Hi Roger,
I hadn't meant my comments to apply to any particular instance and I'm
pleased that the Lymington one appears sensible.
In my area, though, there are a number built on prime agricultural land.
Of course the land isn't actually destroyed, so could be returned to
agriculture if necessary, but PV looks to be a 20 to 30 year investment
in many cases, so it's likely not coming back any time soon.
It can disturb me even more, though, when they're placed on "waste"
land. I used to keep bees on an area of land that I would describe as
wildflower meadow. The owner died, his family took over and let a local
farmer plant maize so that that "unproductive wasteland can be turned
into something productive" with "there's no wildlife value there,
anyway". The farmer never got a maize crop off of it; I never got
another decent honey crop off of it, and after a few years it was
"developed" for local housing.
Oh, and there _was_ wildlife value on it before it was ploughed.
From my perspective, important and productive land was changed first to
desert, then to concrete. Hopefully there are now gardens that
rebalance that. I don't know; I've never been back.
Personally I'm not that convinced by the climate change [hmm, what word
best goes here]. But I still think renewables have a lot to commend
them.
There are lots of already ugly places that can take solar, many of them
are large enough to make sense, before we need to use the nicer bits.
IMHO.
Gordon
--
Gordon Scott. Electronics and software engineering.
Basingstoke UK
+44-1256-476547
But for the sake of some little mouthful of flesh
we deprive a soul of the sun and light,
and of that proportion of life and time
it had been born into the world to enjoy.
=== Plutarch AD44-120
--
Please post to: Hampshire@???
Web Interface:
https://mailman.lug.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/hampshire
LUG URL:
http://www.hantslug.org.uk
--------------------------------------------------------------
