• Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
  • Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!

Reply to: Solar Farms

Collapse

You are not logged in or you do not have permission to access this page. This could be due to one of several reasons:

  • You are not logged in. If you are already registered, fill in the form below to log in, or follow the "Sign Up" link to register a new account.
  • You may not have sufficient privileges to access this page. Are you trying to edit someone else's post, access administrative features or some other privileged system?
  • If you are trying to post, the administrator may have disabled your account, or it may be awaiting activation.

Previously on "Solar Farms"

Collapse

  • Malcolm Buggeridge
    replied
    Originally posted by d000hg View Post

    And our countryside is not 'adjusted' or 'evolved' it is totally unnatural. I think the English countryside is beautiful but that's really a happy accident.
    Not an accident. A lot to do with tight planning regulations.

    Leave a comment:


  • Doggy Styles
    replied
    Originally posted by d000hg View Post
    That's an utterly ludicrous position to take. Logically extended, since nothing will please everyone, the only way to protect everyone from being "imposed upon" is do do nothing. I mean think about the Golden Gate Bridge... to many a wonderful iconic landmark, but doubtless to others a horrific blot on the landscape which glorifies in refusing to blend in with its surroundings.

    And our countryside is not 'adjusted' or 'evolved' it is totally unnatural. I think the English countryside is beautiful but that's really a happy accident.
    The bridge was necessary.

    Arrogance. I rest my case.

    Leave a comment:


  • d000hg
    replied
    Originally posted by Doggy Styles View Post
    WHS

    Just because Person A would like a countryside dotted with windfarms, that is no reason why it should be imposed on Person B who would not. That is the height of arrogance.
    That's an utterly ludicrous position to take. Logically extended, since nothing will please everyone, the only way to protect everyone from being "imposed upon" is do do nothing. I mean think about the Golden Gate Bridge... to many a wonderful iconic landmark, but doubtless to others a horrific blot on the landscape which glorifies in refusing to blend in with its surroundings.

    And our countryside is not 'adjusted' or 'evolved' it is totally unnatural. I think the English countryside is beautiful but that's really a happy accident.

    Leave a comment:


  • Doggy Styles
    replied
    Originally posted by Malcolm Buggeridge View Post
    Ah, that old chestnut. Somebody always trots out with that when trying to defend the carpeting of our countryside be it with housing or solar farms.

    I like to think of it as man modified. There's a big difference in that what goes to make up that landscape is living organic matter not a load of concrete and glass.

    Furthermore, a lot of this so called man made landscape has evolved over hundreds of years - take the hedgerows for instance. Yes, I know a lot of these have been ripped out in the name of monoculture - and that's something else I have always strongly opposed - but the places where this has happened are generally not earmarked for development as they are prime agricultural land.

    No, from my experience, these sites are generally located where they will have maximum visual impact, e.g. on the side of a hill where they will be visible for miles around.

    So what? Well, I'm an unashamed aesthete - the gentle, almost maternal nature of the rolling English countryside is, in my mind, the best thing about this country and the thought of it bristling with all this technology fills me with horror. Yes, it's the same landscape but it will be like looking at a rose with blight. It's still a rose but it is a rose that is covered in blight. This would greatly impinge on my quality of life.
    WHS

    Just because Person A would like a countryside dotted with windfarms, that is no reason why it should be imposed on Person B who would not. That is the height of arrogance.

    Leave a comment:


  • Malcolm Buggeridge
    replied
    Originally posted by d000hg View Post
    Yes, terrible to ruin our man-made landscape with a man-made wind-mill.
    Ah, that old chestnut. Somebody always trots out with that when trying to defend the carpeting of our countryside be it with housing or solar farms.

    I like to think of it as man modified. There's a big difference in that what goes to make up that landscape is living organic matter not a load of concrete and glass.

    Furthermore, a lot of this so called man made landscape has evolved over hundreds of years - take the hedgerows for instance. Yes, I know a lot of these have been ripped out in the name of monoculture - and that's something else I have always strongly opposed - but the places where this has happened are generally not earmarked for development as they are prime agricultural land.

    No, from my experience, these sites are generally located where they will have maximum visual impact, e.g. on the side of a hill where they will be visible for miles around.

    So what? Well, I'm an unashamed aesthete - the gentle, almost maternal nature of the rolling English countryside is, in my mind, the best thing about this country and the thought of it bristling with all this technology fills me with horror. Yes, it's the same landscape but it will be like looking at a rose with blight. It's still a rose but it is a rose that is covered in blight. This would greatly impinge on my quality of life.

    Leave a comment:


  • d000hg
    replied
    Originally posted by Malcolm Buggeridge View Post
    Well, not until a crazy dictator far away learns how to control the weather.

    I have to say, I totally agree with DS on this one and I am far from convinced that the returns from these technologies in any way counter balance the detrimental visual impact on our wonderful countryside.
    Yes, terrible to ruin our man-made landscape with a man-made wind-mill.

    Leave a comment:


  • warrenboon
    replied
    They're planning one by the Cotswold Water Park. Ironic really, since a lot of the area around here (ex gravel pits) has been turned over to wildlife, and the plans have been proposed by the Wiltshire Wildlife Trust...

    Leave a comment:


  • AtW
    replied
    Originally posted by Malcolm Buggeridge View Post
    Well, not until a crazy dictator far away learns how to control the weather.

    Leave a comment:


  • Malcolm Buggeridge
    replied
    Originally posted by AtW View Post
    It generates power from renewable independent source that does not depend on crazy dictator far away.
    Well, not until a crazy dictator far away learns how to control the weather.

    I have to say, I totally agree with DS on this one and I am far from convinced that the returns from these technologies in any way counter balance the detrimental visual impact on our wonderful countryside.

    Leave a comment:


  • AtW
    replied
    Originally posted by Doggy Styles View Post
    It won't. Have you not been listening?
    It generates power from renewable independent source that does not depend on crazy dictator far away.

    You think subsidy is too expensive for the power? Turn off all your electricity just to find out how you'd manage it, most certainly after a week you'd be happily paying premium just to have power on at least a few hours a day.

    Granted, shale gas has got bigger potential in this country, but fraking has got plenty of opponents also.

    Leave a comment:


  • Doggy Styles
    replied
    Originally posted by AtW View Post
    Yes, if it helps achieve energy security.
    It won't. Have you not been listening?

    Leave a comment:


  • d000hg
    replied
    Originally posted by Doggy Styles View Post
    A blot on the landscape to me, but graceful and elegant to you, so you would have them imposed on me?
    Absolutely.

    Leave a comment:


  • bless 'em all
    replied
    Originally posted by AtW View Post
    Severn barrage would probably block the view of some rich Tory MP voters
    Nah - but it would have meant the loss of mud - lots and lot of glorious mud. There's nothing quite like it. Apparently.

    Leave a comment:


  • AtW
    replied
    Originally posted by Doggy Styles View Post
    A blot on the landscape to me, but graceful and elegant to you, so you would have them imposed on me?
    Yes, if it helps achieve energy security.

    Be grateful you are not required to pedal a bike to generate it

    Leave a comment:


  • Doggy Styles
    replied
    Originally posted by d000hg View Post
    Windmills are graceful and elegant, a testament to modern engineering. Solar panels are big ugly things, but high up on roofs WGAS.
    A blot on the landscape to me, but graceful and elegant to you, so you would have them imposed on me?

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X