UK Strategic Planning

[sidcow]

13 minutes ago, Genie said:

Do people who live closest to the wind turbines get cheaper electricity? Maybe that’s a decent compromise. 

That's the plan, as in if you accept the turbine you get a discount but the cynic in me says it will be the reason they give to refuse them. 

We tried, honest, the village accepted but Lord Donor objected despite the discount offered. Sorry. 

Edited May 16, 2023 by sidcow

[Genie]

30 minutes ago, sidcow said:

That's the plan, as in if you accept the turbine you get a discount but the cynic in me says it will be the reason they give to refuse them. 

We tried, honest, the village accepted but Lord Donor objected despite the discount offered. Sorry. 

Sounds like Lord Donor needs a few more government contracts to help him change his mind. 

[villa4europe]

I live in a countryside region that's full of onshore wind turbines, I once counted 42 of them looking through the kitchen window at my in laws, I'll have a look outside mine tonight, it's not as bad but probably in the region of around 20

Firstly my electric is obviously no cheaper, there's no direct benefit to me despite them being on my doorstep

As for the look of them and ruining the countryside, I get it, they do, it feels like overkill, there's thousands of them dotted around not 10s or hundreds, they're **** everywhere and still building more

Would say though that when the sun sets and the red light comes on the top and the blades make the lights twinkle it is weirdly cool

Edit: I have seen stickers and posters complaining about them, they call it Merkels Wind Mafia which stuck with me because I like that

Edited May 16, 2023 by villa4europe

[sidcow]

23 minutes ago, villa4europe said:

I live in a countryside region that's full of onshore wind turbines, I once counted 42 of them looking through the kitchen window at my in laws, I'll have a look outside mine tonight, it's not as bad but probably in the region of around 20

Firstly my electric is obviously no cheaper, there's no direct benefit to me despite them being on my doorstep

As for the look of them and ruining the countryside, I get it, they do, it feels like overkill, there's thousands of them dotted around not 10s or hundreds, they're **** everywhere and still building more

Would say though that when the sun sets and the red light comes on the top and the blades make the lights twinkle it is weirdly cool

Edit: I have seen stickers and posters complaining about them, they call it Merkels Wind Mafia which stuck with me because I like that

That will be all those with vested/funded by those with vested interest in all that Russian gas.

[villa4europe]

10 minutes ago, sidcow said:

That will be all those with vested/funded by those with vested interest in all that Russian gas.

No I think it's more to do with moving away from coal which they'd already committed to

There's also a coal mine near where I used to live, somewhere on the road between cologne and gladbach and that was the same it's kind of cool in a way, some of the biggest machines I've ever seen, and absolutely horrible to look at at the same time, it's a proper scar on the land

edit - 

Braunkohletagebau Garzweiler

Edited May 16, 2023 by villa4europe

[VILLAMARV]

13 hours ago, cheltenham_villa said:

Which is exactly my question. Why will a nationalised rail service be more affordable or reliable? The main argument seems to be that they can't be any worse which I don't think we can necessarily say. 

it wont necessarily be either of those things. I appreciate you are quoting my words back at me but why is that the question? The main argument for nationalisation is surely in shifting the focus away from the responsibility to the shareholders that is inherent in the privatised model and back towards providing a service with the end user having a stake.

A point others made perhaps more eloquently upthread on the old thread before we moved threads for not saying labour enough.

The point I was making was about narrowing the debate to being around political suicide. Surely the question that should be asked is how do we make rail travel better? Better from the passengers perspective.

Politicians making decisions with one eye or more on their re-election chances in a few years leads us to where we are with short termism as king and sustained investment on the back burner. And I believe that's true across many government and quasi-governmental departments.

[bickster]

2 hours ago, sidcow said:

Of course you do but it's part of the deal you signed up to, it's not been imposed on you subsequently. Not. Sure what's hard to understand about this. 

Its anti-progressive and pandering to NIMBYism

It's no different to the people that complain that when they bought their house they weren't overlooked at the back and now they are. Or that they used to have a nice view and now something has been built that spoils it.

[sidcow]

15 minutes ago, bickster said:

Its anti-progressive and pandering to NIMBYism

It's no different to the people that complain that when they bought their house they weren't overlooked at the back and now they are. Or that they used to have a nice view and now something has been built that spoils it.

Please read my original post. 

I'm not in any way saying that they shouldn't be built but that I would have sympathy for them and we do need to give careful consideration to where they're sited. 

There is plenty of space where they should have minimal impact on surrounding residents. 

[limpid]

3 hours ago, sidcow said:

Of course you do but it's part of the deal you signed up to, it's not been imposed on you subsequently. Not. Sure what's hard to understand about this. 

So when improving infrastructure requires building more railways (or roads) near houses, what then? Especially considering that modern wind turbines are not a noise nuisance.

[chrisp65]

Perhaps the deal we need to offer people is that they can reject the local wind farm in simple exchange for being disconnected from the network and thus reducing demand.

[andym]

3 hours ago, limpid said:

So when improving infrastructure requires building more railways (or roads) near houses, what then? Especially considering that modern wind turbines are not a noise nuisance.

Noise Insulation Regulations 1975 (roads) and 1996 (rail). 

Re: wind turbines, their noise impact will be assessed at the planning stage.

Which is (generally) the case for any type of development; noise along with a whole host of other potential environmental impacts are taken into account. Whether enough weight is given to these in the final decision is often debatable, but despite the typical 'planners don't listen to locals' comments, it is considered. If it was left solely up to people living nearby nothing would ever get built. Just because you can hear something, doesn't mean it is adversely impacting you.

4 hours ago, bickster said:

Its anti-progressive and pandering to NIMBYism

It's no different to the people that complain that when they bought their house they weren't overlooked at the back and now they are. Or that they used to have a nice view and now something has been built that spoils it.

My favourite is when people buy a house that is part of a new development, then when Phase 2 of said development comes along, they all kick off about increased traffic, spoiled views etc. Didn't bother them when they were doing it to someone else.

 

[blandy]

9 hours ago, chrisp65 said:

Perhaps the deal we need to offer people is that they can reject the local wind farm in simple exchange for being disconnected from the network and thus reducing demand.

They're planting some wind turbines  not far away, in the oggin, and there was a thing came through the post saying " do this...to add your thoughts to the consultation..." same happened with an Aldi supermarket to be built opposite the Lidl supermarket round the corner...

People do get a say and it is taken notice of, overall....except, obviously like when it was fracking and the the people's say and local council and county council's say is overturned by some Tory minister for ****wittery decides to be a word removed. I mean they banned onshore wind (depsite that being more popular than not) and overrode all the objections to fracking which had huge opposition.

I know there's Nimbyism, but by and large people are accepting of stuff, despite occasions where there are noisy, but minority objectors.

[Xela]

11 hours ago, sidcow said:

The yang to all this is that my best mate, when we were growing up his house backed right on to The Cross City Line. Trains every 10 minutes minimum all day and loads of night freight traffic. 

If I stayed over the occasional night it would really disturb my sleep but when his parents went on holidays we'd take over the house and I'd stay all week.  By the end of the week I would barely notice the trains. 

I'm about 50ft from the Cross City Line. You get used to it very quickly. Obviously helps that its an electrified line. You do get the occasional diverted diesel freight/commuter train but its no real bother. 

[OutByEaster?]

Today I learned the word Oggin.

[Lichfield Dean]

I live opposite the "other" Sutton line, which is just freight (and once the Flying Scotsman). The trains are very noisy outside, but not so much inside. The really big heavy ones do shake the house a bit. But interestingly they relaid the track a few weeks ago and the vibrations have dropped notably.

Either way, you get used to it very quickly. And it has the advantage of me not having any buildings opposite, instead I have an unobstructed view across parkland.

[Straggler]

First time I've been in this thread, is it for oxymorons?

[blandy]

2 hours ago, OutByEaster? said:

Today I learned the word Oggin.

You’re a youthful looking sort of cove, but blimey!

[VILLAMARV]

11 hours ago, OutByEaster? said:

Today I learned the word Oggin.

Me too but obviously the today that's tomorrow

[sidcow]

By the way. 

For  all the HS2 haters out there who think its a waste of money despite the enormous economic, transport and Levelling up benefits it will bring, have you seen the latest cost estimates for Hinckley Point C power station? 

£35 Billion and rising.  The end point of which is to supply the UK public with horrendously expensive electricity, about 10 times the price of wind turbine electricity. 

The profit from building it goes to France and the eye-watering profits from running it goes to France. 

How come this isn't in the newspapers daily, TV shows being made about it and constant online arguments about it? 

They could have built thousands of turbines and solar farms, enormous battery storage facilities, mechanical storage.  It's a far bigger waste of public money than HS2. 

And at least HS2 construction and running profits stay in the UK.

 

[Chindie]

Part of the cost of Hinckley point is they have to build everything twice. Part of the process of building a nuclear power plant is the requirement to build everything to scale as a proof of concept/safety. Which is understandable, but also mindboggling.