The NIMBY/YIMBY thread

[frogwoman]

A lot of online Yimbys come across as total arseholes tbh, like the guy complaining a theme park couldn't be built 'because of some rare spiders' (the spider was actually endangered and only found in 2 places in the country). I think they fall into the trap of being so pissed off at nimbies that they thinking that any development whatsoever is good and that many developers are not purely interested in making money.

But yeah that said some of the excesses of nimbyism in those pieces are totally unbelievable. I personally support new developments including nearby, as long as it's not on important environmental sites etc (which isn't the same as fields that look pretty but can be a total environmental dead zone). There are some buildings in the city centre which should have been demolished decades ago but can't be because they are listed and I'd personally favour large parts of the city centre being completely redeveloped. There are lots of empty buildings which currently are in an unfit state for habitation but little has been done about it.

 

[frogwoman]

I think I might be on the verge of becoming a NIMBY as I’m just about to join an anti-airport campaign cos of the potential increase in night flights right over my house.

Yeah it pisses me off, not all opposition to development is nimbyism tbh. There's plenty of good reasons to oppose some developments! The articles linked are bonkers though.

 

[skyscraper101]

The one thing I'll never understand is opposition to wind turbines. They look sick, and produce free sustainable energy. I'd sooner have a wind turbine than a massive pylon and they're like everywhere.

 

[frogwoman]

Yes I don't understand what the issue is tbh.

 

[Cloo]

The one thing I'll never understand is opposition to wind turbines. They look sick, and produce free sustainable energy. I'd sooner have a wind turbine than a massive pylon and they're like everywhere.

Yeah, I've posted about this on threads and got 100+ responses from people who love them and about 3 complaining they're an eyesore

 

[frogwoman]

MP hits out over broadband provider's installation of telegraph poles Peak nimby better than digging up the roads and also provides roosting space for birds? What's the issue here?

 

[mx wcfc]

The one thing I'll never understand is opposition to wind turbines. They look sick, and produce free sustainable energy. I'd sooner have a wind turbine than a massive pylon and they're like everywhere.

First time I saw one in the wild, we were so excited we stopped the car and took pictures standing in front of them.

 

[frogwoman]

Yeah, I've posted about this on threads and got 100+ responses from people who love them and about 3 complaining they're an eyesore

I've heard some complaints that they kill birds but cats (and cars) kill many, many more. And painting one of the spokes black can reduce bird strikes by up to 90%

 

[mx wcfc]

First time I saw one in the wild, we were so excited we stopped the car and took pictures standing in front of them.

Here you go!

 

[pogofish]

The one thing I'll never understand is opposition to wind turbines. They look sick, and produce free sustainable energy. I'd sooner have a wind turbine than a massive pylon and they're like everywhere.

They don't - No current onshore windfarm beyond local-scale in the UK needs to produce any energy to meet its objectives.

The main thing they generate is large subsidies, paid largely up-front (ie 85% of a 25 year subsidy paid in the first five years of operation) and by leasing/investing in them, power companies avoid large penalties for not developing other forms of alternative energy generation.

Back in the early 2000/2010s they were the cheapest/quickest most developed way for the bigger power companies to meet their renewables responsibilities but overall, they are at the lower end of long term energy production potential. Never mind that a diversity of renewables supply is seen as a critical factor by most other countries trying to move away from fossil fuels.

The government admitted some years ago that their windfarm policies had failed and the vast majority of windfarms had been built for monetary reasons, not power generation and most would never realise their potential. I've linked the report here enough times in the past. That's when they switched the focus to offshore wind, where larger turbines and more consistent conditions make them a much more viable contribution.

Far too many of the things have been planted up here (roads construction, pad foundations, cableways etc, they are still far from low-impact on the landscape) so that power companies down south can avoid penalties, whilst our own ample sources of alternative energy remain woefully underdeveloped IMO..!

 

[cupid_stunt]

Far too many of the things have been planted up here so that power companies down south can avoid penalties, whilst our own ample sources of alternative energy remain woefully underdeveloped IMO..!

And, there not enough capacity on the grid to get it all down to England, sometimes the Nation Grid have to pay them to stop producing, and then pay for the gas powered generators to increase production instead, it's truly bonkers.

 

[Jennaonthebeach]

First time I saw any was a windfarm in the US. We passed them on a Greyhound bus heading to California - seemed to fill the whole landscape - was huge. Was years before i saw anything remotely similar in the UK.

 

[pogofish]

And, there not enough capacity on the grid to get it all down to England, sometimes the Nation Grid have to pay them to stop producing, and then pay for the gas powered generators to increase production instead, it's truly bonkers.

Yup - this is why they are currently digging at least two large strips across much of the length of the country for new pylon interconnects to carry the extra generation - one for offshore and another for onshore.

Attempts to have them put the cabling in ducts through the most environmentally important/sensitive areas were completely rebuffed - "national importance" and all that!

 

[skyscraper101]

The a

They don't - No current onshore windfarm beyond local-scale in the UK needs to produce any energy to meet its objectives.

The main thing they generate is large subsidies, paid largely up-front (ie 85% of a 25 year subsidy paid in the first five years of operation) and by leasing/investing in them, power companies avoid large penalties for not developing other forms of alternative energy generation.

Back in the early 2000/2010s they were the cheapest/quickest most developed way for the bigger power companies to meet their renewables responsibilities but overall, they are at the lower end of long term energy production potential. Never mind that a diversity of renewables supply is seen as a critical factor by most other countries trying to move away from fossil fuels.

The government admitted some years ago that their windfarm policies had failed and the vast majority of windfarms had been built for monetary reasons, not power generation and most would never realise their potential. I've linked the report here enough times in the past. That's when they switched the focus to offshore wind, where larger turbines and more consistent conditions make them a much more viable contribution.

Far too many of the things have been planted up here (roads construction, pad foundations, cableways etc, they are still far from low-impact on the landscape) so that power companies down south can avoid penalties, whilst our own ample sources of alternative energy remain woefully underdeveloped IMO..!

My argument isn't against other renewable sources which totally should be in the equation. It's about the opposition to turbines simply on the basis of them being an eyesore. The economics and value of subsidies paid is a valid point but if the main barrier of entry is that they are an eyesore then its not something I can get onboard with.

 

[pogofish]

I also remember how often we were called NIMBYs for objecting to Trumps scheme at Menie and look how that turned-out - a wholesale failure/exploitation by any yardstick..!

 

[cupid_stunt]

The a


My argument isn't against other renewable sources which totally should be in the equation. It's about the opposition to turbines simply on the basis of them being an eyesore. The economics and value of subsidies paid is a valid point but if the main barrier of entry is that they are an eyesore then its not something I can get onboard with.

It's the same with offshore wind farms, the amount of objections to the one off the Sussex was crazy, FFS the turbines are between 8 & 12 miles out to sea, you can barely see them!

 

[pogofish]

The a


My argument isn't against other renewable sources which totally should be in the equation. It's about the opposition to turbines simply on the basis of them being an eyesore. The economics and value of subsidies paid is a valid point but if the main barrier of entry is that they are an eyesore then its not something I can get onboard with.

A bit over 2000 larger onshore turbines in England, around 1000 in Wales and 5000+ in Scotland - planted on large swaithes of some of the more environmentally sensitive land in the UK. The eysore factor is a bit relative I agree, but we are getting a bit sick of them up here - and its not like our power is getting any cheaper because of it, or that we aren't already self-sufficient in energy by other forms of renewable generation!

 

[frogwoman]

digging up the ground for electric cables can cause more damage than building the said cables above ground though. That stuff about the gas production is really not good tho

 

[frogwoman]

Yup - this is why they are currently digging at least two large strips across much of the length of the country for new pylon interconnects to carry the extra generation - one for offshore and another for onshore.

Attempts to have them put the cabling in ducts through the most environmentally important/sensitive areas were completely rebuffed - "national importance" and all that!

What's going to go above the pylon interconnects though? If it's covered over with grass and natural plants etc which some of these cables are, rather than roads etc, surely that's a bit better? Although trying to bury cables underground has a worse impact environmentally than electrical pylons I think which is why I couldn't understand why that's seen as a better option

 

[farmerbarleymow]

Here you go!
View attachment 432834

Were you a school teacher? You appear to have a piece of chalk in your hand.

 

[frogwoman]

Petition launched to build homes on 'eyesore' brewery left derelict since 1988 unusually, local Yimbys 'harassing' the developer with petitions to follow through and actually build something. Hope that can get some houses sorted out.

 

[frogwoman]

Villagers 'shell-shocked' after Sunnica solar farm approved - BBC News

Not everyone agrees with Energy Security Secretary Ed Miliband's decision to give the scheme the go-ahead.

www.bbc.co.uk

What's the issue here? Genuinely don't get this especially as it's going out of use in 27 years. I am not a yimby as such but if a solar farm is built surely that's good? Its not like nothing can grow underneath it?

 

[farmerbarleymow]

Villagers 'shell-shocked' after Sunnica solar farm approved - BBC News

Not everyone agrees with Energy Security Secretary Ed Miliband's decision to give the scheme the go-ahead.

www.bbc.co.uk

What's the issue here? Genuinely don't get this especially as it's going out of use in 27 years. I am not a yimby as such but if a solar farm is built surely that's good? Its not like nothing can grow underneath it?

They probably think it'll suck all the sunlight out the sky and leave them in darkness.

 

[frogwoman]

They probably think it'll suck all the sunlight out the sky and leave them in darkness.

They are saying it is bad for the environment but some solar farms literally have sheep grazing underneath? There is a fact sheet which claims to say it leads to fires etc and then says its better put on people's houses- but if it's opposed because of safety how does putting it on a house as opposed to farmland make any sense?

 

[frogwoman]

The argument against seems to be that it's taking farmland out of production? I don't really understand this point either tbh

 

[farmerbarleymow]

The argument against seems to be that it's taking farmland out of production? I don't really understand this point either tbh

I suspect it boils down to that they just don't want energy generation near them. It usually does. Everything else is just excuses.

 

[farmerbarleymow]

They should build a nuclear plant there instead.

 

[frogwoman]

I suspect it boils down to that they just don't want energy generation near them. It usually does. Everything else is just excuses.

And driving around in cars which produce tons of greenhouse gases etc is better? It's got to be built somewhere ffs!

 

[WouldBe]

I don't agree with solar farms on farmland. There are plenty of roofs they could be put on and they are already connected to the grid so no need for pylons or cables underground.

 

[Leafster]

I don't agree with solar farms on farmland. There are plenty of roofs they could be put on and they are already connected to the grid so no need for pylons or cables underground.

Solar farms are the 'easy solution' to a quick solar energy transition. One organisation installs and manages a large array so it's easier to create the installation, plan connections and to know the likely output. I suppose it's also significantly cheaper as everything is on one site and created by one entity. It's easier for the grid as it's only one source of electricity to deal with.

The alternative is lots of smaller rooftop installations where the logistics of planning, installation and management of the energy generation is far more complex. You'll also have far more stakeholders involved with different needs and desires which could make it a bit like herding cats. It's far easier to task one organisation with setting up a solar farm to generate enough energy for 100,000 homes than co-ordinating 100,000 householders to put solar panels on their roofs to do the same.

Ideally, planning rules should be changed to ensure all new buildings (both residential and commercial) are required to have roof-top generation. There should also be regulations to encourage retro-fitting of existing buildings.

As you say, local energy generation reduces the need for large scale networks of pylons or underground cables but it would require more work by the National Grid to manage and balance energy requirements.

TLDR: It's complicated, solar farms are the quick fix even if other alternatives would be better in the long term.