Potential sites for new mega-solar farms

[Terry - Somerset]

It might be enough if HMRC actually started doing something about tax evasion.

HMRC has not charged a single company over tax evasion under landmark legislation

Our new political masters have a plan to raise £5.1bn by reducing tax evasion by the end of the parliament - lets see whether they actually do any better than their predecessors.

I can't help but think those who blame the fat cats and tax evasion for all our economic woes are broadly balanced by those who think benefits cheats and scroungers are likewise to blame.

A sterile argument!

 

[Phil Pascoe]

Evasion or avoidance? Large companies do what they can legally to avoid taxes (as they should) - don't blame the companies, blame the laws that allow it.

 

[niall Y]

I believe the previous government were meant to be releasing a report this month on the level of tax evasion. HMRC have a pretty good idea of the sums they expect to collect for any given year. but I believe this particular report was to contain information from overseas off-shore accounts

 

[niall Y]

The trouble with growing crops under cover and with artificial light, is that you have to import the fertility from somewhere. You may well be able to keep better control of the environment to minimise losses But there will be an ever growing commitment to using artificial fertilizers ( not that this is necessarily a bad thing). Otherwise, those highly productive areas will require that larger areas of additional land be set aside to service their fertility.

Many market garden crops lend themselves to this form of factory cultivation. But the mainstays like cereal crops will not. You need vast acreages for this. We may no longer be able too feed ourselves from the land available but it should be our goal to supply a high proportion of the food we do eat. In this context, diminishing our available agricultural land for solar farms. would be foolhardy.

If the war in Ukraine has taught us anything. it's that the food supply can easily be weaponised - after all it is something none of us can live without.

 

[Jake]

The trouble with growing crops under cover and with artificial light, is that you have to import the fertility from somewhere. You may well be able to keep better control of the environment to minimise losses But there will be an ever growing commitment to using artificial fertilizers ( not that this is necessarily a bad thing). Otherwise, those highly productive areas will require that larger areas of additional land be set aside to service their fertility.

Many market garden crops lend themselves to this form of factory cultivation. But the mainstays like cereal crops will not. You need vast acreages for this. We may no longer be able too feed ourselves from the land available but it should be our goal to supply a high proportion of the food we do eat. In this context, diminishing our available agricultural land for solar farms. would be foolhardy.

If the war in Ukraine has taught us anything. it's that the food supply can easily be weaponised - after all it is something none of us can live without.

I think you are panicking too much. The plan at the moment is to have as much acreage dedicated to solar as there currently is to golf courses, and obviously soil quality is not an important factor for a solar farm.

 

[niall Y]

I think you are panicking too much. The plan at the moment is to have as much acreage dedicated to solar as there currently is to golf courses, and obviously soil quality is not an important factor for a solar farm.

No I'm not panicking - what a curious interpretation of what I said. We should simply reserve agricultural land for agriculture. There are other places to put solar panels - I have some on my roof.

 

[niemeyjt]

Maybe we need to be more creative - mountains like the various National Parks will remove recreation land as opposed to productive farm land - both for solar and wind power generation.

 

[Scruples]

I

i think they are paying more than their share: they haven’t benefitted from huge rises in property values, as we in in the postwar generation have. Instead many can barely afford to buy or even rent a home.
They won’t again unlike many of us be retiring on salary based pensions. Indeed they’ll probably be working into their 70s.
They don’t have a health service that works and their taxes will still be paying towards the care of our ‘baby boom’ generation of geriatrics.
Those that went to uni will be paying back loans most of their lives.
It goes on.
They will benefit and so they should. They’re not benefiting from a whole lot else our generation has given them.

It's true that younger people have a hard time getting started in adulthood and all that brings but that's not a new thing. Those older, like me, remember high interest rates and purchase taxes. Afrer spending time in a rented flat, we decided to go for our own home and went out searching for a mortgage.

We managed to get a mortgage offer and then a kindly solicitor found someone, a client of his, no doubt, who lent us the deposit at 16%; a secound mortgage arranged before the first! But it went smoothly. We bought our first home, prices were rising in the 70s, and in 5 years we moved to our existing home.

Now, although house prices are higher, so are wages for all. Not much different from the past, just different music around now.

 

[Fergie 307]

I doubt it somehow, Hydrogen has already been dismissed by many.

And many countries are forging ahead with massive investment in it, Spain and Brazil for example.
I wouldn't base your view on a single, and in many respects inaccurate and or disingenuous presentation.
For example the lady goes on about buses in Wiesbaden, certainly giving you the impression that they were abandoned because of big problems with the technology. This is not the case if you actually look into it.
The reality is that in Germany, and elsewhere, most operators of hydrogen buses are actually rapidly increasing their fleets, not getting rid of them.
There are certainly issues with adopting hydrogen on a large scale, just as there are with battery EV. But it has many advantages and, if implemented using green energy for production, is potentially far more environmentally friendly.
Fuel cells use rare materials like platinum and iridium, but in tiny amounts compared to the quantity of material required for a lithium based battery. Look into how lithium is actually produced, and the environmental damage caused in its production.
This needs to be factored into any discussion around battery EV, but is often completely ignored, either through ignorance or wilful blindness.

 

[Fergie 307]

It is interesting to note that China, arguably the world leader in battery EV, operates thousands of hydrogen fuel cell buses, and are the largest producer. They clearly don't see it as a dead end.
The advantages are pretty obvious, greater range, less weight (HFC bus many tons lighter that a range equivalent battery one) very quick refuelling as in a few minutes as opposed to hours. Not affected by temperature. A battery EV can lose 25% or more of its range in very cold temperatures.
Some German operators have reported a 30% loss of range from battery buses in winter as opposed to summer.
If you didn't know better you could come away from that video thinking that hydrogen was some kind of emerging technology, beset with all kinds of problems.
This is utter nonsense. Hydrogen fuel cells have been around for decades, as have fuel cell powered vehicles. The technology is well proven.
The biggest issue by far is how to produce the hydrogen in the first place. Viewed end to end it only really makes sense environmentally if it is produced using green energy from wind, solar etc. This is perfectly achievable given the necessary investment.

 

[Drifter2406]

Some good points made, but the one point not many takes in to consideration, weather we import or generate our own we are still using it. At the moment there is roughly 8billion people on the planet, in 20 years time how many more will need food and energy to exist? our biggest problem is the amount of people needing all this energy and resources, in the amount of time the David Attenborough has been broadcasting the population has doubled, (His words not mine) this was a few years ago, in this clip he says it has trebled in his life time. Can this planet really sustain the swarm of people and all that is associated with them?

 

[Spectric]

Can this planet really sustain the swarm of people and all that is associated with them?

Simple answer is no, we are like an explosion where you get a huge expansion upto the point all the material needed to sustain the burn has been consumed and then you get a sudden collapse that leaves very little. People need to wake up and realise that we only have this one little planet that supports our lives and that there is nowhere else even for billions of light years in any direction that comes close and when it has gone it will be gone forever. This will be a real test for nature, will nature resolve the issues by changing things to reduce our population and do a clean up like a giant dose of antibiotics ?

 

[Jacob]

Not in terms of CO2 and methane production. These are the bigger issues by far.
It's easy to confuse other environmental issues with the one big CO2 issue hanging over us.

Forgot to add: "A meat-eater's diet requires 17 times more land, 14 times more water and 10 times more energy than a vegetarian's, according to research published in The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition."
"If we combine pastures and cropland for animal feed, around 80% of all agricultural land is used for meat and dairy production. This has a large impact on how land requirements change as we shift towards a more plant-based diet. If the world population ate less meat and dairy we would be eating more crops." https://ourworldindata.org/land-use-diets

 

[Cooper]

I would love to be vegetarian but the alternatives are either so much effort, expensive or unappetising. I’m really not interested in fancy meat but why when normal sausages can hardly be described as meat are the vegi ones so expensive and tasteless? Packets of fake mince so small and also expensive, the spaghetti sauce needs so much extra flavouring to make it appetising?
It can’t take nearly as much land, effort or water to provide the ingredients for veggie alternatives to meat so why the high cost?

 

[niemeyjt]

Forgot to add: "A meat-eater's diet requires 17 times more land, 14 times more water and 10 times more energy than a vegetarian's, according to research published in The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition."
"If we combine pastures and cropland for animal feed, around 80% of all agricultural land is used for meat and dairy production. This has a large impact on how land requirements change as we shift towards a more plant-based diet. If the world population ate less meat and dairy we would be eating more crops." https://ourworldindata.org/land-use-diets

I guess that leaves us two options -

1. Learn to eat grass

2. Plough up and drain all the grazing land, meadows and other more marginal land to grow something more palatable.

 

[Agent_zed]

I guess that leaves us two options -

1. Learn to eat grass

2. Plough up and drain all the grazing land, meadows and other more marginal land to grow something more palatable.

No, no it doesn't.

There are way more options, as with most situations. Here are some additional options that are far easier -

People eat 'slightly' less meat and actually reduce their overall food consumption. ~64% of adults (18+) are overweight in the UK which has a knock on effect for other services such as NHS.
Reduce food waste - you know, actually eat the food we buy - the amount of food people waste is insane.
Diversify the types of meat you eat. Rabbits are much more efficient at turning grass into meat than cattle. Even chickens have a better feed/meat ratio.
People could actually grow some of their own food also. Salad crops are pretty easy to grow and mean you don't spend £1 for a bag of leaves twice a week.
Eating seasonal veg
Not growing millions of pumpkins to rot on peoples doorsteps

 

[Spectric]

I would love to be vegetarian but the alternatives are either so much effort, expensive or unappetising. I’m really not interested in fancy meat but why when normal sausages can hardly be described as meat are the vegi ones so expensive and tasteless?

Having been vegetarian for over thirty five years it is just normal to me and when I see young people putting shiete from Donalds and such into there bodies it makes you cringe thinking that it will still be going through them in a months time rotting away and raising there risk of IBS if they are lucky or bowel cancer if they are unlucky. Are you comparing like for like, how much are real sausages made with meat and not packed out with cereal and sinew ?

Think of fake mince like tofu, if done properly it taste the same but without the chewey tendons and grissle and have you tried

Also

It takes time to sort out what you like and don't like as it is so varied but the hardest thing for many is to avoid gelatine, a glutinous residue from bones which is even found in childrens sweets.

 

[Sideways]

Our family's diet is gradually shifting over time. We eat vegetarian meals regularly, much less red meat. Chicken is our main meat and I indulge in fresh fish each week when the fishmongers van comes to our village.
I think the trigger to this change was a few months of Hello Fresh prompting us to try a load of new recipes. I don't promote this specific service but their recipes are freely available for anyone to download and it is easy to source / substitute ingredients to make for yourself.
There are so many really flavourful recipes out there that use little or no meat...

 

[Fergie 307]

No, no it doesn't.

There are way more options, as with most situations. Here are some additional options that are far easier -

People eat 'slightly' less meat and actually reduce their overall food consumption. ~64% of adults (18+) are overweight in the UK which has a knock on effect for other services such as NHS.
Reduce food waste - you know, actually eat the food we buy - the amount of food people waste is insane.
Diversify the types of meat you eat. Rabbits are much more efficient at turning grass into meat than cattle. Even chickens have a better feed/meat ratio.
People could actually grow some of their own food also. Salad crops are pretty easy to grow and mean you don't spend £1 for a bag of leaves twice a week.
Eating seasonal veg
Not growing millions of pumpkins to rot on peoples doorsteps

Plus one for rabbits, easy to farm as they breed like, well, rabbits !
Very lean and flavoursome meat, certainly the wild grass fed variety. Don't even have to go to the shops, local farmer more than happy to see the back of them.

 

[Jacob]

I guess that leaves us two options -

1. Learn to eat grass

2. Plough up and drain all the grazing land, meadows and other more marginal land to grow something more palatable.

Well no. You missed the obvious bit of simple maths.
"If we combine pastures and cropland for animal feed, around 80% of all agricultural land is used for meat and dairy production. This has a large impact on how land requirements change as we shift towards a more plant-based diet. If the world population ate less meat and dairy we would be eating more crops."
If this 80% is then reduced to just 60% this would double the 20% used for crops.
These are crude generalisations of course but the general idea holds.
Reducing meat prod to zero would liberate 80% of the earths agricultural land for, for instance, re-forestation and carbon capture, as well as massive increase in food production.
In fact most deforestation world wide, by a large factor, is land cleared for meat production and the associated fodder.
There's even a theory that the Sahara desert was created by over grazing for meat products, and that something similar is now happening in the Amazonian and other virgin forest areas - the oxygen generating lungs of the planet being turned to desert.