2024 Election thread

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.

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.

I have more sympathy for the "save our fells" folk who don't drive cars.

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.

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).

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.

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.

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.

That's good. Have some sympathy.

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.

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.

Yes there is, offshore renewables. It'll be more or less the same price sooner or later.