“The original arguments against still pertain. For the University to get a return on the TOTAL CAPITAL COST of the scheme it will take longer than the life of the turbines. It may produce 33% of the Universities needs when all three are on song but work that out as the useful power per annum and the result will be much less. On top of that the main argument is that when the power demand is at it's peak, as in the coldest days so far this year we were sitting in the middle of an anticyclone and there was no wind throughout most of England. This means that there must be sufficient generating capacity to cover those windless periods. It would only be fair if the charge for the maintenance and supply for this overcapacity requirement was charged to those who are profiting from the subsidies for the initial capital outlay and the inflated prices paid for feeding into the grid where applicable. The environmental impact will be more costs that should be laid on the Universities budgets as the blight for a 400 foot monstrosity will cost locals a substantial amount. There will be no more sky larks on the venue for many cricket matches that I enjoyed when I worked for the University. In terms of the impact on environmental impact, how many tonnes of carbon will be used to build and install these edifices to idiocy. It is all nebulous and about as green as coal. A waste of space and shear vandalism.”

“First - I live on Cornwall Avenue, not Lockwood??
Second James - I object to a public body putting a very expensive asset, in a very low wind area (met office 6m/s), that will be subsidised by all the public. The only gain is the university get free electricity, the carbon reduction less than 10 transatlantic flights per annum. If the government operated truly eco management rules, the university would be able to site the turbines in a high yield area (probably 30 to 50%) more power, thereby some real carbon reduction). but the university currently have to have a totally private scheme to achieve carbon reduction calculation. We end up with turbines in a valley - a great British approach. Our local MP, Anna Soubrey, does not respond to questions on this strange government approach, which minimises carbon reduction at the electricity users expense.”

“To councillor Barber, the longer the route the bigger the size of cable needed and the more the volt drop in length on the cable. Is that what you would call cost effective efficiency on the 14% of our electricity bill payment”

“I understand that the cabling is proposed run alongside Clifton Bvd alongside existing cables. It can easily go over the Dunkirk flyover as do several other services.

It will be a three phase 33Kv armored cable - a common type of feeder cable.”

“"global warming hoax schemes"
Derrick, Bulwell

Derrick, these schemes are being used all over the world. If it is a hoax, who do you think is behind it, what is their motivation and how do you think they have hoodwinked so many Governments?”

“"Why would any rational person oppose such a scheme?"

Is an extra 14% added to your electricity bill to pay for all these global warming hoax schemes not a rational reason then James? Do you have any idea how many of our old people die of hypothermia each winter in this country because they can't afford to heat their homes?”

“Why would any rational person oppose such a scheme? Good for the environment, good for the economy, no cost to the taxpayer. It is win, win win with wind. I predict these will be built and that within ten days of having been built people will wonder what the clowns were making a fuss about.”

“Thanks fot the information Cllr Steve Baarber, Beeston. If it's been a success in the Rylands, why not set up sites along the rest of the trent. From what people are saying on here, it seems to be another Euro Banana problem, it's either their way or not at all.
It's about time we showed them that we're capable of looking after ourselves without their interference.”

“Mr Sensible working with the residents would mean siting the turbines in a place where they would tap into the grid and not 450 metres from Clifton Grove. When you consider to feed the electricity direct to the University would mean going under or over the canal, through the Boots Industrial company, under the proposed tram to Chilwell, across a dual carriageway. Why because they make more money than going to the grid. The University of Nottingham is now an accountancy run business charging students the full fees, encouraging overseas students because there is more profit while at the same time eating into its own staffs pensions.. It is a University that is attempting to steamroll wind turbines at the expense of residents and certainly has no concerns of working with them”

“Nice one, Rex.”