2024 Election thread
Comments
-
I didn't write 'one argument'.
Not building them continues to harm a considerably larger number of people due to prolonging higher energy prices. Spoiling a view is an entirely subjective opinion. The scarcity is due to land ownership, not lack of uplands - they make up about 22% of the UK by land area. I don't understand why disturbing the ecology of small areas of upland is bad but disturbing much larger areas of coastal waters is OK.
1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
There are larger areas of coastal waters and fewer people live in the sea.
I'm sceptical that renewables will reduce energy prices. To do so there would have to be a change in the tarrifs offered to energy companies, and that totally changes the maths for building them in the first place. If we are paying less, they are earning less.
0 -
This is more about energy security, which yes is going to be about price whenever Russia invades another country or something, but I'd have thought we'd be in the realms of government price capping emergency measures for that to be relevant. Otherwise, it's just electricity and the price of other electricity isn't it?
0 -
It’s cheap in that it doesn’t pollute the atmosphere we need to exist, which is a price the previous generations refused to consider.
0 -
Okay, so build them in the sea.
0 -
At this rate we'll need a 'FA hates onshore wind turbines' thread.
0 -
I’m struggling with the leap from Labour lifting an embargo on onshore wind to turbines being chucked up all over the place with no consideration of their impact in accordance with planning policy. The fact they are covered by DCO and reviewed by the SoS doesn’t make the process less rigorous than giving the decision making to a bunch of local busybodies (sorry, Councillors).
0 -
I am reacting based on the onslaught on the southern uplands while I was there, and the comments from a few energy companies that they have many applications ready to go.
Just in sight of my house there were 4 major proposals in 5 years already across 7 separate applications. In addition to the two existing windfarms.
It's a lot, if it's your home. Some places in England will experience this for as long as it takes before a few get through.
0 -
Government price capping costs us all money. Which is why it's nothing more than a very expensive stop gap.
1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
Well okay then. They aren't going to result in cheaper energy. That's settled.
0 -
FA may have a point, I'm beginning to really sympathise with how annoying an incessant background whining might be.
- Genesis Croix de Fer
- Dolan Tuono2 -
You did pick the the worst possible place for someone who can't stand wind turbines, it's true.
1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
I was actually quite in favour before experiencing being steamrollered by poorly conceived applications a couple of times.
I actually approved of ones on the top of hills. The ones at the bottom of hills, close to houses, not so much. Ones in schools erected without consultation as far as possible from the school and right against the neighbours gardens, also not.
But if you object, you are just a climate change denying NIMBY.
0 -
I have no idea what business a school has installing a large scale wind turbine. Had they ruled out nuclear, coal and gas?
Agreed that siting close to dwellings is not sensible. It's not difficult to site them away from dwellings and they work better with lots of space around them. And as I've said there is a lot of land that is not near dwellings and on top of hills (because it's a daft place to build a house).
At least in E&W, local authorities are required to notify neighbouring land owners and statutory consultees so if there was really no consultation (rather than not consulting you) then that would leave them wide open if someone brought a case. That does require someone to do that, though, rather than moan on a cycling forum. Yes, it's expensive, but can you imagine the shitshow if it was free?
Do you know if these applications were recommended for approval or approved against the advice of officers?
1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
So the one in the school was 25m I think - so not large, but less than 5 rotor diameters between it and houses - 3 to the closest house, between 4 and 5 to mine. So I and several others suffered shadow flicker in addition to noise.
The initial response was that there was none, even though people took videos. I think one guy eventually got a small concession for some times of year, so his dog stopped barking at the shadows passing across the curtains.
It was erected under "permitted development", as being for educational purposes. I got legal advice that this was a flagrant misuse of the education act, but there's nothing I could do with a mortgage and a piffling trainee's salary at the time. I did point out to the school that the second world war was also on the curriculum, but they didn't have a gas chamber. But you can't outwit a teacher.
Eventually it stopped working I believe and the school I understand struggled to find a maintenance budget. They got one top up grant to repair it, but since it is no longer there I suppose it turns out it wasn't required to fulfil the school's educational remit after all.
The one that required tree felling 30 years early, and that will likely divert spring water away from houses and require bowsers to be driven to supply houses with water permanently, that got approved after a second rejection by the council and appeal to the energy consents department at the Scottish government. It's only not been built, as I understand it, because of the UK government's pesky commitment to nuclear non-proliferation, that means silly seismic monitoring stations and their silly sensitive equipment.
Two obviously have been built, and they were sensitively sighted. Turns out that white is a sensible colour if it has the sky as a backdrop.
One low lying one was refused twice and hasn't come back yet - the site is too small to get over the "national importance" threshold to bypass local planning, I think. Will require two greedy bastard landowners to cooperate, and they both live behind locked gates in Mayfair to avoid the rifraf, so that might take a while.
The other low lying one in a wind shadow, on peat lands, endangered bird and amphibian habitat and adjacent an internationally important overwintering site for endangered geese, on the birds' flight path between that and another one (they are RAMSAR sites, which is the highest designation possible I believe) - that one might or might not go ahead.
But if it is refused by the consents department, it won't be because of the peat, the newts, the lapwings, the curlew or the endangered geese. Nor will it be the other SSSIs of the bordering nature reserve or the nesting osprey. Nor will it be because the closest 180m turbine is proposed to be 800m from a small hamlet (this breaches guidelines), or because any locals don't want them there for whatever nimby reason.
No, if it is refused, it will be on landscape grounds, because you can see it very clearly along a large part of the horizon from Edinburgh Castle.
Can you tell I'm a bit cynical about all of this saving the planet stuff? Because it isn't, not really, or they'd have built in the large unpopulated hilltop plateau area that the three bordering councils identified as being the ideal place to build wind farms. That's largely used for grazing at the moment, and is well away from the nature reserve and wotnot. But it is turbine free.
The reason people object to so many such developments is because so many developments are put in for the wrong reasons in the wrong place, I am afraid. At least in my experience.
0 -
Bloody hell, you are the Rick Chasey of wind farms 😐. The school one really is absurd. Someone has to have pulled some strings for such a blatant misuse of school funds. It has Chair of the Governors pet project written all over it. And no budget for maintenance? Sure, why would a large piece of constantly moving machinery need maintenance?? The summer fete has raised £250, which will pay for one sixteenth of the annual maintenance contract for the turbine! (round of applause).
From what you say, though, most of the others do seem to have reached an acceptable conclusion. People have applied to build them in stupid places because they think they are going to get rich and they haven't got consent. A win's a win even if the visible from Edinburgh Castle is hilarious. They are substantially less rich than they were. I'm not sure this supports your argument that everything is loaded in their favour.
1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
Oops.
1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
😀
my bike - faster than god's and twice as shiny0 -
So back to my original point - I'd researched the area before moving. Due to all of the environmental protections and a high value landscape classification, there was a strong presumption against development in all the local plans. And yet, 100% of the time there were multiple large scale industrial applications pending for this area. Widen it out and the number multiplies to dozens over what is a fairly small region of Southern Scotland. This adds to the world-leading numbers already built.
My point is that this will now be unleashed in northern England and Wales in areas that - judging from neighbouring populations - will be unacceptable to 5-10 times as many people.
It is incorrect to argue that there aren't suitable sites, but naive to presume that developers will take anything other than a scattergun approach to selling turbines and selling electricity.
0 -
-
There'll be a lot of everything around your area, I suspect. Rail, road, housing, schools and further north and east there's pretty much feck all so lots of pretty traditional wooden windmills will be built.
Suspect you are happy with all of the above. I certainly think the varsity rail and more housing is a good idea.
0 -
Again, there's quite a difference between applications lodged and applications granted, and schemes built. A third never get approved and of those that do get consent, a substantial portion will never get built for a myriad of reasons. The consents lapse after 3 years if not started.
1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
-
The results of the latest CFD auction will be announced soon. It should clear up the direction of travel.
0 -
'The Rick Chasey of Windfarms' - that's an insult if ever I heard one. When is the pistols at dawn event? 😃
"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
True, but the sheer weight of applications in southern Scotland has lead to more turbines than and other region of the planet (possibly that's now Denmark, but it's still high) and the rate of applications seems not to have fallen.
So there's going to be a tsunami of applications over most upland areas of England and Wales, and a fraction of a hell of a lot is a lot.
0 -
-
I sincerely hope there is a massive new road built near your house to serve a massive new station car park, RC.
0 -
-
I mean, I have to say one of the things about the forum is that it does expose people to alternative views.
Sometimes we could do with being a bit less dismissive of them, and I am aware I do this intentionally and relatively often.
But I do respect your views on all of this, also those of others, believe it or not.
0
