smartphone orten software here handy ortung russland mspy auf iphone 6s Plus installieren spy cam app iphone 6s Plus handy kindersicherung internet vergleich sms spy yahoo
Skip navigation.
... for greater sustainability and local resilience

Comment and Discussion

Here you can put forward your thought and ideas, ask questions and comment on any subject connected you like, but hopefully with some connection to Transition, Peak Oil or Climate Change.

To add a topic click on 'add new comment'
To reply to an item, click on 'reply' at the bottom of the item

AONB discussion document - complacent

Hi All

Enraged by the complacency shown in the AONB discussion document: - what
price landscape if it is 30 ft below the fucking sea??? So I sent them the
stuff in bold.

I think it would be good if everyone fed back to them on this issue,
particularly the simpleton attitude that nothing else matters as longs as
the landscape remains the same as it was at some arbitrary date in the
recent past.

We no longer have time to waste on energy and climate change. Improving
housing stock is a good thing to do, but we have to take responsibility, all
of us, for reducing emissions and providing the most realistic and cost
effective renewable solutions. The landscape is important, but we should
keep a perspective on this that allows that yesterdays eyesore (eg mining)
to become part of tomorrows heritage. Historically our landscape is very
largely an industrial one.

We should consider what technologies are realistic, currently wind and
solar are the chief candidates. The best wind resource is on the coast, so
we should be building turbines where we get the best generation - to do
otherwise is frankly stupid. This will involve costs, not least of which is
living with the visual consequence, but we have to take responsibility for
it ourselves.

We have to ask ourselves, where in future will we get our energy from? to
argue that protection of the AONB is a higher priority is facile, or do
people who live in and manage it think they can maintain a reasonable
standard of living at the expense of the atmosphere and the future of the
planet indefinitely? Should the rest of the population expect that the AONB
managers would deny themselves use of electricity rather than encourage more
wind developments?

Arguably we should be doing more with PV, although this of course can reduce
capacity to grow food, another priority we must not ignore, and still has a
considerable landscape and potentially biodiversity impact.

High sunshine hours and high winds are part of the natural capital we have.
If we are to maintain anything like the lifestyle we consider acceptable
then we all have to be making changes in the way we do things, and accepting
some of the cost of those changes. The beauty of wind and solar
installations is that they are relatively easily reversible should we one
day develop better but equally renewable generation methods.

Please do not expect too much energy from the offshore environment - it is
windy and wavy, and often so much so that maintaining and repairing
installations there could mean weeks or months without any generation at
all. Neatly offshore wind seems to cost somewhat more than nuclear power,
which seems to be the benchmark nowadays, so frankly on grounds of cost,
reliability and ease of maintenance offshore wind seems to be a non-starter.

Use of inshore tidal power is clearly a good idea for generation, although I
imagine it will be decades before we see much development of this - consider
navigation and bio-diversity issues let alone all the other vested

I would suggest that we need to be finding ways to cooperate with and
encourage renewable developers, in exchange for a bigger slice of the cake
remaining within the county. The status quo is unacceptable.

Chris Jones

Woodland Valley Farm




07971 436319

01726 884127