Chris Packham - Champion for the Countryside or Out of Touch Fool ?

12357

Comments

  • Pross
    Pross Posts: 43,593
    rjsterry wrote:

    Equally that's not an argument against producing some of our own. The arms industry has to be one of the most subsidised in existence, both here and abroad. Going even more off track, importing your telecommunications infrastructure may not be a great move even if it is cheaper.

    I think we should produce food... I don't think we should produce cheap food... I think we should produce quality food, that sells at a premium, make profits and we should even be able to export it.

    I can't see how growing sugar beet in the first world can be remotely profitable... or rape seed... but at least the yellow fields are pretty to look at, if full of pesticides

    In my ideal world, we would pay a little more for our better food and a lot less in housing

    Whilst I agree with you in theory on growing less but better quality the unfortunate truth is that we've got accustomed to cheap food (whether home grown or imported) and most people would kick off if it started to get more expensive (not to mention the potential impact on inflation which is kept down at present by low food prices). Even your own posts in this thread show that you want cheaper products even if that was in relation to something you aren't particularly bothered about eating. One thing I really dislike is the classing of fruits and vegetables, as long as it is suitable for human consumption it should all be the same class to avoid waste and best before dates should also be ditched.
  • rick_chasey
    rick_chasey Posts: 75,660
    rjsterry wrote:

    Equally that's not an argument against producing some of our own. The arms industry has to be one of the most subsidised in existence, both here and abroad. Going even more off track, importing your telecommunications infrastructure may not be a great move even if it is cheaper.

    I think we should produce food... I don't think we should produce cheap food... I think we should produce quality food, that sells at a premium, make profits and we should even be able to export it.

    Erm, why are you comfortable pricing people out of food?
  • ugo.santalucia
    ugo.santalucia Posts: 28,325
    john80 wrote:
    Tesco do give a figures for waste food and bought food weights to allow you to derive a 4.6% wastage figure. So basically the wastage is mainly at the hands of consumers if you assume that all supermarkets are running similar losses to Tesco.
    .

    You have to be careful with these numbers. How much of what they sell is fresh produce? Let's say it's 20%, which I think is generous (it's most likely less)... 4.6% represents a quarter of 20% and I suspect fresh produce is the vast majority of that 4.6%.

    I can't see them throwing away a lot of corn flakes or beer... it's mostly fruit, veg and meat/fish
    left the forum March 2023
  • rick_chasey
    rick_chasey Posts: 75,660
    john80 wrote:
    Tesco do give a figures for waste food and bought food weights to allow you to derive a 4.6% wastage figure. So basically the wastage is mainly at the hands of consumers if you assume that all supermarkets are running similar losses to Tesco.
    .

    You have to be careful with these numbers. How much of what they sell is fresh produce? Let's say it's 20%, which I think is generous (it's most likely less)... 4.6% represents a quarter of 20% and I suspect fresh produce is the vast majority of that 4.6%.

    I can't see them throwing away a lot of corn flakes or beer... it's mostly fruit, veg and meat/fish

    So i have a close relative who works in the fruit & veg buying department of a UK supermarket.

    For fresh food, by far and away the biggest impact on their profit margins is wastage.

    In fact, wastage is such a concern it is often up to the head office supply analysts to persuade the regional shop managers to order in *more* food, as they have a tendency to under order to ensure as little wastage as possible, often at the expense of profits (and of course, the customer).
  • Stevo_666
    Stevo_666 Posts: 61,808
    john80 wrote:
    But hey when did the eco warrior not feel good about his electric car powered from a coal power plant because he can't look at the overall picture.

    They can and even when you consider where the electricity comes from, how much of it is wasted in transporting, the carbon footprint of an electric car is less than that with a combustion engine.
    More to the point, the drive for electric cars is to reduce pollution in urban areas, rather than cutting carbon emissions.

    I would buy an electric car if the mileage was appropriate to our needs. We don't do short drives, only longer trips.

    That said, the Kia Niro EV claims 280 miles with a charge, which is dangerously near to where I would draw the line.... obviously a bit too pricey for us, but they are getting there
    The jury seems to be out on the overall eco credentials of EVs, for example:
    https://www.rac.co.uk/drive/advice/emissions/are-electric-cars-actually-worse-for-the-environment/

    That said, I've just swapped my diesel runaround for a new petrol car on account of the ULEZ regs. Does a fair bit less mpg but at least there won't be a toll barrier approx 3 miles North of where I live. When EV's don't cost a fortune, have enough range for my longer drives and are as much fun as petrol cars then maybe I'll buy one.
    "I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]
  • rjsterry
    rjsterry Posts: 29,811
    john80 wrote:
    Tesco do give a figures for waste food and bought food weights to allow you to derive a 4.6% wastage figure. So basically the wastage is mainly at the hands of consumers if you assume that all supermarkets are running similar losses to Tesco.
    .

    You have to be careful with these numbers. How much of what they sell is fresh produce? Let's say it's 20%, which I think is generous (it's most likely less)... 4.6% represents a quarter of 20% and I suspect fresh produce is the vast majority of that 4.6%.

    I can't see them throwing away a lot of corn flakes or beer... it's mostly fruit, veg and meat/fish

    So i have a close relative who works in the fruit & veg buying department of a UK supermarket.

    For fresh food, by far and away the biggest impact on their profit margins is wastage.

    In fact, wastage is such a concern it is often up to the head office supply analysts to persuade the regional shop managers to order in *more* food, as they have a tendency to under order to ensure as little wastage as possible, often at the expense of profits (and of course, the customer).

    Given what slim margins supermarkets are working to, it's pretty obvious that significant waste (within their costs) would kill their profits. Obviously if the wastage is before they've paid for it or after they've sold it it's someone else's problem.
    1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
    Pinnacle Monzonite

    Part of the anti-growth coalition
  • rick_chasey
    rick_chasey Posts: 75,660
    rjsterry wrote:
    john80 wrote:
    Tesco do give a figures for waste food and bought food weights to allow you to derive a 4.6% wastage figure. So basically the wastage is mainly at the hands of consumers if you assume that all supermarkets are running similar losses to Tesco.
    .

    You have to be careful with these numbers. How much of what they sell is fresh produce? Let's say it's 20%, which I think is generous (it's most likely less)... 4.6% represents a quarter of 20% and I suspect fresh produce is the vast majority of that 4.6%.

    I can't see them throwing away a lot of corn flakes or beer... it's mostly fruit, veg and meat/fish

    So i have a close relative who works in the fruit & veg buying department of a UK supermarket.

    For fresh food, by far and away the biggest impact on their profit margins is wastage.

    In fact, wastage is such a concern it is often up to the head office supply analysts to persuade the regional shop managers to order in *more* food, as they have a tendency to under order to ensure as little wastage as possible, often at the expense of profits (and of course, the customer).

    Given what slim margins supermarkets are working to, it's pretty obvious that significant waste (within their costs) would kill their profits. Obviously if the wastage is before they've paid for it or after they've sold it it's someone else's problem.

    So the prices they buy and sell are semi-fixed - there's so much competition at the fat end of the market that there really isn't much price variation, and pretty much all the supermarkets have squeezed producers to as low as is sustainable to go.

    So, simply, it's about volume, and that involves the semi-guessing game of trying to exactly match demand.

    Things like Nigella Lawson suddenly using loads of pomegranates on one of her programmes can totally screw with a supermarket model and unless the analysts make a note that in x week that occurred, it will likely skew the next year's volume too.

    It's a tricky business.

    Beyond that, there's a lot of work that goes around pricing products in a way that steers customers away from loss making products (of which there are a surprising amount, due to price wars), and getting them in more often.

    It's actually really difficult from a micro-pricing perspective to do all that much; the real money making decisions are the big strategic ones.
  • TheBigBean
    TheBigBean Posts: 22,025
    john80 wrote:
    But hey when did the eco warrior not feel good about his electric car powered from a coal power plant because he can't look at the overall picture.

    Except those charging their cars right now

    http://gridwatch.co.uk/
  • bompington
    bompington Posts: 7,674
    TheBigBean wrote:
    john80 wrote:
    But hey when did the eco warrior not feel good about his electric car powered from a coal power plant because he can't look at the overall picture.

    Except those charging their cars right now

    http://gridwatch.co.uk/
    .. well maybe, but the issue, of course, is that most of the time people are not charging their cars on a sunny and windy afternoon.

    Of course, if they were all charged from nuclear, it would be a whole lot more eco-friendly, economical and safe.

    EDIT: I'm quite surprised that solar is such a high %. A good thing though, on balance (it's not without its downsides)
  • slowbike
    slowbike Posts: 8,498
    1/2 the demand is being met by Gas ... pretty sure that's not carbon neutral ...
  • surrey_commuter
    surrey_commuter Posts: 18,867
    Slowbike wrote:
    1/2 the demand is being met by Gas ... pretty sure that's not carbon neutral ...

    and expensive
  • TheBigBean
    TheBigBean Posts: 22,025
    bompington wrote:
    TheBigBean wrote:
    john80 wrote:
    But hey when did the eco warrior not feel good about his electric car powered from a coal power plant because he can't look at the overall picture.

    Except those charging their cars right now

    http://gridwatch.co.uk/
    .. well maybe, but the issue, of course, is that most of the time people are not charging their cars on a sunny and windy afternoon.

    Of course, if they were all charged from nuclear, it would be a whole lot more eco-friendly, economical and safe.

    EDIT: I'm quite surprised that solar is such a high %. A good thing though, on balance (it's not without its downsides)

    Cars can nearly always be charged at night when there is a surplus of energy. You will no doubt hear the constant message that renewables needs storage. Well, demand side storage in the form of electric cars is one of those solutions.

    It is not windy right now.
  • rick_chasey
    rick_chasey Posts: 75,660
    bompington wrote:
    TheBigBean wrote:
    john80 wrote:
    But hey when did the eco warrior not feel good about his electric car powered from a coal power plant because he can't look at the overall picture.

    Except those charging their cars right now

    http://gridwatch.co.uk/
    .. well maybe, but the issue, of course, is that most of the time people are not charging their cars on a sunny and windy afternoon.

    Of course, if they were all charged from nuclear, it would be a whole lot more eco-friendly, economical and safe.

    EDIT: I'm quite surprised that solar is such a high %. A good thing though, on balance (it's not without its downsides)

    Do you have shares in Dounreay or something?
  • TheBigBean
    TheBigBean Posts: 22,025
    Slowbike wrote:
    1/2 the demand is being met by Gas ... pretty sure that's not carbon neutral ...

    and expensive

    The original quote was about coal.

    CCGTs are preferable to coal, but not carbon neutral. Until there is a storage solution CCGTs are not going anywhere.

    Expensive in comparison to what? The energy industry is so full of subsidies and taxes it is hard to work out what is actually cheap at producing energy. Plus, you also need to factor in the cost to society of dirty production.
  • rjsterry
    rjsterry Posts: 29,811
    TheBigBean wrote:
    Slowbike wrote:
    1/2 the demand is being met by Gas ... pretty sure that's not carbon neutral ...

    and expensive

    The original quote was about coal.

    CCGTs are preferable to coal, but not carbon neutral. Until there is a storage solution CCGTs are not going anywhere.

    Expensive in comparison to what? The energy industry is so full of subsidies and taxes it is hard to work out what is actually cheap at producing energy. Plus, you also need to factor in the cost to society of dirty production.

    Shhh. You'll set SC off again.
    1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
    Pinnacle Monzonite

    Part of the anti-growth coalition
  • surrey_commuter
    surrey_commuter Posts: 18,867
    rjsterry wrote:
    TheBigBean wrote:
    Slowbike wrote:
    1/2 the demand is being met by Gas ... pretty sure that's not carbon neutral ...

    and expensive

    The original quote was about coal.

    CCGTs are preferable to coal, but not carbon neutral. Until there is a storage solution CCGTs are not going anywhere.

    Expensive in comparison to what? The energy industry is so full of subsidies and taxes it is hard to work out what is actually cheap at producing energy. Plus, you also need to factor in the cost to society of dirty production.

    Shhh. You'll set SC off again.

    Have just realised it must have been decades ago that I was told gas was convenient but expensive.

    RJS - had noticed that farmers have been planting more and more solar panels. I had not considered that they were subsidised
  • rjsterry
    rjsterry Posts: 29,811
    rjsterry wrote:
    TheBigBean wrote:
    Slowbike wrote:
    1/2 the demand is being met by Gas ... pretty sure that's not carbon neutral ...

    and expensive

    The original quote was about coal.

    CCGTs are preferable to coal, but not carbon neutral. Until there is a storage solution CCGTs are not going anywhere.

    Expensive in comparison to what? The energy industry is so full of subsidies and taxes it is hard to work out what is actually cheap at producing energy. Plus, you also need to factor in the cost to society of dirty production.

    Shhh. You'll set SC off again.

    Have just realised it must have been decades ago that I was told gas was convenient but expensive.

    RJS - had noticed that farmers have been planting more and more solar panels. I had not considered that they were subsidised

    There are a lot on the M4 corridor. It's chalk downland so only really good for sheep grazing. Like I said, name an industry with no subsidies.
    1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
    Pinnacle Monzonite

    Part of the anti-growth coalition
  • surrey_commuter
    surrey_commuter Posts: 18,867
    rjsterry wrote:
    rjsterry wrote:
    TheBigBean wrote:
    Slowbike wrote:
    1/2 the demand is being met by Gas ... pretty sure that's not carbon neutral ...

    and expensive

    The original quote was about coal.

    CCGTs are preferable to coal, but not carbon neutral. Until there is a storage solution CCGTs are not going anywhere.

    Expensive in comparison to what? The energy industry is so full of subsidies and taxes it is hard to work out what is actually cheap at producing energy. Plus, you also need to factor in the cost to society of dirty production.

    Shhh. You'll set SC off again.

    Have just realised it must have been decades ago that I was told gas was convenient but expensive.

    RJS - had noticed that farmers have been planting more and more solar panels. I had not considered that they were subsidised

    There are a lot on the M4 corridor. It's chalk downland so only really good for sheep grazing. Like I said, name an industry with no subsidies.

    I was up in Suffolk which used to be prime arable, before it became giant pigs

    I will name oil and gas as an industry that not only has no subsidy but pays a lot of tax and throw in FS as a back-up
  • slowbike
    slowbike Posts: 8,498
    A good few years back there was a planning app in for solar panels on a field in our village - the parish council were told that the panels would be placed high enough to allow for grazing beneath them - so on that basis, the PC approved the scheme ... then the panels were placed lower and no animal grazing is possible.

    I totally understand the need for solar panels - but wouldn't it be better to cover all the roofs first?
  • Pross
    Pross Posts: 43,593
    rjsterry wrote:
    rjsterry wrote:
    TheBigBean wrote:
    Slowbike wrote:
    1/2 the demand is being met by Gas ... pretty sure that's not carbon neutral ...

    and expensive

    The original quote was about coal.

    CCGTs are preferable to coal, but not carbon neutral. Until there is a storage solution CCGTs are not going anywhere.

    Expensive in comparison to what? The energy industry is so full of subsidies and taxes it is hard to work out what is actually cheap at producing energy. Plus, you also need to factor in the cost to society of dirty production.

    Shhh. You'll set SC off again.

    Have just realised it must have been decades ago that I was told gas was convenient but expensive.

    RJS - had noticed that farmers have been planting more and more solar panels. I had not considered that they were subsidised

    There are a lot on the M4 corridor. It's chalk downland so only really good for sheep grazing. Like I said, name an industry with no subsidies.

    We worked on dozens of solar sites over a period of 2 or 3 years before the subsidies to the large scale farms were stopped. Loads as you say along the M4 corridor and also down in the south-west and West Wales. They're a no-brainer for farmers with a lot of grazing land as they can still continue to use it whilst getting paid to have the panels. It seems to be a rare example of Government grants actually doing something useful when you look at how much energy we can now generate from solar compared to a decade ago (but most of the Developers were city funders with no development experience so didn't make for good clients and there were also a lot of real cowboys who saw a chance to make a quick buck). Once the subsidies stopped the same people went into STOR sites instead for the reasons Big Bean mentions.

    I still do some work for one of the better companies we worked with back then as they have diversified into industrial glasshouses that they build by landfill sites where the methane is tapped off to power the glasshouses (or something like that).
  • Pross
    Pross Posts: 43,593
    rjsterry wrote:
    rjsterry wrote:
    TheBigBean wrote:
    Slowbike wrote:
    1/2 the demand is being met by Gas ... pretty sure that's not carbon neutral ...

    and expensive

    The original quote was about coal.

    CCGTs are preferable to coal, but not carbon neutral. Until there is a storage solution CCGTs are not going anywhere.

    Expensive in comparison to what? The energy industry is so full of subsidies and taxes it is hard to work out what is actually cheap at producing energy. Plus, you also need to factor in the cost to society of dirty production.

    Shhh. You'll set SC off again.

    Have just realised it must have been decades ago that I was told gas was convenient but expensive.

    RJS - had noticed that farmers have been planting more and more solar panels. I had not considered that they were subsidised

    There are a lot on the M4 corridor. It's chalk downland so only really good for sheep grazing. Like I said, name an industry with no subsidies.

    I was up in Suffolk which used to be prime arable, before it became giant pigs

    I will name oil and gas as an industry that not only has no subsidy but pays a lot of tax and throw in FS as a back-up

    Oil and gas would have had a lot of subsidies back in the day but it would be odd to do so now that policy is to move away from fossil fuels.
  • ugo.santalucia
    ugo.santalucia Posts: 28,325
    Slowbike wrote:

    I totally understand the need for solar panels - but wouldn't it be better to cover all the roofs first?

    They need to be south facing, houses are built randomly these days
    left the forum March 2023
  • TheBigBean
    TheBigBean Posts: 22,025

    I will name oil and gas as an industry that not only has no subsidy but pays a lot of tax and throw in FS as a back-up

    FS - the industry that has a government wrap for each individual's first £85k? Or the one that received massive bail outs?

    Oil and gas - the one that receives a VAT reduction on heating? Or the one that receives a capacity market payment on energy production? Or the one that lobbies governments to penalise renewables e.g. by charging renewable generators a climate change levy?
  • Pross
    Pross Posts: 43,593
    Slowbike wrote:

    I totally understand the need for solar panels - but wouldn't it be better to cover all the roofs first?

    They need to be south facing, houses are built randomly these days

    When were houses not built randomly in the UK? Other than a relatively short period when avenue were all the rage I would suggest development has always been quite free-form where topography and geographical features allowed.

    (By randomly I assume you mean not following an obvious grid pattern as modern housing developments certainly aren't random).
  • TheBigBean
    TheBigBean Posts: 22,025

    RJS - had noticed that farmers have been planting more and more solar panels. I had not considered that they were subsidised

    The vast majority simply rented out their land at £1000+/acre. You will be amused to hear that they were then outraged when they discovered that they were no longer entitled to the agricultural subsidy of £85/acre.

    To achieve planning the land nearly always needed to be of a low agricultural grade and not visible.
  • ugo.santalucia
    ugo.santalucia Posts: 28,325
    Pross wrote:

    (By randomly I assume you mean not following an obvious grid pattern as modern housing developments certainly aren't random).

    NO I mean houses built to be south facing and all that... these days nobody cares
    left the forum March 2023
  • TheBigBean
    TheBigBean Posts: 22,025
    Slowbike wrote:
    A good few years back there was a planning app in for solar panels on a field in our village - the parish council were told that the panels would be placed high enough to allow for grazing beneath them - so on that basis, the PC approved the scheme ... then the panels were placed lower and no animal grazing is possible.

    I totally understand the need for solar panels - but wouldn't it be better to cover all the roofs first?

    With regard to the grazing it happened quite a bit. Someone cut a corner to save on cost and time. It is far better for the owner to have a few sheep beneath than to have to cut the grass somehow. I think many still choose the sheep even though there is a risk of damage to the panels.

    With regard to the roofs. There is a large amount of rooftop solar and its main advantage is that it mostly doesn't require a grid. It has a lot of disadvantages though such as being more expensive to install and generally a bit like trying to feed a country by getting everyone to grow crops in their back gardens. Also, while it would seem obvious to cover large industrial buildings in solar, generally the tenant below is neither the owner nor creditworthy, so it becomes a headache quite quickly for something quite small.
  • Pross
    Pross Posts: 43,593
    Pross wrote:

    (By randomly I assume you mean not following an obvious grid pattern as modern housing developments certainly aren't random).

    NO I mean houses built to be south facing and all that... these days nobody cares

    I'm not convinced houses were ever built to be south facing, in my part of the world the valleys run north-south with terraces generally following them so houses are east / west facing and I suspect most settlements develop organically around a feature (I'm sure RJS will correct me though). I've certainly worked on housing developments where the direction buildings face has been considered in depth but which way the sun shines from isn't the only consideration that has to be taken into account. They certainly don't spring up facing random directions based on an architects whim in most cases, I've sat in meetings where people are discussing such things ad nauseum when I have no need to still be there.

    In the case of a lot of commercial sites I've worked on it has seemed that they are designed not to be south facing for environmental reasons as the amount of glass leads to them getting too hot and more power being needed to run the AC system and brise soleil need to be fitted if they are facing south.
  • rick_chasey
    rick_chasey Posts: 75,660
    Pross wrote:
    Pross wrote:

    (By randomly I assume you mean not following an obvious grid pattern as modern housing developments certainly aren't random).

    NO I mean houses built to be south facing and all that... these days nobody cares

    I'm not convinced houses were ever built to be south facing.

    I live in a terrace built in the mid-late 19th Century and the entire terrace is south facing, as is the rest of the 1km long road (all terraces).
  • TheBigBean
    TheBigBean Posts: 22,025
    Next, someone will say that not only should roofs be perfectly south facing they should be at an optimum angle too. That angle not being related to the building or rain, but to maximise solar energy production.