The most loopy idea yet from Team Truss? – politicalbetting.com
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
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
...to point out that solar is a perfectly good use for farmers to make of low grade agricultural land 😊
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.
Completely backwards from the government's professed agenda.
https://www.wired.com/story/growing-crops-under-solar-panels-now-theres-a-bright-idea/
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
There is something ugly about farmland being used in this way. Literally and morally
They thought their markets secretly shared their beliefs and would reward them for it.
https://twitter.com/REWearmouth/status/1579427443084955649?s=20&t=7WmpvhMzjMUYnvUc4SGGwg
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.
Obviously they missed out his years of hard work reassuring the markets.
This government maybe more lazy than Boris Johnson.
After all, it's less damaging to the land and considerably more easily reversed.
Moreover, they look prettier than most modern housing developments.
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 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.
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.
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
Because that is what we need rather than arbitrary bans.
https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2022/07/agrivoltaic-farming-solar-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.
Utter nonsense pandering to the anti growth coalition of NIMBYs. Inexcusable.
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.
It happens sometimes.
Just look at that photograph in the header. Fecking hideous.
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.
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
Congratulations to British town planners - more shit at their job than a bloke with no training.
I shall go back to reading about nuclear war, which is less depressing than the average British townscape
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.
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.
https://medium.com/@cailiansavage1/why-are-british-towns-so-ugly-2a1a52adb610
If there was ever a case for a political party to be euthanased, the Tory Party is it.
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.
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?
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.
Climate change / Net Zero is propagated by the green lobby
The green lobby are socialists
Lets ignore them.
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/
Does it work as a settlement? Is it a good, livable community?
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.
I wouldn't want to imply any of my commentating colleagues on here are loopy, of course.
Is this Leon's most loopy idea yet ?
(Probably not.)
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.
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
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?
Not everything has a pound sign in front of it.
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.
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
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
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xb82v7wh1Fw
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.
https://twitter.com/WagnerKatarina/status/1579359896969310208
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
"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/
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.
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
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.
Which is one reason we need to find a peace that both sides can reluctantly accept
Bleak
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.
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.
https://www.renewableenergymagazine.com/emily-folk/how-solar-energy-can-coincide-with-crop-20201119
There’s a depressing emptiness to it, no pedestrians to be seen.
You can smell the ersatz.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-kent-63201048
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.
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.
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.
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
In reality, 100% of them come from France. Which you might be able to make a case for being chaotic, but not poorest...
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.