http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-27137184
QuoteThe Conservatives have said they will not subsidise new onshore wind farms if they win the 2015 general election.
Energy Minister Michael Fallon said any project not granted planning permission before the election would not get funds as the UK would already have enough wind power to meet 2020 EU targets.
He also said councils in England and Wales would be given the "decisive say" on new onshore wind farms from 2015.
A Lib Dem source accused the party of pandering to its right wing.
The source said the Tories were trying to stop voters turning to UKIP.
'No more needed'
Mr Fallon said a "good mixture of reliable energy" was needed and the government was "committed" to cutting carbon emissions.
"Renewable energy, including onshore wind, has a key role in our future energy supply," he said.
"But we now have enough bill payer-funded onshore wind in the pipeline to meet our renewable energy commitments and there's no requirement for any more."
He also said his party would change the law within six months of winning the 2015 election so all onshore wind farm applications would be handled by local planning authorities.
At present large projects in England and Wales are dealt with under the "nationally significant infrastructure" planning regime.
Coalition divide
The government says there is currently enough wind power to provide energy to four million homes, forecast to rise to seven million by 2020.
Department for Energy and Climate Change figures suggest 13.8GW of UK onshore wind power capacity is already built, under construction or has been granted planning permission.
It says that will be enough to meet targets of 11-13GW even if some projects fall through.
BBC political correspondent Ross Hawkins said the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats had been "at pains to point out how much they disagree about onshore wind farms", with David Cameron "repeatedly saying" subsidies must eventually be brought to an end.
On Tuesday the prime minister said the government "shouldn't keep subsidies for longer than they are necessary".
On Wednesday the government announced approval of eight new renewable energy projects, including offshore wind farms and conversions of coal-powered plants to run on biomass.
Lib Dem Energy Secretary Ed Davey said the move marked a "new stage in Britain's green energy investment boom".
S'OK, we'll just use chip grease for energy and avoid forming any more "fatbergs" in the sewers to boot.
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/apr/07/london-cooking-waste-power-station (http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/apr/07/london-cooking-waste-power-station)
What we really need it to start work on more nuclear power plants like about 10 years ago, rather than successive governments hoping it will be the next government's problem.
Quote from: Brazen on April 24, 2014, 04:57:04 AM
S'OK, we'll just use chip grease for energy and avoid forming any more "fatbergs" in the sewers to boot.
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/apr/07/london-cooking-waste-power-station (http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/apr/07/london-cooking-waste-power-station)
What we really need it to start work on more nuclear power plants like about 10 years ago, rather than successive governments hoping it will be the next government's problem.
Nothing to worry about, market forces will solve all problems;
wanders off to look for candles.
Quote from: Brazen on April 24, 2014, 04:57:04 AM
S'OK, we'll just use chip grease for energy and avoid forming any more "fatbergs" in the sewers to boot.
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/apr/07/london-cooking-waste-power-station (http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/apr/07/london-cooking-waste-power-station)
What we really need it to start work on more nuclear power plants like about 10 years ago, rather than successive governments hoping it will be the next government's problem.
Not to worry; the government is only there to help. If it looks to you like the government policy is daft, there is something wrong with your vision.
When you write "Tories flirt with heresy" I expect them to be going against a long established Tory position, not moving away from something they've always been lukewarm on at best.
It's a heresy to Tamas.
I presume Tamas meant something like heresy against the renewable energy religion or something. Of course you do not want too much of your grid to be powered by something as unpredictable as wind energy, only makes sense for them to want to stop at a certain percentage.
Quote from: mongers on April 24, 2014, 07:28:23 AM
Nothing to worry about, market forces will solve all problems;
wanders off to look for candles.
Well yeah with too much of the grid being reliant on wind you might suffer brown outs at peak periods. Might want to stock up.
Quote from: Valmy on April 24, 2014, 02:31:26 PM
I presume Tamas meant something like heresy against the renewable energy religion or something.
Perhaps, but you can't really commit heresy against a religion you've never been part of.
I don't think Tamas likes anything that smells of environmentalism, which he regards as a religion.
Quote from: Jacob on April 24, 2014, 01:04:20 PM
When you write "Tories flirt with heresy" I expect them to be going against a long established Tory position, not moving away from something they've always been lukewarm on at best.
And I expected them to be saying questionable things about our lord and savior jesus christ.
Tamas--I think we agree--questionable thread title.
Well, here in the UK, it seems you are not allowed to market pretty much anything without claiming it was produced with renewable energy, and/or being freerange. You just don't.
So, saying that there is such thing as too much money spent on renewables seemed like a brave stance.
Quote from: Razgovory on April 24, 2014, 02:57:04 PM
I don't think Tamas likes anything that smells of environmentalism, which he regards as a religion.
It seems to be a religion for some.
Quote from: derspiess on April 24, 2014, 03:26:16 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on April 24, 2014, 02:57:04 PM
I don't think Tamas likes anything that smells of environmentalism, which he regards as a religion.
It seems to be a religion for some.
Carbon credits are the modern plenary indulgence :pope:
Quote from: Savonarola on April 24, 2014, 03:31:01 PM
Quote from: derspiess on April 24, 2014, 03:26:16 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on April 24, 2014, 02:57:04 PM
I don't think Tamas likes anything that smells of environmentalism, which he regards as a religion.
It seems to be a religion for some.
Carbon credits are the modern plenary indulgence :pope:
No I think those are closer to complex financial instruments; those sorts of things tend to work out just fine?
Quote from: derspiess on April 24, 2014, 03:26:16 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on April 24, 2014, 02:57:04 PM
I don't think Tamas likes anything that smells of environmentalism, which he regards as a religion.
It seems to be a religion for some.
Yes, to the people who don't like it.
Quote from: derspiess on April 24, 2014, 03:26:16 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on April 24, 2014, 02:57:04 PM
I don't think Tamas likes anything that smells of environmentalism, which he regards as a religion.
It seems to be a religion for some.
Pollution seems to have much more tangible results than other religion's sins. Maybe this is the one true religion at last?
Quote from: Razgovory on April 24, 2014, 03:36:35 PM
Quote from: derspiess on April 24, 2014, 03:26:16 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on April 24, 2014, 02:57:04 PM
I don't think Tamas likes anything that smells of environmentalism, which he regards as a religion.
It seems to be a religion for some.
Yes, to the people who don't like it.
:rolleyes: Come on, Raz. Stop being childish.
Quote from: Tamas on April 24, 2014, 03:40:21 AMQuoteHe also said his party would change the law within six months of winning the 2015 election so all onshore wind farm applications would be handled by local planning authorities.
At present large projects in England and Wales are dealt with under the "nationally significant infrastructure" planning regime.
So they want to give the same councils whose nimbyism means we have a housing shortage control over windmill applications too.
It's typical. The Tories don't like any development or infrastructure, no matter how useful, built in their areas. HS2 goes over the Chilterns. Heathrow may be at capacity but that's less important than mortgages in South-West London. Fracking's a great opportunity for the 'desolate north', but a bit more difficult in the Sussex Downs :bleeding:
We need to be far more dirigiste about this and just build our new nuclear powerplants, windmills, high speed rail lines and airways wherever they need to go :frog:
Edit: Also housing <_<
QuoteWell, here in the UK, it seems you are not allowed to market pretty much anything without claiming it was produced with renewable energy, and/or being freerange. You just don't.
I think you're reading far too much into marketing bumph.
QuoteSo, saying that there is such thing as too much money spent on renewables seemed like a brave stance.
How is this brave? There's about 30 people who really care about building more windmills and they all work for the Guardian. But there's a strong, organised opposition to it among Tories. It's craven.
Quote from: derspiess on April 24, 2014, 03:56:38 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on April 24, 2014, 03:36:35 PM
Quote from: derspiess on April 24, 2014, 03:26:16 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on April 24, 2014, 02:57:04 PM
I don't think Tamas likes anything that smells of environmentalism, which he regards as a religion.
It seems to be a religion for some.
Yes, to the people who don't like it.
:rolleyes: Come on, Raz. Stop being childish.
I'd say the vast majority of people who claim environmentalism is a religion are opposed to the idea of environmentalism.
None of it is the least bit surprising is it, Shelf ?
We're what, 14 months off an election and the Tories are tapping into any Nimbyist/Daily Mail friendly prejudice they can find, in an effort to sure up their vote and stop is leaking away to UKIP and the consequent post-election confusion.
Quote
A Lib Dem source accused the party of pandering to its right wing.
The source said the Tories were trying to stop voters turning to UKIP.
Presumably, that source thinks tories going over to ukip is a good thing?
Gregor Eisenhorn will deal with them.
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 24, 2014, 05:00:04 PM
There's about 30 people who really care about building more windmills and they all work for the Guardian.
I hate to pile onto the Guardian, and I know she only usually writes for CiF, but you know who I can't stand? Laurie Penny. :bleeding: Sometimes I read things from New Statesman, where she really is on staff, and inevitably bump into her pieces, and she's almost seems like a right-wing plant in how irritatingly she conveys her pseudo-left perspective.
Quote from: Razgovory on April 24, 2014, 05:06:43 PM
I'd say the vast majority of people who claim environmentalism is a religion are opposed to the idea of environmentalism.
But the majority of people who treat it as one are probably more favorable. (And considerably fewer in number /shrug)
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on April 24, 2014, 09:18:50 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on April 24, 2014, 05:06:43 PM
I'd say the vast majority of people who claim environmentalism is a religion are opposed to the idea of environmentalism.
But the majority of people who treat it as one are probably more favorable. (And considerably fewer in number /shrug)
I'm not sure exactly what that means.
Quote from: Razgovory on April 24, 2014, 05:06:43 PM
I'd say the vast majority of people who claim environmentalism is a religion are opposed to the idea of environmentalism.
I bet you would.
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on April 24, 2014, 08:26:56 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 24, 2014, 05:00:04 PM
There's about 30 people who really care about building more windmills and they all work for the Guardian.
I hate to pile onto the Guardian, and I know she only usually writes for CiF, but you know who I can't stand? Laurie Penny. :bleeding: Sometimes I read things from New Statesman, where she really is on staff, and inevitably bump into her pieces, and she's almost seems like a right-wing plant in how irritatingly she conveys her pseudo-left perspective.
I follow her on twitter. I don't remember why or how but I do enjoy it.
Quote from: mongers on April 24, 2014, 05:08:56 PM
None of it is the least bit surprising is it, Shelf ?
We're what, 14 months off an election and the Tories are tapping into any Nimbyist/Daily Mail friendly prejudice they can find, in an effort to sure up their vote and stop is leaking away to UKIP and the consequent post-election confusion.
Although in fairness, HS2 has its second reading next week.
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on April 24, 2014, 08:26:56 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 24, 2014, 05:00:04 PM
There's about 30 people who really care about building more windmills and they all work for the Guardian.
I hate to pile onto the Guardian, and I know she only usually writes for CiF, but you know who I can't stand? Laurie Penny. :bleeding: Sometimes I read things from New Statesman, where she really is on staff, and inevitably bump into her pieces, and she's almost seems like a right-wing plant in how irritatingly she conveys her pseudo-left perspective.
I particularly liked her piece on how getting her hair cut was a blow against the patriarchy :cool:
Shame about the New Statesman; maybe I'm wearing rose-tinted glasses but it used to be a serious magazine about socialism, nowadays it is more like a soapbox for people overexcited about whatever minority victim status they can manage to claim.
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on April 25, 2014, 02:50:13 AM
I particularly liked her piece on how getting her hair cut was a blow against the patriarchy :cool:
The Patriarchate is offended by any cutting of hair!
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fnftu.net%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2012%2F08%2FPatriarch_07.jpg&hash=104ad808c1e3080f9dc1ce88ec34d4db58ec63e2)
Quote from: Gups on April 25, 2014, 02:24:31 AM
Quote from: mongers on April 24, 2014, 05:08:56 PM
None of it is the least bit surprising is it, Shelf ?
We're what, 14 months off an election and the Tories are tapping into any Nimbyist/Daily Mail friendly prejudice they can find, in an effort to sure up their vote and stop is leaking away to UKIP and the consequent post-election confusion.
Although in fairness, HS2 has its second reading next week.
Will it pass? Britain, namely England has very good geography conditions (small size and lack of mountains) for high-speed train, better than France.
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on April 25, 2014, 09:20:11 AM
Quote from: Gups on April 25, 2014, 02:24:31 AM
Quote from: mongers on April 24, 2014, 05:08:56 PM
None of it is the least bit surprising is it, Shelf ?
We're what, 14 months off an election and the Tories are tapping into any Nimbyist/Daily Mail friendly prejudice they can find, in an effort to sure up their vote and stop is leaking away to UKIP and the consequent post-election confusion.
Although in fairness, HS2 has its second reading next week.
Will it pass? Britain, namely England has very good geography conditions (small size and lack of mountains) for high-speed train, better than France.
But at least twice the population density. And more so in the South East/Midlands.
Surely that's an argument for more and better public transport?
Greater general capacity and faster local links may be a better way of spending the money :hmm:
I forgot to mention that high-speed lines work better with high population density. :blush:
I've heard the line about the lack of population density ergo of potential in France but it reeked of Nimbyism, in the Basque South-West by the bizarre and very short-sighted coalition of usual suspects of hicks, greens, farmers, hunters, local politicos trying to be relevant. They forgot to mention than it would not be a pure high-speed link and that it would connect Iberia to Europe by rail since one link by Catalonia is not enough.
Richard
Well greater general capacity is obtained by the high-speed link since it the classic line is left to local inter-regional transit.
Avoid "beet stations" though
QuoteLGV route designers have tended to build new intermediate stations in suburban areas or in the open countryside several kilometers away from cities. This allows TGVs to stop without incurring too great a time penalty, since more time is spent on high speed track; in addition, many cities' stations are stub-ends, while LGVs frequently bypass cities. In some cases, stations have been built halfway between two communities, such as the station serving Montceau-les-Mines and Le Creusot, and Haute Picardie station between Amiens and Saint-Quentin. The press and local authorities criticised Haute Picardie as being too far from either town to be convenient, and too far from connecting railway lines to be useful for travellers. The station was nicknamed la gare des betteraves ('beet station') as it was surrounded by sugar beet fields during construction. That said, the station is now used by a reasonable amount of people, especially impressive as it has no service to Paris (so not to extract passengers from Amiens station).[23] This nickname is now applied to similar stations away from town and city centres, whether in the vicinity of beet fields or not.
The other classic example would be Lorraine TGV built because Metz and Nancy would not agree on who was to get the main Lorraine TGV station (A4 motorway controversy again!). So They built one in the middle of nowhere and are planning to move it to a somewhat better location.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gare_de_Lorraine_TGV (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gare_de_Lorraine_TGV)
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 25, 2014, 09:55:06 AM
Surely that's an argument for more and better public transport?
I wasn't taking a for or against position, but implying it means at least twice nimbyism rate per sq mile.
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on April 25, 2014, 09:57:26 AM
Greater general capacity and faster local links may be a better way of spending the money :hmm:
HS2 has been marketed very badly. The speed is actually not the main reason for it - it's really about enhancing capacity on the west coast mainline and allowing faster local links to London and to Brimingham (for phase 1).
Whether that is worth the huge price tag is another matter and the destruction of people's property (it's not fair to label people who will lose their home and their communities as Nimbys) and I don't think anyone will really know for some years.
One of the problems with HS2 is that (unlike projects like Crossrail) it doesn't bring any benefits to the communities near the line, since there are no stations between London and Birmingham International. The journey time for someone in Aylesbury won't be reduced one bit - and as they aren't on the WCML, they won't get any capacity enhancement benefits either.
Quote from: derspiess on April 24, 2014, 10:44:37 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on April 24, 2014, 05:06:43 PM
I'd say the vast majority of people who claim environmentalism is a religion are opposed to the idea of environmentalism.
I bet you would.
Why wouldn't I? It's the truth.
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on April 25, 2014, 09:57:26 AM
Greater general capacity and faster local links may be a better way of spending the money :hmm:
We should do both :w00t:
I think, though I could be wrong, that Beeching closed lots of links that were between other cities in favour of hub routes (largely through London - and, for our sins, Crewe). I think it'd be a good idea to look at them again and see if there's any routes that should be reopened.
For example I always love that Andrew Adonis stat that there was a quicker rail route from Oxford and Cambridge in the 1910s than there is now. It seems mad that we've got two global universities seventy miles apart but it takes about two hours to get from one to the other. There'd be a lot of potential benefits to joining them.
On HS2 I agree with the IPPR idea that we should reverse the construction phases. Start building the phase 2 HS2 links between Leeds, Manchester, Crewe, Birmingham and the rest first (and I'd link to Scotland even if they leave). Then do the planned phases 1 to London. I think as it's currently planned it's a bit mad to say we think it'll help boost the economy in the North and then spend the first decade building a rail-line that'll just drag Birmingham into the commuter belt - helping London, yet again.
It's expensive, £33 billion is a lot but the last upgrade to the West Coast Main Line cost £10 billion and I don't think it's delivered anywhere near as much as HS2 (and more) could. But I think we should be way more ambitious with infrastructure in general - for example building a new airport in London (Boris Island?).
The plans for phase 2 are some years away from being fnalised.Reversing construction would just delay phase 1, it wouldn't bring phase 2 about any quicker.
How does Birmingham becoming part of the London commuter belt help Londoners exactly?
Boris Island is one of the stupidest ideas anyone has ever had in the history of mankind.
Quote from: Gups on April 25, 2014, 10:43:46 AM
The plans for phase 2 are some years away from being fnalised.Reversing construction would just delay phase 1, it wouldn't bring phase 2 about any quicker.
How does Birmingham becoming part of the London commuter belt help Londoners exactly?
Boris Island is one of the stupidest ideas anyone has ever had in the history of mankind.
That assumes the man is incapable of coming up with even worse ideas; I think he has plenty of potential remaining. :P
Why do people call it "Boris Island"; if he's planning it for where I think he is its just a rehash of an old idea from the Seventies...and the Eighties...and the Nineties...
Quote from: Agelastus on April 25, 2014, 05:41:20 PM
Why do people call it "Boris Island"; if he's planning it for where I think he is its just a rehash of an old idea from the Seventies...and the Eighties...and the Nineties...
The twist is, in order to save money it's only having a mean height above sea level or around 2ft6. :cool:
In many projects, wind powered turbines are expensive and contribute little to the grid.
Certain geographical areas, like Denmark, are well suited for wind power, with not only having few obstacles to harvesting the wind, but also enough population density nearby to make connecting to the grid worthwhile.
Wind is more often just an expensive supplement than a real alternative to primary energy sources. Unfortunately. It needs to be combined with solar power (which can be cost-effective even in northern Europe) and preferably hydro or biofueled power.
Huzzah for nuclear power. If I was absolute ruler of the United States we'd be devoting a huge amount of resources to building nuclear plants right now, and any protesters or people attempting to file suits would be dispersed with machine gun fire.
I think high speed rail would make sense for the UK in the same way it has for Japan. Any talk of it here though is base insanity and train fetishism.