Its not just clean and attractive, its cheaper than coal, cheaper than gas, cheaper than offshore wind, tidal or nuclear.
Yes its not perfectly reliable at all times, but its the cheapest form of electricity available to us so we should get as much of it as we can as fast as we can.
Ramping up investment in onshore wind would mean we need less gas in the winter and have cheaper energy bills. There's no downside.
Between this and Rishi's reported scepticism about backing Ukraine, he's really beginning to look like Putin's useful idiot in this contest. 😠
And it's quick to deploy. Offshore, by contrast, takes years. We should increasing our efforts there as well, but that wouldn't make much of a difference in the short term.
Its not just clean and attractive, its cheaper than coal, cheaper than gas, cheaper than offshore wind, tidal or nuclear.
Yes its not perfectly reliable at all times, but its the cheapest form of electricity available to us so we should get as much of it as we can as fast as we can.
Ramping up investment in onshore wind would mean we need less gas in the winter and have cheaper energy bills. There's no downside.
Between this and Rishi's reported scepticism about backing Ukraine, he's really beginning to look like Putin's useful idiot in this contest. 😠
I oppose it in parts of the Highlands. National Park regulations aren't as strong up here, and the SG regularly overrides local planning decisions to circle the borders of them with turbines. Imagine if they did the same to the Lake District?
It's the huge roads across the moors and hills that are most problematic, imo. Chuck them up near our population centres, or just spam offshore
Sounds smart to circle the borders of them with turbines. They absolutely should do that in the Lake District too. 👍
Inside the National Park maybe don't put them up, though that's a shame but fair enough, but outside the border? Absolutely put them there.
You can't do it in England in order to protect the views from the parks. I don't think we should unnecessarily trash our natural heritage to provide energy to our cities.
Another example is the hydro scheme in Glen Etive. One of our best spots dug up for the equivalent of just one offshore turbine.
What ridiculous crap, 'protecting the views from the park'.
The park itself should be the border of where development doesn't exist. If you want the 'views' protected then make whatever land that 'view' is should be within the confines of the park, but realistically that has already been done, the parks are already quite big, its easily possible to be in the park and unable to see outside the park's borders.
If you're looking outside of the park from inside it, there's no reason there shouldn't be development outside of the park. There's always going to be a border somewhere, and outside the border should be able to be fully developed.
Since I live in an area just outside the Lake District National Park, which is about to become part of it, which has a lot of onshore and offshore wind turbines in the area and know quite a few people in the area working in the sector plus Husband is a planning barrister with expertise in this field, perhaps I should join in this conversation?
Nah - much more fun to watch others talk endlessly about stuff they don't much understand.
😀
Lots of Cumbria's best is outside any national park, but don't tell anyone. (And all of Lincolnshire).
Its not just clean and attractive, its cheaper than coal, cheaper than gas, cheaper than offshore wind, tidal or nuclear.
Yes its not perfectly reliable at all times, but its the cheapest form of electricity available to us so we should get as much of it as we can as fast as we can.
Ramping up investment in onshore wind would mean we need less gas in the winter and have cheaper energy bills. There's no downside.
Between this and Rishi's reported scepticism about backing Ukraine, he's really beginning to look like Putin's useful idiot in this contest. 😠
Aiui offshore wind is now cheaper than onshore wind, and I think I heard that from Boris the other day.
Here we go, from Boris's speech in Monday's confidence debate:-
Last week I went up in one of our 148 Typhoon fighters, and I flew out over the North sea, over Doggerland. The drowned prairies are now being harvested again with tens of gigawatts of clean green energy. We will have 50 GW of offshore wind by 2050, and thanks to this Government’s activism I am proud to say that offshore wind is now cheaper than onshore wind. I looked down at that ghostly white forest of windmills in the sea, financed with ever growing sums from international investors, and I thought, “This is how we will fix our energy problems; this is how Europe should be ending its dependence on Putin’s gas.”
This would nicely justify Rishi siding with nimbies over onshore wind.
It is a bit worrying that HMG is unconcerned about the impact of yet more money flowing out of the country to buy electricity from "international investors" but such is the new orthodoxy.
Is that in fact true, offshore being cheaper? I can see economies of scale and more intense wind. but obvious costs of offshore work.
The crossover is close. The current offshore designs are 250m (850’) tall, and offer economies of scale beyond anything that would get permission onshore.
The argument against wind is always “yeah but what about when there’s no wind”. I wonder if the same proponents this winter will be saying “yeah hydrocarbons are all well and good but what about when there’s no gas”.
Is there still argument about how best to tackle inflation?
FUEL DUTY, you bunch of muppets in Parliament. Rising transport costs are feeding into inflation everywhere at the moment, yet the Treasury blob and the green lobby can’t even countenance the idea that £2/litre petrol and diesel isn’t fantastic for the environment, which is their primary consideration.
The price electicity of demand for road fuel is 1.1, that is that doubling the price reduces demand by 10%. Just about the only thing less price electric are cigarettes.
The high price of fuel just means that people forego other spending, not that they consume less fuel.
It's elasticity rather than electricity but again - we all know that the only solution is to cut fuel duty - nothing else will solve anything.
And the annoying bit is that fuel duty is dying anyway as people shift to electric cars.
Ha ha, autocorrect stitched me up there, and someone (as always) noticed it before the edit!
Yes, government needs a strategy for how they replace the £40bn of revenue they currently get from taxing cars and petrol, when almost everyone drives an EV. Don’t also forget an unknown number of billions in company car BIK, which is already reducing quickly.
Once electric vehicles become the norm I'm sure they'll be taxed as a standard BiK. I'd be surprised if it raised more than £3-4bn a year currently.
Road-pricing is the solution - and a smart meter on the dashboard. With my annual mileage down from 25k to 5k I am wholeheartedly in favour.
Can scale the pricing by vehicle weight too.
And tinker with roads: low prices on low demand roads in the countryside, high prices on high demand roads heading into cities.
Which is a good idea in principle. However it leaves an awful lot of power in the hands of the state. Before covid I was in favour of this approach. Since covid, I really don't want to give an agency of the state the power to know where I have been, nor do I want to give it any further levers to nudge my behaviour.
Onshore winds next to motorways, railway lines etc... would make a lot of sense as there is already disruption to nature anyway. Can't see why anyone would oppose that either.
Agree - especially something like the A9 corridor which already has pylons running through it (despite being in a national park)
Oh for a proper large scale programme of burying high voltage campaigns under the countryside rather than on top of it.
Massive debate/argument over a proposal to do that in Suffolk and Northeast Essex!
Other than cost, what stands against it?
flooding, insulation and resistance, access for maintenance
Prevent moronic planning people rejecting phone masts and wind turbines.
Abolish the planning system would fix most of our problems as a society.
We'd get houses, phone masts and turbines all built.
"Planning" should belong to communist societies, not free ones.
Abolishing altogether could result in some perverse outcomes - skyscrapers in the middle of a residential road. But I agree it's too tightly controlled. Liberalising will boost the economy at no cost.
Broad 'zones' that categorise what type of structures are permitted where, but with no specific planning permission needed that bogs down projects in red tape. Want to build residential housing? Simply but land in a suitable zone. Wind farms? Likewise. It would give everyone far more confidence in buying land for development.
The zones would need to be more liberal than present of course where too much is protected.
Onshore winds next to motorways, railway lines etc... would make a lot of sense as there is already disruption to nature anyway. Can't see why anyone would oppose that either.
Agree - especially something like the A9 corridor which already has pylons running through it (despite being in a national park)
Oh for a proper large scale programme of burying high voltage campaigns under the countryside rather than on top of it.
Massive debate/argument over a proposal to do that in Suffolk and Northeast Essex!
Its not just clean and attractive, its cheaper than coal, cheaper than gas, cheaper than offshore wind, tidal or nuclear.
Yes its not perfectly reliable at all times, but its the cheapest form of electricity available to us so we should get as much of it as we can as fast as we can.
Ramping up investment in onshore wind would mean we need less gas in the winter and have cheaper energy bills. There's no downside.
Between this and Rishi's reported scepticism about backing Ukraine, he's really beginning to look like Putin's useful idiot in this contest. 😠
And it's quick to deploy. Offshore, by contrast, takes years. We should increasing our efforts there as well, but that wouldn't make much of a difference in the short term.
Exactly. The real objections are purely Nimbyish - some, perhaps many, people in the countryside strongly object, in exactly the same way that they object to electricity pylons. I don't disrespect this view though like Bart I think they're quite attractive, but even if they're seen as ugly, I think we have to ask people to just get over it.
To stop a big Labour lead in seats the Tories need to address the blue wall issue, there is no evidence, anywhere, that Labour are making anything more than sluggish to very modest progress against a death roll government.
Truss sadly is likely the kiss of death to Tory MPs in Remain seats in the blue wall, the LDs will be cheering if she wins
Hope you are right but we have had too many false dawns
Poll out today has the LDs up to 16% if Truss is Tory leader and Labour 12% ahead of the Tories
Strangely similar results for all candidates: Sunak reduces LD by 1pt from their best share (Lab lead 12) Mordaunt reduces LD, Lab, Refuk by 1pt (Lab lead 9) Truss reduces Refuk by 1pt (Lab lead 12)
I do expect a bigger new leader honeymoon than that for any result, but not hugely so.
Its not just clean and attractive, its cheaper than coal, cheaper than gas, cheaper than offshore wind, tidal or nuclear.
Yes its not perfectly reliable at all times, but its the cheapest form of electricity available to us so we should get as much of it as we can as fast as we can.
Ramping up investment in onshore wind would mean we need less gas in the winter and have cheaper energy bills. There's no downside.
Between this and Rishi's reported scepticism about backing Ukraine, he's really beginning to look like Putin's useful idiot in this contest. 😠
Aiui offshore wind is now cheaper than onshore wind, and I think I heard that from Boris the other day.
Here we go, from Boris's speech in Monday's confidence debate:-
Last week I went up in one of our 148 Typhoon fighters, and I flew out over the North sea, over Doggerland. The drowned prairies are now being harvested again with tens of gigawatts of clean green energy. We will have 50 GW of offshore wind by 2050, and thanks to this Government’s activism I am proud to say that offshore wind is now cheaper than onshore wind. I looked down at that ghostly white forest of windmills in the sea, financed with ever growing sums from international investors, and I thought, “This is how we will fix our energy problems; this is how Europe should be ending its dependence on Putin’s gas.”
This would nicely justify Rishi siding with nimbies over onshore wind.
It is a bit worrying that HMG is unconcerned about the impact of yet more money flowing out of the country to buy electricity from "international investors" but such is the new orthodoxy.
Is that in fact true, offshore being cheaper? I can see economies of scale and more intense wind. but obvious costs of offshore work.
Not really. It's a bit complicated - we have regulation which limit the size, and therefore efficiency, of onshore wind turbines; ongoing maintenance is easier onshore etc - but it's more or less a wash.
By far the quickest and probably cheapest way to increase capacity would be to lift the legislative constraints on onshore turbine size. Would upset a few people. though.
Prevent moronic planning people rejecting phone masts and wind turbines.
Abolish the planning system would fix most of our problems as a society.
We'd get houses, phone masts and turbines all built.
"Planning" should belong to communist societies, not free ones.
What is funny is, you put your family in a car and drive to Cumbria for holidays. not to Slough or Milton Keynes. Why is that?
Because Penrith is 70 miles from where I live and has stuff I'm interested in, whereas Slough and MK are about 200 miles away and don't.
I've also had holidays in Liverpool, Chester, Manchester, London, Edinburgh, overseas and many other places too. I've worked in MK, never saw anything there that I couldn't find in the NW to justify a holiday there though. Its a good city I wouldn't mind living or working in though in the future, well built for cars. 👍
Windfarms in amongst farmable arable crops. Food and energy security in one place, hardly an AONB being right next to the M1.
Why is Rishi opposed to this ?
These also a good idea, if the farmers don't care, why should anyone else?
The farmers are probably getting a nice chunk of change for the turbines being on their land tbh. Offshore wind is very important too, but excluding the entirity of the UK mainland from windfarms seems just daft - one thing they can be put up much more quickly than offshore wind; they're much smaller projects. If the "eyesore" argument is going to be used then you need to exclude all offshore wind near to the shore.
Prevent moronic planning people rejecting phone masts and wind turbines.
Abolish the planning system would fix most of our problems as a society.
We'd get houses, phone masts and turbines all built.
"Planning" should belong to communist societies, not free ones.
The 'original sin' here is probably the 1947 Town and Country Planning Act, then? I know it's subsequently been amended, but there doesn't seem to have been sensible house-building policy since.
The Czech government is moving forward in a deal to buy new F-35 fighter jets from the US. Earlier reports say Prague could buy up to 24 planes, at a cost of $85 million each. https://twitter.com/Mike_Eckel/status/1549686012334555137
Its not just clean and attractive, its cheaper than coal, cheaper than gas, cheaper than offshore wind, tidal or nuclear.
Yes its not perfectly reliable at all times, but its the cheapest form of electricity available to us so we should get as much of it as we can as fast as we can.
Ramping up investment in onshore wind would mean we need less gas in the winter and have cheaper energy bills. There's no downside.
Between this and Rishi's reported scepticism about backing Ukraine, he's really beginning to look like Putin's useful idiot in this contest. 😠
I oppose it in parts of the Highlands. National Park regulations aren't as strong up here, and the SG regularly overrides local planning decisions to circle the borders of them with turbines. Imagine if they did the same to the Lake District?
It's the huge roads across the moors and hills that are most problematic, imo. Chuck them up near our population centres, or just spam offshore
There’s no real need for onshore wind.
1) All the capacity you could ever want offshore 2) Fish don’t vote 3) wind flow is simpler and better offshore (generally) 4) Installation. Offshore, 100m blades weighing x tons are a trivial matter of the right size of barge and floating crane. Onshore the same ranges from impossible to building a huge road (see above) 5) Residual environmental impact - offshore you have the turbine mount and the cables. Marine life will be back rapidly. Onshore you have churned up the ground, takes a long time to fix. 7) replacement/maintenance - onshore the churn continues. Offshore, a crane/barge rocks up and leaves little (maybe some anchor scars on the sea bed, if they are issuing totally dynamic positioning) 8) max size - bigger is generally more efficient. Onshore will max out due to installation. 9) a small number of people really hate the low frequency noise from turbines. Bit like transformer whine, they can’t adapt to it. Why shit on them if we don’t have to?
Mr. Sandpit, the enormo-haddock are even more efficient.
In the battle between genetically engineered piscine perfection and some self-righteous climate zealot, there is only one winner. And it isn't the sandal-wearing ecoloon.
Its not just clean and attractive, its cheaper than coal, cheaper than gas, cheaper than offshore wind, tidal or nuclear.
Yes its not perfectly reliable at all times, but its the cheapest form of electricity available to us so we should get as much of it as we can as fast as we can.
Ramping up investment in onshore wind would mean we need less gas in the winter and have cheaper energy bills. There's no downside.
Between this and Rishi's reported scepticism about backing Ukraine, he's really beginning to look like Putin's useful idiot in this contest. 😠
And it's quick to deploy. Offshore, by contrast, takes years. We should increasing our efforts there as well, but that wouldn't make much of a difference in the short term.
Exactly. The real objections are purely Nimbyish - some, perhaps many, people in the countryside strongly object, in exactly the same way that they object to electricity pylons. I don't disrespect this view though like Bart I think they're quite attractive, but even if they're seen as ugly, I think we have to ask people to just get over it.
My father-in-law has a few huge cylinders of metal (maybe 30m in length overall?) in his garden that are intended to end up as part of a wind turbine. He's been researching turbine blade shapes, and someone recently paid him to fix the generator part of a turbine that had a catastrophic failure.
He recently told my mother-in-law that he was planning to erect the future turbine in view of the kitchen window. About a couple of metres away. Literally in the back yard. She isn't happy about it. I'd always assumed he'd get his brother to agree to let him put it on the hill in his farm a safe distance of a hundred or so metres away.
So, it is possible for people to want to erect wind turbines a bit too close to houses, even though I agree that they look wonderful at an appropriate distance.
The ad attracted 27, yes 27, total 27, not 27 hundred or 27 thousand, 27 complaints...of which I think half are providing comment in that BBC article....and yet investigation, major news story etc etc etc. So basically if I get 20 of my mates to rant to the ASA about an ad they will investigate?
Pretty much, yes. I've had an ad I've worked on receive complaints and subsequently be investigated (and cleared fwiw). It happens a lot; worth looking at their rulings for context. Sometimes an ad may only garner a few complaints but genuinely does need taking down. We actually have some of the best industry self-regulation in the world when it comes to advertising (and, for what it's worth, the best TV audience measurement).
The ASA is high on my list of "effectively unaccountable things to abolish". They force changes to hundreds of adverts every week, and are proud of their "act on a single complaint" ethos.
The impression I've always had working in the industry is that they're broadly appreciated and also are usually pretty easy to work with.
Why shouldn't they act on a single complaint if an ad is breaking rules?
Prevent moronic planning people rejecting phone masts and wind turbines.
Abolish the planning system would fix most of our problems as a society.
We'd get houses, phone masts and turbines all built.
"Planning" should belong to communist societies, not free ones.
The 'original sin' here is probably the 1947 Town and Country Planning Act, then? I know it's subsequently been amended, but there doesn't seem to have been sensible house-building policy since.
There hasn't been a sensible policy about allowing wealthy foreigners, crooks and tax dodgers to buy up housing stock in this country, and then just leaving it empty.
Its not just clean and attractive, its cheaper than coal, cheaper than gas, cheaper than offshore wind, tidal or nuclear.
Yes its not perfectly reliable at all times, but its the cheapest form of electricity available to us so we should get as much of it as we can as fast as we can.
Ramping up investment in onshore wind would mean we need less gas in the winter and have cheaper energy bills. There's no downside.
Between this and Rishi's reported scepticism about backing Ukraine, he's really beginning to look like Putin's useful idiot in this contest. 😠
I oppose it in parts of the Highlands. National Park regulations aren't as strong up here, and the SG regularly overrides local planning decisions to circle the borders of them with turbines. Imagine if they did the same to the Lake District?
It's the huge roads across the moors and hills that are most problematic, imo. Chuck them up near our population centres, or just spam offshore
There’s no real need for onshore wind.
1) All the capacity you could ever want offshore 2) Fish don’t vote 3) wind flow is simpler and better offshore (generally) 4) Installation. Offshore, 100m blades weighing x tons are a trivial matter of the right size of barge and floating crane. Onshore the same ranges from impossible to building a huge road (see above) 5) Residual environmental impact - offshore you have the turbine mount and the cables. Marine life will be back rapidly. Onshore you have churned up the ground, takes a long time to fix. 7) replacement/maintenance - onshore the churn continues. Offshore, a crane/barge rocks up and leaves little (maybe some anchor scars on the sea bed, if they are issuing totally dynamic positioning) 8) max size - bigger is generally more efficient. Onshore will max out due to installation. 9) a small number of people really hate the low frequency noise from turbines. Bit like transformer whine, they can’t adapt to it. Why shit on them if we don’t have to?
I am very against onshore windfarms in unspoilt upland areas.
However: a windfarm was built near us eight or so years ago. 8 turbines, providing a total of 16MW. It is on the site of an old airfield (so not exactly unspoilt), and the land underneath is still farmed.
I have zero problem with that sort of windfarm. The people in the nearest village did, though....
Its not just clean and attractive, its cheaper than coal, cheaper than gas, cheaper than offshore wind, tidal or nuclear.
Yes its not perfectly reliable at all times, but its the cheapest form of electricity available to us so we should get as much of it as we can as fast as we can.
Ramping up investment in onshore wind would mean we need less gas in the winter and have cheaper energy bills. There's no downside.
Between this and Rishi's reported scepticism about backing Ukraine, he's really beginning to look like Putin's useful idiot in this contest. 😠
And it's quick to deploy. Offshore, by contrast, takes years. We should increasing our efforts there as well, but that wouldn't make much of a difference in the short term.
Exactly. The real objections are purely Nimbyish - some, perhaps many, people in the countryside strongly object, in exactly the same way that they object to electricity pylons. I don't disrespect this view though like Bart I think they're quite attractive, but even if they're seen as ugly, I think we have to ask people to just get over it.
Just one line isn't too bad; liveable with! However when there are forest of them, as with a site near Rayleigh, in Southeast Essex just off the A127, then they really become obtrusive.
I realise some on here might think that there Is no scenery left to save in SE Essex!
The ad attracted 27, yes 27, total 27, not 27 hundred or 27 thousand, 27 complaints...of which I think half are providing comment in that BBC article....and yet investigation, major news story etc etc etc. So basically if I get 20 of my mates to rant to the ASA about an ad they will investigate?
Pretty much, yes. I've had an ad I've worked on receive complaints and subsequently be investigated (and cleared fwiw). It happens a lot; worth looking at their rulings for context. Sometimes an ad may only garner a few complaints but genuinely does need taking down. We actually have some of the best industry self-regulation in the world when it comes to advertising (and, for what it's worth, the best TV audience measurement).
The ASA is high on my list of "effectively unaccountable things to abolish". They force changes to hundreds of adverts every week, and are proud of their "act on a single complaint" ethos.
The impression I've always had working in the industry is that they're broadly appreciated and also are usually pretty easy to work with.
Why shouldn't they act on a single complaint if an ad is breaking rules?
I think they should primarily be responsible to the community, not to the industry.
It is our media being subjected to private censorship by an industry appointed body.
For the level of interference exercised, imo that is not OK. Too many poor decisions are made.
Its not just clean and attractive, its cheaper than coal, cheaper than gas, cheaper than offshore wind, tidal or nuclear.
Yes its not perfectly reliable at all times, but its the cheapest form of electricity available to us so we should get as much of it as we can as fast as we can.
Ramping up investment in onshore wind would mean we need less gas in the winter and have cheaper energy bills. There's no downside.
Between this and Rishi's reported scepticism about backing Ukraine, he's really beginning to look like Putin's useful idiot in this contest. 😠
And it's quick to deploy. Offshore, by contrast, takes years. We should increasing our efforts there as well, but that wouldn't make much of a difference in the short term.
Exactly. The real objections are purely Nimbyish - some, perhaps many, people in the countryside strongly object, in exactly the same way that they object to electricity pylons. I don't disrespect this view though like Bart I think they're quite attractive, but even if they're seen as ugly, I think we have to ask people to just get over it.
My father-in-law has a few huge cylinders of metal (maybe 30m in length overall?) in his garden that are intended to end up as part of a wind turbine. He's been researching turbine blade shapes, and someone recently paid him to fix the generator part of a turbine that had a catastrophic failure.
He recently told my mother-in-law that he was planning to erect the future turbine in view of the kitchen window. About a couple of metres away. Literally in the back yard. She isn't happy about it. I'd always assumed he'd get his brother to agree to let him put it on the hill in his farm a safe distance of a hundred or so metres away.
So, it is possible for people to want to erect wind turbines a bit too close to houses, even though I agree that they look wonderful at an appropriate distance.
Where is this? And what is the blade diameter?
Good luck if in the UK .
Micro wind has essentially turned out to be a pig-in-a-poke.
I'm not sure that onshore wind is even necessary in the UK. In an empty country, maybe. This is one of the most densely populated countries in Europe.
Looks like at least half a dozen groups of soap-dodgers on the M25.
What a good idea! They have glued themselves onto the tarmac? Great! Lets do a UK version of the Japanese Endurance gameshow, with them as the contestants. Lets just get on with spraying them with all kinds of exciting things until they have enough.
Prevent moronic planning people rejecting phone masts and wind turbines.
Abolish the planning system would fix most of our problems as a society.
We'd get houses, phone masts and turbines all built.
"Planning" should belong to communist societies, not free ones.
Abolishing altogether could result in some perverse outcomes - skyscrapers in the middle of a residential road. But I agree it's too tightly controlled. Liberalising will boost the economy at no cost.
Broad 'zones' that categorise what type of structures are permitted where, but with no specific planning permission needed that bogs down projects in red tape. Want to build residential housing? Simply but land in a suitable zone. Wind farms? Likewise. It would give everyone far more confidence in buying land for development.
The zones would need to be more liberal than present of course where too much is protected.
The government floated a zonal system. To say there was revolt in the shires is an understatement.
Windfarms in amongst farmable arable crops. Food and energy security in one place, hardly an AONB being right next to the M1.
Why is Rishi opposed to this ?
These also a good idea, if the farmers don't care, why should anyone else?
The farmers are probably getting a nice chunk of change for the turbines being on their land tbh. Offshore wind is very important too, but excluding the entirity of the UK mainland from windfarms seems just daft - one thing they can be put up much more quickly than offshore wind; they're much smaller projects. If the "eyesore" argument is going to be used then you need to exclude all offshore wind near to the shore.
People do try to use the eyesore argument against offshore wind turbines, even when they're far enough away that they look smaller than your thumbnail when your arm is held out extended.
Prevent moronic planning people rejecting phone masts and wind turbines.
Abolish the planning system would fix most of our problems as a society.
We'd get houses, phone masts and turbines all built.
"Planning" should belong to communist societies, not free ones.
Abolishing altogether could result in some perverse outcomes - skyscrapers in the middle of a residential road. But I agree it's too tightly controlled. Liberalising will boost the economy at no cost.
Broad 'zones' that categorise what type of structures are permitted where, but with no specific planning permission needed that bogs down projects in red tape. Want to build residential housing? Simply but land in a suitable zone. Wind farms? Likewise. It would give everyone far more confidence in buying land for development.
The zones would need to be more liberal than present of course where too much is protected.
The government floated a zonal system. To say there was revolt in the shires is an understatement.
(Yes some of that was around algorithm issues)
They should have carried it through anyway. It was the right idea. 😠
Its not just clean and attractive, its cheaper than coal, cheaper than gas, cheaper than offshore wind, tidal or nuclear.
Yes its not perfectly reliable at all times, but its the cheapest form of electricity available to us so we should get as much of it as we can as fast as we can.
Ramping up investment in onshore wind would mean we need less gas in the winter and have cheaper energy bills. There's no downside.
Between this and Rishi's reported scepticism about backing Ukraine, he's really beginning to look like Putin's useful idiot in this contest. 😠
And it's quick to deploy. Offshore, by contrast, takes years. We should increasing our efforts there as well, but that wouldn't make much of a difference in the short term.
Exactly. The real objections are purely Nimbyish - some, perhaps many, people in the countryside strongly object, in exactly the same way that they object to electricity pylons. I don't disrespect this view though like Bart I think they're quite attractive, but even if they're seen as ugly, I think we have to ask people to just get over it.
Agree entirely. Greater benefit for the nation as a whole, sorry.
Probably not blown or hacked. Either it was an unwise tweet (which quoted a Telegraph headline) by Mordaunt's social media intern that will have repelled wavering MPs, or it was "clever" shitposting that will have planted doubts in the minds of supporters of other candidates.
Looks like at least half a dozen groups of soap-dodgers on the M25.
One thing, if they're superglued to the road then how about just leaving them there ?
If they want to help they can get on with advising on better government and corporate net zero policy, or work on projects to deliver climate change mitigation in the public/private/3rd sector. Or lobby foreign governments that are essentially paying lip service to the problem and lead boycotts of their corporations as and when required.
I don't think Boris needed a few lines of marching powder for this one. He has SO MUCH to say in SO LITTLE TIME that he hastotalkfouteenhundredwordsaminute.
Great, but anything north of 8Mbps enables me to simultaneously watch UHD netflix and troll PB. Unless you have 87 children or want to remote mine bitcoin, how does it help?
The ad attracted 27, yes 27, total 27, not 27 hundred or 27 thousand, 27 complaints...of which I think half are providing comment in that BBC article....and yet investigation, major news story etc etc etc. So basically if I get 20 of my mates to rant to the ASA about an ad they will investigate?
Pretty much, yes. I've had an ad I've worked on receive complaints and subsequently be investigated (and cleared fwiw). It happens a lot; worth looking at their rulings for context. Sometimes an ad may only garner a few complaints but genuinely does need taking down. We actually have some of the best industry self-regulation in the world when it comes to advertising (and, for what it's worth, the best TV audience measurement).
The ASA is high on my list of "effectively unaccountable things to abolish". They force changes to hundreds of adverts every week, and are proud of their "act on a single complaint" ethos.
The impression I've always had working in the industry is that they're broadly appreciated and also are usually pretty easy to work with.
Why shouldn't they act on a single complaint if an ad is breaking rules?
I think they should primarily be responsible to the community, not to the industry.
It is our media being subjected to private censorship by an industry appointed body.
For the level of interference exercised, imo that is not OK. Too many poor decisions are made.
But by responding to complaints, are they not being responsible to the community (by which I guess you mean the nation)? It's not really censorship, it's mostly judging whether claims made by advertisers are valid and content is not harmful - from what I've seen (as with the running ad) the rulings tend to be pretty measured. I can't see we'd have a better advertising landscape without it.
I'd be interested in what else is on your list for comparison. Ofsted?
Prevent moronic planning people rejecting phone masts and wind turbines.
Abolish the planning system would fix most of our problems as a society.
We'd get houses, phone masts and turbines all built.
"Planning" should belong to communist societies, not free ones.
You are a flip-flop-troll. You post some very good points like your one about onshore wind, and then come up with this rubbish, motivated by taking your liberal politicals and pushing them to the idealo extreme.
You are intelligent enough to realise that no "Planning" rules means things like a Trump golf course next to Buckingham Palace, a Tesla factory opened next door to you and a Shale Gas plant developed in your favourite beauty spot. "Planning" is not just for "communist societies". This blind idealism is something you are quick to criticise in those on the hard left, but don't accept it in your own posts.
Your quotes about the extreme weather in Britain over the last 2 days was also nothing more than trolling. It's great that you weren't suffereing and could enjoy the weather, but you are not so dumb to realise that this is a symptom of a much much wider and serious problem.
Slim pickings in local by-elections this week. We have an Ind defence today in Basildon. Then tomorrow there are Con defences in North Warwickshire and South Staffordshire plus a Lab defence in Lancaster.
Not see @Yokes or @Dura_Ace around for a while. I’d like to know what we’re all missing on the Russia-Ukraine front.
Just select the most pessimistic appraisal found online, that'll do it.
Useful perspective but no more complex than that.
That's a little unfair. Yokes was minorly negative about Ukraine's position, and gave his reasons. Dura_Ace was just negative about everything and everyone...
It is obvious that the protests on motorways lose any support for their cause. But they must know this, so I deduce that their true aims are directly contrary to whatever it is they say they want.
Its not just clean and attractive, its cheaper than coal, cheaper than gas, cheaper than offshore wind, tidal or nuclear.
Yes its not perfectly reliable at all times, but its the cheapest form of electricity available to us so we should get as much of it as we can as fast as we can.
Ramping up investment in onshore wind would mean we need less gas in the winter and have cheaper energy bills. There's no downside.
Between this and Rishi's reported scepticism about backing Ukraine, he's really beginning to look like Putin's useful idiot in this contest. 😠
And it's quick to deploy. Offshore, by contrast, takes years. We should increasing our efforts there as well, but that wouldn't make much of a difference in the short term.
Exactly. The real objections are purely Nimbyish - some, perhaps many, people in the countryside strongly object, in exactly the same way that they object to electricity pylons. I don't disrespect this view though like Bart I think they're quite attractive, but even if they're seen as ugly, I think we have to ask people to just get over it.
My father-in-law has a few huge cylinders of metal (maybe 30m in length overall?) in his garden that are intended to end up as part of a wind turbine. He's been researching turbine blade shapes, and someone recently paid him to fix the generator part of a turbine that had a catastrophic failure.
He recently told my mother-in-law that he was planning to erect the future turbine in view of the kitchen window. About a couple of metres away. Literally in the back yard. She isn't happy about it. I'd always assumed he'd get his brother to agree to let him put it on the hill in his farm a safe distance of a hundred or so metres away.
So, it is possible for people to want to erect wind turbines a bit too close to houses, even though I agree that they look wonderful at an appropriate distance.
Where is this? And what is the blade diameter?
Good luck if in the UK .
Micro wind has essentially turned out to be a pig-in-a-poke.
I'm not sure that onshore wind is even necessary in the UK. In an empty country, maybe. This is one of the most densely populated countries in Europe.
It's in Ireland. I had a peek at the planning rules and it seems you can build what you like, in wind turbine terms, as long as it's below a maximum height and far enough away from your property boundary so as not to fall across it if it tips over. I don't know what the planned dimensions are, but it's likely to be big enough to be worthwhile.
From the bits he has already it will be quite a bit larger than the 7.5kW turbines you can buy commercially.
Looks like at least half a dozen groups of soap-dodgers on the M25.
What a good idea! They have glued themselves onto the tarmac? Great! Lets do a UK version of the Japanese Endurance gameshow, with them as the contestants. Lets just get on with spraying them with all kinds of exciting things until they have enough.
Silly idea
Look, the want to glue themselves to the road. Fine. Let’s help them.
There are some glues that will really, really hold. No matter what. Just add those, then leave.
I see Sunak has come out against onshore wind. We really aren't going anywhere with this campaign, are we? A dearth of ideas.
Clearly he hasn't seen this poll - most people seem to like / accept on-shore Wind Turbines
"Near" is doing a lot of heavy lifting there. Within 1 mile is a hell no from me, within 10 miles is a of course that's fine. Are both of those 'near'?
Boris's final PMQs is quite disappointing. No heartfelt tributes to the departing Prime Minister; no great wit on either side, although credit to Ed Davey for trying; not even pertinent questions on the issues of the day.
Its not just clean and attractive, its cheaper than coal, cheaper than gas, cheaper than offshore wind, tidal or nuclear.
Yes its not perfectly reliable at all times, but its the cheapest form of electricity available to us so we should get as much of it as we can as fast as we can.
Ramping up investment in onshore wind would mean we need less gas in the winter and have cheaper energy bills. There's no downside.
Between this and Rishi's reported scepticism about backing Ukraine, he's really beginning to look like Putin's useful idiot in this contest. 😠
And it's quick to deploy. Offshore, by contrast, takes years. We should increasing our efforts there as well, but that wouldn't make much of a difference in the short term.
Exactly. The real objections are purely Nimbyish - some, perhaps many, people in the countryside strongly object, in exactly the same way that they object to electricity pylons. I don't disrespect this view though like Bart I think they're quite attractive, but even if they're seen as ugly, I think we have to ask people to just get over it.
My father-in-law has a few huge cylinders of metal (maybe 30m in length overall?) in his garden that are intended to end up as part of a wind turbine. He's been researching turbine blade shapes, and someone recently paid him to fix the generator part of a turbine that had a catastrophic failure.
He recently told my mother-in-law that he was planning to erect the future turbine in view of the kitchen window. About a couple of metres away. Literally in the back yard. She isn't happy about it. I'd always assumed he'd get his brother to agree to let him put it on the hill in his farm a safe distance of a hundred or so metres away.
So, it is possible for people to want to erect wind turbines a bit too close to houses, even though I agree that they look wonderful at an appropriate distance.
Where is this? And what is the blade diameter?
Good luck if in the UK .
Micro wind has essentially turned out to be a pig-in-a-poke.
I'm not sure that onshore wind is even necessary in the UK. In an empty country, maybe. This is one of the most densely populated countries in Europe.
Indeed. The renewable energy firm I worked at in my previous career didn’t even bother with micro-wind because of the challenges.
Onshore winds next to motorways, railway lines etc... would make a lot of sense as there is already disruption to nature anyway. Can't see why anyone would oppose that either.
Agree - especially something like the A9 corridor which already has pylons running through it (despite being in a national park)
Oh for a proper large scale programme of burying high voltage campaigns under the countryside rather than on top of it.
It massively increases installation costs and maintenance as well as also increasing transmission loss.
Not see @Yokes or @Dura_Ace around for a while. I’d like to know what we’re all missing on the Russia-Ukraine front.
Isn't @Dura_Ace teaching a course in Cairo or somewhere similar?
The Times reporting today that military personnel are to be banned from using prostitutes whilst abroad… surely @Dura_Ace will return briefly to inform us about the likelihood of such a ban being effective
Coincidentally I was last night rereading Robert Mason's Chickenhawk (life of a Huey helicopter pilot in Nam), which has a very apposite incident. Pp. 195-6 refers. (NSFW)
Prevent moronic planning people rejecting phone masts and wind turbines.
Abolish the planning system would fix most of our problems as a society.
We'd get houses, phone masts and turbines all built.
"Planning" should belong to communist societies, not free ones.
You are a flip-flop-troll. You post some very good points like your one about onshore wind, and then come up with this rubbish, motivated by taking your liberal politicals and pushing them to the idealo extreme.
You are intelligent enough to realise that no "Planning" rules means things like a Trump golf course next to Buckingham Palace, a Tesla factory opened next door to you and a Shale Gas plant developed in your favourite beauty spot. "Planning" is not just for "communist societies". This blind idealism is something you are quick to criticise in those on the hard left, but don't accept it in your own posts.
Your quotes about the extreme weather in Britain over the last 2 days was also nothing more than trolling. It's great that you weren't suffereing and could enjoy the weather, but you are not so dumb to realise that this is a symptom of a much much wider and serious problem.
No trolling. It doesn't require planning permission to ensure that you don't get Shale Gas plants built in AONB, you can achieve that with zonal systems which don't require our current Byzantine planning permission system.
I've not advocated a total and utter free for all, but abolishing the requirement for planning consent instead. Zoning combined with pre-existing minimum standards should exist whereby any building built within the appropriate zone, to the appropriate standards, gets permission automatically - no planning consent required.
If someone wants to build something to the appropriate standards, in the appropriate zone, on their own land, then that should not require permission.
I never said climate change isn't a problem, I've always advocated solving climate issues by investing in clean technologies. Good weather OTOH isn't a problem.
I see Sunak has come out against onshore wind. We really aren't going anywhere with this campaign, are we? A dearth of ideas.
Clearly he hasn't seen this poll - most people seem to like / accept on-shore Wind Turbines
"Near" is doing a lot of heavy lifting there. Within 1 mile is a hell no from me, within 10 miles is a of course that's fine. Are both of those 'near'?
What's wrong with within 1 mile? I have multiple turbines within 1 mile of where I live. They're no more objectionable than power pylons, which I also have near where I live.
I see Sunak has come out against onshore wind. We really aren't going anywhere with this campaign, are we? A dearth of ideas.
Clearly he hasn't seen this poll - most people seem to like / accept on-shore Wind Turbines
"Near" is doing a lot of heavy lifting there. Within 1 mile is a hell no from me, within 10 miles is a of course that's fine. Are both of those 'near'?
What's wrong with within 1 mile? I have multiple turbines within 1 mile of where I live. They're no more objectionable than power pylons, which I also have near where I live.
Depending on their siting relative to you and their size there would be potential noise and light flicker issues.
Both of those have a rapid drop off as distance increases
Onshore winds next to motorways, railway lines etc... would make a lot of sense as there is already disruption to nature anyway. Can't see why anyone would oppose that either.
Agree - especially something like the A9 corridor which already has pylons running through it (despite being in a national park)
Oh for a proper large scale programme of burying high voltage campaigns under the countryside rather than on top of it.
They are doing just that in my neck of the woods an AONB. It would be a shame to go to all that trouble just to stick wind turbines up.
Its not just clean and attractive, its cheaper than coal, cheaper than gas, cheaper than offshore wind, tidal or nuclear.
Yes its not perfectly reliable at all times, but its the cheapest form of electricity available to us so we should get as much of it as we can as fast as we can.
Ramping up investment in onshore wind would mean we need less gas in the winter and have cheaper energy bills. There's no downside.
Between this and Rishi's reported scepticism about backing Ukraine, he's really beginning to look like Putin's useful idiot in this contest. 😠
And it's quick to deploy. Offshore, by contrast, takes years. We should increasing our efforts there as well, but that wouldn't make much of a difference in the short term.
Exactly. The real objections are purely Nimbyish - some, perhaps many, people in the countryside strongly object, in exactly the same way that they object to electricity pylons. I don't disrespect this view though like Bart I think they're quite attractive, but even if they're seen as ugly, I think we have to ask people to just get over it.
My father-in-law has a few huge cylinders of metal (maybe 30m in length overall?) in his garden that are intended to end up as part of a wind turbine. He's been researching turbine blade shapes, and someone recently paid him to fix the generator part of a turbine that had a catastrophic failure.
He recently told my mother-in-law that he was planning to erect the future turbine in view of the kitchen window. About a couple of metres away. Literally in the back yard. She isn't happy about it. I'd always assumed he'd get his brother to agree to let him put it on the hill in his farm a safe distance of a hundred or so metres away.
So, it is possible for people to want to erect wind turbines a bit too close to houses, even though I agree that they look wonderful at an appropriate distance.
Where is this? And what is the blade diameter?
Good luck if in the UK .
Micro wind has essentially turned out to be a pig-in-a-poke.
I'm not sure that onshore wind is even necessary in the UK. In an empty country, maybe. This is one of the most densely populated countries in Europe.
Indeed. The renewable energy firm I worked at in my previous career didn’t even bother with micro-wind because of the challenges.
There is also the amusing practical requirement that whatever you build be able to fall full length, and still be within your boundary - which applies to Permitted Development microturbines. Not sure about PP ones.
For a 30m pole plus perhaps 10m of windmill sail that is an area of 81mx81m if it is in the middle, which is roughly 1.25 acres - assuming a circular garden.
Its not just clean and attractive, its cheaper than coal, cheaper than gas, cheaper than offshore wind, tidal or nuclear.
Yes its not perfectly reliable at all times, but its the cheapest form of electricity available to us so we should get as much of it as we can as fast as we can.
Ramping up investment in onshore wind would mean we need less gas in the winter and have cheaper energy bills. There's no downside.
Between this and Rishi's reported scepticism about backing Ukraine, he's really beginning to look like Putin's useful idiot in this contest. 😠
We really need investment in schemes to push water up hills whilst it's windy, and generate power from it rolling down when it's not. Such schemes have been greenlit, but they have not generated the required investment apparently - the article that a PBer linked to did not pin down why that is, but I don't know if there's a strike price for power generated this way. Somehow it would have to be taken off the strike price for excess wind power generation, otherwise we would pay twice for the same power.
Comments
Offshore, by contrast, takes years. We should increasing our efforts there as well, but that wouldn't make much of a difference in the short term.
Which is a good idea in principle. However it leaves an awful lot of power in the hands of the state. Before covid I was in favour of this approach. Since covid, I really don't want to give an agency of the state the power to know where I have been, nor do I want to give it any further levers to nudge my behaviour.
Broad 'zones' that categorise what type of structures are permitted where, but with no specific planning permission needed that bogs down projects in red tape. Want to build residential housing? Simply but land in a suitable zone. Wind farms? Likewise. It would give everyone far more confidence in buying land for development.
The zones would need to be more liberal than present of course where too much is protected.
Just Stop Oil protestors BLOCK the M25 in both directions near Heathrow and promise to disrupt the motorway ALL WEEK
Police currently attending...I presume taking tea and coffee orders as usual.
https://electrical-engineering-portal.com/download-center/books-and-guides/electricity-generation-t-d/undergrounding-hv-lines
Strangely similar results for all candidates:
Sunak reduces LD by 1pt from their best share (Lab lead 12)
Mordaunt reduces LD, Lab, Refuk by 1pt (Lab lead 9)
Truss reduces Refuk by 1pt (Lab lead 12)
I do expect a bigger new leader honeymoon than that for any result, but not hugely so.
These idiots are going way beyond the right to protest their cause.
Oh, right.
It's a bit complicated - we have regulation which limit the size, and therefore efficiency, of onshore wind turbines; ongoing maintenance is easier onshore etc - but it's more or less a wash.
By far the quickest and probably cheapest way to increase capacity would be to lift the legislative constraints on onshore turbine size.
Would upset a few people. though.
https://youtube.com/watch?v=XWZ0n93gAe4
If the "eyesore" argument is going to be used then you need to exclude all offshore wind near to the shore.
https://twitter.com/DimSel007/status/1549447330188910594
https://twitter.com/Mike_Eckel/status/1549686012334555137
1) All the capacity you could ever want offshore
2) Fish don’t vote
3) wind flow is simpler and better offshore (generally)
4) Installation. Offshore, 100m blades weighing x tons are a trivial matter of the right size of barge and floating crane. Onshore the same ranges from impossible to building a huge road (see above)
5) Residual environmental impact - offshore you have the turbine mount and the cables. Marine life will be back rapidly. Onshore you have churned up the ground, takes a long time to fix.
7) replacement/maintenance - onshore the churn continues. Offshore, a crane/barge rocks up and leaves little (maybe some anchor scars on the sea bed, if they are issuing totally dynamic positioning)
8) max size - bigger is generally more efficient. Onshore will max out due to installation.
9) a small number of people really hate the low frequency noise from turbines. Bit like transformer whine, they can’t adapt to it. Why shit on them if we don’t have to?
In the battle between genetically engineered piscine perfection and some self-righteous climate zealot, there is only one winner. And it isn't the sandal-wearing ecoloon.
He recently told my mother-in-law that he was planning to erect the future turbine in view of the kitchen window. About a couple of metres away. Literally in the back yard. She isn't happy about it. I'd always assumed he'd get his brother to agree to let him put it on the hill in his farm a safe distance of a hundred or so metres away.
So, it is possible for people to want to erect wind turbines a bit too close to houses, even though I agree that they look wonderful at an appropriate distance.
Why shouldn't they act on a single complaint if an ad is breaking rules?
However: a windfarm was built near us eight or so years ago. 8 turbines, providing a total of 16MW. It is on the site of an old airfield (so not exactly unspoilt), and the land underneath is still farmed.
I have zero problem with that sort of windfarm. The people in the nearest village did, though....
I realise some on here might think that there Is no scenery left to save in SE Essex!
It is our media being subjected to private censorship by an industry appointed body.
For the level of interference exercised, imo that is not OK. Too many poor decisions are made.
Was her account hacked?
Useful perspective but no more complex than that.
Good luck if in the UK
Micro wind has essentially turned out to be a pig-in-a-poke.
I'm not sure that onshore wind is even necessary in the UK. In an empty country, maybe. This is one of the most densely populated countries in Europe.
(Yes some of that was around algorithm issues)
They make me want to burn coal in their faces.
This wankitude just fucks people off.
Fair notice is fair warning
I'd be interested in what else is on your list for comparison. Ofsted?
Keir - you can't do humour. Stop trying.
https://youtu.be/jQts7E1FvrE?t=22
You are intelligent enough to realise that no "Planning" rules means things like a Trump golf course next to Buckingham Palace, a Tesla factory opened next door to you and a Shale Gas plant developed in your favourite beauty spot. "Planning" is not just for "communist societies".
This blind idealism is something you are quick to criticise in those on the hard left, but don't accept it in your own posts.
Your quotes about the extreme weather in Britain over the last 2 days was also nothing more than trolling. It's great that you weren't suffereing and could enjoy the weather, but you are not so dumb to realise that this is a symptom of a much much wider and serious problem.
The 'protest' will make news for the attempt, so being dragged away immediately works for everyone.
From the bits he has already it will be quite a bit larger than the 7.5kW turbines you can buy commercially.
Look, the want to glue themselves to the road. Fine. Let’s help them.
There are some glues that will really, really hold. No matter what. Just add those, then leave.
Ok the road will be closed for a bit….
"Jim Pickard
@PickardJE
for some reason Penny Mordaunt has deleted the tweet about her rivals wanting to murder the Tory party"
https://twitter.com/PickardJE/status/1549678682352062464
I've not advocated a total and utter free for all, but abolishing the requirement for planning consent instead. Zoning combined with pre-existing minimum standards should exist whereby any building built within the appropriate zone, to the appropriate standards, gets permission automatically - no planning consent required.
If someone wants to build something to the appropriate standards, in the appropriate zone, on their own land, then that should not require permission.
I never said climate change isn't a problem, I've always advocated solving climate issues by investing in clean technologies. Good weather OTOH isn't a problem.
Both of those have a rapid drop off as distance increases
It would be a shame to go to all that trouble just to stick wind turbines up.
For a 30m pole plus perhaps 10m of windmill sail that is an area of 81mx81m if it is in the middle, which is roughly 1.25 acres - assuming a circular garden.