LEAVE the Conservative Party and save your country!

First.Aspect

500m isn't much when the turbine is 250m tall. Most guidance I have seen is 5-10 rotor diameters, which now gets routinely ignored for an unlucky few.

It is far more effective if you are 5-10km from a world heritage site or a national park.

First.Aspect

Pross said:

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.

They do that here, but it is routinely ignored as far as I can tell. To the extent there are currently two in planning in am area of such prominence that it is singled out as being highly unsuitable, and none in the vast adjacent uninhabited area that is earmarked for wind farms.

So BB isn't going to convince me that the "who owns the land" factor isn't still important.

TheBigBean

Once again, planning permission for somewhere does not make it economically viable.

Pross

First.Aspect said:

500m isn't much when the turbine is 250m tall. Most guidance I have seen is 5-10 rotor diameters, which now gets routinely ignored for an unlucky few.

It is far more effective if you are 5-10km from a world heritage site or a national park.

I think that's the minimum and it gets bigger as turbine sizes get bigger. The proposed Bill that has a reading in the Lords was 2km for a turbine of 100m and less than 150m and it then increased to 3km which might explain why the turbines on the site proposed near me are shown as 149.9m.

First.Aspect

TheBigBean said:

Once again, planning permission for somewhere does not make it economically viable.

True, but right now it is the most profitable form of energy generation in the UK, due to the price of gas.

In the long term, the profit depends on who you are. Landowners usually get a minimum guaranteed amount. The closest to me is motivated by about £1M per annum for them just to be there. Turbine manufacturers and maintenance contractors don't mind what gets generated, they are just selling products and services like anyone else. It is really only the energy companies underwriting it that care, and they have a lot more price headroom now and for the foreseeable.

pblakeney

First.Aspect said:

TheBigBean said:

Once again, planning permission for somewhere does not make it economically viable.

True, but right now it is the most profitable form of energy generation in the UK, due to the price of gas.

In the long term, the profit depends on who you are. Landowners usually get a minimum guaranteed amount. The closest to me is motivated by about £1M per annum for them just to be there. Turbine manufacturers and maintenance contractors don't mind what gets generated, they are just selling products and services like anyone else. It is really only the energy companies underwriting it that care, and they have a lot more price headroom now and for the foreseeable.

I knew a guy who was lucky enough to inherit a worthless piece of land, until the turbine guys came knocking. He was earning around £500k/annum 10 years ago.
God knows what it is now but the lucky beggar is clearly (or should be) a millionaire.
All for doing absolutely nothing but signing some papers.

TheBigBean

First.Aspect said:

TheBigBean said:

Once again, planning permission for somewhere does not make it economically viable.

True, but right now it is the most profitable form of energy generation in the UK, due to the price of gas.

It's not. The government receives 70% of everything above £70/MWh. In contrast efficient gas generators are making a killing - they are exempt from the levy and generate all the time. Another entity that is probably making a lot of money is LCCC - the government offtaker.

Also, note there is significant correlation of wind across sites, so it will only be windy on a not very windy site if it is windy everywhere else. The problem with this is the price then collapses - at night it will go negative and during the day it will just be much lower. Consequently, a site with a capacity factor of, say, 30% will receive materially less than 60% of the revenue of a site with a capacity factor of 50%. Its costs won't be much different.

Furthermore, it takes a while to build a wind farm and all forecasts for power prices for wind are much lower after a few years, so there is no scope to quickly build and capture the current high prices.

Finally, ofgem is consulting on creating different pricing regions. If this comes into effect a Scottish wind farm with low wind will be fairly worthless. That's perhaps a reason they won't do it, but Ofgem doesn't like the alternatives.

For all of these reasons, I am confidently asserting that the windiness of a site is very important.

pblakeney

TheBigBean said:

...
Finally, ofgem is consulting on creating different pricing regions. If this comes into effect a Scottish wind farm with low wind will be fairly worthless. That's perhaps a reason they won't do it, but Ofgem doesn't like the alternatives.
...

...Remembers holidays in Scotland. 🤣🤣🤣

Side note. Am I the only one that laughs at TdF commentary going on about strong 20 kmph winds?

Stevo_666

Pross said:

Stevo_666 said:

Pross said:

Stevo_666 said:

Pross said:

briantrumpet said:

Whoever did this ought to learn the difference in British English between 'license' (verb) and licence (noun). (As with practice/practise, check with 'advice' and 'advise' if in doubt.) Still, the Tories screwing up English is probably the least of our/their worries.

https://twitter.com/grantshapps/status/1685898044791828480

I wonder how long it will be until it is a ‘fact’ that Just Stop Oil are linked to the Labour Party. Another example of Trumpian tactics that need stamping out.

It is a fact that Dale Vince, a major funder of JSO, also makes substantial donations to the Labour party. Would you not consider that a link?

I would say that just means he feels Labour are more likely to put in green policies than the Tories. If he donated huge amounts to Cancer Research would that make Labour the political wing of curing cancer?

It's a blatant attempt to link Labour with a group that are widely disliked through the most tenuous thread possible in the hope that it will become an established fact. This is the sort of thing I really hate in modern politics (and all sides seem to be doing it to an extent, there was that one where Labour were saying Sunak was letting paedos out of prison). There needs to be more regulations in place to stop politicians making things up like this.

It is an attempt (and a successful one) because clearly there is a link as described - both MSO and Labour receive funding from Dale vince. Do you not think there is a risk that Labour policy could be influenced by someone who bankrolls JSO? He must clearly support their views and aims if he substantially funds them.

If you start calling every Party the 'political wing of [insert name of something else their donors give money to]' it will get a bit silly. I'm sure he'd like to influence the policies on energy, he has a vested interest, but that's the same for pretty much every major political donor and a big issue with political donations anywhere. JSO are a bunch of fuckwits but it's hardly surprising that someone who is a lifelong 'eco warrior' supports their aims (or that he is a bit of a Leftie). However, giving money to two different groups doesn't make the one group the political wing of the other. I know Shapps understands that and I'm pretty sure that you understand it too. Like most stuff on here I think you're just posting for a reaction and don't really believe what you're saying.

I didn't call anything the political wing of anything else.

All I am saying is that there is a link and that it is far from improbable that Labour policy could be influenced by their major donors.

Say what you like about why you think I post, but challenging the mush of centrist group think on here is performing a public service in my humble opinion

kingstongraham

Stevo_666 said:

it is far from improbable that Labour policy could be influenced by their major donors.

Agreed

ddraver

pblakeney said:

3. Oil is used for more than energy. Where does plastic and carbon come from? Are there alternatives?

You've no idea how long I've been waiting and wondering how long it would take for someone to make this point...

Have to admit I thought it would be the...you know... government or even HM opposition but, you'll do pb!

wallace_and_gromit

Dorset_Boy said:

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?

Not brilliantly it must be said. The sea swim was very hard and my Garmin died in the salt water. Bike was good and run ok. Didn’t trouble the midfield let alone the sharp end.

Daughter caned me and bagged a silver medal for her troubles!

pblakeney

ddraver said:

pblakeney said:

3. Oil is used for more than energy. Where does plastic and carbon come from? Are there alternatives?

You've no idea how long I've been waiting and wondering how long it would take for someone to make this point...

Have to admit I thought it would be the...you know... government or even HM opposition but, you'll do pb!

You don't think it is a fact?
We have a natural resource. Yeah, just chuck it away and let other capitalise.

focuszing723

Also with regards oil and other natural resources they might become essential in the future for whatever reason so should we p1$$ it up against the wall, when there are alternative? And, come on Cern create limitless power already, God!

focuszing723

Imagine cheap abundant electricity. I wonder what power UAP's are using to visit Earth?

rjsterry

Stevo_666 said:

Pross said:

Stevo_666 said:

Pross said:

Stevo_666 said:

Pross said:

briantrumpet said:

Whoever did this ought to learn the difference in British English between 'license' (verb) and licence (noun). (As with practice/practise, check with 'advice' and 'advise' if in doubt.) Still, the Tories screwing up English is probably the least of our/their worries.

https://twitter.com/grantshapps/status/1685898044791828480

I wonder how long it will be until it is a ‘fact’ that Just Stop Oil are linked to the Labour Party. Another example of Trumpian tactics that need stamping out.

It is a fact that Dale Vince, a major funder of JSO, also makes substantial donations to the Labour party. Would you not consider that a link?

I would say that just means he feels Labour are more likely to put in green policies than the Tories. If he donated huge amounts to Cancer Research would that make Labour the political wing of curing cancer?

It's a blatant attempt to link Labour with a group that are widely disliked through the most tenuous thread possible in the hope that it will become an established fact. This is the sort of thing I really hate in modern politics (and all sides seem to be doing it to an extent, there was that one where Labour were saying Sunak was letting paedos out of prison). There needs to be more regulations in place to stop politicians making things up like this.

It is an attempt (and a successful one) because clearly there is a link as described - both MSO and Labour receive funding from Dale vince. Do you not think there is a risk that Labour policy could be influenced by someone who bankrolls JSO? He must clearly support their views and aims if he substantially funds them.

If you start calling every Party the 'political wing of [insert name of something else their donors give money to]' it will get a bit silly. I'm sure he'd like to influence the policies on energy, he has a vested interest, but that's the same for pretty much every major political donor and a big issue with political donations anywhere. JSO are a bunch of fuckwits but it's hardly surprising that someone who is a lifelong 'eco warrior' supports their aims (or that he is a bit of a Leftie). However, giving money to two different groups doesn't make the one group the political wing of the other. I know Shapps understands that and I'm pretty sure that you understand it too. Like most stuff on here I think you're just posting for a reaction and don't really believe what you're saying.

I didn't call anything the political wing of anything else.

All I am saying is that there is a link and that it is far from improbable that Labour policy could be influenced by their major donors.

Say what you like about why you think I post, but challenging the mush of centrist group think on here is performing a public service in my humble opinion

I mean obviously. Why else would anyone donate significant sums to any political party. You'll be telling us about bears and woods next. There's quite a gap between hoping to buy some influence and what Shapps wrote.

I'm not sure Labour needed Dale Vince or JSO to persuade them that expanding exploitation of North Sea is heading in the wrong direction. Very on brand for Sunak to be dismantling one of the best things the party has done in the last decade.

ddraver

pblakeney said:

ddraver said:

pblakeney said:

3. Oil is used for more than energy. Where does plastic and carbon come from? Are there alternatives?

You've no idea how long I've been waiting and wondering how long it would take for someone to make this point...

Have to admit I thought it would be the...you know... government or even HM opposition but, you'll do pb!

You don't think it is a fact?
We have a natural resource. Yeah, just chuck it away and let other capitalise.

No, I totally agree.

That should be Labour's response. "Oil is v. Useful indeed so we should extract it BUT perhaps maybe burning it to transport us around central London is not necessarily the tip top number 1 most useful thing we could do with that finite and increasingly harder to find stuff, so let's build some electric car chargers with the tax revenue we get from it"

But I haven't heard a single politician or commentator even begin to make such an argument.

tailwindhome

Yeah. The language of 'political wing' should really be avoided

rjsterry

tailwindhome said:

Yeah. The language of 'political wing' should really be avoided

Don't for a moment think that was accidental.

skyblueamateur

The pursuit of perfection is killing the argument on both sides. We need a level of pragmatism to get us to a much a better place.

I have an electric car, which I love, but fully accept that it is not practical for all ICE’s to be replaced in such a short time. Hybrids are the future for me over the next 10 years and I agree with Steve, there is a place for bio-fuel and synthetic fuel.

There was a really good article with Lord Bamford in the Times on Sunday. They’ve invested £100 million in inventing a hydrogen combustible engine. This for me is the future for bigger construction vehicles and lorries.

With that said we need to find a way to make green hydrogen, which could also be used to replace gas boilers. It’s why we should be pumping money into onshore wind, solar and tidal.

If we can secure our electricity generation then we’re laughing.

The same people I know decrying ‘green’ policies now were the same demanding help from the government when gas and electric went through the roof.

There’s no massive panacea but incremental steps will put us in a much better position.

It’s going to take a strong, brave leader. That definitely isn’t Sunak but I also fear isn’t Starmer.

tailwindhome

Can someone explain this to me?

I work for a drinks distributor. We carry around 1800 product lines. Roughly 1300 lines contain alcohol and roughly 1250 are going up in price

The team have spend a month putting together our most expensive brochure ever and we've increased our stock levels by a third to defer the price increases for as long as possible. You can't move in the warehouse for pallets of gin and vodka

In a week or to the new prices will filter through and there will be huge increases in wine and spirits

pblakeney

tailwindhome said:

Can someone explain this to me?

...

Either the pubs in N.I. are very, very cheap; or the supermarkets are very, very expensive. That makes no sense in my experience. YMMV.

briantrumpet

tailwindhome said:

Can someone explain this to me?

I work for a drinks distributor. We carry around 1800 product lines. Roughly 1300 lines contain alcohol and roughly 1250 are going up in price

The team have spend a month putting together our most expensive brochure ever and we've increased our stock levels by a third to defer the price increases for as long as possible. You can't move in the warehouse for pallets of gin and vodka

In a week or to the new prices will filter through and there will be huge increases in wine and spirits

It's almost like they are lying.

pblakeney

Quick guess on the above. Supermarket prices are going up a few pence, pub prices are going down a few pence, giving an 11p difference. This is not what is written.

rjsterry

tailwindhome said:

Can someone explain this to me?

I work for a drinks distributor. We carry around 1800 product lines. Roughly 1300 lines contain alcohol and roughly 1250 are going up in price

The team have spend a month putting together our most expensive brochure ever and we've increased our stock levels by a third to defer the price increases for as long as possible. You can't move in the warehouse for pallets of gin and vodka

In a week or to the new prices will filter through and there will be huge increases in wine and spirits

Sunak was heckled at the beer festival he visited to try to pull off the same sleight of hand. Duty on beer is down; duty on everything else is up. Audience at beer festival unimpressed.

Jezyboy

ddraver said:

pblakeney said:

ddraver said:

pblakeney said:

3. Oil is used for more than energy. Where does plastic and carbon come from? Are there alternatives?

You've no idea how long I've been waiting and wondering how long it would take for someone to make this point...

Have to admit I thought it would be the...you know... government or even HM opposition but, you'll do pb!

You don't think it is a fact?
We have a natural resource. Yeah, just chuck it away and let other capitalise.

No, I totally agree.

That should be Labour's response. "Oil is v. Useful indeed so we should extract it BUT perhaps maybe burning it to transport us around central London is not necessarily the tip top number 1 most useful thing we could do with that finite and increasingly harder to find stuff, so let's build some electric car chargers with the tax revenue we get from it"

But I haven't heard a single politician or commentator even begin to make such an argument.

I guess the issue with that argument is it's more than three words long. It seems the only two sides one can pick these days are just stop oil, or drill baby drill!

If we are going to continue using oil and gas, it does make sense to continue production (even if much of it gets sold abroad). I imagine the detailed arguements could get complex, but the planet would presumably be much better off exploiting the North Sea fields fully, than closing them and maximising some other sources like tar sands?

Obviously the long term energy goal needs to be minimizing oil and gas, but I don't see how closing up shop in Aberdeen, whilst continuing to import tons of the stuff gets you further up that path.

tailwindhome

pblakeney said:

tailwindhome said:

Can someone explain this to me?

...

Either the pubs in N.I. are very, very cheap; or the supermarkets are very, very expensive. That makes no sense in my experience. YMMV.

His specific point is that before the Windsor Framework they were restricted in changing the duty levels in NI due to the Protocol

tailwindhome

briantrumpet said:

tailwindhome said:

Can someone explain this to me?

I work for a drinks distributor. We carry around 1800 product lines. Roughly 1300 lines contain alcohol and roughly 1250 are going up in price

The team have spend a month putting together our most expensive brochure ever and we've increased our stock levels by a third to defer the price increases for as long as possible. You can't move in the warehouse for pallets of gin and vodka

In a week or to the new prices will filter through and there will be huge increases in wine and spirits

It's almost like they are lying.

The bit I don't understand is how they possibly could believe that no one is going to notice the huge jump in prices.

briantrumpet

tailwindhome said:

briantrumpet said:

tailwindhome said:

Can someone explain this to me?

I work for a drinks distributor. We carry around 1800 product lines. Roughly 1300 lines contain alcohol and roughly 1250 are going up in price

The team have spend a month putting together our most expensive brochure ever and we've increased our stock levels by a third to defer the price increases for as long as possible. You can't move in the warehouse for pallets of gin and vodka

In a week or to the new prices will filter through and there will be huge increases in wine and spirits

It's almost like they are lying.

The bit I don't understand is how they possibly could believe that no one is going to notice the huge jump in prices.

His tweet has been fact-checked. That he's the PM tweeting lies tells you pretty much all you need to know about who's supposedly in charge.

https://twitter.com/RishiSunak/status/1686295518706561024

Stevo_666

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

Pross said:

Stevo_666 said:

Pross said:

Stevo_666 said:

Pross said:

briantrumpet said:

Whoever did this ought to learn the difference in British English between 'license' (verb) and licence (noun). (As with practice/practise, check with 'advice' and 'advise' if in doubt.) Still, the Tories screwing up English is probably the least of our/their worries.

https://twitter.com/grantshapps/status/1685898044791828480

I wonder how long it will be until it is a ‘fact’ that Just Stop Oil are linked to the Labour Party. Another example of Trumpian tactics that need stamping out.

It is a fact that Dale Vince, a major funder of JSO, also makes substantial donations to the Labour party. Would you not consider that a link?

I would say that just means he feels Labour are more likely to put in green policies than the Tories. If he donated huge amounts to Cancer Research would that make Labour the political wing of curing cancer?

It's a blatant attempt to link Labour with a group that are widely disliked through the most tenuous thread possible in the hope that it will become an established fact. This is the sort of thing I really hate in modern politics (and all sides seem to be doing it to an extent, there was that one where Labour were saying Sunak was letting paedos out of prison). There needs to be more regulations in place to stop politicians making things up like this.

It is an attempt (and a successful one) because clearly there is a link as described - both MSO and Labour receive funding from Dale vince. Do you not think there is a risk that Labour policy could be influenced by someone who bankrolls JSO? He must clearly support their views and aims if he substantially funds them.

If you start calling every Party the 'political wing of [insert name of something else their donors give money to]' it will get a bit silly. I'm sure he'd like to influence the policies on energy, he has a vested interest, but that's the same for pretty much every major political donor and a big issue with political donations anywhere. JSO are a bunch of fuckwits but it's hardly surprising that someone who is a lifelong 'eco warrior' supports their aims (or that he is a bit of a Leftie). However, giving money to two different groups doesn't make the one group the political wing of the other. I know Shapps understands that and I'm pretty sure that you understand it too. Like most stuff on here I think you're just posting for a reaction and don't really believe what you're saying.

I didn't call anything the political wing of anything else.

All I am saying is that there is a link and that it is far from improbable that Labour policy could be influenced by their major donors.

Say what you like about why you think I post, but challenging the mush of centrist group think on here is performing a public service in my humble opinion

I mean obviously. Why else would anyone donate significant sums to any political party.

Glad you agree. I was just putting Pross straight on this as he seemed to think this wasn't the case.