in the shadow land...

[Brian-Gaff]

I was alerted to something I'd not thought of the other day when on a phone in a guy was annoyed that the council had passed an application to build a high rise block so that it would in effect take away his sun for part of the day, starving his solar panels of light, and he wondered if he could get compensation for the extra electricity he would use. Two things came to mind. You could not quantify a loss as it would presumably depend on how sunny it was for how many days etc, and of course, the council one supposes can consult on this and probably did and hence he could have had his say then. However I wonder how many other people are finding themselves in this situation as it seems that the current trend is once again toward high rise dwellings with the pleb flats at the bottom with their own pleb entrance and a swanky posh bar stewards one at the other side with their own high speed lift to the penthouse complexes near the top with a view of the local river or whatever. Not to be in any way biased of course! Brian

[harry]

It could be calculates pretty exactly. And verified by comparing before and after amounts generated.

Worst case would be if the new black was due South of his panels.

[T i m]

I would say 'tough', just like they did to all the people who suffered poor TV signals (diffraction?) when they built the likes of Canary Wharf.

And how many million people have been affected when they dam a river upstream of them?

What if you put up a wind turbine and then someone else built a tall building upwind of you. Who would expect compensation for that (apart from spongers like harry of course). ;-)

Now, impacting someone's physical life directly (right to light) is one thing, depriving them of an income, especially one earned off the back of others ... nah.

Cheers, T i m