines.

Freddie · Joined: 06 Oct 2009 Posts: 34

But then again ace, thats the difference between us.
I take my time and put a lot of thought into what I post.
No "shooting from the hip" with me. Much! Wink