I have been viewing this website for some months now, and read most comments regarding the write and wrongs, and the argument for and against, but no body seems to have picked up on the obscene ammount of money the land owner would make from this venture, and of course the turbine supplier. I would like to bet that if planning permission is granted for this wind farm, Enertrag who i am led to believe are the sponsers behind this venture would have energy suppliers not only from this country but some from europe ( France) for example? clambering over them selves to purchase this farm, ask yourself this question who is actually paying for all of this? the tax payer? One final point no matter how many turbines they put up 10.000 or 20.000 you will still have to have another form of energy source, power stations.!

you have hit the nail firmly and squarely on the head. This site has very little to do with electricity production and everything to do with the farmer and enertrag making an awful lot of money out of us the tax payer.

you have hit the nail firmly and squarely on the head. This site has very little to do with electricity production and everything to do with the farmer and enertrag making an awful lot of money out of us the tax payer.

--- hilary sandbach(guest) 

Actually you'll find most of it is dedicated to the incorrect assumption when it comes to issues with the turbines (not just the not proven nor disproven health issues... so don't reply with that as an argument... please).

Yes, he'll get money.

Yes, we'll energy.

and Yes, it will be viable.

Do not reply to my postings, I will not read or respond to rude men, I presume you are a man using the name of derrick

Do not reply to my postings, I will not read or respond to rude men, I presume you are a man using the name of derrick

--- hilary sandbach(guest) 

well done hilary, this (bloke) must be one of these p.r.a.t.`s people raving about turbines! and little else to do than sit watching whats happening on his computer all day and proberly night too? know what i mean. Dirty boy!!

Now then derecks next door neighbour, i do not think you are who you say you are, because i know derek has no next door neighbours. because he lives down the bottom of my garden in his own world with the fairies!. Also he is not on the computer all the time as he is to busy making out with the pigs.!

Can I point out the fact that hilary's post was there a day (i think) before I replied, I was on here all day, surely I would have replied instantly. Oh and the fact it's been THREE replies since I posted.

I'm sorry I was rude Hilary, I can't see the problem in my post, can you highlight it please?

Oh and my Dad died in the war... please do not post with that username, he who never posts with the same username.

Is it true that the farmer who`s land this wind farm will be on will get something in the region of 3 million pound for the length of time they will be there.

you have hit the nail firmly and squarely on the head. This site has very little to do with electricity production and everything to do with the farmer and enertrag making an awful lot of money out of us the tax payer.

--- hilary sandbach(guest) 

Actually you'll find most of it is dedicated to the incorrect assumption when it comes to issues with the turbines (not just the not proven nor disproven health issues... so don't reply with that as an argument... please).

Yes, he'll get money.

Yes, we'll energy.

and Yes, it will be viable.

--- Derek(guest) 

Derek you are so wrong & mis guided... No NO the site is only viable according to DAVID LINDLEY of ENERTRAG as he stated at their presentation.. because of the subsides, if these where removed the site would not be self financing.... BUT YOUR SO DEFINATE IS THIS ENERTRAG POSTING ?, I BET IT IS MORE PROPAGANDA

(or their sort of presentation when many of the reports they peddled were just guestimateds... very professional NOT, then they say there are no enviromental issues when they havent submitted their reports so they cant be verified what sort of dum outfit are they.... SO we now see the real enertrag & the greedy farmer sponging of the tax payer under the guise of producing green electricity SHAME ON YOU

LIVING of the backs of fear of climate change, sponging from the tax payer ,decimateting the area, the real truth of this scam called a wind farm

LIVING of the backs of fear of climate change, sponging from the tax payer ,decimateting the area, the real truth of this scam called a wind farm

--- the truth is out(guest) 

Decimating the area? Last time I checked Wind Farms were not Weapons of Mass Production...

Admittedly, the hype of Climate change probably has spurred on the move towards renewable energy, but it was necessary to do so as the title suggests 'non-renewable' source will not last forever.

Please may I encourage all of you who read and post messages on this forum, to click on to the Downing Street petition on the front header of our site and add your name & details. The Petition calls for a minimum safe distance of 2 km between the siting of turbines from residences. Even Rexo, a turbine manufacturer recommends this distance..

Enertrag say 700 metres is safe we say NO. The Government give no guidelines as far as we are aware.. the energy companies don't appear that bothered... This petition is growing daily and this is becoming a real issue of concern as time goes by and the impact on peoples lives are begining to surface....

Thank you, you can help to make a difference.

Melvin

Please may I encourage all of you who read and post messages on this forum, to click on to the Downing Street petition on the front header of our site and add your name & details. The Petition calls for a minimum safe distance of 2 km between the siting of turbines from residences. Even Rexo, a turbine manufacturer recommends this distance..

Enertrag say 700 metres is safe we say NO. The Government give no guidelines as far as we are aware.. the energy companies don't appear that bothered... This petition is growing daily and this is becoming a real issue of concern as time goes by and the impact on peoples lives are begining to surface....

Thank you, you can help to make a difference.

Melvin

--- Melvin(guest) 

Is it only 700m? Admittedly It should be more than that. Not for any health reason (which are yet to be proved/disproved) just for those who worry about such things, can get on with their lives without well, worrying.

That's actually what most of the 'problems' with health issues and turbines are about, psychological hypochondria. "Ooh, these apparently damage my health" so when anything does happen to a person they blame it on the turbine.

But Anyway. Like I said neither proved nor disproved. 700m does sound a little close. Double the height of the turbine might be a good idea? (What is the height of these ones? no one seems to agree!). 2km doesn't leave a lot of potential sites, which means we'd have to primarily rely on other sources in the future. Solar: Very often not viable. Hydroeletctricity: Not many sites either. Wind Turbines are in fact the best option for Britain, as many potential sites, as it stands, but if regulations change then that number with drastically reduce, and Britain will probably have to rely on other Countries. Depending if 'Global Warming' makes solar power more viable!

Oh, I forgot Nuclear. But everyone knows the hazards with them. And they're not renewable either.

Please may I encourage all of you who read and post messages on this forum, to click on to the Downing Street petition on the front header of our site and add your name & details. The Petition calls for a minimum safe distance of 2 km between the siting of turbines from residences. Even Rexo, a turbine manufacturer recommends this distance..

Enertrag say 700 metres is safe we say NO. The Government give no guidelines as far as we are aware.. the energy companies don't appear that bothered... This petition is growing daily and this is becoming a real issue of concern as time goes by and the impact on peoples lives are begining to surface....

Thank you, you can help to make a difference.

Melvin

--- Melvin(guest) 

Is it only 700m? Admittedly It should be more than that. Not for any health reason (which are yet to be proved/disproved) just for those who worry about such things, can get on with their lives without well, worrying.

That's actually what most of the 'problems' with health issues and turbines are about, psychological hypochondria. "Ooh, these apparently damage my health" so when anything does happen to a person they blame it on the turbine.

But Anyway. Like I said neither proved nor disproved. 700m does sound a little close. Double the height of the turbine might be a good idea? (What is the height of these ones? no one seems to agree!). 2km doesn't leave a lot of potential sites, which means we'd have to primarily rely on other sources in the future. Solar: Very often not viable. Hydroeletctricity: Not many sites either. Wind Turbines are in fact the best option for Britain, as many potential sites, as it stands, but if regulations change then that number with drastically reduce, and Britain will probably have to rely on other Countries. Depending if 'Global Warming' makes solar power more viable!

Oh, I forgot Nuclear. But everyone knows the hazards with them. And they're not renewable either.

--- Derek(guest) 

Derek why do you and so many other numpties who visit this website keep coming back with the same old worries of armageddom , coal power stations, nuclear power stations. etc, etc, etc, when there is a wealth of other re newable energy sources available, that are cost affective, (some of which the general public proberly do not even know about?) its all a great big game to see how much money they can windle from us, and wont let off until somebody says we have had enough.! I think the idea of this website is for people to say we have had enough!

Derek

I and I expect others will find your comments regarding the labling of people who are genuinely suffering from the effects of Turbines being sited too close to their homes as deeply offensive. You should be absolutely ashamed of yourself.... I have personally met and spoken to people who have first hand experience of this. This puts you as far as I am concerned it the bracket of people who really dont give a dam about what this ill founded energy policy's impact on the local community. Dump them any where, rip us off and pretend its for our good and shut up and go away. No Derek I will fight this proposal and if they are built I will seek full compensation from John Ward and Enertrag....,

I will also actively campaign throughout lincolnshire and do my utmost to ensure that people are really aware

of what a massive scam this Wind Farm Policy is....

Wake up derek to the real facts unless that is you dont want to, because you have a vested interest which I think is probably the case..

Melvin

Derek why do you and so many other numpties who visit this website keep coming back with the same old worries of armageddom , coal power stations, nuclear power stations. etc, etc, etc, when there is a wealth of other re newable energy sources available, that are cost affective, (some of which the general public proberly do not even know about?) its all a great big game to see how much money they can windle from us, and wont let off until somebody says we have had enough.! I think the idea of this website is for people to say we have had enough!

--- local(guest) 

I notice that 'I am not a Plastic Bag' doesn't correct your typos...

but anyway. If you don't want us to have electricity in the future by all means keep going. Like I said 2kms from any residence will waste more energy getting to such sites and maintaining them... making them less cost effective and worthwile. Which means we would have to rely on other sources (I'm not saying replace the site here with an alternative... just we'd have to rely on another said source elsewhere).

I agree that 700m seems too close... 1000-about 1400 (double the current) keeps both sides happy. More potential sites and the worry about health issues lessened. (which are yet to be proven either way, but here again, I'm not denying that there are people around whose health problem are said to be caused by turbines....).

I am not heartless. As man of science, I tend to want to have proven FACT before I believe something is true. (Read bit in brackets above again.)

I notice that 'I am not a Plastic Bag' doesn't correct your typos...

I am not heartless. As man of science, I tend to want to have proven FACT before I believe something is true.

--- Derek(guest) 

HA!! Gosh. Poor Derek

I am guessing that your love for FACT doesn't extend to you wanting to substantiate your claim that 75% of people would want to live near a wind farm? Found that source yet for me?

I notice that 'I am not a Plastic Bag' doesn't correct your typos...

I am not heartless. As man of science, I tend to want to have proven FACT before I believe something is true.

--- Derek(guest) 

HA!! Gosh. Poor Derek

I am guessing that your love for FACT doesn't extend to you wanting to substantiate your claim that 75% of people would want to live near a wind farm? Found that source yet for me?

--- John Ward's Conscience(guest) 

To quote 'country bumpkin' from another thread in this section.

'According to the recent poll in the Horncastle News, 75% of people would buy a house near wind turbines'

Re-reading that I went over the Horncastle New site to find anything.

I found this:

'Who exactly are the 80 per cent of people in favour of wind turbines referred to by Mr Chapelhow of Enertrag UK?' (from a letter, which shows that there was a survey which showed 80% were in favour)

and also

'* 75% of people are in favour of wind farms ' There we go then.

I notice that 'I am not a Plastic Bag' doesn't correct your typos...

I am not heartless. As man of science, I tend to want to have proven FACT before I believe something is true.

--- Derek(guest) 

HA!! Gosh. Poor Derek

I am guessing that your love for FACT doesn't extend to you wanting to substantiate your claim that 75% of people would want to live near a wind farm? Found that source yet for me?

--- John Ward's Conscience(guest) 

To quote 'country bumpkin' from another thread in this section.

'According to the recent poll in the Horncastle News, 75% of people would buy a house near wind turbines'

Re-reading that I went over the Horncastle New site to find anything.

I found this:

'Who exactly are the 80 per cent of people in favour of wind turbines referred to by Mr Chapelhow of Enertrag UK?' (from a letter, which shows that there was a survey which showed 80% were in favour)

and also

'* 75% of people are in favour of wind farms ' There we go then.

--- Derek(guest) 

The Horncastle News is your source?! Acedemia? Government reports? No. The Horncastle News. Bless.

And with reference to the 80% statistic - this was a percentage of people referred to by an Enertrag official? Well then. That has to be factual. And almost definitely objective.

Here are the real fact Enertrag and the wind energy companies dont want you to know.....

1) Turbines do cause noise nuisance Take Bicker for example ... only 7 out of 13 turbines and there is a report

of noise problems.. Conisholme reports of noise.. Jean & Julian Davies Deeping St Nicholas... We also have evidence that the Wind Industry pays compensation to victims of noise, along with getting them to sign gagging clauses so the real extent of the problem is hidden. Consider this there are people out there who dare not disclose the real extent of the noise, because if they do, they will not sell their homes, as they are so deperate to move away..

This by the way is illegal....

2) Health issues a 2 km set aside is crucial, this is one of the recommendations of Dr Nina Pierpoint who has conducted clinical trials.. Derek and the wind energy choses to ignore this . The Industry has its own employees chairing committes and giving advice to Ministers on amptitude modulation.... Fact is this unbiased advice?.. there will be more press coverage on this scandal... The Salford University Report on noise issues is also being questioned on its findings.... Go to the Links page on this site and look at the National Wind Watch site.. you will find lots of valuable information...

3 Property prices are devalued.. this is the one that the energy companies really are keen to discredit, but again the Davies case has proved infactically that they do. I know of cases where prices have been reduced substantially...

4 Wind power will not solve the energy gap, back up power is required.. without subsidies, most wind farms onshore would not be profitable... the profit comes mainly from the subsidies...even the farmers are screwed they get approx 2% of the profits... consider this, an average turbine once set up costs are covered, will generate £450,00 - £500,000 pa, the farmer gets paid ( on published figures ) approx £10,000 pa mmm .. you may say £10,000 pa for the farmer aint bad ,but on a commercial basis they are being ripped of.f..

You see the science is one of scam, mis representation and guillible people believing the propaganda the wind turbines energy companies spew out...

Screw the countryside & the people who live in it and take the profit sell on the sites and disappear ... These are the real FACTS and its about time this was exposed...

Certainly journalist 's Christopher Booker, Jonathan Leach along with others have cottoned on to these facts....

I repeat please add your name to the Dowing St Petition... its important

Melvin

Actually Plastic Bag (not), the 75% one was the Enertrag statistic! The 80% would have been a council member.

mmm sounds like your singing from the Enertrag song sheet ...do you really believe the stuff Enertrag trot out ?...

its seems obvious to assume Derek ,you are closely connected to Enertrag, unless you can come out in the open and have the courage to say who you are... so on this basis everyone... it would be advisable to view all posts by Derek

with extreme scepticism !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Actually Plastic Bag (not), the 75% one was the Enertrag statistic! The 80% would have been a council member.

--- Derek(guest) 

Gosh. I am sorry. I didn't realise what a difference that made.

Considering in your post you stated:

''Who exactly are the 80 per cent of people in favour of wind turbines referred to by Mr Chapelhow of Enertrag UK?'

my confusion is perhaps understandable.

mmm sounds like your singing from the Enertrag song sheet ...do you really believe the stuff Enertrag trot out ?...

its seems obvious to assume Derek ,you are closely connected to Enertrag, unless you can come out in the open and have the courage to say who you are... so on this basis everyone... it would be advisable to view all posts by Derek

with extreme scepticism !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

--- wise(guest) 

I tend to view them with mild amusement.

mmm sounds like your singing from the Enertrag song sheet ...do you really believe the stuff Enertrag trot out ?...

its seems obvious to assume Derek ,you are closely connected to Enertrag, unless you can come out in the open and have the courage to say who you are... so on this basis everyone... it would be advisable to view all posts by Derek

with extreme scepticism !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

--- wise(guest) 

Actually there is no connection between me and Enertrag except for the fact I'm part of the debate about their wind farms.

Also, what fun it is to see another person like 'In the know' making irrelevant posts...

Just another reminder to any one new visting this forum... Please add your name to the downing st petition calling for a 2 km distance between turbines and residents....

We held the 3rd in the series of presentations in Hemingby last night. Hemingby is on tthe boundary of the ANOB and is a village with its own Pub, the 'Coach & Horses', which has an homely charm and boasts a 2008 CAMRA award for its excellent real ales/beer... Many local pubs have closed over the recent years along with petrol stations and Post Offices. We received very positive feed back and commitments to support the campaign... We are collating names and addresses of people who are willing to write a letter of protest to ELDC at the right time... If you would like to be included on the list, please email me from the contacts page on the web site

Thank you

Melvin

Do not reply to my postings, I will not read or respond to rude men, I presume you are a man using the name of derrick

--- hilary sandbach(guest) 

And what of your stance on rude women, would you reply to those?

'Derek' asks, what are the height of the Turbines....Typicaly, these days, 125metres to the tips of the rotors Derek...I don't know about Baumber...probably the same? 'Derek' says, No need surely, for a 2 kilometer buffer zone (Even though, Germany, (ahead of us in these matters), has this protection). 'Derek' says, double the size of the Turbines would be enough, surely? Look up Google sattalite images 'Derek'. Zoom to Deeping St Nicholas windfarm. There's an overhead view of a Turbine there (before the rest were built) Its 100 metres tall (smaller than the ones now propossed) measure the shadow cast against the scale at the bottom, its 200 metres is'nt it? Double the height of the Turbine, the shadow will be turning (sometimes)....guess that's too close then to soeones home? You do suggest 700 metres to be fair. Why 700 metres? Do you realy not think 2 kilometers would, at the very least, be prudent?

'Derek' asks, what are the height of the Turbines....Typicaly, these days, 125metres to the tips of the rotors Derek...I don't know about Baumber...probably the same? 'Derek' says, No need surely, for a 2 kilometer buffer zone (Even though, Germany, (ahead of us in these matters), has this protection). 'Derek' says, double the size of the Turbines would be enough, surely? Look up Google sattalite images 'Derek'. Zoom to Deeping St Nicholas windfarm. There's an overhead view of a Turbine there (before the rest were built) Its 100 metres tall (smaller than the ones now propossed) measure the shadow cast against the scale at the bottom, its 200 metres is'nt it? Double the height of the Turbine, the shadow will be turning (sometimes)....guess that's too close then to soeones home? You do suggest 700 metres to be fair. Why 700 metres? Do you realy not think 2 kilometers would, at the very least, be prudent?

--- Fen Beagle(guest) 

700m? try to read... If you paid attention I said that 1 mile would be enough. 700m is what it stands to be put at now (I can't remember, these comments were made so long ago. That reminds me, congratulation on bring a dead thread back to life). So do the math (and ignore a typo) Double 700m gets roughly a mile.

Yes sorry Derek, I accept that I mis read your meaning. It was the bit, where you said 'double the height of the Turbine' in relation to safe distances, that threw me completely (I thought you may have meant it!)....But as you actualy meant 'a mile'....eg 1.609344 kilometers. It seems to me, your not far off, from supporting the petition for 2 kilometers yourself? Or is the extra distance significant to you, in some way?