Windfarm exclusion zone

[SteveA]

I've just read that that the company running the windfarm about 7km off Barrow (NW UK) is applying for an exclusion zone or to put it in their terms "declare that rights of navigation through the places in the sea where the wind turbines and the substation are located are to be extinguished"

This is a complete u turn compared to what they had said at the public meetings before they began buiding.

On its own this won't cause much problem but if the proposed additional 400 turbines are ever built nearby it will be a nightmare to get anywhere from here.

Does anyone know if the other windfarms off the coast elsewhere have similiar exclusion zones?

 

[trevorr]

I seem to recall a similar situation in the Thames approaches. If memory serves me RYA or someone negotiated that the exclusion zone was removed once the windfarm was completed. Any one else remember?

 

[smth448]

When the windfarm in the Thames Estuary was being built the applied for an exclusion zone between it and the Kent coast. Originally they wanted it forever. Ater lobbying by the RYA it was reduced to just an exclusion zone around the cable laying process. I don't think there is any restriction on sailing through the farm but I wouldn't like to do it.
The two things that amaze me about the windfarm is how big and ugly it is and how many of the turbines are not working.

 

[savageseadog]

[ QUOTE ]
On its own this won't cause much problem but if the proposed additional 400 turbines are ever built nearby it will be a nightmare to get anywhere from here.

[/ QUOTE ]
Barrow's a nightmare on the road as well

 

[kengill]

Of course you should be prohibited from sailing through the windfarm. You're nicking their energy.
You should also be prevented from sailing in the five mile zone upwind of the farm .

Surely we have to prevent sailing boats from taking energy out of the airstream that could be used to power the turbines.

Why not have a British Offshore Police Authority properly equipped with high speed launches and digital recording radars to prosecute the offendors.

Surely we all support green energy ideas and would support a punitive fine regime - say 20% of a boats market value per incident? Say a minimum of £1000 a time to cover their costs?

 

[Twister_Ken]

Mmmm - wonder how they plan to get in their to service them? Stilt walkers?

 

[SteveA]

There was an exclusion zone while they were being built but they have now been in operation for over a year - the ones that are working that is!

 

[LymingtonPugwash]

[ QUOTE ]
I've just read that that the company running the windfarm about 7km off Barrow (NW UK) is applying for an exclusion zone or to put it in their terms "declare that rights of navigation through the places in the sea where the wind turbines and the substation are located are to be extinguished"

This is a complete u turn compared to what they had said at the public meetings before they began buiding.

On its own this won't cause much problem but if the proposed additional 400 turbines are ever built nearby it will be a nightmare to get anywhere from here.

Does anyone know if the other windfarms off the coast elsewhere have similiar exclusion zones?

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a prime example of why nuclear power stations are needed....... they don't get in the way of my boat! /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif
And nuclear power must surely be the way to go as the Iranians are going for it! /forums/images/graemlins/blush.gif

 

[alorwin]

The 2 windfarms now being constructed off the Lincolnshire coast have an exclusion zone for the construction period only. The compensation claims by the fishing industry and other commercial parties would have been enormous had a permanent exclusion zone been applied for and granted. However there is a strong gut feeling that should accidents occur after the sites are up and running then the DTI are likely to impose an exclusion zone regardless of anyones opinions or rights. This indirectly saves power companies paying huge amounts of compensation as they have not applied for the exclusion zones. If this format is going to be adhered to by the powers that be then the answer is dont be having any accidents in the zones or we could all lose the rights to be there.

 

[2Tizwoz]

You may loose more than your rights when these things self destruct

 

[alldownwind]

[ QUOTE ]
When the windfarm in the Thames Estuary was being built the applied for an exclusion zone between it and the Kent coast. Originally they wanted it forever. Ater lobbying by the RYA it was reduced to just an exclusion zone around the cable laying process. I don't think there is any restriction on sailing through the farm but I wouldn't like to do it.
The two things that amaze me about the windfarm is how big and ugly it is and how many of the turbines are not working.

[/ QUOTE ]
Actually they wanted to close the E-W route along the coast for 6 weeks while they laid the cables to shore, this was thrown out after vociferous local (not RYA)opposition and reduced to a small exclusion zone around the cable laying vessel. There are no restrictions on navigating through the windfarm other than a 100-metre zone around each tower - but it doesn't half feel claustrophobic when you sail through it!
At least nine of the turbines have had a failed gearbox which has required the return of the humungous jack-up crane-ship, the lid of the turbine housing has to be cut off to replace the gearbox.
I see the windfarm from shore most mornings, and most mornings there are still nine or 10 of the 30 not working, and this is 18 months after it was commissioned. Doesn't look like a financial success but I expect it's actually we who are paying for it anyway. /forums/images/graemlins/mad.gif

 

[Andrew_Fanner]

>>>
and most mornings there are still nine or 10 of the 30 not working, and this is 18 months after it was commissioned. Doesn't look like a financial success but I expect it's actually we who are paying for it anyway
>>>
But a box has been ticked and the responsible person has been promoted and moved on. His/her replacement now has to carry the can and does so by blaming the predecessor. Builders should, IMO, be fined per diem that a turbine doesn't generate. Calm days are harsh but someone needs to learn that they happen quite often. In fact, perhaps fined per diem that the output is below that which was claimed in the tender...