Public Inquiry

[HovaGirl]

They make the coast off Copenhagen look messy and industrial.

 

[Norman Potting]

I am quite happy to use the electricity they generate, so I accept their visual impact. Same with nuclear power stations, oil/gas/coal fired.

 

[Shy Talk]

Hate'em myself, but I am quite old so probably won't be around by the time they get erected.

 

[The Merry Prankster]

How efficient are they? I've read so much conflicting stuff I've got no real idea. Anyone reasonably unbiased willing to explain. Al Gore or James Delingpole?

 

[Notters]

There is something very calming about the infinity of view you get from the sea and the sky and I think this would be ruined. Wind d farms are ineffective at times of low or high wind and I would rather have a nuclear power station.

 

[Ravids]

About 13km (8 miles) apparently.

Isn't that further than the horizon? I'm not mathematician but I'm pretty sure I heard somewhere that for an average 6 foot human the horizon is only around four miles.

Even if they were visable, I'm not fussed, we should go for it! I would rather have a bad view than global warming.:guitar:

 

[yxee]

Looks pretty cool. I think objections stem from fear of change, nobody complains that 700 year old windmills obstruct the view.

Isn't that further than the horizon? I'm not mathematician but I'm pretty sure I heard somewhere that for an average 6 foot human the horizon is only around four miles.

You wouldn't see their base for this reason, but that calculation assumes you're looking at the ground, not a 20m high tower.

 

[Goring-by-Seagull]

Isn't it windy enough already without all those fans?

 

[seagullsovergrimsby]

There is something very calming about the infinity of view you get from the sea and the sky and I think this would be ruined. Wind d farms are ineffective at times of low or high wind and I would rather have a nuclear power station.

Exactly , why don't they just build a nuclear power plant in Newhaven.

 

[The Birdman]

The Public Inquiry into the Rampion Offshore Wind Farm begins today.

Just reading through the correspondence (bored today), it seems most objections come from visual impact (use of public funds comes second), while people supporting the proposals appear to like the idea of the view of the wind turbines, usually because of what they represent (renewable energy). By the 212 pieces of correspondence on the website, I'd say there is about 60/40 split in favour of the scheme.

In terms of visual impact alone, will the 175 wind turbines bother you? Will they be an asset or hindrance to the view from the coast?

we need green energy I put them on the south and north downs clean and cheaper than putting the sea!

 

[LamieRobertson]

How efficient are they? I've read so much conflicting stuff I've got no real idea. Anyone reasonably unbiased willing to explain. Al Gore or James Delingpole?

Exactly how i feel there is a heck of a lot of contradictory info out there re wind turbines.

 

[Notters]

Isn't that further than the horizon? I'm not mathematician but I'm pretty sure I heard somewhere that for an average 6 foot human the horizon is only around four miles.

Even if they were visable, I'm not fussed, we should go for it! I would rather have a bad view than global warming.:guitar:

Only for something at sea level looking at something at sea level. E.g. you can clearly see Worthing pier from Brighton beach which is about 12 miles, or France from Dover, which is about 25 miles.

 

[Return of the Rev]

Could they not put them in a line so you only saw the one in front

 

[Ravids]

Only for something at sea level looking at something at sea level. E.g. you can clearly see Worthing pier from Brighton beach which is about 12 miles, or France from Dover, which is about 25 miles.

I didn't know you could see France from Dover?!

And yeah fair enough, was just inquiring, this is an inquiry after all!

I think someone said above, it means we won't see the base of it then.

 

[Stat Brother]

Did you know the average depth of the English channel is only 63 m (207 ft) and the maximum depth, down by the channel islands is just 174 m (571 ft).

 

[Sir Royston thorne]

They actually can act as artificial reefs and encourage marine life.

This, with bells on !

Yes, It would give our beleaguered fish stocks a chance to hide as trawlers won't be allowed near. So it's green electricity and more fish and crabs. I'm in.

 

[Ravids]

Did you know the average depth of the English channel is only 63 m (207 ft) and the maximum depth, down by the channel islands is just 174 m (571 ft).

Fascinating!

 

[stripeyshark]

Anyone objecting to developments like this should have their electricity supply restricted intermittently, with power cuts of undetermined lengths every other day, so that they can experience what the world be like in the future for all our children, grandchildren etc. FFS the planet MUST change its reliance on fossil fuels, personally I'd put wind turbines all the way round the coast where it's possible to, it should be a global policy, for all nations. Screw the cost, tax those who object to them to pay for them.

You had a decent argument until here.

 

[Albumen]

Could they not put them in a line so you only saw the one in front

That's probably by far the wittiest thing you've ever said (I usually ignore the rest of your drivel).

 

[Norman Potting]

I didn't know you could see France from Dover?!

And yeah fair enough, was just inquiring, this is an inquiry after all!

I think someone said above, it means we won't see the base of it then.

My Grandad assured me that I could see the Eiffel Tower if I looked hard enough, sadly conditions have never been clear enough to enable this. You can see the French coast on a clear day.