Wind Power and UK Energy Use

[Altnashin]

Even if the bubble somehow does not burst, data centres still require a great many staff, and putting them in remote locations runs into all the problems of building anything in remote locations (the same problem as all those industrial units etc people want to build, people don't want them around in their bucolic pseudo wilderness).

See my post #779.
There are many groups opposed to building renewable infrastructure.
Deeside against pylons is another.

 

[Bald Rick]

See my post #779.
There are many groups opposed to building renewable infrastructure.
Deeside against pylons is another.

There’s many groups opposed to building any type of infrastructure.

 

[The Ham]

There’s many groups opposed to building any type of infrastructure.

There's a certain level of resistance to any change from a lot of people.

Some are more accepting, however a lot of those who oppose things actuality don't want anything - rather than accepting that something is needed and what could be changed to get the (say) infrastructure built, just in a way which doesn't impact them as much (or better still provides a betterment for them and their community).

 

[Altnashin]

There’s many groups opposed to building any type of infrastructure

Yes, but the planning involved for a lot of the infrastructure gives no consideration to local residents.

 

[Class 317]

Yes, but the planning involved for a lot of the infrastructure gives no consideration to local residents.

The planning process does. Their is a whole process of consultation to assess whether it will cause harm etc. For a lot of objections they relate to non material harm matters eg a view which is affected by pylons which is not a reason to refuse permission. If it was nothing new would get built!

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 28 Apr 2026 ==

There’s many groups opposed to building any type of infrastructure.

Indeed their are. The unfortunate thing is that benefits of most infrastructure projects are felt regionally or nationally which do not normally directly benefit those lodging objections.

 

[The Ham]

The planning process does. Their is a whole process of consultation to assess whether it will cause harm etc. For a lot of objections they relate to non material harm matters eg a view which is affected by pylons which is not a reason to refuse permission. If it was nothing new would get built!

It's something which a lot of people don't understand, just objecting to something isn't the save as having a planning reason for objecting.

It's always interesting when a planning committee refuses something on spurious grounds (as they've been getting heat over it from the locals) only to watch the appeal process award costs to the applicant.

One of the case studies I like is a small village not wanting a crematorium on its southern edge. The reason that's so iinteresting is that due to the restrictions from what can be built within a given distance from the chimney, that village is basically not going to see any new housing built.

New houses would have likely caused more traffic (at least during the times when extra traffic will cause issues) than they will have seen. Whilst that's not a case you could put forwards in the appeal, it is something which can be overlooked (I.e. once an application has been made for a piece of land, it'll keep being tried, again and again) and so sometimes it's better to allow something so that it stops some other (worse) development.

 

[Bald Rick]

Yes, but the planning involved for a lot of the infrastructure gives no consideration to local residents.

It absolutely does, hence bat tunnels etc.

What it doesnt do, however, is make a distinction between, say, a power line to connect renewable energy projects and a power line connecting a fossil fuel plant.

 

[Krokodil]

I'll be getting several loads of washing on tomorrow, negative prices from 10:30 to 16:00

 

[Altnashin]

It absolutely does, hence bat tunnels etc

Unfortunately not, have a look at the links on my post #779, and also the groups Facebook pages.
I have been to local consultations, locals are treated poorly.

 

[Bald Rick]

Unfortunately not, have a look at the links on my post #779, and also the groups Facebook pages.
I have been to local consultations, locals are treated poorly.

They are considered. The views of the locals may not be acted on. That is for the planning inspectors or Secretary of State to decide.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 29 Apr 2026 ==

I'll be getting several loads of washing on tomorrow, negative prices from 10:30 to 16:00

Yes, most of my friends with EVs will be at or near maximum charge by tomorrow evening. Being paid to put ‘fuel’ in the car isanother benefit of EV ownership!

 

[Noddy]

There is growing opposition to wind farms and mega pylons in the North of Scotland, caused b poor planning and disruption to small communities using infrastructure that cannot cope with increased construction traffic.

The webpages below are just a sample of the local opposition in the Scottish Highlands, they explain why they are opposed and the issues that they say are the start of the industrialisation of the area.

“

Communities B4 Power Companies

Communities B4 Power Companies is a campaign group set up to stop the annihilation of our environment by a wealthy multinational company.

www.communitiesb4powercompanies.co.uk

”

“

NORoS - No Ring of Steel Kyle of Sutherland

www.noringofsteel.com

”

There are many more of these groups.

Unfortunately not, have a look at the links on my post #779, and also the groups Facebook pages.
I have been to local consultations, locals are treated poorly.

Unfortunately when local groups use hyperbole such as ‘We aim to stop this annihilation of our environment’ (it isn’t annihilation of the environment) and ‘WE WILL NOT BE SSEN’S COLLATERAL DAMAGE!’ (They aren’t collateral damage) it does them absolutely no favours. If they get treated poorly it’s because they’re treating the project and project team poorly. Rather than positively taking part in the process to achieve reasonable mitigations and positive contributions to the local community they’re calling one of the lines a ‘monstrous proposal’-it isn’t, it’s just another transmission line. Why do they expect to be treated with respect when they don’t treat the professionals working on the project with the same respect? If they engaged positively in an informed manner they’d likely get much better outcomes for their communities than just being a bunch of frankly nimby numpties.

(Quotes from the communitiesb4powercompanies website).

 

[The Ham]

Unfortunately not, have a look at the links on my post #779, and also the groups Facebook pages.
I have been to local consultations, locals are treated poorly.

Locals may not be getting the answers that they like, that doesn't necessarily mean that they are being treated poorly.

I once tried explaining that a development was going to provide better walking routes and was accused (quite aggressively) of implying that the project was going ahead regardless of the outcome of the consultation (when the scheme wasn't even in planning) when I said something like "along here there will be a new footway", for that individual I had to say (at the start of each element which I was showing them on the boards) "it is proposed that..." and even then chances are they would have gone away with a very negative view of how they were treated.

There's also times when locals clearly stage things. A memorable one was where the locals were showing a lot of pedestrians using a narrow section of road (we'd got peak hour video surveys) and their "evidence" was some photos - only it was the same 12 people waking in the same direction taken at different points along the route. Oh, and none of them were kids (which there would have been if it was the busiest time of day).

There are of course examples of good community engagement (on both sides) and bad from the side of the developers. However, generally, the design team are trying to explain complex factors to members of the public whilst trying to understand what the root cause of the objections actually are.

For example, on average the number of vehicle movements between 08:00 & 09:00 per dwelling is around 0.75. Yet many question that when "everyone has two cars" and so the highway engineers must be lying, making up numbers, etc.

The simple reason is that not everyone leaves home for work between those times by car (shift workers, those who are retired, unemployed, people walking / cycling / using public transport) as well as actually car ownership is 1.21 per household (rising to 1.55 if you count homes with at least 1 car) and not 2 - although if your live somewhere between where most people do own a car then a lot will own 2 and so you feel that's normal for everyone.

 

[Altnashin]

Unfortunately when local groups use hyperbole such as ‘We aim to stop this annihilation of our environment’ (it isn’t annihilation of the environment) and ‘WE WILL NOT BE SSEN’S COLLATERAL DAMAGE!’ (They aren’t collateral damage) it does them absolutely no favours. If they get treated poorly it’s because they’re treating the project and project team poorly. Rather than positively taking part in the process to achieve reasonable mitigations and positive contributions to the local community they’re calling one of the lines a ‘monstrous proposal’-it isn’t, it’s just another transmission line. Why do they expect to be treated with respect when they don’t treat the professionals working on the project with the same respect? If they engaged positively in an informed manner they’d likely get much better outcomes for their communities than just being a bunch of frankly nimby numpties.

(Quotes from the communitiesb4powercompanies website).

Annihilation of the environment means sending large HGV's over unsuitable infrastructure such as narrow weak bridges, roads that are already poorly maintained amongst other points.

For balance, I will say that some of the above websites promoting posts and articles from Net Zero Watch and similar groups does not help.

 

[quantinghome]

Annihilation of the environment means sending large HGV's over unsuitable infrastructure such as narrow weak bridges, roads that are already poorly maintained amongst other points.

“When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.” Alice through the looking glass - Lewis Carroll.

 

[stuu]

Annihilation of the environment means sending large HGV's over unsuitable infrastructure such as narrow weak bridges, roads that are already poorly maintained amongst other points.

No, that is utter hyperbole and makes anyone who says it look pretty small-minded

Annihilation of the environment is what has happened to the Aral Sea, not the odd HGV

 

[The Ham]

Annihilation of the environment means sending large HGV's over unsuitable infrastructure such as narrow weak bridges, roads that are already poorly maintained amongst other points.

For balance, I will say that some of the above websites promoting posts and articles from Net Zero Watch and similar groups does not help.

Let's take traffic.

There's talk of up to 600 vehicle movements per day for a route which is 173km long.

That's not just a single work site, let's assume 3, then that's up to 200 movements for each work site.

However that's still not HGV movements such may well be 10% of that, so 20 per day, (note that's 20 movements, so 10 different lorries).

Even if they all turned up in the same 2 hour window that's an extra lorry movement every 12 minutes.

Not sure if this is representative but the last survey data (2012) shows 153 HGV movements already (and likely to be higher now) so maybe up to +13% on the worst flows cited.

Road Traffic website - Count point 30994

roadtraffic.dft.gov.uk

Even if all 600 movements were added at that point, the maximum increase (from 2012 data) is 18%.

Again using 2012 as the following years are based on estimates and so didn't want to need to debate if they were right or not.

Yes, that's not nothing, however it's not all that significant either - although it's looking at the highest possible impact cited, so the reality is likely to be significantly reduced from those numbers.

For example another source suggested 120 daily movements was an option and so those percentages could be significant over estimates.

 

[The exile]

No, that is utter hyperbole and makes anyone who says it look pretty small-minded

Annihilation of the environment is what has happened to the Aral Sea, not the odd HGV

That depends on what you mean by environment. Linguistically speaking - however much I may be concerned about the Aral Sea, the Polar Icecaps or the Amazon, they are not my environment.

 

[Pdf]

"What do you do to protect the environment in cases like this?"
"The ship was towed outside the environment"
"Into another environment"
"No no no. It's beyond the environment"

 

[edwin_m]

That depends on what you mean by environment. Linguistically speaking - however much I may be concerned about the Aral Sea, the Polar Icecaps or the Amazon, they are not my environment.

But the last two do influence your environment via climate change.

 

[The exile]

But the last two do influence your environment via climate change.

Yes, but although in global terms they are much more significant, HGVs passing my front door or a recycling centre being built at the bottom of my garden, affect my environment much more immediately. That is, of course, one of the major problems that building green infrastructure comes up against.

 

[Noddy]

Yes, but although in global terms they are much more significant, HGVs passing my front door or a recycling centre being built at the bottom of my garden, affect my environment much more immediately. That is, of course, one of the major problems that building green infrastructure comes up against.

It’s a change certainly. In the case of the HGVs a temporary one. In the case of a hypothetical recycling centre one that is likely to be built on a brown field site and/or should result in biodiversity net gain. Neither of those things are annihilation of the environment, whether local or otherwise.

 

[Altnashin]

I would again like to politely point out that the local infrastructure just isn't there to support construction.

Search "No Ring Of Steel" and "Save The Kyle"
Have a good read of those, and others and come to your own conclusions.

Have a look at the proposed Fanellan Substation near Beauly, it has been rejected by The Highland Council, but it is being appealed.

Again, for balance, I will also point out that many in the area are considering voting for Reform, as their opposition to renewable energy is well known.

If anyone remembers the shale drilling in Lancashire that caused tremors in the area, the drilling was opposed by some Reform members
Source: "https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c8e13l7n1y1o"

Richard Tice and some other Reform members support it
Source:
"https://lancashire.thelead.uk/p/revealed-reform-uks-top-financial"

I do often wonder though, if certain attitudes would be different if fossil fuel infrastructure was involved.

 

[Bald Rick]

I would again like to politely point out that the local infrastructure just isn't there to support construction.

Something of a circular argument. A bit like when in Gavin and Stacey, that Gavin’s mum was thwarted from joining a protest about a new mobile phone mast because she didn’t have any signal.

 

[The Ham]

Something of a circular argument. A bit like when in Gavin and Stacey, that Gavin’s mum was thwarted from joining a protest about a new mobile phone mast because she didn’t have any signal.

Indeed, also local infrastructure is needed for locals to get things that they need, so there's lorries already using those roads and whist the extra traffic might mean a slightly reduced time between resurfacing, maybe up to 2 years sooner (assuming surface dressing is done every 7 years and full resurfacing every 14 years, that's still not a big deal).

Up to 600 movements a day is, unfortunately, a common line in assessments. The reason being that this is the cut off point for severity for HGV moments. As such anything which can claim that is well below value will generally stress test to that value as a worst case (even when measures, such as swapping movements to rail, have been introduced) as it simplifies the process.

For example, a site is having 50 HGV moments, it's tested to "up to 600 HGV movements" and is acceptable. During the process, it's found that due a 3 week period HGV moments will triple (so 150) without this stress test the application would need to redo that assessment. The Locals would feel aggrieved and that "this was what they wanted all along" and other such reasonable comments (and maybe a few less reasonable ones).

By having the stress test, whist the locals may still feel betrayed (the actual number has increased significantly), there's no need to revisitthe assessment.

As whilst the expected number has changed, the assessment number hasn't.

200 HGV movements a day along a road isn't all that high.

In the peak hour that's one every 6 minutes heading one way and in the same 6 minutes one going the other (assuming an even flow by direction).

I had a boss who when confronted by objections over something like this (I think that it was talk of "that means this road will have a car every 60 seconds") stood in the appeal room and said "OK, let's see what that's like" and looking down to his watch said "car" and then waited and carried on looking at his watch, waited for the full minute to pass and then said "car".

There's a good reason health care staff rarely take your pulse due the full 60 seconds, as when you aren't doing a lot it feels quite long.

One final point, where residential road have food waste they will routinely see "up to 4 HGV movements a day" (one entering for general or recycling, one entering for food waste and then the corresponding 2 movements for the lorries leaving).

As such up to 20 is up to 5 times that number, noticeable, yes, disruptive hardly.

 

[HighlandStorm]

Unfortunately not, have a look at the links on my post #779, and also the groups Facebook pages.
I have been to local consultations, locals are treated poorly.

Good. NIMBYS like the clowns on the Communities before Power Companies Facebook group need screwed into the ground backwards.

 

[HSTEd]

I would again like to politely point out that the local infrastructure just isn't there to support construction.

Well they build this sort of stuff in northern Quebec, in an environment that makes the Scottish Highlands look like the Home Counties!

 

[Uncle Buck]

I have come to the rather extreme opinion that the planning system should be as good as abolished.

Permission should be negative not positive, that is to say, you are not seeking the council’s permission to do something, you are informing the council that you wish to do something, and only if they object within a sufficient time frame should you be prevented from doing it.

Furthermore the public should not be able to object to developments. There was a recent discussion on Bluesky where participants recounted that when a new building was being constructed, a petition was started without anyone knowing anything about the building- they were objecting on principle to any form of change. The country has the attitude of a particularly defensive old person.

Of course, protections for national parks, conservation areas etc. should be maintained.

In India for many years after independence it was said that they were in the “Licence Raj”- that to do anything you needed to ask an officials’s lermission. At the same time as India has rejected this mentality it has become widespread here. Look at the ridiculous story today of the restaurant banned from giving lifts to customers.

This is the only way we will ever break out of our national torpor.

 

[brad465]

I have come to the rather extreme opinion that the planning system should be as good as abolished.

Permission should be negative not positive, that is to say, you are not seeking the council’s permission to do something, you are informing the council that you wish to do something, and only if they object within a sufficient time frame should you be prevented from doing it.

Furthermore the public should not be able to object to developments. There was a recent discussion on Bluesky where participants recounted that when a new building was being constructed, a petition was started without anyone knowing anything about the building- they were objecting on principle to any form of change. The country has the attitude of a particularly defensive old person.

Of course, protections for national parks, conservation areas etc. should be maintained.

In India for many years after independence it was said that they were in the “Licence Raj”- that to do anything you needed to ask an official’s permission. At the same time as India has rejected this mentality it has become widespread here. Look at the ridiculous story today of the restaurant banned from giving lifts to customers.

This is the only way we will ever break out of our national torpor.

I support this for critical infrastructure, including in particular energy, especially considering the delays and cost overruns associated with Hinkley Point C (and Blair pushing for nuclear in 2005 then being significantly cut back by the coalition, something that would have been much harder if spades in the ground started within say two years).

However, housing and certain commercial developments still need to go through due process I think. Yes they shouldn't be objected purely for change reasons, but if we let them go ahead willy nilly, then building on floodplains without adequate mitigations is a recipe for disaster, while supporting infrastructure and amenities are likely to be insufficient. These are valid reasons to oppose development unless plans can be improved to cover these pitfalls.

 

[Uncle Buck]

I support this for critical infrastructure, including in particular energy, especially considering the delays and cost overruns associated with Hinkley Point C (and Blair pushing for nuclear in 2005 then being significantly cut back by the coalition, something that would have been much harder if spades in the ground started within say two years).

However, housing and certain commercial developments still need to go through due process I think. Yes they shouldn't be objected purely for change reasons, but if we let them go ahead willy nilly, then building on floodplains without adequate mitigations is a recipe for disaster, while supporting infrastructure and amenities are likely to be insufficient. These are valid reasons to oppose development unless plans can be improved to cover these pitfalls.

There would still be the opportunity for councils to object to construction on safety/flooding/building standards grounds.

 

[brad465]

Something that finally clicked for me is that I think a lesser-talked about reason why certain people seem reluctant to move away from fossil fuel stuff, whether by opposing buying electric cars or demanding more North Sea drilling, is an aversity to change. Yes there is propaganda and climate denialism, but a human mindset is living in the past and a fear that the next technology won't work for them.

Fortunately renewable tech has now developed to the point where a tipping point has been reached around the world that makes its adoption easy and more affordable. Oil prices above $100 a barrel are accelerating this even further (amazing how oil barons suddenly dislike the free market when alternatives are competing). Ironically Trump might be the best president for combating climate change to date.