The UKs largest solar farm is proposed to be built about 2 miles from my home [0]. Local opposition is almost absolute, I doubt it will be built.

It’s so frustrating, I agree with the criticisms of building them on agricultural land, but we are in a situation where we need that power now. The government should be pushing though emergency measures allowing these projects to be built. But then planning on pushing for further projects to utilise industrial roofs and car parks.

0: https://www.mallardpasssolar.co.uk/

It's ridiculous that we're in this state of affairs. People using the power of the state to restrict what others can do on their own private property because "it's ugly".

There are real reasons to block development, like industrial waste or noise, but this is ridiculous. Even housing NIMBYs can come up with more convincing reasons like pressure on local services or traffic.

This kind of interference with property rights should be impossible. The UK's planning system is unfit for purpose and is far too local. Locality always means that locals will block anything they can due to being change-averse, ignoring reason or morality.

I'm all for strongly blaming the NIMBYs for this

they’ll pay for it electorally

> The UK government has cost us billions by denying permission for privately funded renewable energy projects simply on the basis that they look ugly!

The issue I have with that article is that it doesn't say how many were accepted.

It could just be that overall there were more applications to build, with rejections rising proportionately.

More precisely, the government has cost the people who would've built those privately funded renewable energy projects billions. The way the UK energy market and pretty much every other energy market globally is structured, every provider receives the price of the most expensive energy source needed to satisfy demand, which would be gas generation in the current market. There's no easy way to "fix" the market so that this doesn't happen; unlike gas, renewables have basically no incremental cost to pump out power to the grid when they have capacity, so they submit zero or even negative bids and are entirely funded by the difference between that and the actual market power price.

The same is not true of government-subsidised projects in the UK like offshore wind. Those are guaranteed a fixed price by the government, and receive payments to make up the shortfall or pay back the excess under what's called a "contract for difference". The contracted prices of current offshore wind projects are... well below the current market price of electricity, let's put it that way. (Not every country does things this way. As an article that made it to HN the other day pointed out, Germany guaranteed a minimum and let suppliers keep the excess which was an expensive mistake: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32556113) Offshore wind also fits better into an overall strategy of switching to renewable energy, since it has a much better capacity factor and is actually useful in the winter unlike solar.

>No, no! this is the price of depending on foreign powers for fossil fuels!

Also, England rejected plan for tidal lagoon power plant in Wales https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_Lagoon_Swansea_Bay

Yes, NIMBYs are literally destroying the country. They could have also permitted drilling in the North Sea.

You start with "No, no!", and then go on to, as far as I can tell, agree with parent.

Am I misreasding it? The parent says that effort to reduce our fossil fuel consumption have resulted in rising energy bills

I am saying that it's the opposite, our complacency in switching to renewables has caused this situation

The renewables are apparently not ready yet. They can't produce them fast enough, and they take an inordinate amount of material. Corporations have advanced marketing fables, recieved huge public grants all on the delusion that it is a simple switch. It's not.

I agree with the comment as written, but I think the author means "cut the green crap" and I mean "stop subsidizing fossil fuels and roll out cheap renewables/insulation/etc."

Looking ugly is not a trivial concern. It is one of many pollution sources that devalue quality of life. Whether its particulate emissions, light/noise pollution or just windmills that destroy the scenery of a seascape, its still pollution that has a lasting effect.

> Looking ugly is not a trivial concern

So important that it's worth it for thousands of pensioners and poor people to freeze to death this winter?

Not when there is a solution in place that has been effective for years.