LEAVE the Conservative Party and save your country!

wallace_and_gromit

surrey_commuter said:

First.Aspect said:

TheBigBean said:

The transmission loss from northern Scotland to London isn't negligible, but the main argument in favour of more localised production is that it avoids the need to upgrade the grid.

Transmission loss of the national grid as a whole is 1.7%. If you want to avoid increasing that then put up a windfarm in Richmond Park and one across the south downs and one in the Chilterns.

Or would you all prefer them somewhere else?

Canary Wharf is the windiest place on the planet...

Having done a triathlon at the weekend based on the Sunderland seafront, I would dispute this claim. The North Sea rocks!

kingstongraham

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

TheBigBean said:

The transmission loss from northern Scotland to London isn't negligible, but the main argument in favour of more localised production is that it avoids the need to upgrade the grid.

Transmission loss of the national grid as a whole is 1.7%. If you want to avoid increasing that then put up a windfarm in Richmond Park and one across the south downs and one in the Chilterns.

Or would you all prefer them somewhere else?

Would look good in RP but it's really not that big and inland it is just not that windy.

You are right, looking on the map, the Chilterns are good, and around Basingstoke. A Moreton in Marsh 24 turbine 220m to blade tip application really should go in.

Ranmore Common might work on the south downs.

Moreton in Marsh is Cotswolds isn't it? Better to go down towards Birdlip for proper wind.

If Chilterns, try to get it near Chequers.

First.Aspect

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

TheBigBean said:

The transmission loss from northern Scotland to London isn't negligible, but the main argument in favour of more localised production is that it avoids the need to upgrade the grid.

Transmission loss of the national grid as a whole is 1.7%. If you want to avoid increasing that then put up a windfarm in Richmond Park and one across the south downs and one in the Chilterns.

Or would you all prefer them somewhere else?

Would look good in RP but it's really not that big and inland it is just not that windy.

You are right, looking on the map, the Chilterns are good, and around Basingstoke. A Moreton in Marsh 24 turbine 220m to blade tip application really should go in.

Severn Estuary is windy and plenty living either side + existing power stations nearby. Tidal range might be an issue for off shore, though.

It's not that great according to the Met Office.

Your mistake is assuming that wind farm appliactions target windy places though.

There's a massive one gone in near here in a spot which is as windy as Baisingstoke.

Unfortunately it would destroy ancient peat land, endangered bird nesting sites and put the UK in breach of the nuclear non proliferation treaty, because if the seismic interference. Other than that, a low level wind shadow is the perfect spot.

The industry really doesn't help itself.

surrey_commuter

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

TheBigBean said:

The transmission loss from northern Scotland to London isn't negligible, but the main argument in favour of more localised production is that it avoids the need to upgrade the grid.

Transmission loss of the national grid as a whole is 1.7%. If you want to avoid increasing that then put up a windfarm in Richmond Park and one across the south downs and one in the Chilterns.

Or would you all prefer them somewhere else?

Would look good in RP but it's really not that big and inland it is just not that windy.

Solar farm for RP. Its easily big enough for both tbh.

Would the Downs on the south side of London be drafty enough? nobody complains about the Crystal Palace mast ruining the view

kingstongraham

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

TheBigBean said:

The transmission loss from northern Scotland to London isn't negligible, but the main argument in favour of more localised production is that it avoids the need to upgrade the grid.

Transmission loss of the national grid as a whole is 1.7%. If you want to avoid increasing that then put up a windfarm in Richmond Park and one across the south downs and one in the Chilterns.

Or would you all prefer them somewhere else?

Would look good in RP but it's really not that big and inland it is just not that windy.

Solar farm for RP. Its easily big enough for both tbh.

Put it in Home Park, nobody goes there anyway.

First.Aspect

surrey_commuter said:

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

TheBigBean said:

The transmission loss from northern Scotland to London isn't negligible, but the main argument in favour of more localised production is that it avoids the need to upgrade the grid.

Transmission loss of the national grid as a whole is 1.7%. If you want to avoid increasing that then put up a windfarm in Richmond Park and one across the south downs and one in the Chilterns.

Or would you all prefer them somewhere else?

Would look good in RP but it's really not that big and inland it is just not that windy.

Solar farm for RP. Its easily big enough for both tbh.

Would the Downs on the south side of London be drafty enough? nobody complains about the Crystal Palace mast ruining the view

Anywhere is windy enough, even indoors.

rick_chasey

First.Aspect said:

surrey_commuter said:

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

TheBigBean said:

The transmission loss from northern Scotland to London isn't negligible, but the main argument in favour of more localised production is that it avoids the need to upgrade the grid.

Transmission loss of the national grid as a whole is 1.7%. If you want to avoid increasing that then put up a windfarm in Richmond Park and one across the south downs and one in the Chilterns.

Or would you all prefer them somewhere else?

Would look good in RP but it's really not that big and inland it is just not that windy.

Solar farm for RP. Its easily big enough for both tbh.

Would the Downs on the south side of London be drafty enough? nobody complains about the Crystal Palace mast ruining the view

Anywhere is windy enough, even indoors.

That'll be the haggis.

surrey_commuter

Does anybody else think that wind turbines look majestic?

rick_chasey

TBH I spend 7+ hours a day looking at my phone, anything that powers that in an environmentally friendly way suits me.

surrey_commuter

rick_chasey said:

TBH I spend 7+ hours a day looking at my phone, anything that powers that in an environmentally friendly way suits me.

is that an exaggeration as I am struggling with how you can spend half of your waking hours looking at a phone?

rick_chasey

Probably shouldn’t admit to it

rick_chasey

( I should add it varies hugely, some days it's sub 30mins and I spend a lot of time listening to music on youtube and you have to have the screen on for that etc)

Pross

surrey_commuter said:

Does anybody else think that wind turbines look majestic?

I like them, there's a wind farm about to be built on the ridge I look at from my house (13 x 150m turbines) and it really doesn't bother me. I regularly walk and run up there but it won't really impact on my enjoyment. The ridge already has some very large pylons and a TV mast anyway and no-one seems bothered by those. There's an upside in that there will a load of gravel tracks installed for a bit of gravel biking if I fancy it and these will also replace a lot of paths that have been ripped to shreds by illegal motorbikes.

There are quite a few solar farms visible from where I live too but again they really don't bother me. They could barrage the Usk and / or Severn estuaries too if they want, I'm sure there are ways of managing the ecological impacts if people put their minds to it.

Visually none of these will be as bad as the mess that mining made for a couple of centuries and provided the power over the past that contributed to the current issues.

TheBigBean

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

TheBigBean said:

The transmission loss from northern Scotland to London isn't negligible, but the main argument in favour of more localised production is that it avoids the need to upgrade the grid.

Transmission loss of the national grid as a whole is 1.7%. If you want to avoid increasing that then put up a windfarm in Richmond Park and one across the south downs and one in the Chilterns.

Or would you all prefer them somewhere else?

Would look good in RP but it's really not that big and inland it is just not that windy.

You are right, looking on the map, the Chilterns are good, and around Basingstoke. A Moreton in Marsh 24 turbine 220m to blade tip application really should go in.

Severn Estuary is windy and plenty living either side + existing power stations nearby. Tidal range might be an issue for off shore, though.

It's not that great according to the Met Office.

Your mistake is assuming that wind farm appliactions target windy places though.

There's a massive one gone in near here in a spot which is as windy as Baisingstoke.

Unfortunately it would destroy ancient peat land, endangered bird nesting sites and put the UK in breach of the nuclear non proliferation treaty, because if the seismic interference. Other than that, a low level wind shadow is the perfect spot.

The industry really doesn't help itself.

No one is going to build a wind farm in a place that is not windy, so you can relax.

Dorset_Boy

wallace_and_gromit said:

surrey_commuter said:

First.Aspect said:

TheBigBean said:

The transmission loss from northern Scotland to London isn't negligible, but the main argument in favour of more localised production is that it avoids the need to upgrade the grid.

Transmission loss of the national grid as a whole is 1.7%. If you want to avoid increasing that then put up a windfarm in Richmond Park and one across the south downs and one in the Chilterns.

Or would you all prefer them somewhere else?

Canary Wharf is the windiest place on the planet...

Having done a triathlon at the weekend based on the Sunderland seafront, I would dispute this claim. The North Sea rocks!

British Championships?
How did you get on?

TheBigBean

The big problem with the transmission network is that it has not been upgraded, because of nimbyism and the time required to overcome this. Apparently, it takes 10 years to build a new line - that's 7 years of getting permits and consents and 3 of building.

Therefore, at the moment, there is a significant amount of curtailment of generators, particularly Scottish ones. The forecast is that by 2030, there will be curtailment around 40% of the time.

This is a significant issue that needs fixing, but Ofgem's preferred solution is to burn everyone else and do nothing.

First.Aspect

TheBigBean said:

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

TheBigBean said:

The transmission loss from northern Scotland to London isn't negligible, but the main argument in favour of more localised production is that it avoids the need to upgrade the grid.

Transmission loss of the national grid as a whole is 1.7%. If you want to avoid increasing that then put up a windfarm in Richmond Park and one across the south downs and one in the Chilterns.

Or would you all prefer them somewhere else?

Would look good in RP but it's really not that big and inland it is just not that windy.

You are right, looking on the map, the Chilterns are good, and around Basingstoke. A Moreton in Marsh 24 turbine 220m to blade tip application really should go in.

Severn Estuary is windy and plenty living either side + existing power stations nearby. Tidal range might be an issue for off shore, though.

It's not that great according to the Met Office.

Your mistake is assuming that wind farm appliactions target windy places though.

There's a massive one gone in near here in a spot which is as windy as Baisingstoke.

Unfortunately it would destroy ancient peat land, endangered bird nesting sites and put the UK in breach of the nuclear non proliferation treaty, because if the seismic interference. Other than that, a low level wind shadow is the perfect spot.

The industry really doesn't help itself.

No one is going to build a wind farm in a place that is not windy, so you can relax.

The link between wind farm locations and windiness is over stated. There is a closer link between landowners who live somewhere else and who want wind farm income, and wind farm locations.

TheBigBean

First.Aspect said:

TheBigBean said:

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

TheBigBean said:

The transmission loss from northern Scotland to London isn't negligible, but the main argument in favour of more localised production is that it avoids the need to upgrade the grid.

Transmission loss of the national grid as a whole is 1.7%. If you want to avoid increasing that then put up a windfarm in Richmond Park and one across the south downs and one in the Chilterns.

Or would you all prefer them somewhere else?

Would look good in RP but it's really not that big and inland it is just not that windy.

You are right, looking on the map, the Chilterns are good, and around Basingstoke. A Moreton in Marsh 24 turbine 220m to blade tip application really should go in.

Severn Estuary is windy and plenty living either side + existing power stations nearby. Tidal range might be an issue for off shore, though.

It's not that great according to the Met Office.

Your mistake is assuming that wind farm appliactions target windy places though.

There's a massive one gone in near here in a spot which is as windy as Baisingstoke.

Unfortunately it would destroy ancient peat land, endangered bird nesting sites and put the UK in breach of the nuclear non proliferation treaty, because if the seismic interference. Other than that, a low level wind shadow is the perfect spot.

The industry really doesn't help itself.

No one is going to build a wind farm in a place that is not windy, so you can relax.

The link between wind farm locations and windiness is over stated. There is a closer link between landowners who live somewhere else and who want wind farm income, and wind farm locations.

You're about 10+ years out of date, but this is the thread for those sort of opinions.

First.Aspect

Pross said:

surrey_commuter said:

Does anybody else think that wind turbines look majestic?

I like them, there's a wind farm about to be built on the ridge I look at from my house (13 x 150m turbines) and it really doesn't bother me. I regularly walk and run up there but it won't really impact on my enjoyment. The ridge already has some very large pylons and a TV mast anyway and no-one seems bothered by those. There's an upside in that there will a load of gravel tracks installed for a bit of gravel biking if I fancy it and these will also replace a lot of paths that have been ripped to shreds by illegal motorbikes.

There are quite a few solar farms visible from where I live too but again they really don't bother me. They could barrage the Usk and / or Severn estuaries too if they want, I'm sure there are ways of managing the ecological impacts if people put their minds to it.

Visually none of these will be as bad as the mess that mining made for a couple of centuries and provided the power over the past that contributed to the current issues.

How close to your house are they, how close to the nearest house are they and how close tonthe landowners house are they?

rjsterry

Looks like international investors think Shapps and Sunak's announcement is idiocy, too. One described it as a clickbait policy.

First.Aspect

TheBigBean said:

First.Aspect said:

TheBigBean said:

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

TheBigBean said:

The transmission loss from northern Scotland to London isn't negligible, but the main argument in favour of more localised production is that it avoids the need to upgrade the grid.

Transmission loss of the national grid as a whole is 1.7%. If you want to avoid increasing that then put up a windfarm in Richmond Park and one across the south downs and one in the Chilterns.

Or would you all prefer them somewhere else?

Would look good in RP but it's really not that big and inland it is just not that windy.

You are right, looking on the map, the Chilterns are good, and around Basingstoke. A Moreton in Marsh 24 turbine 220m to blade tip application really should go in.

Severn Estuary is windy and plenty living either side + existing power stations nearby. Tidal range might be an issue for off shore, though.

It's not that great according to the Met Office.

Your mistake is assuming that wind farm appliactions target windy places though.

There's a massive one gone in near here in a spot which is as windy as Baisingstoke.

Unfortunately it would destroy ancient peat land, endangered bird nesting sites and put the UK in breach of the nuclear non proliferation treaty, because if the seismic interference. Other than that, a low level wind shadow is the perfect spot.

The industry really doesn't help itself.

No one is going to build a wind farm in a place that is not windy, so you can relax.

The link between wind farm locations and windiness is over stated. There is a closer link between landowners who live somewhere else and who want wind farm income, and wind farm locations.

You're about 10+ years out of date, but this is the thread for those sort of opinions.

I'm not, sorry. Living as I do in the part of the world with the highest number density of wind farms, I'm familiar with just how many overlapping and repeat planning applications are put in.

Obviously there's a relationship, but where farms have already been consented in the prime locations, developers have nowhere to go, and planning rules tend to preclude cumulative effects. Therefore, landowners of less favourable land are now getting approached, at least across southern Scotland. I'll send some links if you would like.

Doesn't mean they'll be consented mind you, but the reasons will be because of the Eskdale array and visibility from Edinburgh, rather than because they are in a wind shadow.

There is another one near here in a not particularly windy place that would have required prematurely felling a large plantation by a couple of decades to make the wind yield viable. Seriously - that is in the application documents That farm has not yet been built only because it would be slightly too expensive to drive trucks up to fill water tanks for the houses that would have been deprived of drinking water had it gone ahead.

To my simple way of thinking, if peat land and forest are good carbon sinks, we should be able to build wind farms where there aren't those things, and have it all.

But that's just simplistic I suppose.

TheBigBean

There's a long way from a planning application to a wind farm. As I said, you can relax, no one will be building onshore wind anywhere but the most windy places. If Ofgem gets its way, no one will be building any onshore wind farms.

First.Aspect

TheBigBean said:

There's a long way from a planning application to a wind farm. As I said, you can relax, no one will be building onshore wind anywhere but the most windy places. If Ofgem gets its way, no one will be building any onshore wind farms.

Well there are a higher number density of wind farms in this part of Scotland than anywhere else in the world, I believe, so they are doing okay on the actually building them side of things.

The one that was consented against common sense could be built at any time. It is just bad luck for the planet that people happened to be living and working there for generations and need water to drink that has prevented mass felling of trees and draining the hillside so they can manage with smaller foundations.

TheBigBean

First.Aspect said:

TheBigBean said:

There's a long way from a planning application to a wind farm. As I said, you can relax, no one will be building onshore wind anywhere but the most windy places. If Ofgem gets its way, no one will be building any onshore wind farms.

Well there are a higher number density of wind farms in this part of Scotland than anywhere else in the world, I believe, so they are doing okay on the actually building them side of things.

The one that was consented against common sense could be built at any time. It is just bad luck for the planet that people happened to be living and working there for generations and need water to drink that has prevented mass felling of trees and draining the hillside so they can manage with smaller foundations.

As I said, 10+ years ago getting consent, land, permits etc. was more important than the site being particularly windy. That is not the case any more.

First.Aspect

TheBigBean said:

First.Aspect said:

TheBigBean said:

There's a long way from a planning application to a wind farm. As I said, you can relax, no one will be building onshore wind anywhere but the most windy places. If Ofgem gets its way, no one will be building any onshore wind farms.

Well there are a higher number density of wind farms in this part of Scotland than anywhere else in the world, I believe, so they are doing okay on the actually building them side of things.

The one that was consented against common sense could be built at any time. It is just bad luck for the planet that people happened to be living and working there for generations and need water to drink that has prevented mass felling of trees and draining the hillside so they can manage with smaller foundations.

As I said, 10+ years ago getting consent, land, permits etc. was more important than the site being particularly windy. That is not the case any more.

So you said. Yes it is.

You know we have different regulations up here, right? And the Greens are in government, but not the clever ones, just the virtue signalling ones?

In some ways it's almost a different country.

Pross

First.Aspect said:

Pross said:

surrey_commuter said:

Does anybody else think that wind turbines look majestic?

I like them, there's a wind farm about to be built on the ridge I look at from my house (13 x 150m turbines) and it really doesn't bother me. I regularly walk and run up there but it won't really impact on my enjoyment. The ridge already has some very large pylons and a TV mast anyway and no-one seems bothered by those. There's an upside in that there will a load of gravel tracks installed for a bit of gravel biking if I fancy it and these will also replace a lot of paths that have been ripped to shreds by illegal motorbikes.

There are quite a few solar farms visible from where I live too but again they really don't bother me. They could barrage the Usk and / or Severn estuaries too if they want, I'm sure there are ways of managing the ecological impacts if people put their minds to it.

Visually none of these will be as bad as the mess that mining made for a couple of centuries and provided the power over the past that contributed to the current issues.

How close to your house are they, how close to the nearest house are they and how close tonthe landowners house are they?

Not very, there are regulations that govern all that sort of stuff. There's generally not more than the odd farmhouse on top of mountains as a rule.

That said, if they wanted to knock down the 1960s industrial units about 20m from my house and build one there it wouldn't bother me either.

TheBigBean

First.Aspect said:

TheBigBean said:

First.Aspect said:

TheBigBean said:

There's a long way from a planning application to a wind farm. As I said, you can relax, no one will be building onshore wind anywhere but the most windy places. If Ofgem gets its way, no one will be building any onshore wind farms.

Well there are a higher number density of wind farms in this part of Scotland than anywhere else in the world, I believe, so they are doing okay on the actually building them side of things.

The one that was consented against common sense could be built at any time. It is just bad luck for the planet that people happened to be living and working there for generations and need water to drink that has prevented mass felling of trees and draining the hillside so they can manage with smaller foundations.

As I said, 10+ years ago getting consent, land, permits etc. was more important than the site being particularly windy. That is not the case any more.

So you said. Yes it is.

You know we have different regulations up here, right? And the Greens are in government, but not the clever ones, just the virtue signalling ones?

In some ways it's almost a different country.

Is the money different? I know you have those strange notes, but it's the same value for now, right?

This is all a bit tedious.

First.Aspect

Pross said:

First.Aspect said:

Pross said:

surrey_commuter said:

Does anybody else think that wind turbines look majestic?

I like them, there's a wind farm about to be built on the ridge I look at from my house (13 x 150m turbines) and it really doesn't bother me. I regularly walk and run up there but it won't really impact on my enjoyment. The ridge already has some very large pylons and a TV mast anyway and no-one seems bothered by those. There's an upside in that there will a load of gravel tracks installed for a bit of gravel biking if I fancy it and these will also replace a lot of paths that have been ripped to shreds by illegal motorbikes.

There are quite a few solar farms visible from where I live too but again they really don't bother me. They could barrage the Usk and / or Severn estuaries too if they want, I'm sure there are ways of managing the ecological impacts if people put their minds to it.

Visually none of these will be as bad as the mess that mining made for a couple of centuries and provided the power over the past that contributed to the current issues.

How close to your house are they, how close to the nearest house are they and how close tonthe landowners house are they?

Not very, there are regulations that govern all that sort of stuff. There's generally not more than the odd farmhouse on top of mountains as a rule.

That said, if they wanted to knock down the 1960s industrial units about 20m from my house and build one there it wouldn't bother me either.

There is guidance governing that stuff, which isn't the same thing.

I've suffered from insomnia due to noise and shadow flicker in my home due to turbines, and I wouldn't wish that on anyone, even a farmer.

Guidance was consulted and ignored.

First.Aspect

TheBigBean said:

First.Aspect said:

TheBigBean said:

First.Aspect said:

TheBigBean said:

There's a long way from a planning application to a wind farm. As I said, you can relax, no one will be building onshore wind anywhere but the most windy places. If Ofgem gets its way, no one will be building any onshore wind farms.

Well there are a higher number density of wind farms in this part of Scotland than anywhere else in the world, I believe, so they are doing okay on the actually building them side of things.

The one that was consented against common sense could be built at any time. It is just bad luck for the planet that people happened to be living and working there for generations and need water to drink that has prevented mass felling of trees and draining the hillside so they can manage with smaller foundations.

As I said, 10+ years ago getting consent, land, permits etc. was more important than the site being particularly windy. That is not the case any more.

So you said. Yes it is.

You know we have different regulations up here, right? And the Greens are in government, but not the clever ones, just the virtue signalling ones?

In some ways it's almost a different country.

Is the money different? I know you have those strange notes, but it's the same value for now, right?

This is all a bit tedious.

Sorry to have discussed it with you and wasted your important time.

No the subsidies are the same, but the price per unit paid to wind farms is based on the price of energy generated by gas, which is making previously maginal sites viable.

The big difference in planning regulation is that landscape cumulative impact cannot be considered other than for consented scemes. So there is nothing stopping schemes that would otherwise be incompatible being simultaneously approved.

I think the threshold beyond which local planning can be bypassed entirely and the case passed to the energy minister is also different. So again, developers are artificially increasing the proposed sizes to exceed this threshold, and cut down the number of planning steps.

This threshold is based on the maximum capacity of the turbines, not the site.

Pross

First.Aspect said:

Pross said:

First.Aspect said:

Pross said:

surrey_commuter said:

Does anybody else think that wind turbines look majestic?

I like them, there's a wind farm about to be built on the ridge I look at from my house (13 x 150m turbines) and it really doesn't bother me. I regularly walk and run up there but it won't really impact on my enjoyment. The ridge already has some very large pylons and a TV mast anyway and no-one seems bothered by those. There's an upside in that there will a load of gravel tracks installed for a bit of gravel biking if I fancy it and these will also replace a lot of paths that have been ripped to shreds by illegal motorbikes.

There are quite a few solar farms visible from where I live too but again they really don't bother me. They could barrage the Usk and / or Severn estuaries too if they want, I'm sure there are ways of managing the ecological impacts if people put their minds to it.

Visually none of these will be as bad as the mess that mining made for a couple of centuries and provided the power over the past that contributed to the current issues.

How close to your house are they, how close to the nearest house are they and how close tonthe landowners house are they?

Not very, there are regulations that govern all that sort of stuff. There's generally not more than the odd farmhouse on top of mountains as a rule.

That said, if they wanted to knock down the 1960s industrial units about 20m from my house and build one there it wouldn't bother me either.

There is guidance governing that stuff, which isn't the same thing.

I've suffered from insomnia due to noise and shadow flicker in my home due to turbines, and I wouldn't wish that on anyone, even a farmer.

Guidance was consulted and ignored.

Maybe that's just down to having sh!t governance up there. I meant policies rather than regulations. There was a Bill proposed over a decade ago covering minimum distances from properties but I don't think it was ever enacted. Most planning authorities use a 'best practice' guidance of a minimum 500m buffer I believe.

Down here they've allocated 10 pre-assessed areas where there is a presumption that wind farms are acceptable but the sites still need to complay with the requirements on visual impact, noise, shadow flicker etc.