Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

The most loopy idea yet from Team Truss? – politicalbetting.com

SystemSystem Posts: 8,489
edited October 20 in General
The most loopy idea yet from Team Truss? – politicalbetting.com

This looks crazy at a time when renewables should be encouraged. https://t.co/UzPK80dwwx

Read the full story here

«1345678

Comments

  • pigeonpigeon Posts: 3,157
    edited October 10
    First...

    ...to point out that solar is a perfectly good use for farmers to make of low grade agricultural land 😊
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 72,757
    And last and always
  • kyf_100kyf_100 Posts: 3,300
    So the government are prioritizing food security over energy security.

    I suppose the point is you can build a nuclear plant or a wind farm and it doesn't take up any agricultural space, but turning our farmland into energy generating land isn't necessarily the best use of it if we believe imported food supplies may be disrupted.
  • TheWhiteRabbitTheWhiteRabbit Posts: 12,321
    If there ever were an "antigrowth coalition" proposal, you're looking at it.

    Completely backwards from the government's professed agenda.
  • 148grss148grss Posts: 1,448
    I mentioned this in the previous thread - but it isn't necessarily a zero sum when choosing to use agricultural land for food or solar farming - you can do both:

    https://www.wired.com/story/growing-crops-under-solar-panels-now-theres-a-bright-idea/
  • 148grss148grss Posts: 1,448
    kyf_100 said:

    So the government are prioritizing food security over energy security.

    I suppose the point is you can build a nuclear plant or a wind farm and it doesn't take up any agricultural space, but turning our farmland into energy generating land isn't necessarily the best use of it if we believe imported food supplies may be disrupted.

    With solar you can still grow food under the panels
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 28,226
    Herdson on the money...

    I'm taken with this framework for referencing Truss's decisions, that's she's simply scaling up local opinion from SW Norfolk.
    https://twitter.com/DavidHerdson/status/1579454418420137985
    https://twitter.com/JackPCarrington/status/1579440171862626313
  • IcarusIcarus Posts: 766
    Why don't they make it condition of building a warehouse that their roofs are strong enough to take solar panels - We are surrounded by warehouses at Magna Park Lutterworth and DiRFT (Junction 18 of M1) - none that I can see have solar panels on their massive roofs.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 28,869
    This is the only idea of theirs that I've instantly thought: Yes, good

    There is something ugly about farmland being used in this way. Literally and morally
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 10,645
    148grss said:

    I mentioned this in the previous thread - but it isn't necessarily a zero sum when choosing to use agricultural land for food or solar farming - you can do both:

    https://www.wired.com/story/growing-crops-under-solar-panels-now-theres-a-bright-idea/

    Weird - I was mocked by one poster when I asked if the fields with solar arrays could also sustain other production.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 72,757
    On topic: No idea why this is being discouraged when we're gas limited.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 48,176
    What's astonishing is that I've read Truss/Kwasi expected the pound to go *UP* after their mini-budget.

    They thought their markets secretly shared their beliefs and would reward them for it.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 105,148
    Might boost the Tories amongst farmers and in rural areas though
  • OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 10,410
    Not very libertarian.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 105,148
    Starmer now more popular amongst Labour voters than any alternative, including Burnham
    https://twitter.com/REWearmouth/status/1579427443084955649?s=20&t=7WmpvhMzjMUYnvUc4SGGwg
  • kyf_100 said:

    So the government are prioritizing food security over energy security.

    I suppose the point is you can build a nuclear plant or a wind farm and it doesn't take up any agricultural space, but turning our farmland into energy generating land isn't necessarily the best use of it if we believe imported food supplies may be disrupted.

    They are not. If farmers could make sufficient income from farming these plots then panels would not be going onto them.

    There is a real threat to farming thanks to the switch-off of CAP subsidies and now the war against Net Zero schemes which they were heavily involved in and the Kersh-like explosion in fertiliser prices.

    Fundamentally they are doing this to signal to their old giffers that they are backing whatever it is that makes them angry this week.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 72,757
    edited October 10
    Icarus said:

    Why don't they make it condition of building a warehouse that their roofs are strong enough to take solar panels - We are surrounded by warehouses at Magna Park Lutterworth and DiRFT (Junction 18 of M1) - none that I can see have solar panels on their massive roofs.

    You'd have thought new warehouses would want to do it in the current economic climate. The only explanation is that building codes don't specifiy particularly strong rooves for warehouses.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 104,585
    edited October 10

    What's astonishing is that I've read Truss/Kwasi expected the pound to go *UP* after their mini-budget.

    They thought their markets secretly shared their beliefs and would reward them for it.

    Well it went up when Osborne cut the rate from 50p to 45p.

    Obviously they missed out his years of hard work reassuring the markets.

    This government maybe more lazy than Boris Johnson.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 54,855
    Leon said:

    This is the only idea of theirs that I've instantly thought: Yes, good

    There is something ugly about farmland being used in this way. Literally and morally

    Why is it worse than using it for building houses?

    After all, it's less damaging to the land and considerably more easily reversed.

    Moreover, they look prettier than most modern housing developments.
  • 148grss148grss Posts: 1,448
    HYUFD said:

    Might boost the Tories amongst farmers and in rural areas though

    Why, farmers want to make money like everyone else, and actually growing and selling crops is increasingly hard. And the gov want to get rid of the bursaries for rewilding your less than productive agri land. Like, you can't make soil more productive at the wave of a wand.
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 7,621
    HYUFD said:

    Might boost the Tories amongst farmers and in rural areas though

    Opposite effect with farmers I would think. They would probably rather like to make a bit of cash off unproductive land. Might be popular with walkers though.
  • OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 10,410

    What's astonishing is that I've read Truss/Kwasi expected the pound to go *UP* after their mini-budget.

    They thought their markets secretly shared their beliefs and would reward them for it.

    You'd have thought that during all those champagne events some of the Tory donors might have told Kwarteng that they were shorting the pound.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 54,855
    kyf_100 said:

    So the government are prioritizing food security over energy security.

    I suppose the point is you can build a nuclear plant or a wind farm and it doesn't take up any agricultural space, but turning our farmland into energy generating land isn't necessarily the best use of it if we believe imported food supplies may be disrupted.

    What does it take up then?
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 30,203

    148grss said:

    I mentioned this in the previous thread - but it isn't necessarily a zero sum when choosing to use agricultural land for food or solar farming - you can do both:

    https://www.wired.com/story/growing-crops-under-solar-panels-now-theres-a-bright-idea/

    Weird - I was mocked by one poster when I asked if the fields with solar arrays could also sustain other production.

    Someone posted any actual study of actually grazing sheep in working solar farms, a little while ago.

    The results, IIRC, were that with a minor amount of work to stop the sheep hurting themselves, it was actually beneficial for the solar farms. They got grass cutting in some quite awkward places and the shepards being about provided a bit of monitoring of what was going on day-to-day.

    The sheep liked sheltering under the panels in poor weather, apparently.
  • pingping Posts: 3,201
    edited October 10
    I’m with Truss on this one.

    It doesn’t make sense to cover productive agricultural land with solar panels.

    Bad use of land. And the UK’s latitude isn’t particularly friendly to solar.

    Better to cover a chunk of the Sahara with solar and import the power via HVDC.
  • Stark_DawningStark_Dawning Posts: 8,259
    HYUFD said:

    Might boost the Tories amongst farmers and in rural areas though

    Why would farmers be happy? Liz has presumably just destroyed one of their potential income streams.
  • Leon said:

    Leon said:

    ydoethur said:

    Leon said:

    ydoethur said:

    Leon said:

    This will come as a shock to PB-ers, but I have a very bad feeling about the Ukraine War

    And I believe we need a negotiated peace, because the risk of nuclear war is too great

    But just saying that without suggesting how doesn't get us very far

    Maybe something like this


    In some highly public place, the G7 leaders get together and offer peace terms to Putin along these lines


    1. An immediate ceasefire
    2. Both sides withdraw military to pre-Feb 2022 lines
    3. Sanctions are progressively dropped over the ensuing two years, pipelines reopened (but EU countries can obviously decide if they still want to rely on Russian energy, I doubt they will)
    4. Refugees return to Ukraine
    5. UN organised referendums are held in the four provinces on whether they wish to be part of Ukraine or Russia
    6. Ukraine will join NATO but will agree not to station nukes on Uke soil
    7. The world will recognise Russian possession of Crimea
    8. The G20 will create a fund to rebuild Ukraine AND Russian infrastructure damaged in the war (eg Kerch Bridge)
    9. Aaaand..... everyone relax

    The only small snag is that it seems most unlikely the Ukrainians or the Russians would accept those terms.

    Incidentally, why only four provinces? Russia holds six Ukrainian provinces. Or do the people of Crimea and Sevastopol not get a say?
    Any feasible peace is going to be uncomfortable for Putin AND Ukraine
    A full Russian withdrawal wouldn't be uncomfortable for Ukraine. And that doesn't look as infeasible as it did in February when almost everyone, including me, thought the Ukrainians would be lucky to last a week.

    Any plausible peace plan is certainly going to be uncomfortable for Russia, as they can't have not only what they want, which is all Ukraine, but even what they claimed, which is the six provinces. But they've only got themselves to blame for that. Leaving aside the minor detail that nobody forced them to invade Ukraine, to quote Blackadder, a war hasn't been fought this badly since Olaf the Hairy, High King of all the Vikings, accidentally ordered 80,000 battle helmets with the horns on the inside.
    Constructing a potential peace deal is really hard

    The idea is to give Putin a victory that he can just about sell, while leaving him seriously diminished and sobered

    The victory for him here is worldwide recognition that Crimea is Russian. He will like that. It cements in place his biggest achievement. Everything else is defeat for him (the provinces will surely vote to join Ukraine)

    Plus he gets to survive

    Would the Ukrainians buy it? They get their country rebuilt, they get to join NATO, they basically win (but permanently lose Crimea)

    At least I had a go
    One thing the war has shown is having Kherson and Crimea in different hands is a recipe for conflict, so Crimea should be part of Ukraine for that reason alone.
    But that leaves Putin with nothing he can say is a victory, or even a minor prize. It is total defeat for him, not a peace deal, and it therefore would not work

    This is the art of the possible
    Tough shit

    He started a war and he's lost it. Had he won the war, Kyiv had fallen, and the whole of Ukraine occupied and annexed then what prize minor or otherwise would an exiled Zelensky have got?

    Ukraine needs to regain all of its lost territory, including of course Crimea, and Putin needs to be not just defeated but seen clearly and unambiguously to have been defeated.

    No second chances or coming back from this to have another go.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 28,869
    ydoethur said:

    Leon said:

    This is the only idea of theirs that I've instantly thought: Yes, good

    There is something ugly about farmland being used in this way. Literally and morally

    Why is it worse than using it for building houses?

    After all, it's less damaging to the land and considerably more easily reversed.

    Moreover, they look prettier than most modern housing developments.
    The ugliness of modern UK housing developments is one of the most depressing aspects of a depressing time

    All that sludgy red brick, the poxy cul de sacs with their pathetic driveways, the total inability to develop proper European urbanism: shops bars places squares. And we used to be great at this!

    Let King Charles design everything
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 54,855
    ping said:

    I’m with Truss on this one.

    It doesn’t make sense to cover productive agricultural land with solar panels.

    Bad use of land. And the UK’s latitude isn’t particularly friendly to solar.

    Better would be to cover a chunk of the Sahara and import the power via HVDC.

    I don't like solar farms, because they don't exactly look pleasant. But I think I would only be fully in favour of this scheme if it came with a commitment to put solar panels on every suitable roof by a set date, perhaps 2035, anyway.

    Because that is what we need rather than arbitrary bans.
  • 148grss148grss Posts: 1,448

    148grss said:

    I mentioned this in the previous thread - but it isn't necessarily a zero sum when choosing to use agricultural land for food or solar farming - you can do both:

    https://www.wired.com/story/growing-crops-under-solar-panels-now-theres-a-bright-idea/

    Weird - I was mocked by one poster when I asked if the fields with solar arrays could also sustain other production.

    Someone posted any actual study of actually grazing sheep in working solar farms, a little while ago.

    The results, IIRC, were that with a minor amount of work to stop the sheep hurting themselves, it was actually beneficial for the solar farms. They got grass cutting in some quite awkward places and the shepards being about provided a bit of monitoring of what was going on day-to-day.

    The sheep liked sheltering under the panels in poor weather, apparently.
    It's relatively new, but it's somewhat similar to the idea of vertical farming - solar panels won't be 100% efficient, you can make some that are somewhat transparent and grow stuff under. I'm not sure what the science is regarding livestock:

    https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2022/07/agrivoltaic-farming-solar-energy/
  • AlistairMAlistairM Posts: 1,527
    ydoethur said:

    ping said:

    I’m with Truss on this one.

    It doesn’t make sense to cover productive agricultural land with solar panels.

    Bad use of land. And the UK’s latitude isn’t particularly friendly to solar.

    Better would be to cover a chunk of the Sahara and import the power via HVDC.

    I don't like solar farms, because they don't exactly look pleasant. But I think I would only be fully in favour of this scheme if it came with a commitment to put solar panels on every suitable roof by a set date, perhaps 2035, anyway.

    Because that is what we need rather than arbitrary bans.
    Get all the warehouse rooftops done first.
  • TimSTimS Posts: 2,755
    Icarus said:

    Why don't they make it condition of building a warehouse that their roofs are strong enough to take solar panels - We are surrounded by warehouses at Magna Park Lutterworth and DiRFT (Junction 18 of M1) - none that I can see have solar panels on their massive roofs.

    It's mad that industrial and logistics buildings don't all have solar PV with battery storage on their roofs. For a start it would save the tenants a shed-load of money on energy.

    Is solar another technology that could also be put offshore at large scale in floating arrays? I suppose there's the impact of salt on the panels - maybe that's the limiting factor.
  • If there ever were an "antigrowth coalition" proposal, you're looking at it.

    Completely backwards from the government's professed agenda.

    100% agreed.

    Utter nonsense pandering to the anti growth coalition of NIMBYs. Inexcusable.
  • ydoethur said:

    Leon said:

    This will come as a shock to PB-ers, but I have a very bad feeling about the Ukraine War

    And I believe we need a negotiated peace, because the risk of nuclear war is too great

    But just saying that without suggesting how doesn't get us very far

    Maybe something like this

    In some highly public place, the G7 leaders get together and offer peace terms to Putin along these lines

    1. An immediate ceasefire
    2. Both sides withdraw military to pre-Feb 2022 lines
    3. Sanctions are progressively dropped over the ensuing two years, pipelines reopened (but EU countries can obviously decide if they still want to rely on Russian energy, I doubt they will)
    4. Refugees return to Ukraine
    5. UN organised referendums are held in the four provinces on whether they wish to be part of Ukraine or Russia
    6. Ukraine will join NATO but will agree not to station nukes on Uke soil
    7. The world will recognise Russian possession of Crimea
    8. The G20 will create a fund to rebuild Ukraine AND Russian infrastructure damaged in the war (eg Kerch Bridge)
    9. Aaaand..... everyone relax

    That's essentially what Dynamo proposed, before Elon got wind of it and repeated it.

    We can assume the territories vote to stay in Russia. So as for the nuke-free thing we can even achieve some symmetry: no nukes in Ukraine; no nukes in the Russian territories, except Crimea and Sevastopol. Russia is a Black Sea naval power after all. Crimea doesn't even border Ukraine.

    Best if Ukraine stays out of NATO. Ditto Sweden and Finland.

    The no nukes requirement can be made stronger in both areas: reduce militarisation more than that.

    And on 5 and 7, if the UN is organising referendum reruns then the veto powers at least can recognise sovereignty according to the results. Suggest China as the best principal monitoring power. Bear in mind that a majority of the veto powers are in NATO and have been arming Ukraine.

    You realise the Azov Regiment won't like this? Something has to be done about the Azov Regiment.

    That has got to be the most unconvincing lie since Vladimir Putin said he wasn't a war criminal.

    I agree about the Azov Regiment. How about they and their fellow neo-Nazis in the Wagner regiment are trapped on an uninhabited island together? Any survivors after twelve months to be given amnesty and a new life in Kazakhstan.
    I meant we can assume it for the sake of this discussion. I am in favour of genuinely fair internationally-monitored referendum reruns, where everyone from the territories can vote however they like, without fear of experiencing any kind of hassle for how they've voted. As I understand it, so are the other supporters of Dynamo's plan such as those whose names are anagrams of ELNO.

    Whatever the referendum result in each territory, it may turn out that the borders of the four territories have to be adjusted here and there in order to give residents what they want and to maximise security and minimise the chance of clashes. It will be a fantastic step forward if that is the kind of thing people are arguing about rather than killing each other.
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 17,697
    On topic - I agree with the government.

    It happens sometimes.

    Just look at that photograph in the header. Fecking hideous.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 54,855
    edited October 10
    AlistairM said:

    ydoethur said:

    ping said:

    I’m with Truss on this one.

    It doesn’t make sense to cover productive agricultural land with solar panels.

    Bad use of land. And the UK’s latitude isn’t particularly friendly to solar.

    Better would be to cover a chunk of the Sahara and import the power via HVDC.

    I don't like solar farms, because they don't exactly look pleasant. But I think I would only be fully in favour of this scheme if it came with a commitment to put solar panels on every suitable roof by a set date, perhaps 2035, anyway.

    Because that is what we need rather than arbitrary bans.
    Get all the warehouse rooftops done first.
    There are also plenty of churches with very large, south facing but not particularly architecturally interesting roofs that should be targetted as a priority.

    At the moment it's very hard indeed to put solar panels on churches, which is a real tragedy from every point of view. Leaving aside the energy security benefits it would be an absolute game changer for many of them in terms of revenue and power production.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 28,226
    Excellent by @journoamrogers on the top 5 problems facing Liz Truss as MPs prepare to return to Westminster.

    NB: It is not an exhaustive list.


    https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/what-are-the-problems-facing-liz-truss-as-she-returns-to-westminster_uk_6343e0e5e4b0b7f89f4d9a8c
  • 148grss148grss Posts: 1,448
    ydoethur said:

    ping said:

    I’m with Truss on this one.

    It doesn’t make sense to cover productive agricultural land with solar panels.

    Bad use of land. And the UK’s latitude isn’t particularly friendly to solar.

    Better would be to cover a chunk of the Sahara and import the power via HVDC.

    I don't like solar farms, because they don't exactly look pleasant. But I think I would only be fully in favour of this scheme if it came with a commitment to put solar panels on every suitable roof by a set date, perhaps 2035, anyway.

    Because that is what we need rather than arbitrary bans.
    I find the annual effects of rape seed crops a major annoyance, but that shouldn't be the reason for policy. Aesthetics are important, but that's why we should protect green belt and make current middling farmland have multiple uses - farming and energy production as well as aesthetic.
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 17,697
    Icarus said:

    Why don't they make it condition of building a warehouse that their roofs are strong enough to take solar panels - We are surrounded by warehouses at Magna Park Lutterworth and DiRFT (Junction 18 of M1) - none that I can see have solar panels on their massive roofs.

    Bad enough that they build these monstrous warehouses in the first place. Worse again that the roof space isn't being utilised.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 30,203
    Leon said:

    ydoethur said:

    Leon said:

    This is the only idea of theirs that I've instantly thought: Yes, good

    There is something ugly about farmland being used in this way. Literally and morally

    Why is it worse than using it for building houses?

    After all, it's less damaging to the land and considerably more easily reversed.

    Moreover, they look prettier than most modern housing developments.
    The ugliness of modern UK housing developments is one of the most depressing aspects of a depressing time

    All that sludgy red brick, the poxy cul de sacs with their pathetic driveways, the total inability to develop proper European urbanism: shops bars places squares. And we used to be great at this!

    Let King Charles design everything
    Poundbry is not very good. But it is better than many “expert” designs.

    Congratulations to British town planners - more shit at their job than a bloke with no training.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 28,869

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    ydoethur said:

    Leon said:

    ydoethur said:

    Leon said:

    This will come as a shock to PB-ers, but I have a very bad feeling about the Ukraine War

    And I believe we need a negotiated peace, because the risk of nuclear war is too great

    But just saying that without suggesting how doesn't get us very far

    Maybe something like this


    In some highly public place, the G7 leaders get together and offer peace terms to Putin along these lines


    1. An immediate ceasefire
    2. Both sides withdraw military to pre-Feb 2022 lines
    3. Sanctions are progressively dropped over the ensuing two years, pipelines reopened (but EU countries can obviously decide if they still want to rely on Russian energy, I doubt they will)
    4. Refugees return to Ukraine
    5. UN organised referendums are held in the four provinces on whether they wish to be part of Ukraine or Russia
    6. Ukraine will join NATO but will agree not to station nukes on Uke soil
    7. The world will recognise Russian possession of Crimea
    8. The G20 will create a fund to rebuild Ukraine AND Russian infrastructure damaged in the war (eg Kerch Bridge)
    9. Aaaand..... everyone relax

    The only small snag is that it seems most unlikely the Ukrainians or the Russians would accept those terms.

    Incidentally, why only four provinces? Russia holds six Ukrainian provinces. Or do the people of Crimea and Sevastopol not get a say?
    Any feasible peace is going to be uncomfortable for Putin AND Ukraine
    A full Russian withdrawal wouldn't be uncomfortable for Ukraine. And that doesn't look as infeasible as it did in February when almost everyone, including me, thought the Ukrainians would be lucky to last a week.

    Any plausible peace plan is certainly going to be uncomfortable for Russia, as they can't have not only what they want, which is all Ukraine, but even what they claimed, which is the six provinces. But they've only got themselves to blame for that. Leaving aside the minor detail that nobody forced them to invade Ukraine, to quote Blackadder, a war hasn't been fought this badly since Olaf the Hairy, High King of all the Vikings, accidentally ordered 80,000 battle helmets with the horns on the inside.
    Constructing a potential peace deal is really hard

    The idea is to give Putin a victory that he can just about sell, while leaving him seriously diminished and sobered

    The victory for him here is worldwide recognition that Crimea is Russian. He will like that. It cements in place his biggest achievement. Everything else is defeat for him (the provinces will surely vote to join Ukraine)

    Plus he gets to survive

    Would the Ukrainians buy it? They get their country rebuilt, they get to join NATO, they basically win (but permanently lose Crimea)

    At least I had a go
    One thing the war has shown is having Kherson and Crimea in different hands is a recipe for conflict, so Crimea should be part of Ukraine for that reason alone.
    But that leaves Putin with nothing he can say is a victory, or even a minor prize. It is total defeat for him, not a peace deal, and it therefore would not work

    This is the art of the possible
    Tough shit

    He started a war and he's lost it. Had he won the war, Kyiv had fallen, and the whole of Ukraine occupied and annexed then what prize minor or otherwise would an exiled Zelensky have got?

    Ukraine needs to regain all of its lost territory, including of course Crimea, and Putin needs to be not just defeated but seen clearly and unambiguously to have been defeated.

    No second chances or coming back from this to have another go.
    Ah well. At least I had a bash at a peace deal, and you never know, Vlad might be reading

    I shall go back to reading about nuclear war, which is less depressing than the average British townscape
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 17,697
    Pulpstar said:

    On topic: No idea why this is being discouraged when we're gas limited.

    Well for one thing it will have no impact on the demand for gas on cold January evenings when the sun doesn't shine.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 54,855

    ydoethur said:

    Leon said:

    This will come as a shock to PB-ers, but I have a very bad feeling about the Ukraine War

    And I believe we need a negotiated peace, because the risk of nuclear war is too great

    But just saying that without suggesting how doesn't get us very far

    Maybe something like this

    In some highly public place, the G7 leaders get together and offer peace terms to Putin along these lines

    1. An immediate ceasefire
    2. Both sides withdraw military to pre-Feb 2022 lines
    3. Sanctions are progressively dropped over the ensuing two years, pipelines reopened (but EU countries can obviously decide if they still want to rely on Russian energy, I doubt they will)
    4. Refugees return to Ukraine
    5. UN organised referendums are held in the four provinces on whether they wish to be part of Ukraine or Russia
    6. Ukraine will join NATO but will agree not to station nukes on Uke soil
    7. The world will recognise Russian possession of Crimea
    8. The G20 will create a fund to rebuild Ukraine AND Russian infrastructure damaged in the war (eg Kerch Bridge)
    9. Aaaand..... everyone relax

    That's essentially what Dynamo proposed, before Elon got wind of it and repeated it.

    We can assume the territories vote to stay in Russia. So as for the nuke-free thing we can even achieve some symmetry: no nukes in Ukraine; no nukes in the Russian territories, except Crimea and Sevastopol. Russia is a Black Sea naval power after all. Crimea doesn't even border Ukraine.

    Best if Ukraine stays out of NATO. Ditto Sweden and Finland.

    The no nukes requirement can be made stronger in both areas: reduce militarisation more than that.

    And on 5 and 7, if the UN is organising referendum reruns then the veto powers at least can recognise sovereignty according to the results. Suggest China as the best principal monitoring power. Bear in mind that a majority of the veto powers are in NATO and have been arming Ukraine.

    You realise the Azov Regiment won't like this? Something has to be done about the Azov Regiment.

    That has got to be the most unconvincing lie since Vladimir Putin said he wasn't a war criminal.

    I agree about the Azov Regiment. How about they and their fellow neo-Nazis in the Wagner regiment are trapped on an uninhabited island together? Any survivors after twelve months to be given amnesty and a new life in Kazakhstan.
    I meant we can assume it for the sake of this discussion. I am in favour of genuinely fair internationally-monitored referendum reruns, where everyone from the territories can vote however they like, without fear of experiencing any kind of hassle for how they've voted. As I understand it, so are the other supporters of Dynamo's plan such as those whose names are anagrams of ELNO.

    Whatever the referendum result in each territory, it may turn out that the borders of the four territories have to be adjusted here and there in order to give residents what they want and to maximise security and minimise the chance of clashes. It will be a fantastic step forward if that is the kind of thing people are arguing about rather than killing each other.
    No we can't. Because it would not happen. Let's make assumptions based on realism not on the fantasies of Nazis like Vladimir Putin or everyone's favourite demented anti-Semite Dynamo.

    There is at least a reasonable - as in, around one in three - chance that a democratic referendum in the Crimea would vote to join with Russia. It's about the same as the odds of Northern Ireland voting to join Ireland, and for much the same reason.

    But any of the others? Forget it. It's about the same chance as Yorkshire voting to join an independent Scotland.
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 17,697
    ydoethur said:

    Leon said:

    This is the only idea of theirs that I've instantly thought: Yes, good

    There is something ugly about farmland being used in this way. Literally and morally

    Why is it worse than using it for building houses?

    After all, it's less damaging to the land and considerably more easily reversed.

    Moreover, they look prettier than most modern housing developments.
    False choice. If the land isn't needed for agriculture that it should be rewilded, not built on.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 28,869

    Leon said:

    ydoethur said:

    Leon said:

    This is the only idea of theirs that I've instantly thought: Yes, good

    There is something ugly about farmland being used in this way. Literally and morally

    Why is it worse than using it for building houses?

    After all, it's less damaging to the land and considerably more easily reversed.

    Moreover, they look prettier than most modern housing developments.
    The ugliness of modern UK housing developments is one of the most depressing aspects of a depressing time

    All that sludgy red brick, the poxy cul de sacs with their pathetic driveways, the total inability to develop proper European urbanism: shops bars places squares. And we used to be great at this!

    Let King Charles design everything
    Poundbry is not very good. But it is better than many “expert” designs.

    Congratulations to British town planners - more shit at their job than a bloke with no training.
    This is a distressingly accurate essay on ugly British urbanism

    https://medium.com/@cailiansavage1/why-are-british-towns-so-ugly-2a1a52adb610
  • HYUFD said:

    Might boost the Tories amongst farmers and in rural areas though

    Banning farmers from doing what they want to do on their land which brings them income on land that otherwise doesn't will boost the Tories?????
  • ChrisChris Posts: 8,882

    HYUFD said:

    Might boost the Tories amongst farmers and in rural areas though

    Banning farmers from doing what they want to do on their land which brings them income on land that otherwise doesn't will boost the Tories?????
    Boost them into the blue yonder, hopefully.

    If there was ever a case for a political party to be euthanased, the Tory Party is it.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 54,855

    ydoethur said:

    Leon said:

    This is the only idea of theirs that I've instantly thought: Yes, good

    There is something ugly about farmland being used in this way. Literally and morally

    Why is it worse than using it for building houses?

    After all, it's less damaging to the land and considerably more easily reversed.

    Moreover, they look prettier than most modern housing developments.
    False choice. If the land isn't needed for agriculture that it should be rewilded, not built on.
    But very often the land is needed for building.

    I think actually the key point we're missing here, which we have covered many times before, is how stupid it is that new housing doesn't have solar panelling as standard.
  • ydoethur said:

    Leon said:

    This is the only idea of theirs that I've instantly thought: Yes, good

    There is something ugly about farmland being used in this way. Literally and morally

    Why is it worse than using it for building houses?

    After all, it's less damaging to the land and considerably more easily reversed.

    Moreover, they look prettier than most modern housing developments.
    False choice. If the land isn't needed for agriculture that it should be rewilded, not built on.
    Why? Why not do something productive with that land?
  • If there ever were an "antigrowth coalition" proposal, you're looking at it.

    Completely backwards from the government's professed agenda.

    100% agreed.

    Utter nonsense pandering to the anti growth coalition of NIMBYs. Inexcusable.
    Its the raging hypocrisy which is most funny.

    They propose a bonfire of red tape for planning applications for housing and fracking
    They propose a burden of red tape to dictate planning decisions on private land

    What do they want? If they are so against red tape why are they proposing red tape? They are in favour of easier planning whilst proposing a dictatorial planning regime?
  • pingping Posts: 3,201
    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    Leon said:

    This is the only idea of theirs that I've instantly thought: Yes, good

    There is something ugly about farmland being used in this way. Literally and morally

    Why is it worse than using it for building houses?

    After all, it's less damaging to the land and considerably more easily reversed.

    Moreover, they look prettier than most modern housing developments.
    False choice. If the land isn't needed for agriculture that it should be rewilded, not built on.
    But very often the land is needed for building.

    I think actually the key point we're missing here, which we have covered many times before, is how stupid it is that new housing doesn't have solar panelling as standard.
    I assume it’s mostly to do with the severe lack of installers.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 72,757
    ydoethur said:

    kyf_100 said:

    So the government are prioritizing food security over energy security.

    I suppose the point is you can build a nuclear plant or a wind farm and it doesn't take up any agricultural space, but turning our farmland into energy generating land isn't necessarily the best use of it if we believe imported food supplies may be disrupted.

    What does it take up then?
    I'm not in favour of this ban, but they (Wind, nuclear) do take up less footprint than solar per MW of capability. The main thing with power is that we've got to be careful not to fight the last war. Gas prices through LNG expansion driven by US/Europe/Asia arbitrage should fall in the coming years.

    Since these farms are taking up potentially valuable agricultural land I'd propose reduction factors on these installations such that if the grid is saturated with renewable energy then payouts per kwh are reduced. Banning them is not correct.
  • ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    Leon said:

    This is the only idea of theirs that I've instantly thought: Yes, good

    There is something ugly about farmland being used in this way. Literally and morally

    Why is it worse than using it for building houses?

    After all, it's less damaging to the land and considerably more easily reversed.

    Moreover, they look prettier than most modern housing developments.
    False choice. If the land isn't needed for agriculture that it should be rewilded, not built on.
    But very often the land is needed for building.

    I think actually the key point we're missing here, which we have covered many times before, is how stupid it is that new housing doesn't have solar panelling as standard.
    There is a very simple rationale:
    Climate change / Net Zero is propagated by the green lobby
    The green lobby are socialists
    Lets ignore them.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 105,148
    edited October 10

    HYUFD said:

    Might boost the Tories amongst farmers and in rural areas though

    Banning farmers from doing what they want to do on their land which brings them income on land that otherwise doesn't will boost the Tories?????
    Even the NFU say solar panels should only be allowed on lower quality agricultural land.

    The proposed ban is for most not all farms

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/02/12/seizing-land-make-way-solar-farms-could-worsen-deep-troubling/
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 32,048

    Leon said:

    ydoethur said:

    Leon said:

    This is the only idea of theirs that I've instantly thought: Yes, good

    There is something ugly about farmland being used in this way. Literally and morally

    Why is it worse than using it for building houses?

    After all, it's less damaging to the land and considerably more easily reversed.

    Moreover, they look prettier than most modern housing developments.
    The ugliness of modern UK housing developments is one of the most depressing aspects of a depressing time

    All that sludgy red brick, the poxy cul de sacs with their pathetic driveways, the total inability to develop proper European urbanism: shops bars places squares. And we used to be great at this!

    Let King Charles design everything
    Poundbry is not very good. But it is better than many “expert” designs.

    Congratulations to British town planners - more shit at their job than a bloke with no training.
    I know little about Poundbury (drove past when I think is a new part being built over the summer, but have never visited). From pictures it seems a little whimsical and a mish-mash architecturally (as is my own village), but the important question is:

    Does it work as a settlement? Is it a good, livable community?
  • SeaShantyIrish2SeaShantyIrish2 Posts: 10,453

    148grss said:

    I mentioned this in the previous thread - but it isn't necessarily a zero sum when choosing to use agricultural land for food or solar farming - you can do both:

    https://www.wired.com/story/growing-crops-under-solar-panels-now-theres-a-bright-idea/

    Weird - I was mocked by one poster when I asked if the fields with solar arrays could also sustain other production.

    Someone posted any actual study of actually grazing sheep in working solar farms, a little while ago.

    The results, IIRC, were that with a minor amount of work to stop the sheep hurting themselves, it was actually beneficial for the solar farms. They got grass cutting in some quite awkward places and the shepards being about provided a bit of monitoring of what was going on day-to-day.

    The sheep liked sheltering under the panels in poor weather, apparently.
    Woke sheep!
  • 148grss148grss Posts: 1,448

    ydoethur said:

    Leon said:

    This is the only idea of theirs that I've instantly thought: Yes, good

    There is something ugly about farmland being used in this way. Literally and morally

    Why is it worse than using it for building houses?

    After all, it's less damaging to the land and considerably more easily reversed.

    Moreover, they look prettier than most modern housing developments.
    False choice. If the land isn't needed for agriculture that it should be rewilded, not built on.
    Why? Why not do something productive with that land?
    Rewilding is productive - not just environmentally, but could potentially be economic. Nature tourism is something that people do.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 28,869

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    ydoethur said:

    Leon said:

    ydoethur said:

    Leon said:

    This will come as a shock to PB-ers, but I have a very bad feeling about the Ukraine War

    And I believe we need a negotiated peace, because the risk of nuclear war is too great

    But just saying that without suggesting how doesn't get us very far

    Maybe something like this


    In some highly public place, the G7 leaders get together and offer peace terms to Putin along these lines


    1. An immediate ceasefire
    2. Both sides withdraw military to pre-Feb 2022 lines
    3. Sanctions are progressively dropped over the ensuing two years, pipelines reopened (but EU countries can obviously decide if they still want to rely on Russian energy, I doubt they will)
    4. Refugees return to Ukraine
    5. UN organised referendums are held in the four provinces on whether they wish to be part of Ukraine or Russia
    6. Ukraine will join NATO but will agree not to station nukes on Uke soil
    7. The world will recognise Russian possession of Crimea
    8. The G20 will create a fund to rebuild Ukraine AND Russian infrastructure damaged in the war (eg Kerch Bridge)
    9. Aaaand..... everyone relax

    The only small snag is that it seems most unlikely the Ukrainians or the Russians would accept those terms.

    Incidentally, why only four provinces? Russia holds six Ukrainian provinces. Or do the people of Crimea and Sevastopol not get a say?
    Any feasible peace is going to be uncomfortable for Putin AND Ukraine
    A full Russian withdrawal wouldn't be uncomfortable for Ukraine. And that doesn't look as infeasible as it did in February when almost everyone, including me, thought the Ukrainians would be lucky to last a week.

    Any plausible peace plan is certainly going to be uncomfortable for Russia, as they can't have not only what they want, which is all Ukraine, but even what they claimed, which is the six provinces. But they've only got themselves to blame for that. Leaving aside the minor detail that nobody forced them to invade Ukraine, to quote Blackadder, a war hasn't been fought this badly since Olaf the Hairy, High King of all the Vikings, accidentally ordered 80,000 battle helmets with the horns on the inside.
    Constructing a potential peace deal is really hard

    The idea is to give Putin a victory that he can just about sell, while leaving him seriously diminished and sobered

    The victory for him here is worldwide recognition that Crimea is Russian. He will like that. It cements in place his biggest achievement. Everything else is defeat for him (the provinces will surely vote to join Ukraine)

    Plus he gets to survive

    Would the Ukrainians buy it? They get their country rebuilt, they get to join NATO, they basically win (but permanently lose Crimea)

    At least I had a go
    One thing the war has shown is having Kherson and Crimea in different hands is a recipe for conflict, so Crimea should be part of Ukraine for that reason alone.
    But that leaves Putin with nothing he can say is a victory, or even a minor prize. It is total defeat for him, not a peace deal, and it therefore would not work

    This is the art of the possible
    Tough shit

    He started a war and he's lost it. Had he won the war, Kyiv had fallen, and the whole of Ukraine occupied and annexed then what prize minor or otherwise would an exiled Zelensky have got?

    Ukraine needs to regain all of its lost territory, including of course Crimea, and Putin needs to be not just defeated but seen clearly and unambiguously to have been defeated.

    No second chances or coming back from this to have another go.
    Ah well. At least I had a bash at a peace deal, and you never know, Vlad might be reading

    I shall go back to reading about nuclear war, which is less depressing than the average British townscape
    I'll have a go at bashing a peace deal.

    1. Russia withdraws from Ukraine.
    2. Russia pays reparations to Ukraine.
    3. Russia acknowledges Ukraine's independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity.
    4. War ends.
    5. Russia attempts to reenter the human race.
    Yes, well done, brave lad
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 54,855
    Pulpstar said:

    ydoethur said:

    kyf_100 said:

    So the government are prioritizing food security over energy security.

    I suppose the point is you can build a nuclear plant or a wind farm and it doesn't take up any agricultural space, but turning our farmland into energy generating land isn't necessarily the best use of it if we believe imported food supplies may be disrupted.

    What does it take up then?
    I'm not in favour of this ban, but they (Wind, nuclear) do take up less footprint than solar per MW of capability. The main thing with power is that we've got to be careful not to fight the last war. Gas prices through LNG expansion driven by US/Europe/Asia arbitrage should fall in the coming years.

    Since these farms are taking up potentially valuable agricultural land I'd propose reduction factors on these installations such that if the grid is saturated with renewable energy then payouts per kwh are reduced. Banning them is not correct.
    Yes, but in that case they can be reversed. The infrastructure you need to put in place is light compared to housing or wind farms (and don't get me started on nuclear) and can be taken out again without much trouble.

    I'm not in favour of them as a thing, but at the moment nobody is putting forward a compelling case for a ban. Do people have one? Let's hear it then.
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 13,926
    Judging by reactions on here, many don't seem to thinking banning solar panels on potential farmland is loopy at all.

    I wouldn't want to imply any of my commentating colleagues on here are loopy, of course.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 45,286
    edited October 10
    Leon said:

    This is the only idea of theirs that I've instantly thought: Yes, good

    There is something ugly about farmland being used in this way. Literally and morally

    Because national planning should be determined by reference to your peculiar (literally and morally) aesthetics ?

    Is this Leon's most loopy idea yet ?
    (Probably not.)
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 28,226
    As have been saying for last couple of weeks, BoE intervention was a breath, a pause, not necessarily an end to the story. Friday 14th and days around it crucial. Truss govt’s fate remains linked to the markets. https://twitter.com/benchu_/status/1579441473363521536
  • numbertwelvenumbertwelve Posts: 4,121
    I’m doubtful a final peace deal can be done in Ukraine. The interests of the two parties are too opposed right now.

    What is more likely is an uneasy ceasefire leaving the territories in question either side of a line of control with periodic skirmishes and provocations, similar to India/Pakistan.
  • Pulpstar said:

    ydoethur said:

    kyf_100 said:

    So the government are prioritizing food security over energy security.

    I suppose the point is you can build a nuclear plant or a wind farm and it doesn't take up any agricultural space, but turning our farmland into energy generating land isn't necessarily the best use of it if we believe imported food supplies may be disrupted.

    What does it take up then?
    I'm not in favour of this ban, but they (Wind, nuclear) do take up less footprint than solar per MW of capability. The main thing with power is that we've got to be careful not to fight the last war. Gas prices through LNG expansion driven by US/Europe/Asia arbitrage should fall in the coming years.

    Since these farms are taking up potentially valuable agricultural land I'd propose reduction factors on these installations such that if the grid is saturated with renewable energy then payouts per kwh are reduced. Banning them is not correct.
    What we really need to focus on is making farming viable. Again, if "prime arable land" is profitable then farmers are not removing that land and covering it over with solar panels.

    On paper the government are all in favour of British food. And yet do more damage than good with the industry. Whilst this has been a long-standing trend, the current lot have ideological zealotry making "decisions" rather than facts or consultation or understanding.

    And HY thinks farmers and rural communities will support a ban on farmers finding ways to stay in business in the face of fertiliser / seed costs soaring and the new crap subsidy regime and the meddling over net zero targets brought in and now being removed etc etc
  • Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    ydoethur said:

    Leon said:

    ydoethur said:

    Leon said:

    This will come as a shock to PB-ers, but I have a very bad feeling about the Ukraine War

    And I believe we need a negotiated peace, because the risk of nuclear war is too great

    But just saying that without suggesting how doesn't get us very far

    Maybe something like this


    In some highly public place, the G7 leaders get together and offer peace terms to Putin along these lines


    1. An immediate ceasefire
    2. Both sides withdraw military to pre-Feb 2022 lines
    3. Sanctions are progressively dropped over the ensuing two years, pipelines reopened (but EU countries can obviously decide if they still want to rely on Russian energy, I doubt they will)
    4. Refugees return to Ukraine
    5. UN organised referendums are held in the four provinces on whether they wish to be part of Ukraine or Russia
    6. Ukraine will join NATO but will agree not to station nukes on Uke soil
    7. The world will recognise Russian possession of Crimea
    8. The G20 will create a fund to rebuild Ukraine AND Russian infrastructure damaged in the war (eg Kerch Bridge)
    9. Aaaand..... everyone relax

    The only small snag is that it seems most unlikely the Ukrainians or the Russians would accept those terms.

    Incidentally, why only four provinces? Russia holds six Ukrainian provinces. Or do the people of Crimea and Sevastopol not get a say?
    Any feasible peace is going to be uncomfortable for Putin AND Ukraine
    A full Russian withdrawal wouldn't be uncomfortable for Ukraine. And that doesn't look as infeasible as it did in February when almost everyone, including me, thought the Ukrainians would be lucky to last a week.

    Any plausible peace plan is certainly going to be uncomfortable for Russia, as they can't have not only what they want, which is all Ukraine, but even what they claimed, which is the six provinces. But they've only got themselves to blame for that. Leaving aside the minor detail that nobody forced them to invade Ukraine, to quote Blackadder, a war hasn't been fought this badly since Olaf the Hairy, High King of all the Vikings, accidentally ordered 80,000 battle helmets with the horns on the inside.
    Constructing a potential peace deal is really hard

    The idea is to give Putin a victory that he can just about sell, while leaving him seriously diminished and sobered

    The victory for him here is worldwide recognition that Crimea is Russian. He will like that. It cements in place his biggest achievement. Everything else is defeat for him (the provinces will surely vote to join Ukraine)

    Plus he gets to survive

    Would the Ukrainians buy it? They get their country rebuilt, they get to join NATO, they basically win (but permanently lose Crimea)

    At least I had a go
    One thing the war has shown is having Kherson and Crimea in different hands is a recipe for conflict, so Crimea should be part of Ukraine for that reason alone.
    But that leaves Putin with nothing he can say is a victory, or even a minor prize. It is total defeat for him, not a peace deal, and it therefore would not work

    This is the art of the possible
    Tough shit

    He started a war and he's lost it. Had he won the war, Kyiv had fallen, and the whole of Ukraine occupied and annexed then what prize minor or otherwise would an exiled Zelensky have got?

    Ukraine needs to regain all of its lost territory, including of course Crimea, and Putin needs to be not just defeated but seen clearly and unambiguously to have been defeated.

    No second chances or coming back from this to have another go.
    Ah well. At least I had a bash at a peace deal, and you never know, Vlad might be reading

    I shall go back to reading about nuclear war, which is less depressing than the average British townscape
    I'll have a go at bashing a peace deal.

    1. Russia withdraws from Ukraine.
    2. Russia pays reparations to Ukraine.
    3. Russia acknowledges Ukraine's independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity.
    4. War ends.
    5. Russia attempts to reenter the human race.
    Yes, well done, brave lad
    In my proposal the war is actually over and peace can happen.

    In yours, with Kherson and Crimea in opposing hands, there will be an ugly and unstable stalemate that increases the risk of another war and nuclear conflict.

    Why not end the war now?
  • pigeonpigeon Posts: 3,157

    If there ever were an "antigrowth coalition" proposal, you're looking at it.

    Completely backwards from the government's professed agenda.

    100% agreed.

    Utter nonsense pandering to the anti growth coalition of NIMBYs. Inexcusable.
    Its the raging hypocrisy which is most funny.

    They propose a bonfire of red tape for planning applications for housing and fracking
    They propose a burden of red tape to dictate planning decisions on private land

    What do they want? If they are so against red tape why are they proposing red tape? They are in favour of easier planning whilst proposing a dictatorial planning regime?
    They're completely all over the shop, but ultimately it looks like the big planning decisions are going to be made by the next Government. Plans to throw up oil and gas installation and Barratt boxes all over the place have no more chance of getting past legions of nimby-influenced backbenchers than do those for giant wind turbines and solar farms.
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 17,697

    ydoethur said:

    Leon said:

    This is the only idea of theirs that I've instantly thought: Yes, good

    There is something ugly about farmland being used in this way. Literally and morally

    Why is it worse than using it for building houses?

    After all, it's less damaging to the land and considerably more easily reversed.

    Moreover, they look prettier than most modern housing developments.
    False choice. If the land isn't needed for agriculture that it should be rewilded, not built on.
    Why? Why not do something productive with that land?
    That's what I am proposing with rewilding. A productive increase in natural habitat, boosting wildlife populations, absorbing CO2 from the atmosphere and lifting the spirits of people who get the opportunity to admire the beauty of nature.

    Not everything has a pound sign in front of it.
  • 148grss148grss Posts: 1,448
    Pulpstar said:

    ydoethur said:

    kyf_100 said:

    So the government are prioritizing food security over energy security.

    I suppose the point is you can build a nuclear plant or a wind farm and it doesn't take up any agricultural space, but turning our farmland into energy generating land isn't necessarily the best use of it if we believe imported food supplies may be disrupted.

    What does it take up then?
    I'm not in favour of this ban, but they (Wind, nuclear) do take up less footprint than solar per MW of capability. The main thing with power is that we've got to be careful not to fight the last war. Gas prices through LNG expansion driven by US/Europe/Asia arbitrage should fall in the coming years.

    Since these farms are taking up potentially valuable agricultural land I'd propose reduction factors on these installations such that if the grid is saturated with renewable energy then payouts per kwh are reduced. Banning them is not correct.
    But it isn't zero sum. You build a nuclear plant, you can't also grow on the land, whereas solar you can still grow some crops within the same space.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 72,757

    Pulpstar said:

    On topic: No idea why this is being discouraged when we're gas limited.

    Well for one thing it will have no impact on the demand for gas on cold January evenings when the sun doesn't shine.
    We will have more supply of gas though as we'll have burnt less in the CCGTs when the sun is out and solar is generating power.
    Your comments would be correct if we solely used gas for heating and not for electricity generation AND domestic heating.
    What's needed are carefully written contracts for when we're producing excess electricity to the grid from renewables. Or you will end up with excessive solar.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 28,226
    148grss said:

    Rewilding is productive - not just environmentally, but could potentially be economic. Nature tourism is something that people do.

    There was an article in The Times a while ago about a farm that rewilded. The cost of intensive agriculture made it uneconomic as a farm, and now they make more money from "wild' livestock and other things
  • AlistairMAlistairM Posts: 1,527
    Powerful video.

    We know that the entire free world supports us.
    And we know that the entire free world will help us stop these bloodthirsty and reckless terrorists. Terrorists operating under the guise of a state.
    #russiaisaterroriststate

    https://twitter.com/DefenceU/status/1579461838966001665
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 45,286
    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    Leon said:

    This will come as a shock to PB-ers, but I have a very bad feeling about the Ukraine War

    And I believe we need a negotiated peace, because the risk of nuclear war is too great

    But just saying that without suggesting how doesn't get us very far

    Maybe something like this

    In some highly public place, the G7 leaders get together and offer peace terms to Putin along these lines

    1. An immediate ceasefire
    2. Both sides withdraw military to pre-Feb 2022 lines
    3. Sanctions are progressively dropped over the ensuing two years, pipelines reopened (but EU countries can obviously decide if they still want to rely on Russian energy, I doubt they will)
    4. Refugees return to Ukraine
    5. UN organised referendums are held in the four provinces on whether they wish to be part of Ukraine or Russia
    6. Ukraine will join NATO but will agree not to station nukes on Uke soil
    7. The world will recognise Russian possession of Crimea
    8. The G20 will create a fund to rebuild Ukraine AND Russian infrastructure damaged in the war (eg Kerch Bridge)
    9. Aaaand..... everyone relax

    That's essentially what Dynamo proposed, before Elon got wind of it and repeated it.

    We can assume the territories vote to stay in Russia. So as for the nuke-free thing we can even achieve some symmetry: no nukes in Ukraine; no nukes in the Russian territories, except Crimea and Sevastopol. Russia is a Black Sea naval power after all. Crimea doesn't even border Ukraine.

    Best if Ukraine stays out of NATO. Ditto Sweden and Finland.

    The no nukes requirement can be made stronger in both areas: reduce militarisation more than that.

    And on 5 and 7, if the UN is organising referendum reruns then the veto powers at least can recognise sovereignty according to the results. Suggest China as the best principal monitoring power. Bear in mind that a majority of the veto powers are in NATO and have been arming Ukraine.

    You realise the Azov Regiment won't like this? Something has to be done about the Azov Regiment.

    That has got to be the most unconvincing lie since Vladimir Putin said he wasn't a war criminal.

    I agree about the Azov Regiment. How about they and their fellow neo-Nazis in the Wagner regiment are trapped on an uninhabited island together? Any survivors after twelve months to be given amnesty and a new life in Kazakhstan.
    I meant we can assume it for the sake of this discussion. I am in favour of genuinely fair internationally-monitored referendum reruns, where everyone from the territories can vote however they like, without fear of experiencing any kind of hassle for how they've voted. As I understand it, so are the other supporters of Dynamo's plan such as those whose names are anagrams of ELNO.

    Whatever the referendum result in each territory, it may turn out that the borders of the four territories have to be adjusted here and there in order to give residents what they want and to maximise security and minimise the chance of clashes. It will be a fantastic step forward if that is the kind of thing people are arguing about rather than killing each other.
    No we can't. Because it would not happen. Let's make assumptions based on realism not on the fantasies of Nazis like Vladimir Putin or everyone's favourite demented anti-Semite Dynamo.

    There is at least a reasonable - as in, around one in three - chance that a democratic referendum in the Crimea would vote to join with Russia. It's about the same as the odds of Northern Ireland voting to join Ireland, and for much the same reason.

    But any of the others? Forget it. It's about the same chance as Yorkshire voting to join an independent Scotland.
    Hard to know how such a referendum might fairly be held, given recent history and current conditions. But nonetheless, it's not the most ridiculous of ideas.

    Coincidentally, there's a new (longish read) Snyder article up on the history of Crimea. While it's part polemic against Putin's anti-history, it's also quite informative.
    https://snyder.substack.com/p/russias-crimea-disconnect
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 13,926

    If there ever were an "antigrowth coalition" proposal, you're looking at it.

    Completely backwards from the government's professed agenda.

    The anti=growth coalition courtesy of Reginald Perrin

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xb82v7wh1Fw
  • I’m doubtful a final peace deal can be done in Ukraine. The interests of the two parties are too opposed right now.

    What is more likely is an uneasy ceasefire leaving the territories in question either side of a line of control with periodic skirmishes and provocations, similar to India/Pakistan.

    A stalemate where Russia holds on to Crimea is unstable. Ukraine would hold the water supply to it.

    After the invasion of Crimea a second conflict was inevitable because Crimea is an implausible place for the line to be drawn, which is why we have spent years training the Ukrainian army.

    Now either we support Ukraine to liberate Crimea and end the war, or we'll be looking at a third conflict after this one because the line will still be toxic and unstable.

    With the Russian military weak and defeated, and Ukraine soon to liberate Kherson and control the water supply into Crimea, now is the time to get the Russians out of Crimea and end this war once and for all.
  • AlistairMAlistairM Posts: 1,527
    A negotiated settlement would be good. How can you negotiate with this?


    https://twitter.com/WagnerKatarina/status/1579359896969310208
  • AlistairMAlistairM Posts: 1,527
    AlistairM said:

    A negotiated settlement would be good. How can you negotiate with this?


    https://twitter.com/WagnerKatarina/status/1579359896969310208

    Full video:

    Genocidal scheming on Russian state TV: Andrey Sidorov, Deputy Dean of world politics at the MSU urges Russia not to miss the right moment to cause a massive refugee crisis in Europe, exacerbating economic and political tensions by causing a massive influx of Ukrainian refugees.
    https://twitter.com/JuliaDavisNews/status/1579279261592354817
  • LeonLeon Posts: 28,869

    Leon said:

    ydoethur said:

    Leon said:

    This is the only idea of theirs that I've instantly thought: Yes, good

    There is something ugly about farmland being used in this way. Literally and morally

    Why is it worse than using it for building houses?

    After all, it's less damaging to the land and considerably more easily reversed.

    Moreover, they look prettier than most modern housing developments.
    The ugliness of modern UK housing developments is one of the most depressing aspects of a depressing time

    All that sludgy red brick, the poxy cul de sacs with their pathetic driveways, the total inability to develop proper European urbanism: shops bars places squares. And we used to be great at this!

    Let King Charles design everything
    Poundbry is not very good. But it is better than many “expert” designs.

    Congratulations to British town planners - more shit at their job than a bloke with no training.
    I know little about Poundbury (drove past when I think is a new part being built over the summer, but have never visited). From pictures it seems a little whimsical and a mish-mash architecturally (as is my own village), but the important question is:

    Does it work as a settlement? Is it a good, livable community?
    Yes, it works


    "House prices remain buoyant, and Conibear believes it’s not simply the high standard of building but the “favourability of the environment”. Depending on access to garages and private gardens, two-bedroom apartments and semi-detached homes in Poundbury can start anywhere between £190,000 and £275,000. Many of the three-bedroom detached homes go for somewhere between £325,000 and £400,000."


    https://www.bigissue.com/news/housing/poundbury-prince-charles-dorset-town-answer-housing-crisis/
  • UnpopularUnpopular Posts: 555
    On topic, this Government have to be the shitest libertarians ever. Don't want to be looking over people's shoulders to see how many BOGOF ready-meals Chantal's feeding the kids, fair enough, but old Mr MacGregor better not fucking dare think of turning his vegetable patch into a solar farm on his own land.
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 17,697
    Pulpstar said:

    Pulpstar said:

    On topic: No idea why this is being discouraged when we're gas limited.

    Well for one thing it will have no impact on the demand for gas on cold January evenings when the sun doesn't shine.
    We will have more supply of gas though as we'll have burnt less in the CCGTs when the sun is out and solar is generating power.
    Your comments would be correct if we solely used gas for heating and not for electricity generation AND domestic heating.
    What's needed are carefully written contracts for when we're producing excess electricity to the grid from renewables. Or you will end up with excessive solar.
    Yes, the solar will reduce gas consumption for a few hours in the middle of the January day when the sun is poking above the horizon, and we can ramp down some CCGT output. But in the grand scheme of things, the impact on gas consumption will be small during the season of maximum demand.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 72,757
    edited October 10
    148grss said:

    Pulpstar said:

    ydoethur said:

    kyf_100 said:

    So the government are prioritizing food security over energy security.

    I suppose the point is you can build a nuclear plant or a wind farm and it doesn't take up any agricultural space, but turning our farmland into energy generating land isn't necessarily the best use of it if we believe imported food supplies may be disrupted.

    What does it take up then?
    I'm not in favour of this ban, but they (Wind, nuclear) do take up less footprint than solar per MW of capability. The main thing with power is that we've got to be careful not to fight the last war. Gas prices through LNG expansion driven by US/Europe/Asia arbitrage should fall in the coming years.

    Since these farms are taking up potentially valuable agricultural land I'd propose reduction factors on these installations such that if the grid is saturated with renewable energy then payouts per kwh are reduced. Banning them is not correct.
    But it isn't zero sum. You build a nuclear plant, you can't also grow on the land, whereas solar you can still grow some crops within the same space.
    Sizewell C is 915 acres for 3.2 GW plated capacity
    3.2 GW plated capacity from solar would require 16,000 acres.

    UK nuclear capacity factor is around 60%, whereas solar is 10% - so you'd need 96,000 acres to effectively replicate sizewell C. That does make sense since uranium is quite energy err dense and sunlight less so.

    *typically, developers and installers require about 2 hectares of land (5 acres) per
    megawatt of power - https://www.nfuonline.com/archive?treeid=21480

    Now you might be able to farm on that land but it can't produce as much yield as un-solar farmed land.

    It doesn't on it's own kill the argument for solar but it's a simple fact that nuclear power is a far more efficient use of land for power generation than solar.
  • StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 7,876
    edited October 10

    'Libertarian' Liz is a bit of an enigma isn't she? We now have the government micro-managing land use to maximize crop yields. It's positively Stalinesque.

    Here's a plausible theory:

    Literally and alarmingly, it seems to come down to what's locally contentious in South West Norfolk.
    Don't have any shale themselves; so elsewhere can be fracked no problem.

    Everything makes a lot more sense if she thinks the whole electorate is basically South West Norfolk...


    https://twitter.com/JackPCarrington/status/1579440171862626313?t=EqvMl4Iws1w5XbYyOm_P3w&s=19
  • 148grss148grss Posts: 1,448

    'Libertarian' Liz is a bit of an enigma isn't she? We now have the government micro-managing land use to maximize crop yields. It's positively Stalinesque.

    It's because most politicians who call themselves libertarian, aren't; they care about entrenching current power structures by removing the methods that currently exist for challenging the powerful. If you removed all state interference, those who are currently wealthy and powerful could just wield their power unquestioned.

    This is hidden behind talk of freedom and choice, but the reality is that taking away the state at the moment would just leave a work where the currently powerful keep their power, and the currently powerless are still powerless.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 28,869
    AlistairM said:

    AlistairM said:

    A negotiated settlement would be good. How can you negotiate with this?


    https://twitter.com/WagnerKatarina/status/1579359896969310208

    Full video:

    Genocidal scheming on Russian state TV: Andrey Sidorov, Deputy Dean of world politics at the MSU urges Russia not to miss the right moment to cause a massive refugee crisis in Europe, exacerbating economic and political tensions by causing a massive influx of Ukrainian refugees.
    https://twitter.com/JuliaDavisNews/status/1579279261592354817
    These are the nutters who will take this to nukes. Putin is relatively level headed compared to them. They WANT all-out war

    Which is one reason we need to find a peace that both sides can reluctantly accept

    Bleak
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 16,607
    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    ydoethur said:

    Leon said:

    This is the only idea of theirs that I've instantly thought: Yes, good

    There is something ugly about farmland being used in this way. Literally and morally

    Why is it worse than using it for building houses?

    After all, it's less damaging to the land and considerably more easily reversed.

    Moreover, they look prettier than most modern housing developments.
    The ugliness of modern UK housing developments is one of the most depressing aspects of a depressing time

    All that sludgy red brick, the poxy cul de sacs with their pathetic driveways, the total inability to develop proper European urbanism: shops bars places squares. And we used to be great at this!

    Let King Charles design everything
    Poundbry is not very good. But it is better than many “expert” designs.

    Congratulations to British town planners - more shit at their job than a bloke with no training.
    This is a distressingly accurate essay on ugly British urbanism

    https://medium.com/@cailiansavage1/why-are-british-towns-so-ugly-2a1a52adb610
    He doesn’t really answer the question posed in the title, though.

    Essentially, in the high modern period, planners prioritised cars and cheap utility over people.

    That’s changed, but only a bit.

    And there’s no concept of beauty whatsoever, indeed the idea is frowned upon as bourgeois decadence.
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 16,607
    As for solar panels, they are crashingly ugly, but the government is best advised to incentivise them in cities rather than fuck about with the free market wholesale.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 30,203
    edited October 10

    Leon said:

    ydoethur said:

    Leon said:

    This is the only idea of theirs that I've instantly thought: Yes, good

    There is something ugly about farmland being used in this way. Literally and morally

    Why is it worse than using it for building houses?

    After all, it's less damaging to the land and considerably more easily reversed.

    Moreover, they look prettier than most modern housing developments.
    The ugliness of modern UK housing developments is one of the most depressing aspects of a depressing time

    All that sludgy red brick, the poxy cul de sacs with their pathetic driveways, the total inability to develop proper European urbanism: shops bars places squares. And we used to be great at this!

    Let King Charles design everything
    Poundbry is not very good. But it is better than many “expert” designs.

    Congratulations to British town planners - more shit at their job than a bloke with no training.
    I know little about Poundbury (drove past when I think is a new part being built over the summer, but have never visited). From pictures it seems a little whimsical and a mish-mash architecturally (as is my own village), but the important question is:

    Does it work as a settlement? Is it a good, livable community?
    The people who live there seem to like it (with some criticisms) and say that it is improving as it grows.

    This day is fairly anecdotal - but supported by the house values. Which are above the area in general and seem to hold their value better than other new developments.
  • 148grss148grss Posts: 1,448
    Pulpstar said:

    148grss said:

    Pulpstar said:

    ydoethur said:

    kyf_100 said:

    So the government are prioritizing food security over energy security.

    I suppose the point is you can build a nuclear plant or a wind farm and it doesn't take up any agricultural space, but turning our farmland into energy generating land isn't necessarily the best use of it if we believe imported food supplies may be disrupted.

    What does it take up then?
    I'm not in favour of this ban, but they (Wind, nuclear) do take up less footprint than solar per MW of capability. The main thing with power is that we've got to be careful not to fight the last war. Gas prices through LNG expansion driven by US/Europe/Asia arbitrage should fall in the coming years.

    Since these farms are taking up potentially valuable agricultural land I'd propose reduction factors on these installations such that if the grid is saturated with renewable energy then payouts per kwh are reduced. Banning them is not correct.
    But it isn't zero sum. You build a nuclear plant, you can't also grow on the land, whereas solar you can still grow some crops within the same space.
    Sizewell C is 915 acres for 3.2 GW plated capacity
    3.2 GW plated capacity from solar would require 16,000 acres.

    UK nuclear capacity factor is around 60%, whereas solar is 10% - so you'd need 96,000 acres to effectively replicate sizewell C. That does make sense since uranium is quite energy err dense and sunlight less so.

    *typically, developers and installers require about 2 hectares of land (5 acres) per
    megawatt of power - https://www.nfuonline.com/archive?treeid=21480

    Now you might be able to farm on that land but it can't produce as much yield as un-solar farmed land.

    It doesn't on it's own kill the argument for solar but it's a simple fact that nuclear power is a far more efficient use of land for power generation than solar.
    But the acreage for solar can still be multiuse is a way that nuclear plants can't be. A mixed method of agriculture, energy generation and even some wilderness is the future:

    https://www.renewableenergymagazine.com/emily-folk/how-solar-energy-can-coincide-with-crop-20201119
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 16,607
    Even Poundbury is problematic.
    There’s a depressing emptiness to it, no pedestrians to be seen.

    You can smell the ersatz.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 48,176
    Over 1,000 yesterday. Totally out of control:

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-kent-63201048
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 17,697
    Offshore wind is pretty efficient with regard to land take. Just a bit of electrical gubbins* at the point where the cable comes ashore.

    Has a higher load factor than onshore, moreso if you go for floating turbines further from the coast. However less useful for sheltering sheep from the rain than solar panels in a paddock.

    *You can tell that I'm not an Electrical Engineer. Rectifier, transformer, that sort of kit. Some of it makes a humming noise - watch out for that.
  • DriverDriver Posts: 2,226
    As ever, the detail tells a slightly different story to the headline...

    Planning guidance says that development on BMV land should be avoided, although planning authorities may take other considerations into account.

    And if the installations don't stop it also being used for farming at the same time, then planning authorities would have no reason to refuse.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 47,042

    'Libertarian' Liz is a bit of an enigma isn't she? We now have the government micro-managing land use to maximize crop yields. It's positively Stalinesque.

    'Libertarian' Liz is a bit of an enigma isn't she? We now have the government micro-managing land use to maximize crop yields. It's positively Stalinesque.

    Except, at best she can deliver a Two Year Plan.
  • 148grss said:

    'Libertarian' Liz is a bit of an enigma isn't she? We now have the government micro-managing land use to maximize crop yields. It's positively Stalinesque.

    It's because most politicians who call themselves libertarian, aren't; they care about entrenching current power structures by removing the methods that currently exist for challenging the powerful. If you removed all state interference, those who are currently wealthy and powerful could just wield their power unquestioned.

    This is hidden behind talk of freedom and choice, but the reality is that taking away the state at the moment would just leave a work where the currently powerful keep their power, and the currently powerless are still powerless.
    Quite contrary, a lot of laws are in place to protect and shield the powerful from competition that the currently powerless could wield if the laws were liberated.

    Planning restrictions to prevent land being built on makes sense if you're a selfish see you next Tuesday who only wants to think about the value of the houses that you own and especially second homes that you can let out to those who can't afford their own.

    Liberalised planning allowing anyone who wants to own a home to get one built would erode the value of the assets the wealthy hold while allowing the poor to escape from paying rent to the wealthy.

    That system plays out throughout much of the economy, which is why liberalisation can be the best thing for those who have aspirations to do better than what they have today. The poor tend to not be the ones who have had existing laws written in their favour.
  • 148grss148grss Posts: 1,448
    The RSPB are not a load of radical lefties, they are typically the kind of people who really like going for walks with their dog and watching Attenborough documentaries.

    And they are being pushed by the gov into becoming a new XR, just with the historic prestige of 100 odd years of existence:

    https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/oct/10/rspb-not-ruling-out-direct-action-to-defend-nature-from-government-policy
  • numbertwelvenumbertwelve Posts: 4,121

    I’m doubtful a final peace deal can be done in Ukraine. The interests of the two parties are too opposed right now.

    What is more likely is an uneasy ceasefire leaving the territories in question either side of a line of control with periodic skirmishes and provocations, similar to India/Pakistan.

    A stalemate where Russia holds on to Crimea is unstable. Ukraine would hold the water supply to it.

    After the invasion of Crimea a second conflict was inevitable because Crimea is an implausible place for the line to be drawn, which is why we have spent years training the Ukrainian army.

    Now either we support Ukraine to liberate Crimea and end the war, or we'll be looking at a third conflict after this one because the line will still be toxic and unstable.

    With the Russian military weak and defeated, and Ukraine soon to liberate Kherson and control the water supply into Crimea, now is the time to get the Russians out of Crimea and end this war once and for all.
    Very plausible arguments, but of course Russia has successfully held onto Crimea for 8 years - whilst this has caused problems and helped lead us down the path to the current situation, if I were to predict any outcome of this conflict (rather than my own preferred outcome) it would be that we will be seeing a ceasefire with Russia either fully or almost-fully withdrawn from its 2022 incursions, but with Crimea still in Russian hands.

    I have no doubt the Ukrainians want to force Russia out of Crimea and I believe that Russia should leave Crimea, but I suspect that there will be not be a neat resolution to this conflict.

  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 30,203

    Even Poundbury is problematic.
    There’s a depressing emptiness to it, no pedestrians to be seen.

    You can smell the ersatz.

    Canary Wharf was like that to live in, at first. I’ve a relative who had a flat there from before the DLR opened. It’s improved massively - sort of bedded in.
This discussion has been closed.