Could wind farms become prohibited areas?

[TiggerToo]

This thread is very political.

I will not be reporting it, though.

Just to demonstrate that you can't have a conversation about important matters without touching on politics.

The sooner we grow up, the better...

Keep them coming, guys.

 

[Stemar]

Green technologies cost all of us a great Deal of money, they are expensive and inefficient.

Maybe, but not developing them will cost a LOT more than not doing so. We may not pay, our children may even get away with it, but our grandchildren certainly won't.

The brunt of it may be born by people somewhere else, but those people produce a fair bit of our food. On the plus side, it will put a stop to the obesity epidemic...

 

[TLouth7]

That's not been my experience of them. Lots of white lights at about five meters above sea level. Looked like your local high street.

Interesting, on the East coast they all seem to have flashing red beacons on the nacelles. I don't recall any low-level lights. Ones being built are unlit but buoyed with special marks.

Either way that's a lot of extra lights to distinguish ships against.

 

[Ceirwan]

[Deleted quoted content removed]

Sorry are we so invested that you can't comment without playground name calling?
And I have no problem with the use of oil right now, I realise nearly everything we see around us and the progress we've made would not be possible without it, I'm equally congisant that we need to move away from producing emissions as rapidly as possibly, so yes I support spending more on the development of green tech, also Nuclear. I liken it a bit like paying tax towards the NHS, expensive most of the time, but I'm glad to have it there when I need it.

As for subsidies, its absolutely not just as you state above. Oil & Gas companies can claim tax rebates from previous years towards the coast of decommissioning & cleaning up the old platforms, with estimates ranging between £47bn with up to £75bn funded by the tax payer.
Often when discussing green energy people want to discuss every last penny that's received as a subsidy without even a thought for the hidden costs

I don't know where you're coming from, if its just an issue that you don't think offshore wind is the best way of solving the climate issues then that's a debate to have. If its purely that you don't believe climate science then there's probably nowhere useful this conversation could ever go.

 

[savageseadog]

Sorry are we so invested that you can't comment without playground name calling?
And I have no problem with the use of oil right now, I realise nearly everything we see around us and the progress we've made would not be possible without it, I'm equally congisant that we need to move away from producing emissions as rapidly as possibly, so yes I support spending more on the development of green tech, also Nuclear. I liken it a bit like paying tax towards the NHS, expensive most of the time, but I'm glad to have it there when I need it.

As for subsidies, its absolutely not just as you state above. Oil & Gas companies can claim tax rebates from previous years towards the coast of decommissioning & cleaning up the old platforms, with estimates ranging between £47bn with up to £75bn funded by the tax payer.
Often when discussing green energy people want to discuss every last penny that's received as a subsidy without even a thought for the hidden costs

I don't know where you're coming from, if its just an issue that you don't think offshore wind is the best way of solving the climate issues then that's a debate to have. If its purely that you don't believe climate science then there's probably nowhere useful this conversation could ever go.

Name calling? Don't know where you got that idea from.

What you call subsidies are, as I said, nothing of the sort. The monies you refer to are Tax allowable expenses related to the costs of operating oil production facilities.
On the other hand the public are handlng over massive Green levies to subsidise so-called Green energy.

 

[dgadee]

Name calling? Don't know where you got that idea from.

What you call subsidies are, as I said, nothing of the sort. The monies you refer to are Tax allowable expenses related to the costs of operating oil production facilities.
On the other hand the public are handlng over massive Green levies to subsidise so-called Green energy.

What's the difference between tax allowable expenditure and a levy? Seems to be - in essence - the same thing to me. But back to original point. If more and more areas are covered with the London array type geographies, it would become difficult to sail offshore with exclusion zones.

 

[westhinder]

. If more and more areas are covered with the London array type geographies, it would become difficult to sail offshore with exclusion zones.

That will no doubt be the case. In a couple of years work wil begin on wind farms in a zone parallel to the Belgian coast, some 25 miles offshore, extending from the current wind farm zone near the Belgian-Dutch border, to the Belgian-French border, effectively covering the whole length of the short Belgian coastline. There will be one or two gaps for ships to cross the zone. I do hope small craft will be allowed to cross the wind farms, but current rules prohibit that and the wind farm lobby is in another league than the yachting lobby, if that existed at all.

 

[Ceirwan]

Name calling? Don't know where you got that idea from.

What you call subsidies are, as I said, nothing of the sort. The monies you refer to are Tax allowable expenses related to the costs of operating oil production facilities.
On the other hand the public are handlng over massive Green levies to subsidise so-called Green energy.

Its a distinction without a difference.
If £47 billion is paid out by the tax payer as a tax rebate from previously paid taxes then its a form of subsidy.
You can look up the definition of subsidy under WTO rules (to which the UK subscribes).

"The WTO defines a subsidy as a financial contribution by a government or public body to an individual or business. This financial contribution can be in many forms – such as grants, loans, loan guarantees or tax breaks."
If you object to spending money, then surely you should be outraged that your tax £s are being spent on helping clean up after some of the biggest & most profitable companies in the world?

And even if it wasn't a subsidy. (which is is) Then I would still support subsiding green energy, these subsidy's aren't for ever, but they help the industry get off the ground, indeed its one of the few areas in world that we're pretty much world leaders in.
Its also providing new industry and money in parts of the country that have suffered decades of decline.

I'll be out in Taiwan working on one of their new offshore wind projects later this summer, so I'll be sure to let the guys out there know they're wasting their money.

What's the difference between tax allowable expenditure and a levy? Seems to be - in essence - the same thing to me. But back to original point. If more and more areas are covered with the London array type geographies, it would become difficult to sail offshore with exclusion zones.

I believe not all areas are suitable for them. (Seabed wise)
And a lot of the new big projects are offshore, HOW01/02/03/04. Dogger Bank etc.
They aren't really in the way of most casual yachties.

 

[savageseadog]

So the moderators delete my post because they thought it "Political", which it wasn't. Yet other "Political" posts remain on this thread. Perhaps those posts accord with the moderators views? To intervene in a discussion regarding whether offshore wind energy is an' efficient use of its subsidies that we all pay for is absolutely stupid.

 

[dgadee]

I believe not all areas are suitable for them. (Seabed wise)
And a lot of the new big projects are offshore, HOW01/02/03/04. Dogger Bank etc.
They aren't really in the way of most casual yachties.

That's like saying it is ok to block off huge areas of Scotland for rewilding because most casual walkers prefer going down to the shops.

 

[Bilgediver]

I'm not brave enough to sail into a wind farm at anytime. Has anyone ventured in?

Sitting in the seat next to aircraft propellers is another thing I avoid.

Well it is the noisiest place to sit if you get a seat there. especially on a Hercules.

 

[Ceirwan]

So the moderators delete my post because they thought it "Political", which it wasn't. Yet other "Political" posts remain on this thread. Perhaps those posts accord with the moderators views? To intervene in a discussion regarding whether offshore wind energy is an' efficient use of its subsidies that we all pay for is absolutely stupid.

I didn't get to read it, I'm working nights. Feel free to PM me it if you're really bothered about continuing the discussion. Although I suspect we may not have much common ground.

That's like saying it is ok to block off huge areas of Scotland for rewilding because most casual walkers prefer going down to the shops.

I mean, that's not what I said at all.
And your example is an odd one to pick, why would rewilding affect walkers? I don't follow that topic very closely, but surely you can walk in wild areas the same as any other?

My point re the seabed not being suitable is simply that in many areas, you won't see any more because the suitable spots are already built one.
I really don't see the objection to offshore wind farms that are out of sight of land and off the beaten track, its unlikely to affect many people. We have to generate power somehow & if not this then it would be another power station somewhere else.

 

[dgadee]

I mean, that's not what I said at all.
And your example is an odd one to pick, why would rewilding affect walkers? I don't follow that topic very closely, but surely you can walk in wild areas the same as any other?

My point re the seabed not being suitable is simply that in many areas, you won't see any more because the suitable spots are already built one.
I really don't see the objection to offshore wind farms that are out of sight of land and off the beaten track, its unlikely to affect many people. We have to generate power somehow & if not this then it would be another power station somewhere else.

Some rewilding advocates want to bring wolves back and fence them in. That would be a limit on access. Eg: "The fenced areas allow the wolves to achieve the high population densities required to directly reduce the high red deer numbers creating an over-grazing problem in the Scottish Highlands. This method would also help limit encounters with residents, farmers and workers."

I have no problem with wind farms. I think they are an essential tool. I don't see why they can't co-exist with sailing vessels travelling through them.

 

[Ceirwan]

Some rewilding advocates want to bring wolves back and fence them in. That would be a limit on access. Eg: "The fenced areas allow the wolves to achieve the high population densities required to directly reduce the high red deer numbers creating an over-grazing problem in the Scottish Highlands. This method would also help limit encounters with residents, farmers and workers."

I have no problem with wind farms. I think they are an essential tool. I don't see why they can't co-exist with sailing vessels travelling through them.

Hmm, didn't realise that, I presume that's more of a short term measure until a balance is found?
Otherwise it seems more like a large zoo than re-wilding.

Back to the windfarms, I think they can co-exist. The ORSTED request at the start of this is for a temporary restriction if I'm not mistaken, until they have investigated the root cause of what's caused the hub to fall off.
We had a similar restriction on the 3.6MW turbines for a while, vessels couldn't push on unless the nacelle was yawed away from the boat landing, because they kept dropping hub hatches!

 

[Slowboat35]

Surely wind-farms are already no-fishing zones, in which case they must offer huge opportunity for the seabed to remain unmolested and the soft corals to regrow, turning them effefectively into fish-nurseries and the marine reserves they keep talking about but never action?

 

[SteveA]

Surely wind-farms are already no-fishing zones, in which case they must offer huge opportunity for the seabed to remain unmolested and the soft corals to regrow, turning them effefectively into fish-nurseries and the marine reserves they keep talking about but never action?

I don't know about elsewhere but in the Irish Sea they are not no fishing zones and have their own Fisheries liaison Team. At the moment these wind farm areas are classed as open sea with an advisory to keep at least 50m from each tower but if Orsted have their way we will not be able to pass through them.

 

[jamie N]

I've done dozens of ROV surveys on wind farms, checking the integrity of the structures/towers. We did have a special instruction on one farm to spend 5 minutes, per dive, just being stationary and monitoring the number of fish we saw. In 23 dives, we saw 1(one) fish.
This is somewhat at odds with surveying an oil platform, where frequently a survey was impossible between 01:00 & 03:00hrs, due to the amount of fish between the ROV and the structure; never the case on a wind farm.
However, crabs seem to thrive at windfarms.

 

[dgadee]

I've done dozens of ROV surveys on wind farms, checking the integrity of the structures/towers. We did have a special instruction on one farm to spend 5 minutes, per dive, just being stationary and monitoring the number of fish we saw. In 23 dives, we saw 1(one) fish.
This is somewhat at odds with surveying an oil platform, where frequently a survey was impossible between 01:00 & 03:00hrs, due to the amount of fish between the ROV and the structure; never the case on a wind farm.
However, crabs seem to thrive at windfarms.

Why would that be? Sound? Depth?

 

[Pete7]

Why would that be? Sound? Depth?

Or perhaps time. Does a windfarm foundations come covered in paint that takes a while before soft corals, that yachties all love and cherish, time to grow and therefore attract the smaller bait fish?

 

[jamie N]

Why would that be? Sound? Depth?

I've always imagined it to be heat, and vibration to a point. Both locations are unaffected by fishing, however the windfarm locations have only recently become unfishable zones, whereas the oil platforms have been for decades.
40 years ago, near oil platforms the fish were generally very spastic and deformed by pollutants in oil based mud, but this is rarely seen now, and fish seem to thrive.
Windfarms are generally so new, that an accurate statement might not be possible. but for the last few years I've surveyed the original windfarm in the Netherlands, and its neighbour, and have never seen a fish, which is bizarre considering it's just out from IJmuiden; a major Dutch fishing port.