Brexit and the waning days of the United Kingdom

[Sheilbh]

New type of NIMBY


Under the circle there's "Planet + People NOT Profit + Panels"

[Admiral Yi]

  Cake + Eating

[mongers]

Cake + Eating

Maybe they're firm believers that Telsa* will ride to the rescue?



* magical energy from some other places.

[Sheilbh]

Cake + Eating

I've said it before but the big theme of British politics is having very strong views that we should do desirable things (make sure there's enough housing for everyone, net zero, not having water shortages etc) and equally strong opposition to every practical way of getting there (and obviously no-one anywhere at any point should make any profit from it)

Labour do look like they're starting to get in the right place. Their goal is to end the housing shortage in ten years - which basically means 600,000 new homes a year. But, crucially, Nandy is talking about the sort of policies that could actually deliver on that. Same with the goal to have 100% non-carbon emitting energy grid by 2030 where they are still talking about the right levels of investment and lifting planning restrictions that are necessary.

And given that they're polling at about 50%, it's entirely right for them to be bold and radical - even if the Tories, Lib Dems and Greens all appear to be gearing up for "stop building"/"save the green belt" campaigns

Edit: And I think the local Lib Dem and Tory MPs are united in opposition - of course.

I have no idea what the Russian money thing is though

[Valmy]

Under the circle there's "Planet + People NOT Profit + Panels"

Maybe it would be easier to just list the things they are in favor of.

[HVC]

Some of these people have to be de crypto doomsday cultists, right?

[Gups]

There's a perfectly reasonable debate to be had about individual projects including Botley (which will cover 3,400 acres of arable and be the biggest solar farm in Europe). Dismissing every form of opposition to a project as OMG NIMBY!!! is as myopic and close minded as nimbyism itself.

[Josquius]

There's a perfectly reasonable debate to be had about individual projects including Botley (which will cover 3,400 acres of arable and be the biggest solar farm in Europe). Dismissing every form of opposition to a project as OMG NIMBY!!! is as myopic and close minded as nimbyism itself.

Sure.
But it's every single project where locals don't opposite the idea in principle but their particular one  is a special case which is clearly completely wrong.

[Sheilbh]

There's a perfectly reasonable debate to be had about individual projects including Botley (which will cover 3,400 acres of arable and be the biggest solar farm in Europe). Dismissing every form of opposition to a project as OMG NIMBY!!! is as myopic and close minded as nimbyism itself.

That's fair.

But I think it's one of those issues where there are legitimate and complicated debates to be had on individual projects and proposals, but that I think the cumulative impact nationally is severe on energy, infrastructure and housing. I think the issue needs to be nationalised on energy and infrastructure especially (for example the issue of water and lack of new reservoir construction) and probably regionalised on points like housing, commercial space etc.

On this one though, I take your point on how large it is etc. But, I think if you are committed to energy transition and net zero as a priority that we need to do urgently because of the state of the climate then I can't personally think of the planning objection that should outweigh the urgency of decarbonising the grid. That goes fro more or less any on-shore or off-shore wind plants or solar farms - I believe that we really need to act urgently on decarbonisation and I just can't think of any planning consideration or local issue strong enough to outweigh that.

[Gups]

There's a perfectly reasonable debate to be had about individual projects including Botley (which will cover 3,400 acres of arable and be the biggest solar farm in Europe). Dismissing every form of opposition to a project as OMG NIMBY!!! is as myopic and close minded as nimbyism itself.

That's fair.

But I think it's one of those issues where there are legitimate and complicated debates to be had on individual projects and proposals, but that I think the cumulative impact nationally is severe on energy, infrastructure and housing. I think the issue needs to be nationalised on energy and infrastructure especially (for example the issue of water and lack of new reservoir construction) and probably regionalised on points like housing, commercial space etc.

On this one though, I take your point on how large it is etc. But, I think if you are committed to energy transition and net zero as a priority that we need to do urgently because of the state of the climate then I can't personally think of the planning objection that should outweigh the urgency of decarbonising the grid. That goes fro more or less any on-shore or off-shore wind plants or solar farms - I believe that we really need to act urgently on decarbonisation and I just can't think of any planning consideration or local issue strong enough to outweigh that.

Decision-making on energy and infrastructure of any size already is nationalised. Any solar project generating more than 50MW (this one is over 800MW) is decided on by a secretary of state following a report by a panel of planning inspectors. This has been the case since 2008.

[Sheilbh]

I mean more the politics than the decision making - although that needs reform as I think there's actually a spike of projects at 49MW specifically to avoid that important national project process. I mean the politics of it - opposition is often local and focused on the local impact, I think there needs to be an equal focus on making it a national issue of what the benefits are nationally and what the impact is of not having these projects.

[Gups]

And contrary to the NIMBY narrative, most developers design their projects to come in at less than 50MW because as a matter of actual fact, it's pretty easy to get planning permission for solar and  in most places there's very little opposition to it. See link below for detail on how the vast majority of projects are approved

https://www.solarpowerportal.co.uk/blogs/uk_solar_farm_approval_hits_record_capacity_level_in_2022

Edit: posted before reading your last post Sheilbh.

[HVC]

Just divide the 3400 acres into equal 49 MW parcels. Easy peasy

*edit* Math and googles says roughly 30 parcels.

[Valmy]

And contrary to the NIMBY narrative, most developers design their projects to come in at less than 50MW because as a matter of actual fact, it's pretty easy to get planning permission for solar and  in most places there's very little opposition to it. See link below for detail on how the vast majority of projects are approved

https://www.solarpowerportal.co.uk/blogs/uk_solar_farm_approval_hits_record_capacity_level_in_2022

Edit: posted before reading your last post Sheilbh.

Maybe the structure of the transmission system dictates a bigger solar farm in this case? Shouldn't what makes sense from an engineering standpoint factor in instead of some arbitrary limit of 50 MW?

There's a perfectly reasonable debate to be had about individual projects including Botley (which will cover 3,400 acres of arable and be the biggest solar farm in Europe). Dismissing every form of opposition to a project as OMG NIMBY!!! is as myopic and close minded as nimbyism itself.

Ok so let's review the reasonable debate points being brought up by this sign:

1. Despite the fact that the Russian economy basically runs on thermal generation we are supposed to believe that building a Solar Farm will actually bring Russians money. Color me skeptical that this debate point makes any sense. Even if some Russian investor is behind this, that is ridiculous.

2. Building a solar farm is putting profits over the planet and the people. Somehow.

and you introduce that arable land will be used for a purpose other than growing food. Granted the UK has something like 42 million acres of arable land, but maybe this particular bit of arable land was especially awesome for growing needed crops. Yet you are just calling it "arable land" and not "prosperous wheat fields" so I don't know.

So sure there might be reasonable debate points why this particular solar farm shouldn't exist, but you can hardly blame me for not being convinced by them when none are being offered.

Russian money? Putting profits above people and the planet? Please.

[Duque de Bragança]

Under the circle there's "Planet + People NOT Profit + Panels"

Maybe it would be easier to just list the things they are in favor of.

Me, myself and I?