2024 Election thread
Comments
-
I meant Cambridgeshire. 😉
The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
52nd out of 250 territories, so outside the top fifth. Building some wind turbines is not going to have any measurable effect on population density. To add 1 percentage point to the amount of developed land, you would need to build 2,436km2 of wind farms. That's roughly 1.5 times the area of Greater London.
We are planning to add 15GW of onshore capacity (as well as 45GW of offshore capacity), which at 19.8 MW/km2 means 758km2, of additional land. That's not completely covered, obviously - there are quite big gaps between turbines - but we are adding less than a third of a percentage point to the amount of developed land.
It's not going to make a difference you will notice unless you live near a farm and the vast majority of people don't, by definition. Urban areas are terrible for wind farms.
As for wind farms stopping people from enjoying the countryside, the Brecon Beacons are pretty popular despite the large wind farm just outside the boundary at Pen y Cymoedd and various others along the Heads of the Valleys. North Devon has several, too.
Dare I say, this is all coming across a bit social sciences 😉
1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
Literally never bothered. I don’t think i ever see the night sky apart from the occasional moment on holiday?
Know your audience!
0 -
No you're right, nobody but you could possibly understand. In fact as it's impossible for any of us to imagine or relate to unless it's actually happened to us, there's no point in you continuing to explain it to us.
- Genesis Croix de Fer
- Dolan Tuono1 -
I do wonder if offshore wind isn't the better solution (you can have bigger turbines, with possibly more consistent weather?), but that it's just that we arrived at the decision to focus on it in an utterly NIMBY way and therefore some feel like we have to push onshore wind as an ultimate fuck you to NIMBYism
0 -
I'm intrigued by the idea that wind farms contribute in a meaningful way to light pollution.
1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
They don't. But you have to not give a crap about the areas in question not to be bothered.
0 -
Yeah funnily enough I wasn't thinking of people who think a grass verge is wilderness.
0 -
The large wind farm. Singular. Still not getting it.
I'm not expecting agreement, just flagging that it's going to create a culture war.
0 -
But have you noticed no one expressed any sympathy whatsoever for people, like me, who are badly affected? The attitude is that they *must* go somewhere and there *must* be casualties.
The closest we got was Brian saying we'll of course people should be compensated, in a sector that doesn't.
0 -
I get that you don't like them because you once had one built within 70m of your house. It's the extrapolation from that to claims of industrialising the last scraps of wilderness (or redundant sheep grazing land), ruining amateur astronomy and general humanitarian and ecological disaster - as opposed to South Lanarkshire planning authority not having done their job properly - that make you sound slightly ridiculous.
1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
-
Yes they must go somewhere, and wherever that is someone is always going to be annoyed. There will be a range of legitimacy to those grievances. People complain about offshore wind farms too.
- Genesis Croix de Fer
- Dolan Tuono0 -
Fair enough. It was more that the Southern Uplands are largely now a power station.
What about North Lanarkshire was a planning mistake? The point is, it wasn't. That's acceptable development.
The whole band across southern Scotland means the flow of industrial turbines is fairly constant as you move around a very wide area. If all upland areas of England and Wales, with the exceptions of national parks and landscapes, are subject to the swarm of applications in the same way then people will notice and start to push back, ultimately to the detriment of renewables - at least in my view.
I am reminded of the furore about fracking sites, which are extremely compact, temporary and at most 20m above ground. And also solar farms.
England has 10x the population density of the parts of Scotland that have been selected to "do their part".
0 -
You think people were annoyed about fracking because of how tall the sites were?
- Genesis Croix de Fer
- Dolan Tuono0 -
As pangolin says, if you build anything anywhere someone will be upset about it and claim it threatens to ruin their life. We currently have a situation where the guiding principle of the planning system is to not offend anyone anywhere. This leads to wasting of public money bordering on the obscene and delays and abandonment affecting everything. Railways, roads, bridges, homes, power stations, schools, hospitals, prisons to give just a few examples. We are putting 'not upsetting anyone' above everything. It has to stop if we want to continue to live in a developed country.
1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
I wouldn't want to live near one, so it makes sense to put them where there aren't many people.
If they aren't forced to adequately compensate those affected - and be realistic about what those effects are - then they'll plonk them where is most convenient.
If all it affects is the night sky, then no big deal.
0 -
Most of the opposition was based on disruption and noise - not on the carbon footprint. Oh, also on the supposed risk to water quality, which was largely spurious.
0 -
I think FA's point is simply that people so far unaffected are going to be surprised by the intrusion and scale. Expect the objections to be headline news in the coming months/years. Needs must but people don't like change.
The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
And earthquakes
0 -
Where in the UK are there not many people? There are places where there are fewer people, certainly, but there are people living everywhere in the UK and the debate boils down to "tough luck" if your life happens to be based there.
They are not forced to compensate anyone as far as I am aware - even the guidance (because it is just guidance) on shadow flicker and noise is ignored because there isn't room. The onus tends to fall on the homeowner to demonstrate a problem.
The locations will be based on where landowners are willing to engage with energy companies - normally where it will be more lucrative than the alternative and not necessarily associated with the potential wind yield.
I've been watching this dynamic with dismay for nearly 20 years.
0 -
Oh yes, I forgot about the earthquakes. We can't have land movements on the same scale as when Leicester City score.
Don't get me wrong, fracking is a bad direction to go in, and was a daft Tory policy based on the US. It's just an example that people tend to strongly dislike industrial development. Perhaps I'm wrong, but housing seems to elicit less ire.
RSJT points out that power lines will also be a hot potato. Yup.
0 -
Imagine spurious arguments being put forward to oppose something 🤔
1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition1 -
The only thing I disagree with is the needs must point. There are alternatives.
I suppose there will be objections to those - e.g. the solar farm thing in the news. And I don't know, genuinely, how much objection other than from Trump, there is to offshore wind farms. Much less, I suspect.
0 -
Lots of places have not many people living in them. You may well have lived in one of them. Yep, tough luck.
Like I said, compensation should be based on the actual effects, not what people imagine from a windmill off camberwick green.
0 -
I think you might be surprised at the places that are deemed not to have many people living in them (or visiting).
Compensation doesn't exist.
0 -
Do you think I'm claiming otherwise in both cases?
0 -
You'd be brave, you climate change denier you.
0 -
Dorset boy on here was moaning about them
- Genesis Croix de Fer
- Dolan Tuono0 -
Yes. How TF do you think our rail and road network, not to mention all the existing power stations were built? The only difference is that the people who were inconvenienced by those things are mostly long dead.
1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0
