Manchester Airport does. Though it never seems particularly well staffed, it doesn't seem unusual to see someone who I presume is a spare guard or TTI sat in there with their portable ticket machine.
Middlesbrough, Thirsk, Northallerton, Hull, Brough, Malton, Scarborough, Selby, Huddersfield, Manchester Airport, Stalybridge, and Cleethorpes I believe all have manned ticket offices.
you could always use the additional tax receipts to help reduce energy costs...
but you still need to split the (average) electricity cost away from the price of the last entrant to the market. It's wrong that our average costs should have come down due to the proportion of renewables on the grid but we still pay the price set by gas generation. It might "work" - and serve the interests of the current players - but it's not in the best interest of industry, the country (i.e. us) or the economy.
That is the problem with the whole concept of a wholesale electricity market.
indeed. but not under your scenario!
Of course there is, increasing resilience against disrupted fossil fuel supply.
A real way to solve the problem would be to stockpile gas in the summer when the prices are low so we can use it in winter like much of Europe. Instead, the government refuses to invest in domestic gas storage and instead buying at peak prices in the winter from Norway and Qatar who rinse us every year.
If stockpiling gas made sense, then gas companies would be doing it already and making money on the difference. Instead they’re demanding subsidies to do so.
Correct. Storage is a long term investment. The gas price is not volatile enough for a commercial return to be made, or at least it's quite a risky investment.
You won't find any cows (they're heavy and break things) or any more than a slack handul of sheep on any solar farm. If there are sheep at all it's at about 10% of the number that could have used the land before. They're not remotely 'compatible with using the land for pasture', that's nonsense.
Fair enough, I stand corrected.
I think your assertions are extreme positions which can be mitigated in practise.
and what actually matters (in terms of take-up) is the farmers' incomes. If they can get rent for the ground the panels are on (and maybe a payment for some of the power generated) - and then don't have to control the grass growth - and can sell the sheep and lambs as well then who are we (you) to assert that it doesn't work?
The land often is economically useless for arable, but not because it’s got panels on it. Farmers aren’t daft and it’s mainly low grade land being taken out of cultivation, now that the Basic Payment Scheme subsidies are gone and there’s more risk on input costs
Sure, like self-insurance, if you're big enough you can cover it and not pay the premium for someone else to carry the risk. But, if that's government policy then they should be covering the cost, not telling DfTO to start making cuts because the budget was predicated on previously lower fuel costs.
Not by the large majority of schemes currently going through planning in East Yorks, none of which have large gaps and all of which are on fertile land previously used for cereal crops. These sytems may exist in theory but they aren't what are being proposed in most places in practice. None of the current fields use have any stock on them at all as those farmers aren't stock farmers.
Valuable to who? Clearly not the farmers.
My understanding is that while we are technically self-sufficient in meat and dairy we are not self-sufficient in the feeds which the animals consume?
