Solar panels , would you ?

[PJ87]

We do need to cut down on Russian gas, but as its only amoutns to 10% or our use we have some room. Building those solar farms may benefit one side of the arguement, but what about the agricultural use of the land thats lost? With Russia going at Ukraine, the World percentage loss of wheat and fertilizers mean we need to rethink certain approaches and directions.

10% is a massive myth tho as we buy from the EU more than that and they get from Russia a lot of theirs so all price changes from Russia affect us either directly or indirectly.

We need to be more self reliant ,. These farms plus nuclear coupled with as many people switching from gas to other methods where possible will all benefit us as a whole

 

[GreiginFife]

We do need to cut down on Russian gas, but as its only amoutns to 10% or our use we have some room. Building those solar farms may benefit one side of the arguement, but what about the agricultural use of the land thats lost? With Russia going at Ukraine, the World percentage loss of wheat and fertilizers mean we need to rethink certain approaches and directions.

There are plans for a solar farm not far from where I live. The land proposed is essentially wasteland, a farmer does own it but it hasn’t been farmed for as long as so can remember it’s just scrub and a bit marshy.

So a solar farm that can power a large proportion of the area is a better use of such land IMO. Most solar farms I have seen proposed are targeting such land.l rather than actively farmed land.

The biggest threat to agriculture isn’t the odd solar farm, it’s housing development.

 

[PJ87]

There are plans for a solar farm not far from where I live. The land proposed is essentially wasteland, a farmer does own it but it hasn’t been farmed for as long as so can remember it’s just scrub and a bit marshy.

So a solar farm that can power a large proportion of the area is a better use of such land IMO. Most solar farms I have seen proposed are targeting such land.l rather than actively farmed land.

The biggest threat to agriculture isn’t the odd solar farm, it’s housing development.

Have to admit our course is recently built from reclaimed waste land

The clubhouse is beautiful, but not a single panel on the roof. Disappointing. South facing in the main aswell would be ideal

Would question if 27 holes is needed when 18 is fine and could have a solar farm on the other 9 being built now

 

[Fade and Die]

10% is a massive myth tho as we buy from the EU more than that and they get from Russia a lot of theirs so all price changes from Russia affect us either directly or indirectly.

We need to be more self reliant ,. These farms plus nuclear coupled with as many people switching from gas to other methods where possible will all benefit us as a whole

Are you sure about that Paul? I’ve had a quick look online and almost all the articles I read say we only import 3-4% of our gas from Russia. We get half from the North Sea and a third from Norway, the remaining amount in the form of Liquid Natural Gas from places like Qatar and the US.

 

[Foxholer]

To me, the requirement for new-build housing to have solar panels is a no-brainer.
I'm also a fan, for UK, of nuclear over solar and/or wind in the long term, simply because of the ratio of population to land area. It might/almost certainly would be fine in some countries - certainly US, Australia and the like, (which would lso include Russia) where there are vast areas of otherwise unusable land, but not in the likes of UK, Italy and similar. It could change many currently relatively poor counties economies (if not culture) in the same way oil did/has. Those in northern Africa are obvious examples.

Nuclear has a couple of major issues - safety and disposal of waste. The first can be handled by proper engineering and procedures, though is no guarantee - as per Chernobyl in Ukraine demonstrated with horrendous consequences. The 2nd is relatively simple, imo, launch it into the Sun - an ongoing vast nuclear bomb where a relatively infinitisemally small addition would be irrelevant.

 

[Fade and Die]

There are plans for a solar farm not far from where I live. The land proposed is essentially wasteland, a farmer does own it but it hasn’t been farmed for as long as so can remember it’s just scrub and a bit marshy.

So a solar farm that can power a large proportion of the area is a better use of such land IMO. Most solar farms I have seen proposed are targeting such land.l rather than actively farmed land.

The biggest threat to agriculture isn’t the odd solar farm, it’s housing development.

Do you get enough Sun though? I remember going to an exhibition of Solar panel installers a few years ago and the manufacturer’s were saying it’s not really viable much past Carlisle.

 

[PJ87]

Are you sure about that Paul? I’ve had a quick look online and almost all the articles I read say we only import 3-4% of our gas from Russia. We get half from the North Sea and a third from Norway, the remaining amount in the form of Liquid Natural Gas from places like Qatar and the US.

It's indirect tho, 47% comes from the EU

When Russia increases their prices or reduces supply the price of eu gas goes up aswell

So no matter what Russia effects us

 

[Bunkermagnet]

There are plans for a solar farm not far from where I live. The land proposed is essentially wasteland, a farmer does own it but it hasn’t been farmed for as long as so can remember it’s just scrub and a bit marshy.

So a solar farm that can power a large proportion of the area is a better use of such land IMO. Most solar farms I have seen proposed are targeting such land.l rather than actively farmed land.

The biggest threat to agriculture isn’t the odd solar farm, it’s housing development.

I agree some land used isn't as productive as it could be, but some land used is good landand we have to also consider our own food security both now and in the future.

 

[Fade and Die]

To me, the requirement for new-build housing to have solar panels is a no-brainer.
I'm also a fan, for UK, of nuclear over solar and/or wind in the long term, simply because of the ratio of population to land area. It might/almost certainly would be fine in some countries - certainly US, Australia and the like, (which would lso include Russia) where there are vast areas of otherwise unusable land, but not in the likes of UK, Italy and similar. It could change many currently relatively poor counties economies (if not culture) in the same way oil did/has. Those in northern Africa are obvious examples.

Nuclear has a couple of major issues - safety and disposal of waste. The first can be handled by proper engineering and procedures, though is no guarantee - as per Chernobyl in Ukraine demonstrated with horrendous consequences. The 2nd is relatively simple, imo, launch it into the Sun - an ongoing vast nuclear bomb where a relatively infinitisemally small addition would be irrelevant.

Or do like the Fins and bury it safely for 100000 years…..
https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/energy/a39396407/finland-nuclear-waste-repository/

 

[Fade and Die]

It's indirect tho, 47% comes from the EU

When Russia increases their prices or reduces supply the price of eu gas goes up aswell

So no matter what Russia effects us

What bit is indirect though? Half from domestic production in the North Sea and a third from Norway seem to be pretty direct to me.

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/russia-ukraine-and-uk-energy-factsheet

 

[PJ87]

What bit is indirect though? Half from domestic production in the North Sea and a third from Norway seem to be pretty direct to me.

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/russia-ukraine-and-uk-energy-factsheet

If Russia cut supply then Norway put their prices up which indirectly affects us by the actions of Russia

People cling onto the fact we get little from Russia but it has proven time and time again that Russia and their antics with gas affect us

 

[Foxholer]

10% is a massive myth tho as we buy from the EU more than that and they get from Russia a lot of theirs so all price changes from Russia affect us either directly or indirectly.

We need to be more self reliant ,. These farms plus nuclear coupled with as many people switching from gas to other methods where possible will all benefit us as a whole

It's nowhere near 10% - something around 3-4% - as the vast majority that doesn't come from North Sea (a pretty rapidly reducing source) comes from Norway or Middle East.
Admittedly, prices are affected by any disruption - wherever it happens, That's why UK needs to generate more of its own, from reusable - and 'clean' - supplies. FWIW I put nuclear in the 'clean' category!

 

[PJ87]

It's nowhere near 10% - something around 3-4% - as the vast majority that doesn't come from North Sea (a pretty rapidly reducing source) comes from Norway or Middle East.
Admittedly, prices are affected by any disruption - wherever it happens, That's why UK needs to generate more of its own, from reusable - and 'clean' - supplies. FWIW I put nuclear in the 'clean' category!

Nuclear , solar and wind are the future

Get as much clean electric production as possible , get as many people to invest in heat pumps and then anyone who can't but has the new boilers that can take hydrogen hopefully they can power the grid instead of gas

Mines a very long term plan , I have two internal walls I need to build fake wall with insulation, then a front and back wall to solid insulation, that will make a heat pump viable , then when kitchen gets replaced one day get induction

 

[Foxholer]

Or do like the Fins and bury it safely for 100000 years…..
https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/energy/a39396407/finland-nuclear-waste-repository/

Still not good enough imo. Permanent elimination is the only proper way imo. Better than dropping it into a mid-atlantic trench though - as I believe has/does happen currently (or has in the past).

 

[Fade and Die]

Still not good enough imo. Permanent elimination is the only proper way imo. Better than dropping it into a mid-atlantic trench though - as I believe has/does happen currently (or has in the past).

Your way is only notional, the Fins have gone for what is achievable now. I was reading that nearly 5% of unmanned rocket launches ends in failure!

https://www.space.com/13620-spaceflight-difficult-launch-mission-failures.html


Right and on that I’m off to Stratford for some pre match slurps.

 

[Foxholer]

Your way is only notional, the Fins have gone for what is achievable now. I was reading that nearly 5% of unmanned rocket launches ends in failure!

https://www.space.com/13620-spaceflight-difficult-launch-mission-failures.html


Right and on that I’m off to Stratford for some pre match slurps.

Agreed re the Finns ('Fins' just brings more Jimmy Buffett music to mind!)
But a permanent - and safe - disposal method is required - and is possible.

 

[cliveb]

Nuclear has a couple of major issues - safety and disposal of waste. The first can be handled by proper engineering and procedures, though is no guarantee - as per Chernobyl in Ukraine demonstrated with horrendous consequences. The 2nd is relatively simple, imo, launch it into the Sun - an ongoing vast nuclear bomb where a relatively infinitisemally small addition would be irrelevant.

I suspect you have little understanding of the enormous challenges involved in getting a rocket to the sun. The amount of energy required is collosal.
And as someone else pointed out, the launch itself would be a massive safety risk.

I frankly can't see why nuclear is being pushed by the government. By the time any new nuclear power stations can be built, we should have progressed sufficiently with solar/wind plus storage to render nuclear unnecessary. The continued objection of rich nimbys to solar farms and wind turbines is staggering - it's no good protecting the beauty of the countryside if 90% of the population can't afford to keep themselves warm.

Long term storage is key to solving the issue of energy security. There's plenty of solar and wind energy available - just not at the right time. (Solar in particular, because of course we get the vast majority of our sunshine during the day in summer, which is the time when we least need the power).

 

[Jimaroid]

The 2nd is relatively simple, imo, launch it into the Sun

I believe you’re familiar with the term, utter twaddle.

 

[PJ87]

I suspect you have little understanding of the enormous challenges involved in getting a rocket to the sun. The amount of energy required is collosal.
And as someone else pointed out, the launch itself would be a massive safety risk.

I frankly can't see why nuclear is being pushed by the government. By the time any new nuclear power stations can be built, we should have progressed sufficiently with solar/wind plus storage to render nuclear unnecessary. The continued objection of rich nimbys to solar farms and wind turbines is staggering - it's no good protecting the beauty of the countryside if 90% of the population can't afford to keep themselves warm.

Long term storage is key to solving the issue of energy security. There's plenty of solar and wind energy available - just not at the right time. (Solar in particular, because of course we get the vast majority of our sunshine during the day in summer, which is the time when we least need the power).

It's not about what the power demand is now it's the future

Nuclear is ideal along with solar and wind

Heat pumps, electric cars, induction hobs all use a lot of juice

Then add hydrogen that needs electric to be made

 

[GreiginFife]

I agree some land used isn't as productive as it could be, but some land used is good landand we have to also consider our own food security both now and in the future.

I don’t disagree but again counter that a few solar farms is the least of our concerns where our own food security is concerned. Some good land is used but for the most part it is scrub land they use up.

Whereas housing developers are less concerned about whether they are using good land or otherwise and the farmers likewise aren’t concerned about the good land they are selling for housing.