2024 Election thread
Comments
-
As far as I can tell from that article, there is a policy focus on offshore wind. I wonder why.
The discussion of onshore wind mentions developments at most less than a third the size of the largest in the UK.
0 -
It would be great if wind generators could be styled like that.
0 -
Yess because it’s a quarter of the size of the UK.
More densely populated however with many more turbines near where people live. How do they manage?
0 -
Until the election, national policy in Scotland was against further oil and gas. That was quite popular, outside of Aberdeen. The wealth never spread far.
Also, there was quite a lot of criticism for selling off renewables seabed rights at a fraction of the expected prices, and there doesn't seem much opposition to offshore wind. Support, in fact, to replace the dwindling O&G industry.
The opposition is to onshore, because there are more turbines per area than anywhere else in the world as far as I'm aware, particularly in southern Scotland. It got to saturation a while ago and the proposals are still flooding in.
There are far fewer equivalent areas in England so the pressure from developers will be huge and relentless.
0 -
I don't think the population density is a fair comparison, because the Dutch aren't trapped on an island. You want some space and catharsis, drive somewhere nearby in Europe where there aren't as many Dutch people.
I have to admit though, on the occasions I went there, I found the contiguous urbanisation quite claustrophobic. Bit like the SE of England, and I couldn't cope I don't think.
0 -
I think Clifton Downs, Wimbledon Common, Hampstead Heath and Greenwich Park should all have wind farms built on them. All top of hills, all close to where the electricity is needed. 🙂
0 -
I have more sympathy for the "save our fells" folk who don't drive cars.
0 -
I cycle there, and lived there, if that helps.
0 -
For someone who is so keen on objectivity and accuracy, you are remarkably happy to chuck it all out of the window post paragraphs of unsubstantiated op-ed when it's something you personally feel is a bad thing. Have you considered an occasional column in the Telegraph or Guardian? You could give Simon Jenkins a good run for his money.
Your claims of the planning system being loaded in favour of development are totally unsubstantiated and you show a pretty limited understanding of the planning system.
1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
Is it true that only the applicant can appeal an adverse decision (other than judicial review)?
Is it true that there is no limit to the number of resubmissions for a given project?
Do you deny that projects are now designed with capacity numbers specifically to exceed the threshold to be called in for ministerial review?
These are not unsubstantiated ramblings.
The process within that I suppose is challenging and one could argue cumbersome - I don't see why airports 50 or 100 miles away are contacted for feedback, for example. But the total costs for the planning consultantst doesn't seem to deter power companies from filing dozens and expecting a few to progress. It doesn't seem to be particularly hampering the industry in Scotland.
0 -
I think they should charge a grand for every resident objection, which you only get back if the objection is upheld. Nice little money spinner for councils.
0 -
Fine by me. There's already a windmill on Wimbledon Common.
My local nature reserve looks across to a waste incinerator and has a double row of pylons running through it. Further afield there are a pair of transmitters in Crystal Palace Park so being able to see a tall thing from a public open space is pretty normal.
1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
For Bistol, the top of the Dundry ridge might be a better choice, and it's already marred by quite a big tower (albeit one that was built in the 15th century, without planning permission, I suspect).
0 -
Why not Brentor, Brian? Already got that silly norman church thing on it.
And Pincetown has that radio mast, so 60 odd turbines the same height will barely be any different. They could be positioned sympathetically in the landscape, in two dead straight rows.
0 -
It's laughable how you compare a traditional 'windmill' with a 120-180m tall wind turbine.
It really would be tragic if many of the fine views across our lanscape were marred by yet more wind turbines. But as a city dweller you don't seem to care, other however do.
I have no issue with offshore wind (and even the odd windmill onshore), and there are simple changes to building regulations such as compulsory solar on appropriately orientated roofs, and compulsory ground source heat pumps in new sites with more than a certain number of dwellings that could help the generation requirements without blighting the landscape. And why we haven't yet worked out how to harness the power of the tides beggars belief.
1 -
So the best way you can make your argument is by picking the iconic spots everyone knows. Devon is quite a big place and sparsely populated on the whole. Actually, Princetown isn't that pretty anyway, with its grim prison and all.
You are coming over as very Chaseyey in your type of argument. We get you hate onshore wind farms, as RC hates boomers.
0 -
Your claim was that the system is rigged in favour of developers. A small scale (single turbine under 100m) application would cost £35-45k ex VAT to prepare and submit an application. A single larger turbine would be closer to £60k+ VAT. Plus there's an application fee based on land area - £11,432 + £138 for each additional 0.1 hectare (or part thereof) in excess of 2.5 hectares. Maximum fee of £150,000 There's going to be some economy of scale as you build up to a whole wind farm, so let's conservatively say £200k a throw and a minimum six month wait for a decision. A relatively small percentage of the cost of one farm but if they were actually firing them off at the rate you suggest you pretty quickly hit a seven figure sum per farm in fees.
Sure they can resubmit amended applications but they are not free. There is a reduction in the application fee for a second similar application but after that it's back to the same area calculation. And the resubmission would need to actually materially address the reason for refusal. Resubmitting essentially the same scheme will get you the same decision unless you take it to appeal. Appeals are difficult take years rather than months and have limited probabilities of success unless the decision is based on a clearly flawed interpretation of the policies.
The main issue is that local authorities carefully prepare their policies; these are signed off by elected councillors; generally, officers correctly interpret those policies as they apply to a particular application and then it's sheer luck of the draw whether one of the locals can bend the ear of a councillor on the planning committee to overrule his or her officers' recommendation and refuse despite the application complying with all the policies. Committee members are elected and thus susceptible to influence from their constituents but they also tend to have a poor grasp of their own planning policies. It is this uncertainty that very much does not rig the system in favour of developers. You can do everything right, follow every policy to the letter and more and still get refused. Yes an applicant can appeal a refusal but again this is another couple of hundred grand - possibly vastly more if a hearing with a planning barrister is involved.
You are correct that non-applicants can't appeal decisions directly. They would need to bring a case, so not too dissimilar a hurdle to the cost of an appeal. That seems reasonably fair.
1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
It was a joke. And an observation that windy places are still windy places.
I disagree that wind turbines of either design marr views. I enjoy the contrast of a manmade object in a manmade landscape just as I enjoy a nice viaduct or bridge, or the elegant efficiency of pylons. I accept that others disagree, but both of our views are subjective. One is no more right than the other and neither should be more than a secondary consideration for energy policy, not least because tastes change. The railway infrastructure that we now think of as an attractive accompaniment to the landscape was once vigorously opposed in just the same way.
1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
We have figured out the way to harness the tides. Is currently comparatively expensive, because the environment is necessarily quite aggressive. However, it is literally as reliable as clockwork.
I've worked on IP in this sector and it is coming to an estuary near you sooner or later, because they are starting to get a handle on build and maintenance costs.
Scale up prospects won't match wind or solar, because you need places with a big tidal range and stream, and that aren't shipping lanes, but it should be a part of the mix because the reliability would facilitate greater reliance on other renewables.
Tidal barages are another concept, but I don't see how the ecological damage can be tolerated.
That kind of brings me back full circle to the lack of value placed on our worthless uplands. Since I've moved away I've started to realise what people don't know that they don't know about all the really rare species that seem common as muck up there. There are at least four red list species abundant in the proposed one near Edinburgh that I posted. It is almost as though the worse our biodiversity is, the less it is considered to matter. As in, it's already bollocksed so who cares if there's even less of it.
RSJT basically argued as much, missing that a landscape first "unnaturally" created by prehistoric people is not only now a genuine established ecosystem, but globally scarce.
0 -
Just one point of order on the subject, a windfarm needs to be able to connect to the grid and a 13amp three pin socket doesn't suffice.
0 -
That's good. Have some sympathy.
0 -
The ecosystem you're so fond of won't survive climate change either. I think you need to get real about the problems the world faces and the trade off.
You can't keep putting it off forever and pretending it's everyone else's problem, as long as your patch is fine.
And which is it, is the problem that the wind or solar farms are in remote places where you have birds, or too close to houses that locals get upset?
0 -
There's 2 6M hectares of upland. The actual ground infrastructure occupies about 1-2% of the land area of a wind farm so with some thought and care I don't see why it's impossible to integrate wind turbines into even quite ecologically sensitive locations.
The general eroding of wildlife is if anything more evident on lowland arable land but you seem much less bothered about that. That said, grouse moors are hardly the poster boy for biodiversity.
1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
Was thinking more curlews, lapwing and some rare geese.
0 -
Sure, and maybe the location you mention is on balance not a good site for turbines. That does leave quite a lot of the 2.6M hectares to check, plus the Fens. I've also noticed there are quite a few coastal birds.
Every choice affects something. Even choosing to install no onshore wind has several negative effects. Just ones that you are not bothered about.
1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
Both. It's okay to tick more than one box.
Who said putting it off? We've got 11000 miles of coastline.
On lowland biodiversity, I'm not ambivalent. It's just already screwed so is of low value. May as well build some more houses on it. I don't live there and someone has to put up with development. They should build on common land and royal parks as well. You can't keep putting it off.
Or, promote hedgerows, reduce insecticide use, promote long term fallow fields etc.
I am also a real fan of beavers.
0 -
Cheap energy is incredibly important. Incredibly so. I don't think we should forego cheap energy because some people feel the view is spoiled. That is beyond pathetic.
The biodiversity question is a better question but there is no solution, just NIMBY demands.
0 -
I'm sure you are aware that the extra 15GW of onshore is matched by three times that in offshore. Can you settle on one coherent set of arguments rather than flitting between whichever is more convenient at the time. Either biodiversity is important or it isn't. Picking and choosing because you prefer hills where you can pretend there are no other people is not a basis for environmental policy. Are we going to support badgers coz they are so pretty and stripey, but to hell with the invertebrates?
1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
Yes there is, offshore renewables. It'll be more or less the same price sooner or later.
0 -
Why do I need one argument, sorry? It fucks a few people's lives, spoils omparatively scace amenity and is a bit ecologically disruptive. Which of those are mutually exclusive?
Anyhow, even if you think I'm a nutter, I am in plentiful company.
Sorry yes, in answer to the question about offshore wind. Aside from anything that is because there is massively more available capacity so it makes sense.
The "need" for onshore wind is to get to targets quicker, that's about it.
0
