See my comment at #1 if you want to submit too

Dear Sir/Madam,

I am writing to object to the proposed Atlantic Array in the Bristol Channel.

I object on several counts:

(1) The proposed area is a sensitive marine environment that is home to harbour porpoise, grey seal, northern minke whale and common short-beaked dolphin all of which enjoy protection under the Habitats Directive 92/43/EEC. The harbour porpoise and grey seal are supposed be protected by Special Areas of Conservation (SACs). The construction of the Array – which may take over a decade, will seriously jeopardise these mammals.

(2) Impact on Lundy Island – Lundy is covered by a nationally defined, standalone section of Heritage Coast. The scheme will fundamentally affect the remote isolated qualities of the island and interrupt/obscure views from the island to Wales. The proposal will similarly have an impact on the understanding and appreciation of Lundy’s significance as an exemplary historic landscape, and of its place within the wider historic seascape.

(3) Loss of jobs in fishing – The North Devon fishing fleet can’t survive the loss of its most lucrative fishing grounds, representing some 40% of its income. More than 250 jobs depend on the 26 vessels in the North Devon Fishermen’s Association.

(4) Costs outweigh benefits – If the Atlantic Array will receive a subsidy of 1.5ROCs/MWh, then the annual ROC subsidy (in addition to the value of the electricity), assuming the capacity is 1,500MW with a capacity factor of 40%, would be 7,884,000 ROCs. At a value of £50/ROC, this would amount to an annual subsidy of £394M. Over the 20 to 25 year lifetime of the Atlantic Array, this would amount to a subsidy of £7.8bn to £9.9bn. These subsidies all get loaded onto consumers bills.

(5) Not worth it – The Atlantic Array will, by 2020, be producing an estimated 0.5GW of electricity. That’s just 2% of the government’s renewable energy target for 2020, of 25GW. Recently, I took a screenshot from NETA showing the total output from the UK fleet at 12MW, which registers on their website as 0.0% This information was published in Christopher Booker’s Sunday Telegraph slot.

These are some of my main objections to the Atlantic Array. I believe this project will be an environmental and economic disaster for the local area which encompasses North Devon, Lundy and South Wales, areas of outstanding beauty which will be permanently scarred by the industrialisation of the marine environment.

On the economic front, I believe that the UK is pursuing a suicidal path with its relentless pursuit of “renewable” energy. Many studies (for example Gordon Hughes of Edinburgh University, have presented the case that wind backed by gas will cost 10 times as much as gas alone, and there is little or no savings in CO2 emissions.

We have other options – Shale gas can provide affordable energy and leads to reduction in emissions overall. Longer term, I believe Thorium will play a major part in energy generation with zero emissions and a high level of safety. Wind energy is the biggest mistake the UK is making and the Atlantic Array is one of the worst examples of that.

Regards…

Wind energy is great says a new report commissioned by the Labour think tank Institute For Public Policy Research.

Among the report’s findings are that large scale industrial wind farms can:

• Boost GDP growth by up to 3,000 per cent

• Cure all known forms of cancer

• Rescue drowning kittens from sacks in canals and lead them to secure, happy homes where they are well cared for in handcrafted wicker baskets with lovely, snuggly faux-sheepskin blankets for them to purr on and little saucers of organic Jersey cream designed by Cath Kidston.

• Treble the beauty of the landscape.

• Engender social justice.

• Bring about lasting world peace.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/author/jamesdelingpole/

That institute sounds a bit (well a lot) like our Dept of Climate Change and its off shoots; they could almost be siblings

Onshore wind turbines each require 16 metric tons of copper and offshore turbines 31 metric tons, according to Barclays Capital.
http://uk.reuters.com/article/2012/08/29/us-copper-demand-idUKBRE87S0MN20120829

and yet………
Mining copper causes significant CO2 emissions due to its high energy need. In Chile the copper industry records the highest GHG emissions in comparison to other industrial and mining branches. Another problem is the production of sulphur dioxide during the smelting process, about two tons SO2 are produced per ton of copper. Sulphur dioxide causes acid rain which destroys the environment10.
http://www.worldresourcesforum.org/node/1204

MED and Electricity Authority economic modeling indicate the exact opposite of course. That and the reality that wind projects are being shelved as off-shore offset pricing plummets.

It’s the Yeo’s and Deben’s of this world that need to be taken to task anyway, not bloggers in NZ

It’s a shame that none of my comments ar Hot Topic or Frogblog are now passing moderation, These guys are actively supporting fraud in our society. It is our duty to deal with them in an appropriate manner

I entirely agree. Perhaps this blog conversation constitutes an appropriate manner? Write something, describe their errors and misconduct, quote their phrases exactly; I’ll publish it and everyone will see what they’re saying over there.

This gives you advantages – a vehicle to highlight the perfidy and deceits of the warmists with an ability to comment on and refute them in a rational tone that gives you the credibility that an angry response doesn’t have.

But it does take a little discipline.

These guys are actively supporting fraud in our society.

It is our duty to deal with them in an appropriate manner