qsiv
Well-Known Member
Re: Don\'t be silly
<<government promises >>
An oxymoron, surely?
<hr width=100% size=1>
<<government promises >>
An oxymoron, surely?
<hr width=100% size=1>
Windy nonsense or what?
- Thread starter pugwash
- Start date
Birdseye
Well-Known Member
"What happened to the old plan for daming like the Wash and Severn estuary to form a lagoon, then fit terbines driven by water flowing in, then water flowing out. It would also gave massive marinas, must reduce mooring costs."
Wrong thinking. Lagoon = better moorings = worth more to the punters = higher charges.
First law of moneydynamics says prices only ever go up.
<hr width=100% size=1>
Wrong thinking. Lagoon = better moorings = worth more to the punters = higher charges.
First law of moneydynamics says prices only ever go up.
<hr width=100% size=1>
Mirelle
N/A
No, there are about 55,000, counting little ones
and there are about 28,000 ships of over 500 gt engaged on international voyages.
I think Mark was counting vessel movements. I'll ask him today.
<hr width=100% size=1>Que scais-je?
and there are about 28,000 ships of over 500 gt engaged on international voyages.
I think Mark was counting vessel movements. I'll ask him today.
<hr width=100% size=1>Que scais-je?
Mirelle
N/A
Press release
WIND FARMS MAY ENDANGER SEAFARERS AND ENVIRONMENT
Offshore wind farms could endanger the safety of seafarers and the marine environment if the government allows them to be placed near major shipping lanes. In addition, costs of diverting shipping may negate the environmental benefits of the turbines.
The Energy Bill, the debate on which begins in the House of Lords on Thursday 15 January, fails to provide adequate safeguards against wind farms being located alongside or across navigation routes. Wind farms placed close to navigation routes could become dangerous hazards for ships. Risks of collision would be greatly increased and marine radar and VHF communications could also be affected.
“We are concerned that, in its current form, the process established by the Energy Bill for the approval of wind farm sites neither takes appropriate account of the risks to seafarers and the environment nor fully recognises the UK’s obligations under the United Nations Law of the Sea Convention,” said Mark Brownrigg, Director-General of the Chamber of Shipping.
“We are asking the government to amend the Energy Bill to include a proviso that would protect mariners and the environment by giving the Secretary of State discretionary power to ensure wind farms or their safety zones cannot be built where they would hinder safe navigation”.
The Chamber is asking the government to support an amendment - to Clause 82 of the Energy Bill - that has been put down by Lord Greenway. This amendment would ensure that the bill meets obligations under the United Nations Law of the Sea Convention (UNCLOS) - which governs the way in which each country assures the safety of shipping passing through its waters.
The Energy Bill currently addresses navigational issues by requiring them to divert around safety zones, rather than ensuring that new wind farm developments are appropriately sited. This approach also fails to take account of issues such as environmental damage to the marine environment, increased risk of collision and the increased cost of transportation of goods that may result from diverting vessels.
<hr width=100% size=1>Que scais-je?
WIND FARMS MAY ENDANGER SEAFARERS AND ENVIRONMENT
Offshore wind farms could endanger the safety of seafarers and the marine environment if the government allows them to be placed near major shipping lanes. In addition, costs of diverting shipping may negate the environmental benefits of the turbines.
The Energy Bill, the debate on which begins in the House of Lords on Thursday 15 January, fails to provide adequate safeguards against wind farms being located alongside or across navigation routes. Wind farms placed close to navigation routes could become dangerous hazards for ships. Risks of collision would be greatly increased and marine radar and VHF communications could also be affected.
“We are concerned that, in its current form, the process established by the Energy Bill for the approval of wind farm sites neither takes appropriate account of the risks to seafarers and the environment nor fully recognises the UK’s obligations under the United Nations Law of the Sea Convention,” said Mark Brownrigg, Director-General of the Chamber of Shipping.
“We are asking the government to amend the Energy Bill to include a proviso that would protect mariners and the environment by giving the Secretary of State discretionary power to ensure wind farms or their safety zones cannot be built where they would hinder safe navigation”.
The Chamber is asking the government to support an amendment - to Clause 82 of the Energy Bill - that has been put down by Lord Greenway. This amendment would ensure that the bill meets obligations under the United Nations Law of the Sea Convention (UNCLOS) - which governs the way in which each country assures the safety of shipping passing through its waters.
The Energy Bill currently addresses navigational issues by requiring them to divert around safety zones, rather than ensuring that new wind farm developments are appropriately sited. This approach also fails to take account of issues such as environmental damage to the marine environment, increased risk of collision and the increased cost of transportation of goods that may result from diverting vessels.
<hr width=100% size=1>Que scais-je?
pugwash
Well-Known Member
Apology
Applogies to Mr Brownrigg. I was going by how the newspapers reported him, as I said, and I should have known better.
Nonetheless, it's in the form of my first post above, quoting the papers, that the matter is being debated by the pro's and anti's of the wind energy debate.
This thread has exposed some interesting questions.
<hr width=100% size=1>
Applogies to Mr Brownrigg. I was going by how the newspapers reported him, as I said, and I should have known better.
Nonetheless, it's in the form of my first post above, quoting the papers, that the matter is being debated by the pro's and anti's of the wind energy debate.
This thread has exposed some interesting questions.
<hr width=100% size=1>
Mirelle
N/A
reply from Mark Brownrigg
I quote "Re: wind farms, we all allow the media a little hyperbole, especially in the tabloids (even from time to time in such features as Quarterpoints!). The figures she was drawing from the evidence we submitted (on behalf of Trinity House, UKMPG, BMAPA and ourselves) actually referred to the number of ship movements each year on routes passing within x nautical miles of wind farm projects in the three main designated areas around the UK in Round 2 (10 nm of Barrow/Liverpool Bay, 15 nm of Humber/Wash, and 20 nm of Thames). That total figure is correct, though the implication overstated.
Our real message is not anti in any sense – not our job (or inclination. It is that proper regard should be paid to safety of navigation and law of the sea."
Fair enuff.
("Quarterpoints" is a column in "Lloyd's List", written by Richard Woodman (gaff cutter "Andromeda" and author of the Drinkwater historical novels) Sam Ignarski, Aline de Bievere and myself).
<hr width=100% size=1>Que scais-je?
I quote "Re: wind farms, we all allow the media a little hyperbole, especially in the tabloids (even from time to time in such features as Quarterpoints!). The figures she was drawing from the evidence we submitted (on behalf of Trinity House, UKMPG, BMAPA and ourselves) actually referred to the number of ship movements each year on routes passing within x nautical miles of wind farm projects in the three main designated areas around the UK in Round 2 (10 nm of Barrow/Liverpool Bay, 15 nm of Humber/Wash, and 20 nm of Thames). That total figure is correct, though the implication overstated.
Our real message is not anti in any sense – not our job (or inclination. It is that proper regard should be paid to safety of navigation and law of the sea."
Fair enuff.
("Quarterpoints" is a column in "Lloyd's List", written by Richard Woodman (gaff cutter "Andromeda" and author of the Drinkwater historical novels) Sam Ignarski, Aline de Bievere and myself).
<hr width=100% size=1>Que scais-je?
Twister_Ken
Well-Known Member
Not Fair Enough
Readers of the Daily Drivel are still left with the impression that 215,000 ships might Torrey Canyon themselves on wind pylons.
<hr width=100% size=1><A target="_blank" HREF=http://www.writeforweb.com/twister1>Let's Twist Again</A>
Readers of the Daily Drivel are still left with the impression that 215,000 ships might Torrey Canyon themselves on wind pylons.
<hr width=100% size=1><A target="_blank" HREF=http://www.writeforweb.com/twister1>Let's Twist Again</A>
Mirelle
N/A
Re: Not Fair Enough
Well, they believe that an oil spill is an "ecological catastrophe" anyway, when the real ecological catastrophes are things like over fishing, the erosion of planning legislation (by furtive means, in the case of our present Rulers) and above all global warming.
<hr width=100% size=1>Que scais-je?
Well, they believe that an oil spill is an "ecological catastrophe" anyway, when the real ecological catastrophes are things like over fishing, the erosion of planning legislation (by furtive means, in the case of our present Rulers) and above all global warming.
<hr width=100% size=1>Que scais-je?