Well environmental impact is something the Renewable UK lot never mention.
The fact that a 100 acre field now is sterile because its covered with solar panels and any sunlight that does get in causes weeds which have to be sprayed off, to pop up...
Fortunately there are so few wind turbines overall that it doesn't make a huge difference to anything except the cost of electricity.
Is any of TNP's qualification and background relevant to this apart from having an engineering degree from some years ago?
He's an interested amateur, same as the rest of us.
I would have thought that was enough actually, to at least be fairly sure that any engineering issues I raised are likely to be well covered, and its the engineering issues that are relevant to this particular discussion.
No, I was actually a professional engineer.
But then of course Renewable UK is staffed by 'interested amateurs' isn't it? Or does the mere fact of being PAID to generate false data, makes you a professional and somehow enhance the validity of your lies?
Was David Mackay, SSA to DECC an 'interested amateur' when he wrote his book, and took up a position at DECC'?
And since when does the status of the messenger, have any bearing on the message?
WE have a simple situation. DECC/Renewable UK claims one thing, BM reports reveals a different story, by around 80%. That is not just minor errors in measurement, or experimental error. One of those measurements has to be substantially WRONG.
And they when you look at the small print, its turns out that DECCS figures are not measurements at all. They are outputs of a model...
And when you look at the people who have 'contributed' to DECCS policies in the past, who do you find? Renewable UK. Foe, Greenpeace..these 'interested amateurs' most of whom don't even have an O level in shoelace tying between them, are producing the 'data' on which the policy is based.
Renewable UK is funded by renewable energy companies to shill for them and its board is stuffed with their employees.
I suppose since they are paid to be there, that makes them 'professional' liars.
Appeals to authorities that are clearly and unequivocally paid liars, is a strange way to make your case.
on the contrary it's common practice.
NT
That is not a contrary proposition!
It isn't strange at all. It's merely bunk.
NT
I doubt intercepting the wind would make any noticeable difference to the climate. It's the local birds that suffer.
And on solar farms - a lot of light gets to the ground between the rows. There are always gaps so they don't shade each other on a sunny day, and on a cloudy day the gaps get a decent amount of light. They also get all the rain they ever did - why can't they ground be used for grazing?
Andy
Have to ask a farmer. But might it work if the solar stuff were all held 15 feet off the ground, so farm machinery could get underneath. Or would that be nonsense on stilts?
Must be given that no one has chosen to do it that way.
I see you have no idea about growing stuff.
The panels then become a roof to a vast open area that receives no sunlight, and is therefore sterile
They certainly aren't sterile but they probably don't produce enough cash crops to make it worth while. Many have much more wildlife in them than the "sterile" fields that farming makes.
In Cornwall, planning applications for solar farms invariably get refused if on agricultural land of Grade 1 or 2, and a very good case has to be made for ones on Grade 3a land. Solar farms on poor quality land, Grades 3b, 4 and 5, are treated more favourably by the planners.
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.