Concern over solar farm near ancient Usk woods

South Wales Argus: Concern over solar farm near ancient Usk woods Concern over solar farm near ancient Usk woods

CONCERNS have been raised over plans for an “industrial scale” solar farm in Monmouth, by residents who fear the effect on a Special Landscape Area.

A planning application has been lodged for a 32,000-panel installation at Buckwell Farm, Pen-y-Cae Mawr, Usk, near Wentwood Forest – Wales’ largest ancient forest.

The multi-million pound plan was submitted to Monmouthshire Council by Buckle Chamberlain Partnership, on behalf of the landowner, Mr B Stephens. The land is used for grazing animals, but the application says the solar farm would make a ‘noteworthy contribution’ towards renewable energy targets. Spread across 45 acres it would generate electricity to power 2,120 homes, saving 3,286 tonnes of Co2 emissions a year. But resident Tim Miles says there would be detrimental effects.

He said: “Personally we will suffer from a large visual impact, and there will be considerable traffic involved, as it will effectively create a construction site.”

Resident Alison Broughton also raised objections on the application’s online comments section.

She said: “This is a huge construction that will be visible from miles around including areas of Wentwood Forest. In a rural area of outstanding natural beauty where no new building of homes is permitted it seems wholly inappropriate such a major industrial size complex, which will not even create any jobs locally should be given permission to go ahead.”

Glynn Buckle, a director with Buckle Chamberlain Partnership, said: “It is not prime agricultural land, and we have taken specialist advice from private ecologists and those from the local authority. The landscape architect has said this is one of the best sites he has seen because it is well screened.”

A public meeting takes place at Earlswood Community Hall at 7pm, on December 16 and a website has been set up opposing the plans – sosla.co.uk

Comments (39)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

12:15pm Fri 6 Dec 13

_Bryan_ says...

There's something counter-intuitive about trying to build a solar power farm in Wales. We're not exactly renowned for receiving copious amounts of sunlight here after all.

However, my objection isn't on practical grounds or environmental concerns.

If it wasn't for the ludicrously high subsidies given to "green" energy, would this solar farm still be a finanically viable option? If not, then don't build it. If it would then there is no need for the subsidy.
There's something counter-intuitive about trying to build a solar power farm in Wales. We're not exactly renowned for receiving copious amounts of sunlight here after all. However, my objection isn't on practical grounds or environmental concerns. If it wasn't for the ludicrously high subsidies given to "green" energy, would this solar farm still be a finanically viable option? If not, then don't build it. If it would then there is no need for the subsidy. _Bryan_

12:51pm Fri 6 Dec 13

Woodgnome says...

How often are we told "farmers are guardians of the countryside"? Not when their own greed gets in the way they aren't. Solar farms are an eye sore.
How often are we told "farmers are guardians of the countryside"? Not when their own greed gets in the way they aren't. Solar farms are an eye sore. Woodgnome

12:58pm Fri 6 Dec 13

whatintheworld says...

1. solar panels do not need 24/7 direct sunlight, they work just as well in cloudy conditions

2. solar companies will longer receive subsidies (as announced in yesterdays budget). who ever is behind this development obviously feels the project is still financially viable

3. solar farms are not eyesores (though youre welcome to disagree...). the arrays look to be less than 2 meters tall!

4. the alternatives are frack for the energy (still involves contruction and drill rigs), or erecting pylons to carry power from other sources.
1. solar panels do not need 24/7 direct sunlight, they work just as well in cloudy conditions 2. solar companies will longer receive subsidies (as announced in yesterdays budget). who ever is behind this development obviously feels the project is still financially viable 3. solar farms are not eyesores (though youre welcome to disagree...). the arrays look to be less than 2 meters tall! 4. the alternatives are frack for the energy (still involves contruction and drill rigs), or erecting pylons to carry power from other sources. whatintheworld

1:18pm Fri 6 Dec 13

Woodgnome says...

Whatintheworld: There is a place for wind farms and solar farms - but as we already have too many of them they should be off shore, limited to brown field sites and where there is minimal visual impact. They have no place anywhere near a Special Landscape Area. They are indeed an eyesore with an awful glare that can be dangerous to aircraft.
Whatintheworld: There is a place for wind farms and solar farms - but as we already have too many of them they should be off shore, limited to brown field sites and where there is minimal visual impact. They have no place anywhere near a Special Landscape Area. They are indeed an eyesore with an awful glare that can be dangerous to aircraft. Woodgnome

1:20pm Fri 6 Dec 13

Floppy backed says...

Woodgnome wrote:
How often are we told "farmers are guardians of the countryside"? Not when their own greed gets in the way they aren't. Solar farms are an eye sore.
Ok so you think farmers are greedy if they develop land and diversify so they can make a living yet if someone builds in town and makes an eyesore with massive profits that's ok its ? How arrogant are you? Probably doesnt understand rural life, buys all food from the supermarket then has a an opinion that that person is greedy because he is probably making a living instead of working 24/7 in s@@t which like many you would never entertain.

If you owned land that was worthless and couldnt sell it - your telling me you wouldnt take any opportunity to develop it?

Lets move on solar is fantastic and again those who have an opinion have no understanding of it (more ignorance). Its the way forward, its clean and its efficient. What reels me is that we all want alternative energy yet when it comes to developing land no-one wants it - would they rather a building, a pollutant a huge wind farm - no!

The world is evolving and we have to accept that there will be some views changing but so what? Its low level. We cant carry on with no development in the countryside while the population and towns/cities are growing.

Where ever you go in the countryside there are ancient this ancient that. There is history, conservation and nature and we all want this but we all have to accept if we want power then something has to give. Good thing about solar is it wont effect anything just visual which again is low key.

For those in opposition - please give your alternatives and quickly because whether we like it or not local authorities have to comply and have policies on alternatives. I for one want to see more solar farms!!
[quote][p][bold]Woodgnome[/bold] wrote: How often are we told "farmers are guardians of the countryside"? Not when their own greed gets in the way they aren't. Solar farms are an eye sore.[/p][/quote]Ok so you think farmers are greedy if they develop land and diversify so they can make a living yet if someone builds in town and makes an eyesore with massive profits that's ok its ? How arrogant are you? Probably doesnt understand rural life, buys all food from the supermarket then has a an opinion that that person is greedy because he is probably making a living instead of working 24/7 in s@@t which like many you would never entertain. If you owned land that was worthless and couldnt sell it - your telling me you wouldnt take any opportunity to develop it? Lets move on solar is fantastic and again those who have an opinion have no understanding of it (more ignorance). Its the way forward, its clean and its efficient. What reels me is that we all want alternative energy yet when it comes to developing land no-one wants it - would they rather a building, a pollutant a huge wind farm - no! The world is evolving and we have to accept that there will be some views changing but so what? Its low level. We cant carry on with no development in the countryside while the population and towns/cities are growing. Where ever you go in the countryside there are ancient this ancient that. There is history, conservation and nature and we all want this but we all have to accept if we want power then something has to give. Good thing about solar is it wont effect anything just visual which again is low key. For those in opposition - please give your alternatives and quickly because whether we like it or not local authorities have to comply and have policies on alternatives. I for one want to see more solar farms!! Floppy backed

1:21pm Fri 6 Dec 13

Floppy backed says...

" an awful glare that can be dangerous to aircraft". Oh please get your facts right!!!!
" an awful glare that can be dangerous to aircraft". Oh please get your facts right!!!! Floppy backed

1:24pm Fri 6 Dec 13

Woodgnome says...

Floppy backed wrote:
" an awful glare that can be dangerous to aircraft". Oh please get your facts right!!!!
OK know all - just look at the Civil Aviation Authority website!!
[quote][p][bold]Floppy backed[/bold] wrote: " an awful glare that can be dangerous to aircraft". Oh please get your facts right!!!![/p][/quote]OK know all - just look at the Civil Aviation Authority website!! Woodgnome

1:26pm Fri 6 Dec 13

Floppy backed says...

For your information you cannot 'stick' alternative energy farms 'anywhere' the positioning is vital, the location of the pylons, the size of the pylons is crucial as they have to be lower Kvs. The orientation, the access, land size, neighbours, the rent, its all much more than what the general public think.
For your information you cannot 'stick' alternative energy farms 'anywhere' the positioning is vital, the location of the pylons, the size of the pylons is crucial as they have to be lower Kvs. The orientation, the access, land size, neighbours, the rent, its all much more than what the general public think. Floppy backed

1:31pm Fri 6 Dec 13

Woodgnome says...

Floppy backed wrote:
Woodgnome wrote:
How often are we told "farmers are guardians of the countryside"? Not when their own greed gets in the way they aren't. Solar farms are an eye sore.
Ok so you think farmers are greedy if they develop land and diversify so they can make a living yet if someone builds in town and makes an eyesore with massive profits that's ok its ? How arrogant are you? Probably doesnt understand rural life, buys all food from the supermarket then has a an opinion that that person is greedy because he is probably making a living instead of working 24/7 in s@@t which like many you would never entertain.

If you owned land that was worthless and couldnt sell it - your telling me you wouldnt take any opportunity to develop it?

Lets move on solar is fantastic and again those who have an opinion have no understanding of it (more ignorance). Its the way forward, its clean and its efficient. What reels me is that we all want alternative energy yet when it comes to developing land no-one wants it - would they rather a building, a pollutant a huge wind farm - no!

The world is evolving and we have to accept that there will be some views changing but so what? Its low level. We cant carry on with no development in the countryside while the population and towns/cities are growing.

Where ever you go in the countryside there are ancient this ancient that. There is history, conservation and nature and we all want this but we all have to accept if we want power then something has to give. Good thing about solar is it wont effect anything just visual which again is low key.

For those in opposition - please give your alternatives and quickly because whether we like it or not local authorities have to comply and have policies on alternatives. I for one want to see more solar farms!!
I know rural life very well, have farmers in my family, live in the countryside and rarely shop in supermarkets. How arrogant are you as well as the exponent of total tosh?
[quote][p][bold]Floppy backed[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Woodgnome[/bold] wrote: How often are we told "farmers are guardians of the countryside"? Not when their own greed gets in the way they aren't. Solar farms are an eye sore.[/p][/quote]Ok so you think farmers are greedy if they develop land and diversify so they can make a living yet if someone builds in town and makes an eyesore with massive profits that's ok its ? How arrogant are you? Probably doesnt understand rural life, buys all food from the supermarket then has a an opinion that that person is greedy because he is probably making a living instead of working 24/7 in s@@t which like many you would never entertain. If you owned land that was worthless and couldnt sell it - your telling me you wouldnt take any opportunity to develop it? Lets move on solar is fantastic and again those who have an opinion have no understanding of it (more ignorance). Its the way forward, its clean and its efficient. What reels me is that we all want alternative energy yet when it comes to developing land no-one wants it - would they rather a building, a pollutant a huge wind farm - no! The world is evolving and we have to accept that there will be some views changing but so what? Its low level. We cant carry on with no development in the countryside while the population and towns/cities are growing. Where ever you go in the countryside there are ancient this ancient that. There is history, conservation and nature and we all want this but we all have to accept if we want power then something has to give. Good thing about solar is it wont effect anything just visual which again is low key. For those in opposition - please give your alternatives and quickly because whether we like it or not local authorities have to comply and have policies on alternatives. I for one want to see more solar farms!![/p][/quote]I know rural life very well, have farmers in my family, live in the countryside and rarely shop in supermarkets. How arrogant are you as well as the exponent of total tosh? Woodgnome

1:33pm Fri 6 Dec 13

Floppy backed says...

Woodgnome wrote:
Floppy backed wrote:
" an awful glare that can be dangerous to aircraft". Oh please get your facts right!!!!
OK know all - just look at the Civil Aviation Authority website!!
And? Think you'll find solar around airports. There is no longer glare from solar they are now anti-glare they are not mirrors.

I think there are many engineers out there who know what they are talking about - not sure there are many issues around large solar farms in Oxfordshire and I havent heard it being an issue unless you can pass your concerns?
[quote][p][bold]Woodgnome[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Floppy backed[/bold] wrote: " an awful glare that can be dangerous to aircraft". Oh please get your facts right!!!![/p][/quote]OK know all - just look at the Civil Aviation Authority website!![/p][/quote]And? Think you'll find solar around airports. There is no longer glare from solar they are now anti-glare they are not mirrors. I think there are many engineers out there who know what they are talking about - not sure there are many issues around large solar farms in Oxfordshire and I havent heard it being an issue unless you can pass your concerns? Floppy backed

1:33pm Fri 6 Dec 13

timamiles says...

I would like to add that for further information on the site please go to SOSLA.co.uk

Whatintheworld, this isn't about solar, it's about siting a huge solar industrial park / development in a Special Landscape Area, miles from the nearest large power sink, with no community consultation, inspite of their being huge tracts of post industrial brownsite land in South Wales.

Wentwood is enjoyed as a walking/cycling/ridi
ng spot by the whole community , this development is simply of the wrong scale in the wrong place.
I would like to add that for further information on the site please go to SOSLA.co.uk Whatintheworld, this isn't about solar, it's about siting a huge solar industrial park / development in a Special Landscape Area, miles from the nearest large power sink, with no community consultation, inspite of their being huge tracts of post industrial brownsite land in South Wales. Wentwood is enjoyed as a walking/cycling/ridi ng spot by the whole community , this development is simply of the wrong scale in the wrong place. timamiles

1:34pm Fri 6 Dec 13

Floppy backed says...

"I know rural life very well, have farmers in my family, live in the countryside" so you can sympathise and know the hardships - so why are you calling them greedy then?
"I know rural life very well, have farmers in my family, live in the countryside" so you can sympathise and know the hardships - so why are you calling them greedy then? Floppy backed

1:35pm Fri 6 Dec 13

Woodgnome says...

timamiles wrote:
I would like to add that for further information on the site please go to SOSLA.co.uk

Whatintheworld, this isn't about solar, it's about siting a huge solar industrial park / development in a Special Landscape Area, miles from the nearest large power sink, with no community consultation, inspite of their being huge tracts of post industrial brownsite land in South Wales.

Wentwood is enjoyed as a walking/cycling/ridi

ng spot by the whole community , this development is simply of the wrong scale in the wrong place.
Totally agree. Solar and wind farms yes - but not at any cost.
[quote][p][bold]timamiles[/bold] wrote: I would like to add that for further information on the site please go to SOSLA.co.uk Whatintheworld, this isn't about solar, it's about siting a huge solar industrial park / development in a Special Landscape Area, miles from the nearest large power sink, with no community consultation, inspite of their being huge tracts of post industrial brownsite land in South Wales. Wentwood is enjoyed as a walking/cycling/ridi ng spot by the whole community , this development is simply of the wrong scale in the wrong place.[/p][/quote]Totally agree. Solar and wind farms yes - but not at any cost. Woodgnome

1:38pm Fri 6 Dec 13

Woodgnome says...

Floppy backed wrote:
"I know rural life very well, have farmers in my family, live in the countryside" so you can sympathise and know the hardships - so why are you calling them greedy then?
Simple - development not at any cost Floppy. Timamiles summarises well.
[quote][p][bold]Floppy backed[/bold] wrote: "I know rural life very well, have farmers in my family, live in the countryside" so you can sympathise and know the hardships - so why are you calling them greedy then?[/p][/quote]Simple - development not at any cost Floppy. Timamiles summarises well. Woodgnome

1:39pm Fri 6 Dec 13

timamiles says...

Btw, I'm a farmer, we've been farming in Monmothshire for at least 5 generations, this isn't a shed roof, or a farmer spending £50k to get an income of £5k.

It's a £30-40m development that will be bought by institutonal money in the City, and used to give a fat, inflation linked yield to a Private Equity company or large scale investor.

Smarter Energy Solutions who are behind this have avoided talking at all to the community, there is no decomissioning plan, no community funding, only loss of lanscape amenity and land, oh it's not that it's top quality grade 1 land, it's good meadow land with such a diversity of species that an independant ecologist NOT employed by the developer has stated that it should be considered a Local Wildlife Site, which it also borders.

Did you know just 30% of Wales ( which is a stunning country ) is consdiered so exceptional as to be designated as an SLA? So i know what, lets build a power station on it!
Btw, I'm a farmer, we've been farming in Monmothshire for at least 5 generations, this isn't a shed roof, or a farmer spending £50k to get an income of £5k. It's a £30-40m development that will be bought by institutonal money in the City, and used to give a fat, inflation linked yield to a Private Equity company or large scale investor. Smarter Energy Solutions who are behind this have avoided talking at all to the community, there is no decomissioning plan, no community funding, only loss of lanscape amenity and land, oh it's not that it's top quality grade 1 land, it's good meadow land with such a diversity of species that an independant ecologist NOT employed by the developer has stated that it should be considered a Local Wildlife Site, which it also borders. Did you know just 30% of Wales ( which is a stunning country ) is consdiered so exceptional as to be designated as an SLA? So i know what, lets build a power station on it! timamiles

2:26pm Fri 6 Dec 13

AberBoy says...

Monmouthshire has already shown sense and turned down a planning application for a solar park in Llanvapley. The reasons they gave were all to do with the size and location of the solar park. This solar park is in the wrong place. The developer is obviously hoping that he would get this one through under the radar but this has failed judged by the number of registered objectors on the MCC website.

Using solar energy is a good idea of course but not at the expense of our countryside. Right idea, wrong place.
Monmouthshire has already shown sense and turned down a planning application for a solar park in Llanvapley. The reasons they gave were all to do with the size and location of the solar park. This solar park is in the wrong place. The developer is obviously hoping that he would get this one through under the radar but this has failed judged by the number of registered objectors on the MCC website. Using solar energy is a good idea of course but not at the expense of our countryside. Right idea, wrong place. AberBoy

2:44pm Fri 6 Dec 13

_Bryan_ says...

I've read the arguments put forward by the people above and, although I am dubious about the amount of electricity it is claimed will be produced, it does seem that there is a case for this solar farm to be built, albeit in a different location.

It is generally more efficient to generate electricity closer to the site on which it will be used and if there is "brownfield" land which demonstrably does not contribute to biodiversity or local amenities near to such a location, then it makes sense for the solar farm to be built there instead.

As a starter for ten, could I suggest a solar farm as part of the Ebbw Vale Racing Circuit development, which I understand will include a number of industrial buildings which would use the energy generated.
I've read the arguments put forward by the people above and, although I am dubious about the amount of electricity it is claimed will be produced, it does seem that there is a case for this solar farm to be built, albeit in a different location. It is generally more efficient to generate electricity closer to the site on which it will be used and if there is "brownfield" land which demonstrably does not contribute to biodiversity or local amenities near to such a location, then it makes sense for the solar farm to be built there instead. As a starter for ten, could I suggest a solar farm as part of the Ebbw Vale Racing Circuit development, which I understand will include a number of industrial buildings which would use the energy generated. _Bryan_

2:57pm Fri 6 Dec 13

timamiles says...

Bryan, spot on, solar in this case is the right idea in the wrong location. Although to be fair solar in wales is very very marginal, it's hard enough to get a maize crop to mature ( not enough sunlight ), it's only the English clamping down on them, very low panel prices, and ultra low interest rates that are causing this wave of applications in wales.

In wales we're windy and wet, good for hydro, tidal, and wind. Not very good for solar really. I used to work in renewable energy doing the financial calculations so I'm far from ignorant about the pro's and cons, "large oil co solar" I used to work for wouldn't touch a site like Wentwood with a bargepole, they had the mad idea of putting them in sunny Spain and well away from any populated areas. They were even careful to actually work WITH the local community.
Bryan, spot on, solar in this case is the right idea in the wrong location. Although to be fair solar in wales is very very marginal, it's hard enough to get a maize crop to mature ( not enough sunlight ), it's only the English clamping down on them, very low panel prices, and ultra low interest rates that are causing this wave of applications in wales. In wales we're windy and wet, good for hydro, tidal, and wind. Not very good for solar really. I used to work in renewable energy doing the financial calculations so I'm far from ignorant about the pro's and cons, "large oil co solar" I used to work for wouldn't touch a site like Wentwood with a bargepole, they had the mad idea of putting them in sunny Spain and well away from any populated areas. They were even careful to actually work WITH the local community. timamiles

4:25pm Fri 6 Dec 13

Limestonecowboy says...

If we are to rely on solar panels for electricity... what happens after dark!?
If we are to rely on solar panels for electricity... what happens after dark!? Limestonecowboy

6:42pm Fri 6 Dec 13

welshmen says...

Limestonecowboy wrote:
If we are to rely on solar panels for electricity... what happens after dark!?
Turn the light on dude....
[quote][p][bold]Limestonecowboy[/bold] wrote: If we are to rely on solar panels for electricity... what happens after dark!?[/p][/quote]Turn the light on dude.... welshmen

4:12pm Sat 7 Dec 13

Limestonecowboy says...

welshmen wrote:
Limestonecowboy wrote: If we are to rely on solar panels for electricity... what happens after dark!?
Turn the light on dude....
DOH! thats the whole point lets explain. No sun light beacuse dark therefore no electric generated? (dude)
[quote][p][bold]welshmen[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Limestonecowboy[/bold] wrote: If we are to rely on solar panels for electricity... what happens after dark!?[/p][/quote]Turn the light on dude....[/p][/quote]DOH! thats the whole point lets explain. No sun light beacuse dark therefore no electric generated? (dude) Limestonecowboy

2:56am Sun 8 Dec 13

rellim says...

More country side destroyed under guise of green renewable energy, it is one big con to loose a green field site
More country side destroyed under guise of green renewable energy, it is one big con to loose a green field site rellim

10:48am Sun 8 Dec 13

ollie72 says...

Woodgnome wrote:
Floppy backed wrote:
" an awful glare that can be dangerous to aircraft". Oh please get your facts right!!!!
OK know all - just look at the Civil Aviation Authority website!!
If the panels were in a position to affect aircraft, then the CAA, Cardiff airport or Bristol airport would have objected at planning stage - the fact that they didn't means (shock horror!) that the position was considered during project planning.

if you're scared about the awful glare, then I suggest you don't fly in to Madrid or Lisbon, as the airports there are surrounded by solar farms...

People who object to alternative energy installations do so because they don't like the look - fair enough, that's their view - but they realise how stupid and selfish that sounds, and keep trying to trot out "safety" or "subsidies" arguments.

It would be a much better debate if these people would just be honest with themselves.
[quote][p][bold]Woodgnome[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Floppy backed[/bold] wrote: " an awful glare that can be dangerous to aircraft". Oh please get your facts right!!!![/p][/quote]OK know all - just look at the Civil Aviation Authority website!![/p][/quote]If the panels were in a position to affect aircraft, then the CAA, Cardiff airport or Bristol airport would have objected at planning stage - the fact that they didn't means (shock horror!) that the position was considered during project planning. if you're scared about the awful glare, then I suggest you don't fly in to Madrid or Lisbon, as the airports there are surrounded by solar farms... People who object to alternative energy installations do so because they don't like the look - fair enough, that's their view - but they realise how stupid and selfish that sounds, and keep trying to trot out "safety" or "subsidies" arguments. It would be a much better debate if these people would just be honest with themselves. ollie72

11:13am Sun 8 Dec 13

Woodgnome says...

ollie72 wrote:
Woodgnome wrote:
Floppy backed wrote:
" an awful glare that can be dangerous to aircraft". Oh please get your facts right!!!!
OK know all - just look at the Civil Aviation Authority website!!
If the panels were in a position to affect aircraft, then the CAA, Cardiff airport or Bristol airport would have objected at planning stage - the fact that they didn't means (shock horror!) that the position was considered during project planning.

if you're scared about the awful glare, then I suggest you don't fly in to Madrid or Lisbon, as the airports there are surrounded by solar farms...

People who object to alternative energy installations do so because they don't like the look - fair enough, that's their view - but they realise how stupid and selfish that sounds, and keep trying to trot out "safety" or "subsidies" arguments.

It would be a much better debate if these people would just be honest with themselves.
Have you actual read the post properly?
Solar yes BUT IN THE RIGHT PLACE.
[quote][p][bold]ollie72[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Woodgnome[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Floppy backed[/bold] wrote: " an awful glare that can be dangerous to aircraft". Oh please get your facts right!!!![/p][/quote]OK know all - just look at the Civil Aviation Authority website!![/p][/quote]If the panels were in a position to affect aircraft, then the CAA, Cardiff airport or Bristol airport would have objected at planning stage - the fact that they didn't means (shock horror!) that the position was considered during project planning. if you're scared about the awful glare, then I suggest you don't fly in to Madrid or Lisbon, as the airports there are surrounded by solar farms... People who object to alternative energy installations do so because they don't like the look - fair enough, that's their view - but they realise how stupid and selfish that sounds, and keep trying to trot out "safety" or "subsidies" arguments. It would be a much better debate if these people would just be honest with themselves.[/p][/quote]Have you actual read the post properly? Solar yes BUT IN THE RIGHT PLACE. Woodgnome

9:06am Mon 9 Dec 13

Llanmartinangel says...

Limestonecowboy wrote:
If we are to rely on solar panels for electricity... what happens after dark!?
That's what is commonly referred to as base load supply. Since neither solar nor wind can produce for around 30-50% of a year, you need something to power Britain for the sixteen hours in winter when it's dark and there's no wind. At the moment the only options are fossil fuels and nuclear. Tidal could take a bit of the slack but again, it isn't constant nor scaleable enough. And since tree-huggers have all bases covered, none of those options are palatable to some.
[quote][p][bold]Limestonecowboy[/bold] wrote: If we are to rely on solar panels for electricity... what happens after dark!?[/p][/quote]That's what is commonly referred to as base load supply. Since neither solar nor wind can produce for around 30-50% of a year, you need something to power Britain for the sixteen hours in winter when it's dark and there's no wind. At the moment the only options are fossil fuels and nuclear. Tidal could take a bit of the slack but again, it isn't constant nor scaleable enough. And since tree-huggers have all bases covered, none of those options are palatable to some. Llanmartinangel

12:53pm Mon 9 Dec 13

ollie72 says...

Woodgnome wrote:
ollie72 wrote:
Woodgnome wrote:
Floppy backed wrote:
" an awful glare that can be dangerous to aircraft". Oh please get your facts right!!!!
OK know all - just look at the Civil Aviation Authority website!!
If the panels were in a position to affect aircraft, then the CAA, Cardiff airport or Bristol airport would have objected at planning stage - the fact that they didn't means (shock horror!) that the position was considered during project planning.

if you're scared about the awful glare, then I suggest you don't fly in to Madrid or Lisbon, as the airports there are surrounded by solar farms...

People who object to alternative energy installations do so because they don't like the look - fair enough, that's their view - but they realise how stupid and selfish that sounds, and keep trying to trot out "safety" or "subsidies" arguments.

It would be a much better debate if these people would just be honest with themselves.
Have you actual read the post properly?
Solar yes BUT IN THE RIGHT PLACE.
In the right place? You mean like somewhere away from major population? Like somewhere that the installation can be screened from general view?

And precisely which post are you saying that I haven't read? The original, or the one-line post I replied to here?
[quote][p][bold]Woodgnome[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ollie72[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Woodgnome[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Floppy backed[/bold] wrote: " an awful glare that can be dangerous to aircraft". Oh please get your facts right!!!![/p][/quote]OK know all - just look at the Civil Aviation Authority website!![/p][/quote]If the panels were in a position to affect aircraft, then the CAA, Cardiff airport or Bristol airport would have objected at planning stage - the fact that they didn't means (shock horror!) that the position was considered during project planning. if you're scared about the awful glare, then I suggest you don't fly in to Madrid or Lisbon, as the airports there are surrounded by solar farms... People who object to alternative energy installations do so because they don't like the look - fair enough, that's their view - but they realise how stupid and selfish that sounds, and keep trying to trot out "safety" or "subsidies" arguments. It would be a much better debate if these people would just be honest with themselves.[/p][/quote]Have you actual read the post properly? Solar yes BUT IN THE RIGHT PLACE.[/p][/quote]In the right place? You mean like somewhere away from major population? Like somewhere that the installation can be screened from general view? And precisely which post are you saying that I haven't read? The original, or the one-line post I replied to here? ollie72

1:00pm Mon 9 Dec 13

ollie72 says...

Llanmartinangel wrote:
Limestonecowboy wrote:
If we are to rely on solar panels for electricity... what happens after dark!?
That's what is commonly referred to as base load supply. Since neither solar nor wind can produce for around 30-50% of a year, you need something to power Britain for the sixteen hours in winter when it's dark and there's no wind. At the moment the only options are fossil fuels and nuclear. Tidal could take a bit of the slack but again, it isn't constant nor scaleable enough. And since tree-huggers have all bases covered, none of those options are palatable to some.
Actually, some of us "tree huggers" accept the fact that some non renewable sources are needed for base load (nuclear is my preference, especially once the Thorium reactors are on line).

But while you may need a fossil fuel power station for when the sun is down, the wind isn't blowing and the tide is slack - at least you don't need it all the time, and that means a lot less pollution.

Also, with the use of single medium wind turbines, and local solar panels, you can avoid central power generation and the huge energy losses that come with it - you can lose half of what a centralised power station generates in transmission losses.
[quote][p][bold]Llanmartinangel[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Limestonecowboy[/bold] wrote: If we are to rely on solar panels for electricity... what happens after dark!?[/p][/quote]That's what is commonly referred to as base load supply. Since neither solar nor wind can produce for around 30-50% of a year, you need something to power Britain for the sixteen hours in winter when it's dark and there's no wind. At the moment the only options are fossil fuels and nuclear. Tidal could take a bit of the slack but again, it isn't constant nor scaleable enough. And since tree-huggers have all bases covered, none of those options are palatable to some.[/p][/quote]Actually, some of us "tree huggers" accept the fact that some non renewable sources are needed for base load (nuclear is my preference, especially once the Thorium reactors are on line). But while you may need a fossil fuel power station for when the sun is down, the wind isn't blowing and the tide is slack - at least you don't need it all the time, and that means a lot less pollution. Also, with the use of single medium wind turbines, and local solar panels, you can avoid central power generation and the huge energy losses that come with it - you can lose half of what a centralised power station generates in transmission losses. ollie72

3:13pm Mon 9 Dec 13

timamiles says...

You do realise these panels leach lead and cadmuim, the proposed site isn't just in a special landscape area, it's souther border is a 425m contact with the Castrogi Brook......which feeds into Wentwood reservoir. It's hard to think of a more stupid place to put it even if you were trying to be deliberately stupid in terms of where you put it.
You do realise these panels leach lead and cadmuim, the proposed site isn't just in a special landscape area, it's souther border is a 425m contact with the Castrogi Brook......which feeds into Wentwood reservoir. It's hard to think of a more stupid place to put it even if you were trying to be deliberately stupid in terms of where you put it. timamiles

3:21pm Mon 9 Dec 13

Llanmartinangel says...

ollie72 wrote:
Llanmartinangel wrote:
Limestonecowboy wrote:
If we are to rely on solar panels for electricity... what happens after dark!?
That's what is commonly referred to as base load supply. Since neither solar nor wind can produce for around 30-50% of a year, you need something to power Britain for the sixteen hours in winter when it's dark and there's no wind. At the moment the only options are fossil fuels and nuclear. Tidal could take a bit of the slack but again, it isn't constant nor scaleable enough. And since tree-huggers have all bases covered, none of those options are palatable to some.
Actually, some of us "tree huggers" accept the fact that some non renewable sources are needed for base load (nuclear is my preference, especially once the Thorium reactors are on line).

But while you may need a fossil fuel power station for when the sun is down, the wind isn't blowing and the tide is slack - at least you don't need it all the time, and that means a lot less pollution.

Also, with the use of single medium wind turbines, and local solar panels, you can avoid central power generation and the huge energy losses that come with it - you can lose half of what a centralised power station generates in transmission losses.
Wasn't disagreeing with you, rather I was pointing out that there is a lobby against every form of generation. It's funny that something we all need generates (no pun intended) such strong emotions against all means of solving it. I happen to be pro nuclear too and am unconvinced about wind farms.
[quote][p][bold]ollie72[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Llanmartinangel[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Limestonecowboy[/bold] wrote: If we are to rely on solar panels for electricity... what happens after dark!?[/p][/quote]That's what is commonly referred to as base load supply. Since neither solar nor wind can produce for around 30-50% of a year, you need something to power Britain for the sixteen hours in winter when it's dark and there's no wind. At the moment the only options are fossil fuels and nuclear. Tidal could take a bit of the slack but again, it isn't constant nor scaleable enough. And since tree-huggers have all bases covered, none of those options are palatable to some.[/p][/quote]Actually, some of us "tree huggers" accept the fact that some non renewable sources are needed for base load (nuclear is my preference, especially once the Thorium reactors are on line). But while you may need a fossil fuel power station for when the sun is down, the wind isn't blowing and the tide is slack - at least you don't need it all the time, and that means a lot less pollution. Also, with the use of single medium wind turbines, and local solar panels, you can avoid central power generation and the huge energy losses that come with it - you can lose half of what a centralised power station generates in transmission losses.[/p][/quote]Wasn't disagreeing with you, rather I was pointing out that there is a lobby against every form of generation. It's funny that something we all need generates (no pun intended) such strong emotions against all means of solving it. I happen to be pro nuclear too and am unconvinced about wind farms. Llanmartinangel

3:27pm Mon 9 Dec 13

timamiles says...

I'm with you both on distributed power, and Ollie on nuclear, especially small scale thorium reactors once they are perfected. The question remains, if flat, well connected, brownfield land is available near infrastructure and a power sink ( population ), why on earth would you put the site all the way out in the open countryside, on greenfield land, with no nearby power transmission lines or substation, in an intensively used beauty spot, on a water course feeding into a reservoir?

There are several other proposed solar parks being planned, none of which I'd object to because they are sensibly located.
I'm with you both on distributed power, and Ollie on nuclear, especially small scale thorium reactors once they are perfected. The question remains, if flat, well connected, brownfield land is available near infrastructure and a power sink ( population ), why on earth would you put the site all the way out in the open countryside, on greenfield land, with no nearby power transmission lines or substation, in an intensively used beauty spot, on a water course feeding into a reservoir? There are several other proposed solar parks being planned, none of which I'd object to because they are sensibly located. timamiles

4:40pm Mon 9 Dec 13

Llanmartinangel says...

timamiles wrote:
I'm with you both on distributed power, and Ollie on nuclear, especially small scale thorium reactors once they are perfected. The question remains, if flat, well connected, brownfield land is available near infrastructure and a power sink ( population ), why on earth would you put the site all the way out in the open countryside, on greenfield land, with no nearby power transmission lines or substation, in an intensively used beauty spot, on a water course feeding into a reservoir?

There are several other proposed solar parks being planned, none of which I'd object to because they are sensibly located.
Fair comment though I suspect the value and commercial potential of brownfield sites is higher, hence the temptation to use agricultural locations.
[quote][p][bold]timamiles[/bold] wrote: I'm with you both on distributed power, and Ollie on nuclear, especially small scale thorium reactors once they are perfected. The question remains, if flat, well connected, brownfield land is available near infrastructure and a power sink ( population ), why on earth would you put the site all the way out in the open countryside, on greenfield land, with no nearby power transmission lines or substation, in an intensively used beauty spot, on a water course feeding into a reservoir? There are several other proposed solar parks being planned, none of which I'd object to because they are sensibly located.[/p][/quote]Fair comment though I suspect the value and commercial potential of brownfield sites is higher, hence the temptation to use agricultural locations. Llanmartinangel

5:54pm Mon 9 Dec 13

SASHA.P says...

No offense but I have to add to this a solar farm in itself will become a habitat after all it wont be farmed land and certain plant species will take hold it would not be land that is devloped on by these housing companies that seem to be in filling where ever they can find and empty field I would imagine that the wild animals would certainly make use of this space and it would become a very safe place for the wildlife in the area ok so its probably not going to look great but it can produce electric and if thats what the farmer wants then why not at the end of the day farming is going downhill the goverment is doing sod all to help anyone involved with agriculture they keep importing rubbish meats from abroad !what else are uk farmers going to do with their land other than split divide sell up to developers ! sad times because if we ever had another war I cant imagine how this country would get by on rations could you?farmland is important and one day we may need to grow our own crops if the imports ever stopped.I think the fact the farmer wants to keep hold of his land is a good thing if he wants to use it for solar then let him one day we may need somebody with that knowledge to keep this country alive
No offense but I have to add to this a solar farm in itself will become a habitat after all it wont be farmed land and certain plant species will take hold it would not be land that is devloped on by these housing companies that seem to be in filling where ever they can find and empty field I would imagine that the wild animals would certainly make use of this space and it would become a very safe place for the wildlife in the area ok so its probably not going to look great but it can produce electric and if thats what the farmer wants then why not at the end of the day farming is going downhill the goverment is doing sod all to help anyone involved with agriculture they keep importing rubbish meats from abroad !what else are uk farmers going to do with their land other than split divide sell up to developers ! sad times because if we ever had another war I cant imagine how this country would get by on rations could you?farmland is important and one day we may need to grow our own crops if the imports ever stopped.I think the fact the farmer wants to keep hold of his land is a good thing if he wants to use it for solar then let him one day we may need somebody with that knowledge to keep this country alive SASHA.P

7:08pm Mon 9 Dec 13

Woodgnome says...

ollie72 wrote:
Woodgnome wrote:
ollie72 wrote:
Woodgnome wrote:
Floppy backed wrote:
" an awful glare that can be dangerous to aircraft". Oh please get your facts right!!!!
OK know all - just look at the Civil Aviation Authority website!!
If the panels were in a position to affect aircraft, then the CAA, Cardiff airport or Bristol airport would have objected at planning stage - the fact that they didn't means (shock horror!) that the position was considered during project planning.

if you're scared about the awful glare, then I suggest you don't fly in to Madrid or Lisbon, as the airports there are surrounded by solar farms...

People who object to alternative energy installations do so because they don't like the look - fair enough, that's their view - but they realise how stupid and selfish that sounds, and keep trying to trot out "safety" or "subsidies" arguments.

It would be a much better debate if these people would just be honest with themselves.
Have you actual read the post properly?
Solar yes BUT IN THE RIGHT PLACE.
In the right place? You mean like somewhere away from major population? Like somewhere that the installation can be screened from general view?

And precisely which post are you saying that I haven't read? The original, or the one-line post I replied to here?
"Like somewhere that the installation can be screened from general view? " Absolutely, yes, they are an eyesore - and in my opinion that includes the ones on house roofs.

If you had read my post you will see that I said the following so do I need say it again? "They have no place anywhere near a Special Landscape Area."
[quote][p][bold]ollie72[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Woodgnome[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ollie72[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Woodgnome[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Floppy backed[/bold] wrote: " an awful glare that can be dangerous to aircraft". Oh please get your facts right!!!![/p][/quote]OK know all - just look at the Civil Aviation Authority website!![/p][/quote]If the panels were in a position to affect aircraft, then the CAA, Cardiff airport or Bristol airport would have objected at planning stage - the fact that they didn't means (shock horror!) that the position was considered during project planning. if you're scared about the awful glare, then I suggest you don't fly in to Madrid or Lisbon, as the airports there are surrounded by solar farms... People who object to alternative energy installations do so because they don't like the look - fair enough, that's their view - but they realise how stupid and selfish that sounds, and keep trying to trot out "safety" or "subsidies" arguments. It would be a much better debate if these people would just be honest with themselves.[/p][/quote]Have you actual read the post properly? Solar yes BUT IN THE RIGHT PLACE.[/p][/quote]In the right place? You mean like somewhere away from major population? Like somewhere that the installation can be screened from general view? And precisely which post are you saying that I haven't read? The original, or the one-line post I replied to here?[/p][/quote]"Like somewhere that the installation can be screened from general view? " Absolutely, yes, they are an eyesore - and in my opinion that includes the ones on house roofs. If you had read my post you will see that I said the following so do I need say it again? "They have no place anywhere near a Special Landscape Area." Woodgnome

7:53pm Mon 9 Dec 13

timamiles says...

SASHA.P wrote:
No offense but I have to add to this a solar farm in itself will become a habitat after all it wont be farmed land and certain plant species will take hold it would not be land that is devloped on by these housing companies that seem to be in filling where ever they can find and empty field I would imagine that the wild animals would certainly make use of this space and it would become a very safe place for the wildlife in the area ok so its probably not going to look great but it can produce electric and if thats what the farmer wants then why not at the end of the day farming is going downhill the goverment is doing sod all to help anyone involved with agriculture they keep importing rubbish meats from abroad !what else are uk farmers going to do with their land other than split divide sell up to developers ! sad times because if we ever had another war I cant imagine how this country would get by on rations could you?farmland is important and one day we may need to grow our own crops if the imports ever stopped.I think the fact the farmer wants to keep hold of his land is a good thing if he wants to use it for solar then let him one day we may need somebody with that knowledge to keep this country alive
Sh Sha, the farmer in question has a plan b if he fails to get planning, he intends to use the land to produce free range chickens or raise pigs.
[quote][p][bold]SASHA.P[/bold] wrote: No offense but I have to add to this a solar farm in itself will become a habitat after all it wont be farmed land and certain plant species will take hold it would not be land that is devloped on by these housing companies that seem to be in filling where ever they can find and empty field I would imagine that the wild animals would certainly make use of this space and it would become a very safe place for the wildlife in the area ok so its probably not going to look great but it can produce electric and if thats what the farmer wants then why not at the end of the day farming is going downhill the goverment is doing sod all to help anyone involved with agriculture they keep importing rubbish meats from abroad !what else are uk farmers going to do with their land other than split divide sell up to developers ! sad times because if we ever had another war I cant imagine how this country would get by on rations could you?farmland is important and one day we may need to grow our own crops if the imports ever stopped.I think the fact the farmer wants to keep hold of his land is a good thing if he wants to use it for solar then let him one day we may need somebody with that knowledge to keep this country alive[/p][/quote]Sh Sha, the farmer in question has a plan b if he fails to get planning, he intends to use the land to produce free range chickens or raise pigs. timamiles

8:30pm Mon 9 Dec 13

ollie72 says...

Woodgnome wrote:
ollie72 wrote:
Woodgnome wrote:
ollie72 wrote:
Woodgnome wrote:
Floppy backed wrote:
" an awful glare that can be dangerous to aircraft". Oh please get your facts right!!!!
OK know all - just look at the Civil Aviation Authority website!!
If the panels were in a position to affect aircraft, then the CAA, Cardiff airport or Bristol airport would have objected at planning stage - the fact that they didn't means (shock horror!) that the position was considered during project planning.

if you're scared about the awful glare, then I suggest you don't fly in to Madrid or Lisbon, as the airports there are surrounded by solar farms...

People who object to alternative energy installations do so because they don't like the look - fair enough, that's their view - but they realise how stupid and selfish that sounds, and keep trying to trot out "safety" or "subsidies" arguments.

It would be a much better debate if these people would just be honest with themselves.
Have you actual read the post properly?
Solar yes BUT IN THE RIGHT PLACE.
In the right place? You mean like somewhere away from major population? Like somewhere that the installation can be screened from general view?

And precisely which post are you saying that I haven't read? The original, or the one-line post I replied to here?
"Like somewhere that the installation can be screened from general view? " Absolutely, yes, they are an eyesore - and in my opinion that includes the ones on house roofs.

If you had read my post you will see that I said the following so do I need say it again? "They have no place anywhere near a Special Landscape Area."
Well I won't argue with you on the looks of them, they are something you either like or don't.

I don't like the look of satellite dishes on every house, but it's the only way you get certain channels. If you want to generate low carbon energy, then you decide whether the look of the panels is worth it.

unfortunately, my house faces north/south, so I don't really get enough exposure to justify panels - next house I buy goes east/west!

Timamiles, are there brownfield sites with enough area to make it worthwhile? I suppose Llanwern, or the old Whiteheads steelworks site?

Personally, I would have panels on every council owned building (including all council houses), that would make up quite a few square metres, and help take the council off the grid (after all, a huge percentage of council buildings only run in daylight hours).
[quote][p][bold]Woodgnome[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ollie72[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Woodgnome[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ollie72[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Woodgnome[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Floppy backed[/bold] wrote: " an awful glare that can be dangerous to aircraft". Oh please get your facts right!!!![/p][/quote]OK know all - just look at the Civil Aviation Authority website!![/p][/quote]If the panels were in a position to affect aircraft, then the CAA, Cardiff airport or Bristol airport would have objected at planning stage - the fact that they didn't means (shock horror!) that the position was considered during project planning. if you're scared about the awful glare, then I suggest you don't fly in to Madrid or Lisbon, as the airports there are surrounded by solar farms... People who object to alternative energy installations do so because they don't like the look - fair enough, that's their view - but they realise how stupid and selfish that sounds, and keep trying to trot out "safety" or "subsidies" arguments. It would be a much better debate if these people would just be honest with themselves.[/p][/quote]Have you actual read the post properly? Solar yes BUT IN THE RIGHT PLACE.[/p][/quote]In the right place? You mean like somewhere away from major population? Like somewhere that the installation can be screened from general view? And precisely which post are you saying that I haven't read? The original, or the one-line post I replied to here?[/p][/quote]"Like somewhere that the installation can be screened from general view? " Absolutely, yes, they are an eyesore - and in my opinion that includes the ones on house roofs. If you had read my post you will see that I said the following so do I need say it again? "They have no place anywhere near a Special Landscape Area."[/p][/quote]Well I won't argue with you on the looks of them, they are something you either like or don't. I don't like the look of satellite dishes on every house, but it's the only way you get certain channels. If you want to generate low carbon energy, then you decide whether the look of the panels is worth it. unfortunately, my house faces north/south, so I don't really get enough exposure to justify panels - next house I buy goes east/west! Timamiles, are there brownfield sites with enough area to make it worthwhile? I suppose Llanwern, or the old Whiteheads steelworks site? Personally, I would have panels on every council owned building (including all council houses), that would make up quite a few square metres, and help take the council off the grid (after all, a huge percentage of council buildings only run in daylight hours). ollie72

8:38pm Mon 9 Dec 13

timamiles says...

Yes, there are huge areas of Brownfield, not to mention factory roofs. It is probably correct that a Greenfield site is a bit cheaper if you discount the environmental damage to zero and give the landscape no value. The heavy metal leaching may yet prove to be tomorrows massive environmental scandal, no one really seems to have thought about the implications of placing thousands of tons of heavy metals on farmland.
Yes, there are huge areas of Brownfield, not to mention factory roofs. It is probably correct that a Greenfield site is a bit cheaper if you discount the environmental damage to zero and give the landscape no value. The heavy metal leaching may yet prove to be tomorrows massive environmental scandal, no one really seems to have thought about the implications of placing thousands of tons of heavy metals on farmland. timamiles

4:42pm Thu 12 Dec 13

timamiles says...

Also if you, your family or any friends have roof installed PV please, please make sure that the water from that side of the roof DOES NOT GO INTO YOUR WATER BUTT.
Also if you, your family or any friends have roof installed PV please, please make sure that the water from that side of the roof DOES NOT GO INTO YOUR WATER BUTT. timamiles

10:59am Fri 13 Dec 13

_Bryan_ says...

ollie72 wrote:
Woodgnome wrote:
ollie72 wrote:
Woodgnome wrote:
ollie72 wrote:
Woodgnome wrote:
Floppy backed wrote: " an awful glare that can be dangerous to aircraft". Oh please get your facts right!!!!
OK know all - just look at the Civil Aviation Authority website!!
If the panels were in a position to affect aircraft, then the CAA, Cardiff airport or Bristol airport would have objected at planning stage - the fact that they didn't means (shock horror!) that the position was considered during project planning. if you're scared about the awful glare, then I suggest you don't fly in to Madrid or Lisbon, as the airports there are surrounded by solar farms... People who object to alternative energy installations do so because they don't like the look - fair enough, that's their view - but they realise how stupid and selfish that sounds, and keep trying to trot out "safety" or "subsidies" arguments. It would be a much better debate if these people would just be honest with themselves.
Have you actual read the post properly? Solar yes BUT IN THE RIGHT PLACE.
In the right place? You mean like somewhere away from major population? Like somewhere that the installation can be screened from general view? And precisely which post are you saying that I haven't read? The original, or the one-line post I replied to here?
"Like somewhere that the installation can be screened from general view? " Absolutely, yes, they are an eyesore - and in my opinion that includes the ones on house roofs. If you had read my post you will see that I said the following so do I need say it again? "They have no place anywhere near a Special Landscape Area."
Well I won't argue with you on the looks of them, they are something you either like or don't. I don't like the look of satellite dishes on every house, but it's the only way you get certain channels. If you want to generate low carbon energy, then you decide whether the look of the panels is worth it. unfortunately, my house faces north/south, so I don't really get enough exposure to justify panels - next house I buy goes east/west! Timamiles, are there brownfield sites with enough area to make it worthwhile? I suppose Llanwern, or the old Whiteheads steelworks site? Personally, I would have panels on every council owned building (including all council houses), that would make up quite a few square metres, and help take the council off the grid (after all, a huge percentage of council buildings only run in daylight hours).
I admit to not being an expert in this field, but I do like the sound of the last suggestion - for all council buildings including council houses to be fitted with solar panels although I do foresee there could be some issues around this. For example would the tenant benefit from "free" electricity or would it belong to the council, and what would happen if the tenant were to purchase their council house?

The principle seems reasonable however, so I would suggest taking things a step further and specifying that all new build houses include solar panels on the roof where it is practical to do so.
[quote][p][bold]ollie72[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Woodgnome[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ollie72[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Woodgnome[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ollie72[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Woodgnome[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Floppy backed[/bold] wrote: " an awful glare that can be dangerous to aircraft". Oh please get your facts right!!!![/p][/quote]OK know all - just look at the Civil Aviation Authority website!![/p][/quote]If the panels were in a position to affect aircraft, then the CAA, Cardiff airport or Bristol airport would have objected at planning stage - the fact that they didn't means (shock horror!) that the position was considered during project planning. if you're scared about the awful glare, then I suggest you don't fly in to Madrid or Lisbon, as the airports there are surrounded by solar farms... People who object to alternative energy installations do so because they don't like the look - fair enough, that's their view - but they realise how stupid and selfish that sounds, and keep trying to trot out "safety" or "subsidies" arguments. It would be a much better debate if these people would just be honest with themselves.[/p][/quote]Have you actual read the post properly? Solar yes BUT IN THE RIGHT PLACE.[/p][/quote]In the right place? You mean like somewhere away from major population? Like somewhere that the installation can be screened from general view? And precisely which post are you saying that I haven't read? The original, or the one-line post I replied to here?[/p][/quote]"Like somewhere that the installation can be screened from general view? " Absolutely, yes, they are an eyesore - and in my opinion that includes the ones on house roofs. If you had read my post you will see that I said the following so do I need say it again? "They have no place anywhere near a Special Landscape Area."[/p][/quote]Well I won't argue with you on the looks of them, they are something you either like or don't. I don't like the look of satellite dishes on every house, but it's the only way you get certain channels. If you want to generate low carbon energy, then you decide whether the look of the panels is worth it. unfortunately, my house faces north/south, so I don't really get enough exposure to justify panels - next house I buy goes east/west! Timamiles, are there brownfield sites with enough area to make it worthwhile? I suppose Llanwern, or the old Whiteheads steelworks site? Personally, I would have panels on every council owned building (including all council houses), that would make up quite a few square metres, and help take the council off the grid (after all, a huge percentage of council buildings only run in daylight hours).[/p][/quote]I admit to not being an expert in this field, but I do like the sound of the last suggestion - for all council buildings including council houses to be fitted with solar panels although I do foresee there could be some issues around this. For example would the tenant benefit from "free" electricity or would it belong to the council, and what would happen if the tenant were to purchase their council house? The principle seems reasonable however, so I would suggest taking things a step further and specifying that all new build houses include solar panels on the roof where it is practical to do so. _Bryan_

1:55pm Fri 13 Dec 13

timamiles says...

Seems reasonable, I suspect given the right incentive panels could be designed to look just like black roofing slates.
Seems reasonable, I suspect given the right incentive panels could be designed to look just like black roofing slates. timamiles

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree