Forum menu
And that’s perhaps the best way, small scale installations close to the point of consumption. Less intrusion and fewer losses from transmission.
I’d have that in my back yard, my point made on the first page before the pitchforks started coming out!
Solar “farms” and wind “farms” don’t reduce anyones bills as the price is artificially high due to contracts and links to gas fired production, and, the energy is sold on the “open” market so also kept high.
One of the good things the government are actually doing at the moment is breaking this nonsensical link, so that energy generated by renewables will no longer be tied to the gas price. The legislation was being discussed this week in parliament but everyone was on about Peter Mandleson instead.
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/decisive-action-to-break-influence-of-gas-on-electricity-prices
I’m in favour of “green” energy but the huge swathes of land disappearing under solar panels
Someone from the Green Party was on the radio the other day saying instead of putting solar farms in farmers fields, why not cover the roof area's of buildings like large warehouses with them. The company I'm working for is in the process of doing this at the moment and already has loads of solar powered kit that's completely replaced diesel generators out on site.
Theres a trade off there though. Extra roof loading requires extra materials which requires extra resources and increases CO2 (or equivalent)
On a new building... Maybe. on an old building really dependent on the structure.
In agriculture they can actually make an improvement
I’m all for “green” energy as I have said previously but there are far more efficient and local ways to do it. Solar panels on houses, commercial and public buildings = less losses from transmission and less direct impact on the environment.
I’d say roof solar is pipe dream for meeting our needs. My wife has set up a community energy company. They have no been looking to find a large roof to install panels on in our area. After several years they have had no one happy to with them.
Fields are not a good environment are they. My wife tells me that when they build on a local field the gardens will need bought in top soil. The soil is life less grit. Crops get all their nutrients by spraying on fertiliser.
Solar farms have much higher biodiversity than the fields they were built on. Golf courses occupy 11 times more land current uk solar farms. I don’t ever remember anyone moaning that golf courses take land out of food protection.
Someone from the Green Party was on the radio the other day saying instead of putting solar farms in farmers fields, why not cover the roof area's of buildings like large warehouses with them. The company I'm working for is in the process of doing this at the moment and already has loads of solar powered kit that's completely replaced diesel generators out on site.
A lot of the big industrial parks here (and supermarkets) have some kind of solarPV installation on the roof. My local Tesco-equivalent has quite a lot of it and uses that to power the internal stuff during the day (including the salad-growing thing) and then exports the rest.
Mind you, it's useless in winter.
I understand, to an extent, the opposition to new home building (sometimes). To give 2 local examples: in the 16 years we've lived where we do, there have been 3 major developments locally + 1 more being built now, however, there has been no improvement to the roads or pavements which are crumbling, and they've closed 2 schools - so kids are having to travel further.
The newest development also hacked down a ton of trees that were never detailed for removal in the approved plans, and nothing has been done/will be done about it. Seems the contractors for the initial ground works/clearing company made "an honest error".
Add in the abject lack of proper public transport alternative and I get why folks are angry/frustrated etc. We have a bus service - it runs once per hour when it runs and often doesn't turn up. (Also to add, how any normal person can 'afford' one of these houses is way beyond me, the prices are eye-watering.)
And…. The housebuilders fight tooth and nail against any proposed measures to help cut carbon/save energy/create energy whilst building the houses and for when they’re occupied. Huge amounts of money are “donated” to political parties to achieve this aim.
Many damage mitigation measures and affordable housing, contributions to local infrastructure that are a part of the initial approval are later dropped.
NIMBY'ism isn't totally unreasonable. While 'society' in general benefits from development, existing home owners bear the costs of that development, whether thats extra demand for services/roads or losing a view or something else. Of course they'd be against it, whatever 'it' is.
Which is why you are supposed to have a goverment that'll do it anyway.
Where I live in very picturesque East Sussex they are having a field day (literally). On one side of our small bypass they are in the process of building 1000 homes. So far around 500 have gone up and are mainly inhabited. No solar, no heat pumps, all gas boilers no cycle paths or even footpaths into town - you need to drive or walk along the hard shoulder of about 500m of road...500m.
Obviously it goes without saying that there is no extra infrastructure such as NHS dentists or surgeries to cope with the 4000 extra people, just more of those ubiquitous private pharmacies that are springing up with a pill for every ill.
and on the other side of the bypass in more beautiful green fields, a massive solar farm. I mean you literally have acres of empty roof space on the other side of the road going unused.
They are also building a massive battery energy storage system in the middle of what used to be a wildfowl sanctuary and outdoor leisure space (think Go Ape but more eco). Its a totally unsuitable area to do this in.
If you follow the money on both B.E.S.S and solar farms my very educated guess is a web of corruption and misinformation which is making some people very rich and doing absolutely nothing for the energy security of the UK.
So yes - I'm a NIMBY until I see sustainable housing going up with the battery and solar built in to benefit the householder not the billionaires.
Check out what's in the "The Future Homes Standard" the government are bringing in (and is already impacting current builds).
Did someone mention CCS?
Yup, using CCS to justify new gas and coal electricity generation plants is a con. That's not what's proposed for the Merseyside/Derbyshire scheme though... it's about continuing to make concrete in the UK while lowering emissions from doing so.
Point of order (and associated pedant mode)... the earlier mention of the Hope plant means its all to do with making cement in the UK, not concrete as such. Obviously that's a primary constituent of concrete, though.
I do know that the cement producers have been experimenting for years with alternative fuels for the kilns, like Meat and Bone Meal, shredded rubber from old tyres, pelletised wood etc as part of efforts to reduce fuel costs and simultaneously lower CO2 emissions. But ultimately, if you roast limestone CaCO3, the chemical process is such that some CO2 is unavoidable
In agriculture they can actually make an improvement
And car parks?
Both of the hospitals I work at have solar panels on top of the car parks. One is multi-storey so it’s on the roof. The hospital itself is a 6 star building but not energy self sufficient. The other is an open car park but the freestanding structures provide shaded parking (something really needed in Queensland). I think an additional side benefit of this is reducing heat island impacts of heating tarmac.
I'm one of these old people who are proud to be a nimby (an acronym I really don't like).
A huge group of people including myself have been fighting underhanded developers to save farmland in Adlington, Cheshire, where a New town was proposed of approximately 20,000 'unaffordable homes'. Atm we have the lowest food security in Europe. Adlington is a tiny community of 1,240 residents, most of which are farming families. 11 - 15 farms are in danger of losing prime land, their livelihoods, their homes, their farm animals, their ability to create food, wildlife habitats, wildlife ponds, ancient woodland, old trees, and mature hedgerows. Thousands and thousands of people protested against this and luckily it was taken off the main Government list, but the land is still in danger of large swathes of housing. It is a flood plain and close to the Peak District Nation Park. Even though I live 12 miles away (so not a true nimby) I will carry on fighting.
Not one of us was against building a small development of affordable housing with some decent infrastucture - on nearby brownfield sites and the odd bit of non-precious greenland. However atm the loss of green belt land in Cheshire is going to end up joining Manchester to Stockport, which will join Poynton (where there is already a brownfield site containing 600 houses and soon to be another 5-600 more, with is no infrastructure eg Dr or dental surgery, no High school or proper shops) then joining Adlington and finally Macclesfield.
In Macclesfield there is an abundance of brownfield sites and affordable terrace houses.
However atm the loss of green belt land in Cheshire is going to end up joining Manchester to Stockport
I used to cycle this "green space" between Manchester and Stockport a lot when I lived down there. Plenty of it is absolutely ideal for home building. While a lot of it needs preserving. Some of the post industrial well connected areas are in green belt. Some of the pockets of genuinely green bits that make the area good to live in are not.
Fun tool : https://www.cpre.org.uk/interactive-map-of-englands-green-belt-land/
Inspired by this article about putting a battery storage site in what appears to objectively be an ideal location, I was thinking about other cracking examples.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cgqk5d27lq5o
/quote]
A lot of people are simply naturally afraid of change in these situations.
Development and changes of infrastructure as country's evolve always has and always will be needed, but with a little respect given to the wider body of NIMBY’s who might indeed argue a change of colour of the village hall front door, as much as progression is needed there usually is some personal cost or sacrifice to someone somewhere.
It is perhaps more an oversight with the legislation around delivering NSIP's, but say a scheme is proposed to construct a new large substation, battery storage site, pylon chain, or even a combination of several of these all in one spot within close proximity to your rural home, then there will likely be some form of personal financial or stress related cost to you.
For whatever reason or need, should you choose to move on it will make selling your home very much more difficult and the market of people willing to buy it will be vastly narrowed.
To mitigate this fact should you still try to sell but at a value considerably less than it would achieve otherwise (30% off heck why not) you will still probably struggle, and if you do find a buyer most conveyancers will likely wrinkle their noses when provided with a thick binder of loosely worded letters from NSIP's agents regarding possible acquisitions of temporary/permanent rights, or suggestions of compulsory purchases complete with plans neatly outlining half your garden that might or might not happen in several years’ time.
In this position unless the scheme directly intends to use your property from the outset statutory relief is not available, and any assistance financial or otherwise is at the discretion of the privately funded scheme developer dedicated to delivering cheaper, greener energy who of course still has investors and shareholders expecting maximum profit to consider, so best to suck it up buttercup.
So even if you are divorcing, dying, or just tired of receiving multiple letters a month over several years declaring how your best interests, those of the local wildlife, the nation, and heck the planet! are being carefully catered for by the NSIP next door, there isn't always a painless cost-free way out to involuntary NIMBY's (of which there will be many), who would otherwise be very happy to do their bit for mankind and simply move on elsewhere to allow the wheels of change to trundle on unhindered without them.
Not one of us was against building a small development of affordable housing with some decent infrastucture - on nearby brownfield sites and the odd bit of non-precious greenland.
Brownfield sites can be very wildlife rich, often more so than farmland, once they have been left for a while.
There is a fairly large piece near me which has been slowly developing over the last 20 years or so and is currently moving from scrubland to a young wood. Far more interesting than the rapeseed deserts nearby.
Mind you, it's useless in winter.
Not necessarily but certainly useless at night