Wind farms - the new top marks for sea anglers?

The Government has just announced huge new offshore windfarms, with the turbines being planted in depths of 60 metres.
HERE
But I'm intrigued; these huge no-go areas for trawlers will surely become our new reefs - almost any structure standing off the bottom tends to attract fish. Does anyone know if current wid farms attract fish? Are skippers allowed to fish near them?

The one of North Wales is producing fish from the boats, how close fishing boats can get I don't know. Went out last summer from Rhos-On-Sea and we fished near to the turbines. Skipper didn't take us too close for safety reasons as the supply ships are bas****s and can easily capsize small boats with their wake. There is Marine law that govern just events but difficult for small boats and skippers to get anywhere with procecutions.

I've had a quick google on marine law concerning angling near these abominations but it resulted in nowt conclusive, probably need a marine lawyer to give a definitive answer as most of it is new law. Certainly commercial fishing is banned, I found that out but would charter boats for rod and line anglers be bracketed under commercial? hmmm!

Why do you call them abominations Graham.

They are a darned site better than burning stinking rotten coal, oil and gas!

---------- Post added at 10:31 ---------- Previous post was at 10:25 ----------

And I have got to like seeing them on the landscape. I wonder how the people of long ago thought of the windmills of fenland. It's all good renewable energy.

If the windfarms prevent commercial fishermen hoovering up the seabed as they do now, I will shout out: "hip hip hurray!"

I'm with you on this one Ron. Anything that makes use of the natural resourses without depleting it to provide for our power needs is ok by me. Dad has never liked them, doesn't believes they are cost effective and never will.

As for fishing from boats near to them, I'll be very suprised if it will be allowed within a certain distance. But they most certainly will be great fish holding features.

Ron The Hat Clay said:

Why do you call them abominations Graham.

They are a darned site better than burning stinking rotten coal, oil and gas!

---------- Post added at 10:31 ---------- Previous post was at 10:25 ----------

And I have got to like seeing them on the landscape. I wonder how the people of long ago thought of the windmills of fenland. It's all good renewable energy.

If the windfarms prevent commercial fishermen hoovering up the seabed as they do now, I will shout out: "hip hip hurray!"

Click to expand...

Know it All here!
Tend to agree with you there Ron!

I understand from one of my "sources" within the coastal protection agencies that Trawling and commercial fishing is banned within the box of the farms, due to the cables and other kit on the sea bed Some angling is permitted but at the time I spoke to him, it was unclear what type.
The structures do indeed attract fish in large quantities and can act as nurseries for juvenile fish.
The is some evidence that shows the electromagnetic field emitted by the cables can interrupt the with migration of fish. Fish migrate using the magnetic particles in their brain, it's called magnetic oreception. Salmon and seat trout are know to be susceptible to this effect.

All in all it looks like a mixed picture, at the moment.

They will provide havens for the breeding of fish and the growth of migratory fish such as salmon and seatrout. No we shouldn't be allowed to fish too close to them, just as commercial fishing should be banned within 10 miles of them.

Many people have told me that in the future, the use of renewable energy will not be cost effective.

There is only one answer to that and that is *******s!!

Maybe based on the technology we have now this might be true, but consider this scenario, the world of 2100.

Remember the Hobbit Holes from Lord of the Rings. Well in the future we will live underground, just like Tolkein's hobbits did. The reason for this is so that food can be grown and the land not covered with concrete. The only sign that someone is living underground will be the nanofibre photovoltaic cell panels which will provide virtually all the energy requirements of the dwelling as well as the supply of electricity for the family car, which will be navigated by computer. Thats right, you won't have to drive it and accidents will be a thing of the past. Driving lessons and other such **** will also be a thing of the past.

Not only that, but the outer shell of each vehicle will consist of nanofibre photovoltaic sheeting which will charge the highly specialised nanofibre batteries whilst the car is both moving or still. The car will not run on wheels by the way, but will be suspended above the ground utilising gravitoelectromagnetism. This technology is real by the way.

Other than specialised jobs, most of which will be performed by robots, we will not "go to work". Work will be done from a workstation in the home where contact will be made with anyone throughout the world. We will certainly not need to go to supermarkets to "shop". Another thing of the past.

I could go on with my vision of the future. It is not based on guesswork, but on technology that is real, and in some cases that I was involved with at the time of my retirement.

---------- Post added at 11:40 ---------- Previous post was at 11:22 ----------

Oh and BTW, carbon fibre fishing rods and other sporting equipment will have been replaced by 2020 by nanofibre materials whose base is cellulose. This is a renewable resource that can be grown.

I know that you think I'm talking ****, but there is a fly rod which is available in this country which is made of cellulosic nanofibres. These materials have not been perfected yet but they will be in time, and lots of items which today are based on fossilised hydrocarbons will be made in the future from materials we can grow!

The problem will come in about 20 years time when there could be a third world war, based on the conflict of interests between the establishment who control certain vested interests in the fossilised hydrocarbon industry, and the expanding new technologies, who will win in the end.

Phil, if the sea angling ban on parts of the mersey sea front (docks) is anything to go by, I'd be surprised if anglers (or anyone else) were allowed anywhere near!

The Norwegians use tidal power to generate their electricity, much more reliable and far less obtrusive.

I believe that we are to make more use of tidal power too. Anything is better than burning hydrocarbons!

---------- Post added at 04:40 ---------- Previous post was at 04:34 ----------

Oh and there are signs that a breakthrough in terms of nuclear cold fusion might be on the cards.

By crikey such a breakthrough will change a few faulty paradigms in governments and supporters of oil companies. Nuclear fusion means the harnessing of the power of the Hydrogen bomb. Suns and stars are huge fusion reactors.

A cold fusion nuclear electricity generator would mean extremely low cost clean energy for our planet. The cost of powering transport systems would plummet.

We are an Island and therefore surrounded by natural energy resources and should harness "most" of those resources starting with those offshore first.
With the proviso that "proper" environmental/ecological impact assessments are done to establish the impact in both realms are negligible or nonexistent.

There are some that are intrinsically damaging (River Barrages) in one realm, that they would create more problems than they solve.

I watched a "Coast" programme over Xmas and it featured the Norwegian experiments to harness wave power, much more reliable than wind and the working parts are not visible , being on the sea bed, altogether a far better proposition than bl@@dy windmills.

Looking through the papers today it seems probable that the wind farms are unlikely to be built on the scale proposed in the timescales simply down to the logistics involved; lack of implementation equipment, manufacturing capability etc. plus where's the money coming from? That and a reality check of lack of backup. Plans to decommission coal fired could well be postponed regardless, that or the lights go out.

Mark Wintle said:

Looking through the papers today it seems probable that the wind farms are unlikely to be built on the scale proposed in the timescales simply down to the logistics involved; lack of implementation equipment, manufacturing capability etc. plus where's the money coming from? That and a reality check of lack of backup. Plans to decommission coal fired could well be postponed regardless, that or the lights go out.

Click to expand...

Even if these were to go ahead, in total, then the RoI figures would mean a drastic increase in the cost of electricity.

Personally I'd prefer to see them out at sea and not on the mainland, that said, the onshore option is by far and away cheaper, and I've seen some of the official Contractor's estimates.

Looks like more 'gesture' politics to me considering the looming general election.

I know I've mentioned this before, but if you have ever stood on Menai bridge with the tide at full bore beneath you, you will quickly come to the conclusion that the oil and coal industry must have some kind of hold of Government.

The roaring noise alone of the tide, tearing along at 8 knots or more, is an indication of the power involved; millions of tonnes of seawater moving as fast as a man can run, irrepressibly, four times a day. The question isn't how we harness this limitless power, it is WHY we haven't harnessed this limitless power.

For some reason, the tidal power people seem obsessed with 'efficiency'; does it really matter whether we harness 10% or 20% of a completely free resource? We should be installing our inefficient tidal generators NOW and improving on them as the research progresses.

MarkTheSpark said:

I know I've mentioned this before, but if you have ever stood on Menai bridge with the tide at full bore beneath you, you will quickly come to the conclusion that the oil and coal industry must have some kind of hold of Government.

The roaring noise alone of the tide, tearing along at 8 knots or more, is an indication of the power involved; millions of tonnes of seawater moving as fast as a man can run, irrepressibly, four times a day. The question isn't how we harness this limitless power, it is WHY we haven't harnessed this limitless power.

For some reason, the tidal power people seem obsessed with 'efficiency'; does it really matter whether we harness 10% or 20% of a completely free resource? We should be installing our inefficient tidal generators NOW and improving on them as the research progresses.

Click to expand...

Maybe we should Mark, but again, the economics do not make for a viable proposition!

The CAPEX and OPEX of these schemes require a much higher RoR than is currently possible, and no commercial enterprise would be willing to enter into these sort of Projects.

Take this last round of licensing for Offshore Wind Farms, the prospectors have a license for probably 40 years, and are not 'required' to commence real work for probably 20 years.
Again the reason being simple Return on Investment.

As I said, nothing but 'Gesture Politics' from a government that needs good publicity going into an election!

Now, if these Governments were really serious, then they would be funding these as Public Projects, but then we all know how badly those are run, don't we?

Which is precisely why the Norwegians are doing what they are doing, the tides and waves are reliable but the same can't be said of the wind. Maybe I am thinking wrong but the idea of using existing power to turn windmills when there isn't any wind seems totally pointless and inefficient to me.

Graham Whatmore said:

Which is precisely why the Norwegians are doing what they are doing, the tides and waves are reliable but the same can't be said of the wind. Maybe I am thinking wrong but the idea of using existing power to turn windmills when there isn't any wind seems totally pointless and inefficient to me.

Click to expand...

The big difference though Graham between the UK and Norway is that they have trillions upon trillions of US dollars in their Oil Fund (from PRT) and as they are not a full member of the EU they can subsidise their industries with impunity.

We (the UK) on the other hand are virtually bankrupt and are not allowed to provide anything but 'trivial' subsidies before our 'masters' in Brussels get all 'wonky' with us.

As I said, like it or not, these schemes are subject to simple project economics, and right now those economics just are not viable.

Peter Jacobs said:

Maybe we should Mark, but again, the economics do not make for a viable proposition!

The CAPEX and OPEX of these schemes require a much higher RoR than is currently possible, and no commercial enterprise would be willing to enter into these sort of Projects.

Take this last round of licensing for Offshore Wind Farms, the prospectors have a license for probably 40 years, and are not 'required' to commence real work for probably 20 years.
Again the reason being simple Return on Investment.

As I said, nothing but 'Gesture Politics' from a government that needs good publicity going into an election!

Now, if these Governments were really serious, then they would be funding these as Public Projects, but then we all know how badly those are run, don't we?

Click to expand...

I'm sorry to say this, Peter, but isn't the business aspect total bollox? If investors took a 20-year view of building a nuke, or even a coal-fired power station, none would ever have been built. If everything had to produce a return in 30 years, we would have no railways.

It's not the planet's fault that businessmen are greedy and it is the government's fault, I agree, that it does not see power as a matter of national security, and make the kind of investment in it that it deserves.

However, a modest 1MW tidal generator (SeaGen is an example) produces £180 an hour, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year. That's £1.5million a year at peak cost per unit of electricity. SeaGen, including research (which only has to be done once) was £9m in round figures. You could build an identical one and install it for £4m.

The only issue is reliability because the fuel is completely free and inexhaustible. If the machine can be made to last 20 years, you're laughing. I am amazed that investors aren't beating a path to tidal power's door. Well, actually they are; SeaGen has just announced iot has secured £48m for R&D

---------- Post added at 04:48 ---------- Previous post was at 04:36 ----------

And one final thought; if wind turbines are really so sh1t and such a bad investment, how come the number being built, privately-funded, by farmers in the USA has doubled every year for the past three years?

Very interesting points Mark. Thanks. I'm dying to see the response.