Since the last public exhibition in Whitchurch the website has been informed that EDF Energy Renewables have been undertaking environmental and technical work on the site in recent months.
In the spring, EDF announced plans to investigate potential for a 17 turbine wind farm to be located on a site that takes in land covered by three local planning authorities, Winchester City Council, Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council and Test Valley Borough Council.

The site is two miles from the centre of Whitchurch.

EDF are now coming back to Whitchurch to provide updates on their plans and are holding an event at:
Parish Hall, Friday November 16th, 12.30 to 8.00pm

Members of the project team will be available to provide details of the work undertaken, to answer any questions, and to provide details of what happens next as they take the project forward.

As part of the exhibition they will have special 3D visualisation software to aid the understanding of how they believe the windfarm will look from the surrounding area.

Darren Cuming, onshore wind development manager at EDF Energy Renewables said:

“The events in November will enable us to let members of the public know how the investigation for the proposed wind farm is going.

“We have consulted with the public and local stakeholders and taken on board their views and opinions. At the exhibitions we will be updating them on the work carried out so far on site and will be able to provide details of what happens next as we take the proposal forward.

“We’re committed to keeping local people updated on our proposal and these events have been organised into the evening and during the weekend so that anyone who wants to come to talk to us should have an opportunity to do so.”

The following day (Saturday 17th, 11.00am – 5.00pm) a similar event will be held in Victoria Hall, Sutton Scotney.

See the original article with plans HERE

Details of the last exhibition in Whitchurch are HERE

Comments (4)

  • Debs

    The cost of windpower is massively subsidised by the tax payer and they are inefficient, with the whole life cost of producing electricity by wind per KW far higher than any other means.

    They dont work on calm days and they get switched off when the wind is too high, which defeats the object of the beast! As the subsidies reduce the owners will reduce maintenance and they will sit idle as it will no longer be cost effective to repair or replace them and we will probably end up with a landscape of disused wind turbines blighting the landscape, something that will be replicated all over the country, if not the world! Once they cease to make money for the investors they will no longer be interested in them and it will be for others then to pick up the bill. There needs to be more long-term thinking, not short-term financial gain as regards energy production and usage.

    We should be investing in proven technology and working to reduce our usage – smarter use, not just trying to produce more energy to allow us to continue in the way we are at present. These turbines are about developers / investors (which is what our energy companies are) trying to make a fast buck.

    Look at Hampshire’s change of mind today and the Governments – why?, probably because they know what a tax scam this is. If it was about being green the argument would be much easier to put across, but it isn’t.

    Read more:–declares-energy-minister.html#ixzz2ArfsIEd6

  • climo

    Debs you’re making the mistake that the DM actually know what they are on about.

    Grid parity will occur by 2020, sooner with the rising cost of gas.
    The power produced by turbines will be cheaper thereafter. There is no way that any turbine owner will let there assets decline.
    National grid have developed a highly sophisticated wind forecasting system which enables then to get 2% more power from the use of wind than before. This 2% equates to 1.5gw – thats 2 nuke stations.
    In terms of ‘blighting the landscape’, I think that roads & traffic blight it & communities far more.
    Which other tech are you referring to? Not gas or coal surely. CO2 sequestration is a long way off
    I can’t think of any major technology startup which hasn’t been subsidised.

    Hayes made the mistake of releasing the text of his speech beforehand. His boss bashed him and Hayes actually said something far less contentious.
    I wouldn’t trust a tory at all. Remember the NHS was’safe in our hands’

    Here’s some light background reading
    Directly quotes from a variety of experts

    On jobs:

    On costs of green tech Bloomberg’s Q1 2012 energy report here

    On the barking mad Daily Mail

    Here’s my reply in another forum
    The UK spends c. £1.7billion on renewables each year. This includes hydro, pumped storage, biomass, solar, wind. geothermal, etc. Of that 40% is for wind in the form of ROC’s. That works out to about £20 / household per year on your bill. That’s about 4%. Oddly that’s the same as the gas subsidy.
    Renewable energy creates 110,000 jobs in the UK in 2012. The forecast is 400,000 jobs by 2020.
    Further, renewables generated exports of just under £1.6bn in 2010/11, with wind technologies the biggest contributor.
    Sounds like a pretty good deal to me & hardly an economic disadvantage.

    China is known for it’s business sense. It’s not known for ‘pandering to “green” whimsy.’ Interestingly, China now builds more wind farms than any other country as they also see a huge benefit in utilising wind power.

    Nuke direct subsidy is £3.6billion. BNF disposal subsidies about £200million / year every year until 2086. Sellafield cost £78billion paid for by the public. Here’s what I said before. ‘Despite Government commitments to the contrary, the Treasury has confirmed in a written answer that the new Carbon Floor Price in clause 77 of the Finance Bill will produce a bonus to nuclear operators of £50 million per year from 2013 to 2030.
    A recent report by the Energy and Climate Change Committee confirmed that the Government is, in fact, planning a series of major subsidies to the nuclear industry, including through the Finance Bill. The report states that ‘Government proposals will effectively provide subsidies to nuclear generators through new long term contracts and a carbon price floor that could hand them windfall profits.”
    The salient points here
    this makes useful reading as well

    And of course there’s the government underwriting the whole nuclear industry because it’s too important to fail plus the taxpayer’s bill for decommissioning.

    …. British Energy (now part of EDF) who run 8 UK reactors. In 2004 they got £3bn from the taxpayer and taxpayers took on board all their former BNFL fuel disposal costs until 2086 currently estimated at £150 -200 million per year so another 12+bn. I think BE was sold at a loss. EDF is a French company and profits go abroad
    And then there’s Sellafield, wholly owned by the taxpayer and costing about 750 million per year. Decommissioning Sellafield would be £35bn’

    Evidence your ‘no resultant benefit to CO2 emissions’ statement.
    Currently there are 3300+ operating wind turbines in the UK. If 50% work at 24% efficiency (up to 57.9%, surprisingly) that’s a lot of gas generated power saved & therefor less CO2. I’ll leave you to do the math.

    Sorry for the disjointed reply but I’m busy.

  • Debs

    Climo, no I don’t totally believe the Daily Mail, the Government, Scientists or Politicians from any party – let us not single out one party – and no, I’m not a Tory or of any other political persuasion.

    I’m not an expert and don’t pretend to be. I just started the ball rolling, with a point of view as Wind Turbines are not a perfect answer and are used just like all other forms of energy generation as a way of making money first, energy second. There is as much research to prove as disprove and yes, your links say one thing and another link will send us to a site or report that says another. I just hoped that people would explore the issue and not simply believe that which is presented – it might be right, but I don’t know and who truly does?

    While we are looking at issues, what about the health implications – there is a great deal of discussion on this issue worldwide about the health impacts related to noise, infrasound, vibrations, or shadow flickering generated by turbines. What do we really know about these issues and how they may impact on residents? Vibration in surrounding structures – we won’t know if there are issues until the turbines are built will we? How mature does a technology need to be before we really understand the benefits and disadvantages?

    What is the comeback if issues do arise and how will they be rectified?

    We don’t know for sure, but I am for exploring all avenues and think debate helps – we should make decisions based on as much information as possible and available at the time.

    There’s much that could improve our environment, and alternative forms of energy generation are in this list, but the focus here is on the turbines, we’ll leave traffic and roads for another day.

  • Penny Turner

    Those of us who walk, cycle and ride in this area can’t believe that anyone is willing to ruin such a beautiful area. If you haven’t been out on the hills east of Whitchurch yet, I encourage you to do so. It’s stunning. This proposal will see more energy poured into the concrete bases of these things than will ever be generated. It’s environmental sophism.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked (*).