Windy nonsense or what?

pugwash

pugwash

Well-Known Member
Joined
30 May 2001
Messages
985
Location
SW London
Visit site
According to Mark Brownrigg, D-G of the Chamber of Shipping, in a submission to the House of Lords, offshore wind farms being planned will "risk the safety of 215,000 ships and their crews every year." The Industry wants the Lords to pass an amendment to safeguard ships from having to divert "into dangerous waters to avoid hitting the new installations."

I am not personally a fan of wind farms because they have enormous technical and economic shortcomings that the Green lobby is blind to. But it strikes me that much of the above statement is knee-jerk nonsense (assuming the Daily Mail quoted him correctly, of course).

What do you think? Forget the aesthetics. The question is, will offshore wind farms be a danger, or will they serve as rather convenient shallow-water markers?

<hr width=100% size=1>
 
How shallow is " shallow" I'd guess we could all sail right up to the "towers" and even ram them without grounding ???

<hr width=100% size=1>
 
So long as they are build on drying shallows or at least areas where LAT is say sub 2m I do n't really see what the problem is.
Even I can miss them then - certainly then would n't need Trinity House bouys - so may be we all end up paying the Lecky board for our giant, rotating navigational aids.

<hr width=100% size=1>
 
I don't really see that it makes any difference how deep the water in which they're built in is, provided they're not put somewhere stupid, such as the middle of a narrow channel. They'll be marked on charts, and lit. So how are they any more dangerous that dry land, which also damages your ship if you hit it. Or maybe we should remove all dry land as well?

There are pleanty of wind farms in other parts of the world, and they haven't been damaging ships. How would british wind farms be any different?

<hr width=100% size=1>
 
On the East Coast from Thames to the Humber we have shifting Sandbanks with every storm. The windfarms are positioned alongside and also in the middle of shipping lanes.

Off Caister on Sea they are also close to land so there is nowhere for the shipping lanes to be moved too should the sands shift, at Cromer it affects 2 shipping routes.

details of <A target="_blank" HREF=http://www.thecrownestate.co.uk/newscontent/92_newspage_windfarm_second_round_winners_04_02_19.htm>Round 2</A> wind farms and developers

Strategic Area: Thames

Developer:Airtricity-Flour
Site:Greater Gabbard
Potential max MW:500
Developer:Deltaic
Site:Gunfleet Sands II
Potential max MW:64
Developer:London Array
Site:London Array
Potential max MW:1,000
Developer:Warwick Energy
Site:Thanet
Potential max MW:300
Strategic Area: Greater Wash

Developer:AMEC
Site:Docking Shoal
Potential max MW: 500
Developer:AMEC
Site:Race Bank
Potential max MW:500
Developer:Ecoventures
Site:Sheringham
Potential max MW:315
Developer:Humber Wind Limited
Site:Humber
Potential max MW:300
Developer:National Wind Power
Site:Triton Knoll
Potential max MW:1,200
Developer:Offshore Wind Power
Site:Lincs
Potential max MW:250
Developer:Total
Site:Westernmost Rough
Potential max MW:240
Developer:Warwick Energy
Site:Dudgeon East
Potential max MW:300
Strategic Area: North West

Developer:DONG / Statkraft
Site: Walney
Potential max MW:450
Developer:National Wind Power
Site:Gwynt y Mor
Potential max MW:750
Developer:Scottish Power
Site:West Duddon
Potential max MW:500

<hr width=100% size=1><A target="_blank" HREF=http://groups.yahoo.com/group/BroadsandEastcoastBoating/>Broads & East Coast Boating</A>
 
"offshore wind farms being planned will "risk the safety of 215,000 ships and their crews every year.""

That should read "Offshore wind farms being planned will "risk the safety of 215,000 sub-standard ships and their unproffesional crews every year"

I would of thought that all charts concerned would be ammended to show new wind-farms being installed....if the officers/crew on board dont make the relevant chart corrections then tough! And anyway, what happened to keeping a good lookout (visual/radar) and plotting your course?......


Simon


<hr width=100% size=1>I'v got 2 ears.2 eyes and 1 mouth....if only i could use them in that proportion!
 
Looking at this <A target="_blank" HREF=http://www.thecrownestate.co.uk/a4planuk_04_03_16.pdf>map of windfarms</A> round 2, sailing across the Wash will not be that easy with or without fog.

<hr width=100% size=1><A target="_blank" HREF=http://groups.yahoo.com/group/BroadsandEastcoastBoating/>Broads & East Coast Boating</A>
 
<...The windfarms are positioned alongside and also in the middle of shipping lanes....>

Really? I think you'll find they are all on Sandbanks, and only looneys are going to be anywhere near them. In most cases they are going to be nice navigation aids - they are certainly going to help up the Black Deep in the Thames Estuary. I know there's an argument that the sands shift, but I think you'll find they've picked the areas that havent shifted much in the last couple of hundred years.

On another note however, an insider told me yesterday that Denmark has stopped installing Wind Farms as they've discovered that they create more carbon emissions making the things than they ever save during their lifetime.

<hr width=100% size=1>
 
Reneging on promises.

They are certainly not all being built in shallow waters or away from yachting routes, in the Thames Estuary which I know most about. Thanet, for example, is in deep water about 6 miles off North Foreland. Kentish Flats is in shallow water, but smack bang in the middle of a traditional small boat channel, the Horse Channel. London Array's patch covers a huge area in the center of the Estuary, part of which is on sandbanks but also includes the deeper channels.

When phase 1 was announced, we (in Kent) received assurances from the developers that the Thames projects (i) would be tall enough that the blades presented no danger to yachts; (ii) that there would not be an exclusion zone around the windfarms, so that traditional small boat routes could still be used. It is now becoming clear, in the debate on the Energy Bill in the Lords, that the developers want to renege on both these promises.
 
The drying WWII wreck of the Richard Montgomery rests on non-drying sands less than a cable from the main shipping channel in to the Medway. Yet, as far as I know, no ship has ever ploughed in to it, though I wonder if the fact that it still has 3000 tons of unexploded bombs in the hold, has anything to do with it.

Mick

<hr width=100% size=1>
 
The Dutch who seemingly pioneered wind farms are removing them they are not so efficient as expected, or so I am given to understand. But, I am not keen on the concept, in that they are a hazard to wildlife, geese, swans and other seabirds, the output from them is not constant or predictable, the down-wind windshadow will affect yachts sailing ability, and they are ugly, as indeed they are on land. Surely it would be better to use the incredibly powerful tides found in many areas around our coasts and place turbines in the strongest tidal flows which would give predictable clean safe electricity.

<hr width=100% size=1>
 
For what its worth, if we've two metres under the keel, on the East Coast, we are in DEEP water....unlike certain other areas of the country, but then, we don't have that many rocks!!...However, there is no doubt that an awful lot of the Thames estuary is going to be out of bounds, particularly if your mast is around 20m. By the way, if you get inside the prohibited zone of the Montgomery, you are very rapidly approached by less than sociable people, suggesting that you go forth & multiply rapidly.. I believe there is some form of sonar alarm connected to Chatham?.... Tony W.

<hr width=100% size=1>Tony W.
 
It has 4 navigation buoys round it and it is charted.

the wind farms do not have any buoys and are not charted except for text " Wind Farm under construction"

these consist of about 30, 8 meter diameter columns 6 metres high. 2 miles off Gt yarmouth. If you sail at night or in poor vis I hope you have a good radar , they don't even have a light on them.

<hr width=100% size=1>Richard
 
We recently had the vessel in Falmouth that's going to plant the terbines, at 100 meter high tower, with 100 meter dia blades your not going to miss them. Then as the samll farm appears to be 1 1/2 mile dia, and the larger one 10 mile x 6 mile, it's going to take offshore passage planning to get round them.
Still not come to terms with a tower the hight of a football pitch, with a football pitch revolving on top, if they allowed you, would you try sailing by them !!!!.

Brian

<hr width=100% size=1>
 
I understand that the best chance from sea power is energy from waves rather than tidal flow.

If you can picture a vertical fixed piston attached to a float in the sea.

The piston bobs up and down producing energy as the wave passes.Something like that anyway.......


There would have to be thousands of them to produce a decent amount of energy and the impact would probably be a lot worse than windmills.

Regards,



<hr width=100% size=1>
 
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.

There was also the geothermal projct to get heat and power from the rocks, based down here in Cornwall, another project closed down. Now run as a private firm building geothermal heating systems, geting heat from pipes running in ground, zero pollusion and totally clean.

Brian

<hr width=100% size=1>
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top