http://www.ipswichstar.co.uk/news/
levington_solar_farm_set_for_go_ahead_1_1795583

"The council has received applications for a 62-acre scheme with 47,500
free-standing solar panels at Stratton Hall, alongside the A14 between
Kirton and Levington, a 127-acre development with 100,000 panels at
Hacheston, and 74 acres with 64,200 panels at Great Glemham."

As has been said many times before - not much use when it is cold and dark
(like now).

"The development control committee will meet on Wednesday, January 23 to
decide the schemes €“ which would provide electricity from the sun for
around 13,000 homes €“ and is being recommended to give the go-ahead for
all three projects."

So 211,700 panels to supply 13,000 homes.

Or roughly 16 panels per home, which is about the right number for a
domestic installation.

Not sure, however, this is the best use of money or farmland.

Cheers

Dave R
--
Pan in Vista on second Vista PC.

On 17/01/2013 16:55, David.WE.Roberts wrote:

http://www.ipswichstar.co.uk/news/
levington_solar_farm_set_for_go_ahead_1_1795583

"The council has received applications for a 62-acre scheme with 47,500
free-standing solar panels at Stratton Hall, alongside the A14 between
Kirton and Levington, a 127-acre development with 100,000 panels at
Hacheston, and 74 acres with 64,200 panels at Great Glemham."

As has been said many times before - not much use when it is cold and dark
(like now).

"The development control committee will meet on Wednesday, January 23 to
decide the schemes €“ which would provide electricity from the sun for
around 13,000 homes €“ and is being recommended to give the go-ahead for
all three projects."

So 211,700 panels to supply 13,000 homes.

Or roughly 16 panels per home, which is about the right number for a
domestic installation.

Not sure, however, this is the best use of money or farmland.

Cheers

Dave R

Never mind the farmland, let the peasants starve when there is no food,
or of course import it from abroad , and what cost is that to global
warming?

--
Remember the early bird may catch the worm but the second mouse gets the
cheese.

On 17 Jan 2013 16:55:51 GMT, "David.WE.Roberts"
wrote:


Not sure, however, this is the best use of money or farmland.


I cannot comment on the 'best use of money' aspect but as far as 'best
use of farmland is concerned it depends very much on how productive
the land is. From a quick look at Google maps it is clear that while
much of the area is sound arable land under cultivation there are, at
all three locations mentioned, areas of grassland that appears to be
marginal to poor. If this is where the solar farms are to be located
then fair enough (and the grassland could still be grazed in theory).
--
rbel

David.WE.Roberts wrote:

"The council has received applications for a 62-acre scheme with 47,500
free-standing solar panels at Stratton Hall, alongside the A14 between
Kirton and Levington, a 127-acre development with 100,000 panels at
Hacheston, and 74 acres with 64,200 panels at Great Glemham."

not much use when it is cold and dark

Not much use at all when covered in snow, zero kWh for the past three
days at one site I work at, the panels are all at about 15° slope
therefore it doesn't slide off.

"David.WE.Roberts" wrote:
http://www.ipswichstar.co.uk/news/
levington_solar_farm_set_for_go_ahead_1_1795583

"The council has received applications for a 62-acre scheme with 47,500
free-standing solar panels at Stratton Hall, alongside the A14 between
Kirton and Levington, a 127-acre development with 100,000 panels at
Hacheston, and 74 acres with 64,200 panels at Great Glemham."

As has been said many times before - not much use when it is cold and dark
(like now).

Huge schemes similar to that are already in place down here in 'Ampshire.

Thus one rated at 5MW is ironically close to the Fawley oil fired power
station.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencete...-heatwave.html

Fawley will close this year, lose 1000MW of capacity, gain 5MW (part time).

There's a bigger one currently inching through planning permission:

http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hampshire-19904970


--
€¢DarWin|
_/ _/

On Thu, 17 Jan 2013 19:44:32 +0000, rbel wrote:

(and the grassland could still be grazed in theory).

Grass doesn't grow very well in the shade. It grows a bit but would be
very poor grazing.

--
Cheers
Dave.

On 17 Jan 2013 16:55:51 GMT, David.WE.Roberts wrote:

Not sure, however, this is the best use of money or farmland.

Neither.

We are paying for it by the levi on our electricity bills, money that
goes into the pockets of the owners/shareholders of the private companies
concerned.

Unless the land is very poor and unsuitable for farming. In that part of
the world I find it hard to believe that there are two *large* contiguous
patches of such land. It would better under the plough or cow.

--
Cheers
Dave.

On Thu, 17 Jan 2013 17:04:37 +0000, Broadback wrote:

Never mind the farmland, let the peasants starve when there is no food,
or of course import it from abroad , and what cost is that to global
warming?

Only worry about global warming when you have food from abroad to import.
When food gets in short supply countries *will* feed their own before
exporting.

--
Cheers
Dave.

On Thu, 17 Jan 2013 20:02:29 +0000 (GMT), "Dave Liquorice"
wrote:

On Thu, 17 Jan 2013 19:44:32 +0000, rbel wrote:

(and the grassland could still be grazed in theory).

Grass doesn't grow very well in the shade. It grows a bit but would be
very poor grazing.

With the solar farms I have looked at there are 'lanes' between each
row of arrays which can provide grazing, albeit somewhat limited, for
sheep. Apart from anything else it is a practical method of keeping
the grass 'mown' around the panels. The grazing in such locations
will certainly be better than that available for sheep on upland
grass.
--
rbel

On Thu, 17 Jan 2013 21:40:34 +0000 (GMT), "Dave Liquorice"
wrote:


Unless the land is very poor and unsuitable for farming. In that part of
the world I find it hard to believe that there are two *large* contiguous
patches of such land. It would better under the plough or cow.

It is difficult to comment without knowing the exact locations of the
land in question, but as I indicated in my earlier post it appears to
me that there are some areas of land in the places mentioned that to
me (with experience of interpreting agricultural land use from VHR
satellite images) to be marginal grass with little value except
limited grazing or perhaps for agri-environment measures.

If the land under solar arrays is not grazed the SPS farming subsidy
cannot be claimed on it which is very much an added incentive to put
sheep on it.

The returns from the solar arrays would have to be really quite good
to be better than the net income from planting cereal crops.
--
rbel

On 17/01/2013 21:43, Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Thu, 17 Jan 2013 17:04:37 +0000, Broadback wrote:

Never mind the farmland, let the peasants starve when there is no food,
or of course import it from abroad , and what cost is that to global
warming?

Only worry about global warming when you have food from abroad to import.
When food gets in short supply countries *will* feed their own before
exporting.


That is plainly untrue.
you only have to look at the famines in Africa caused by the export of
their basic food crops to the west to feed cattle.
they wanted the cash to buy arms and booze.

"dennis@home" wrote:
On 17/01/2013 21:43, Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Thu, 17 Jan 2013 17:04:37 +0000, Broadback wrote:

Never mind the farmland, let the peasants starve when there is no food,
or of course import it from abroad , and what cost is that to global
warming?

Only worry about global warming when you have food from abroad to import.
When food gets in short supply countries *will* feed their own before
exporting.


That is plainly untrue.
you only have to look at the famines in Africa caused by the export of
their basic food crops to the west to feed cattle.
they wanted the cash to buy arms and booze.

Bull****.

--
€¢DarWin|
_/ _/

dennis@home wrote
Dave Liquorice wrote
Broadback wrote

Never mind the farmland, let the peasants starve
when there is no food, or of course import it from
abroad , and what cost is that to global warming?

Only worry about global warming when you have food
from abroad to import. When food gets in short supply
countries *will* feed their own before exporting.

That is plainly untrue.

We'll see...

you only have to look at the famines in Africa caused by the
export of their basic food crops to the west to feed cattle.

Don't believe many at all were actually due to that.

they wanted the cash to buy arms and booze.

Or that in spades. And that wouldn't
happen in the west now anyway.

A better example would have been Ireland during the
potato famine but even that wouldn't happen now.

On 17/01/13 19:44, rbel wrote:
On 17 Jan 2013 16:55:51 GMT, "David.WE.Roberts"
wrote:


Not sure, however, this is the best use of money or farmland.


I cannot comment on the 'best use of money' aspect but as far as 'best
use of farmland is concerned it depends very much on how productive
the land is. From a quick look at Google maps it is clear that while
much of the area is sound arable land under cultivation there are, at
all three locations mentioned, areas of grassland that appears to be
marginal to poor. If this is where the solar farms are to be located
then fair enough (and the grassland could still be grazed in theory).

I'll let you into a big secret. Grass doesn't grow under structures that
totally block out the light.

That's why you don't find it growing in basements with no windows.


--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to
lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the
members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are
rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a
diminishing number of producers.

On 17/01/13 20:02, Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Thu, 17 Jan 2013 19:44:32 +0000, rbel wrote:

(and the grassland could still be grazed in theory).

Grass doesn't grow very well in the shade. It grows a bit but would be
very poor grazing.

It doesn't grow AT ALL. Sheesh. Don't you guys ever walk through
unmanaged woodland?

Almost NOTHING grows except toadstools, and the very few plants that can
get up and strut their stuff before the spring leaves form. IN a
coniferous wood NOTHING grows unless a tree falls over.



--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to
lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the
members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are
rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a
diminishing number of producers.

On 17/01/13 21:43, Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Thu, 17 Jan 2013 17:04:37 +0000, Broadback wrote:

Never mind the farmland, let the peasants starve when there is no food,
or of course import it from abroad , and what cost is that to global
warming?

Only worry about global warming when you have food from abroad to import.
When food gets in short supply countries *will* feed their own before
exporting.

Er, no Dave. Unless they need the people to farm they will export, and
let the people starve. Its called a banana republic.


--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to
lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the
members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are
rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a
diminishing number of producers.

On 17/01/13 21:53, rbel wrote:
On Thu, 17 Jan 2013 20:02:29 +0000 (GMT), "Dave Liquorice"
wrote:

On Thu, 17 Jan 2013 19:44:32 +0000, rbel wrote:

(and the grassland could still be grazed in theory).

Grass doesn't grow very well in the shade. It grows a bit but would be
very poor grazing.

With the solar farms I have looked at there are 'lanes' between each
row of arrays which can provide grazing, albeit somewhat limited, for
sheep. Apart from anything else it is a practical method of keeping
the grass 'mown' around the panels. The grazing in such locations
will certainly be better than that available for sheep on upland
grass.


er no. It would be more efficient not to have the lanes, but they need
so much maintenance..



--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to
lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the
members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are
rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a
diminishing number of producers.

En el artículo , David.WE.Roberts
escribió:

Not sure, however, this is the best use of money or farmland.

And only useful for the two days of the typical Brit "summer".

--
(\_/)
(='.'=)
(")_(")

On Jan 17, 10:59*pm, Steve Firth wrote:
"dennis@home" wrote:
On 17/01/2013 21:43, Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Thu, 17 Jan 2013 17:04:37 +0000, Broadback wrote:

Never mind the farmland, let the peasants starve when there is no food,
or of course import it from abroad , and what cost is that to global
warming?

Only worry about global warming when you have food from abroad to import.

On Jan 18, 1:38*am, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
On 17/01/13 21:53, rbel wrote:









On Thu, 17 Jan 2013 20:02:29 +0000 (GMT), "Dave Liquorice"
wrote:

On Thu, 17 Jan 2013 19:44:32 +0000, rbel wrote:

(and the grassland could still be grazed in theory).

Grass doesn't grow very well in the shade. It grows a bit but would be
very poor grazing.

With the solar farms I have looked at there are 'lanes' between each
row of arrays which can provide grazing, albeit somewhat limited, for
sheep. *Apart from anything else it is a practical method of keeping
the grass 'mown' around the panels. *The grazing in such locations
will certainly be better than that available for sheep on upland
grass.

er no. It would be more efficient not to have the lanes, but they need
so much maintenance..

They can be maintained from beneath if the supports are high enough
and so need no gaps. The panels can be removed from beneath too.
How ever there are vertical gaps because the panels are inclined, but
there is little light because they are on the North.
If the supports are low, there needs to be maintenance lanes.
The whole problem could be got around if they were mounted linearly on
field boundaries.

On Jan 18, 4:43*am, Mike Tomlinson wrote:
En el artículo , David.WE.Roberts
escribió:

Not sure, however, this is the best use of money or farmland.

And only useful for the two days of the typical Brit "summer".

Where do you get that idea from?

"harry" wrote in message
...
On Jan 17, 10:59 pm, Steve Firth wrote:
"dennis@home" wrote:
On 17/01/2013 21:43, Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Thu, 17 Jan 2013 17:04:37 +0000, Broadback wrote:

Never mind the farmland, let the peasants starve when there is no
food,
or of course import it from abroad , and what cost is that to global
warming?

Only worry about global warming when you have food from abroad to
import.
When food gets in short supply countries *will* feed their own before
exporting.

That is plainly untrue.
you only have to look at the famines in Africa caused by the export of
their basic food crops to the west to feed cattle.
they wanted the cash to buy arms and booze.

Bull****.


Not at all, he's quite right.
The leaders of these **** hole places don't give a toss about their
own poor.

The farm owners grow luxury crops for a lucrative export market.

Have fun listing any country where much of that happens except where
the europeans have been kicked off their farms and still don't do that.

Not very clever I'd suggest, at least not this far north,, Maybe people need
to buy up lumps of land in an equatorial region, and fund a dc
superconducting cable or two to get it somewhere good.
Oh damn, them there terrorists might blow it up..

Brian

--
From the Sofa of Brian Gaff Reply address is active
"David.WE.Roberts" wrote in message
...

http://www.ipswichstar.co.uk/news/
levington_solar_farm_set_for_go_ahead_1_1795583

"The council has received applications for a 62-acre scheme with 47,500
free-standing solar panels at Stratton Hall, alongside the A14 between
Kirton and Levington, a 127-acre development with 100,000 panels at
Hacheston, and 74 acres with 64,200 panels at Great Glemham."

As has been said many times before - not much use when it is cold and dark
(like now).

"The development control committee will meet on Wednesday, January 23 to
decide the schemes - which would provide electricity from the sun for
around 13,000 homes - and is being recommended to give the go-ahead for
all three projects."

So 211,700 panels to supply 13,000 homes.

Or roughly 16 panels per home, which is about the right number for a
domestic installation.

Not sure, however, this is the best use of money or farmland.

Cheers

Dave R
--
Pan in Vista on second Vista PC.

On 18/01/2013 07:44, harry wrote:
On Jan 17, 10:59 pm, Steve Firth wrote:
"dennis@home" wrote:
On 17/01/2013 21:43, Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Thu, 17 Jan 2013 17:04:37 +0000, Broadback wrote:

Never mind the farmland, let the peasants starve when there is no food,
or of course import it from abroad , and what cost is that to global
warming?

Only worry about global warming when you have food from abroad to import.
When food gets in short supply countries *will* feed their own before
exporting.

That is plainly untrue.
you only have to look at the famines in Africa caused by the export of
their basic food crops to the west to feed cattle.
they wanted the cash to buy arms and booze.

Bull****.


Not at all, he's quite right.

They will sell their produce where they can get the very best price
which is almost invariably in the rich first world countries. You can
find examples of this all through history. Famines occur when the locals
usually unskilled labourers and subsistance farmers living hand to mouth
even in the good years cannot afford to buy what food there is.

The leaders of these **** hole places don't give a toss about their
own poor.
The farm owners grow luxury crops for a lucrative export market.

The same was also true closer to home of the Irish potato famine. It was
disastrous for the natives of Ireland but the British absentee landlords
were still making big money through their vicious middlemen land agents
by exporting food from Ireland that nobody could afford inside the
country. Pretty much like modern Tories in fact.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_f...ds_and_tenants

And in particular

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_famine#Food_exports

In a way nothing changes and history repeats itself as unprincipled
powerful elites exploit everyone lower down the foodchain to maximise
their own wealth and rob their countries of natural resources.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

The main reason for "lanes" is to stop one row from casting a shadow
on the next. If the ground is South sloping they may not be needed.

On 18/01/13 07:54, harry wrote:
On Jan 18, 4:43 am, Mike Tomlinson wrote:
En el artÃ*culo , David.WE.Roberts
escribió:

Not sure, however, this is the best use of money or farmland.

And only useful for the two days of the typical Brit "summer".

Where do you get that idea from?

Probably from looking up the total insolation by time of year graphs.

--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to
lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the
members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are
rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a
diminishing number of producers.

On Jan 18, 8:30*am, "Rod Speed" wrote:
"harry" wrote in message

...









On Jan 17, 10:59 pm, Steve Firth wrote:
"dennis@home" wrote:
On 17/01/2013 21:43, Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Thu, 17 Jan 2013 17:04:37 +0000, Broadback wrote:

Never mind the farmland, let the peasants starve when there is no
food,
or of course import it from abroad , and what cost is that to global
warming?

Only worry about global warming when you have food from abroad to
import.
When food gets in short supply countries *will* feed their own before
exporting.

That is plainly untrue.
you only have to look at the famines in Africa caused by the export of
their basic food crops to the west to feed cattle.
they wanted the cash to buy arms and booze.

Bull****.

Not at all, he's quite right.
The leaders of these **** hole places don't give a toss about their
own poor.
The farm owners grow luxury crops for a lucrative export market.

Have fun listing any country where much of that happens except where
the europeans have been kicked off their farms and still don't do that.


Showing your stupidity again Wodders.

Zimbabwe. Ethiopia Costa Rica. Honduras Nicoragua. Ivory Coast Sierra
Leone. Guatemala Brazil India Indonesia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Childre...coa_production
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_trade_coffee
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tea#Certification
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_...any#Reputation

On Fri, 18 Jan 2013 01:38:39 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

On 17/01/13 21:53, rbel wrote:
On Thu, 17 Jan 2013 20:02:29 +0000 (GMT), "Dave Liquorice"
wrote:

On Thu, 17 Jan 2013 19:44:32 +0000, rbel wrote:

(and the grassland could still be grazed in theory).

Grass doesn't grow very well in the shade. It grows a bit but would be
very poor grazing.

With the solar farms I have looked at there are 'lanes' between each
row of arrays which can provide grazing, albeit somewhat limited, for
sheep. Apart from anything else it is a practical method of keeping
the grass 'mown' around the panels. The grazing in such locations
will certainly be better than that available for sheep on upland
grass.


er no. It would be more efficient not to have the lanes, but they need
so much maintenance..

Not sure why the 'er no'. I agree that it would be more efficient to
have no lanes, all I am saying is that the ones I have looked at have
had lanes between the rows which can be grazed.
--
rbel

On Fri, 18 Jan 2013 01:36:46 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

On 17/01/13 20:02, Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Thu, 17 Jan 2013 19:44:32 +0000, rbel wrote:

(and the grassland could still be grazed in theory).

Grass doesn't grow very well in the shade. It grows a bit but would be
very poor grazing.

It doesn't grow AT ALL. Sheesh. Don't you guys ever walk through
unmanaged woodland?

Almost NOTHING grows except toadstools, and the very few plants that can
get up and strut their stuff before the spring leaves form. IN a
coniferous wood NOTHING grows unless a tree falls over.

Whilst I agree entirely with your comment that grass does not grow in
full shade, solar farms do not have the solid canopy that conifer
plantations and unmanaged woodlands have. As mentioned above, those I
have seen have lanes between the rows of panels which is sufficient to
allow grass to grow. These strips do receive, albeit limited, grazing
for the reasons I have indicated elsewhere.
--
rbel

On Fri, 18 Jan 2013 01:34:08 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

On 17/01/13 19:44, rbel wrote:
On 17 Jan 2013 16:55:51 GMT, "David.WE.Roberts"
wrote:


Not sure, however, this is the best use of money or farmland.


I cannot comment on the 'best use of money' aspect but as far as 'best
use of farmland is concerned it depends very much on how productive
the land is. From a quick look at Google maps it is clear that while
much of the area is sound arable land under cultivation there are, at
all three locations mentioned, areas of grassland that appears to be
marginal to poor. If this is where the solar farms are to be located
then fair enough (and the grassland could still be grazed in theory).

I'll let you into a big secret. Grass doesn't grow under structures that
totally block out the light.


Please see previous comment.
--
rbel

On Fri, 18 Jan 2013 10:55:09 +0000, rbel wrote:


Whilst I agree entirely with your comment that grass does not grow in
full shade, solar farms do not have the solid canopy that conifer
plantations and unmanaged woodlands have. As mentioned above, those I
have seen have lanes between the rows of panels which is sufficient to
allow grass to grow. These strips do receive, albeit limited, grazing
for the reasons I have indicated elsewhere.

You're quite right. Someone published a link on here some time ago to a photograph of a solar subsidy-farm in
Germany. The weeds were higher than the solar panels. However, aren't subsidies in Germany based on
potential rather than actual output? It would make weeding a profit-reducing exercise.

One wonders how long it will be before people will be paid *not* to install solar power.

--
Terry Fields

In message , Terry Fields
writes
On Fri, 18 Jan 2013 10:55:09 +0000, rbel wrote:


Whilst I agree entirely with your comment that grass does not grow in
full shade, solar farms do not have the solid canopy that conifer
plantations and unmanaged woodlands have. As mentioned above, those I
have seen have lanes between the rows of panels which is sufficient to
allow grass to grow. These strips do receive, albeit limited, grazing
for the reasons I have indicated elsewhere.

You're quite right. Someone published a link on here some time ago to a
photograph of a solar subsidy-farm in
Germany. The weeds were higher than the solar panels. However, aren't
subsidies in Germany based on
potential rather than actual output? It would make weeding a
profit-reducing exercise.

One wonders how long it will be before people will be paid *not* to
install solar power.

I think the CAP allows individual countries a bit of latitude in actual
application. For the UK you need to study the *guide to cross compliance
in England* probably available on the DEFRA site:-)


--
Tim Lamb

On Fri, 18 Jan 2013 10:46:34 +0000, rbel wrote:

er no. It would be more efficient not to have the lanes, but they need
so much maintenance..

Not sure why the 'er no'. I agree that it would be more efficient to
have no lanes, all I am saying is that the ones I have looked at have
had lanes between the rows which can be grazed.

Isn't that to stop the more southerly row shadowing the more northly one.
These things aren't horizontal but inclined. The lanes also allow access
for maintenance.

Still very little light underneath them though and reduced water.

--
Cheers
Dave.

On Fri, 18 Jan 2013 14:05:22 +0000 (GMT), "Dave Liquorice"
wrote:

On Fri, 18 Jan 2013 10:46:34 +0000, rbel wrote:

er no. It would be more efficient not to have the lanes, but they need
so much maintenance..

Not sure why the 'er no'. I agree that it would be more efficient to
have no lanes, all I am saying is that the ones I have looked at have
had lanes between the rows which can be grazed.

Isn't that to stop the more southerly row shadowing the more northly one.
These things aren't horizontal but inclined. The lanes also allow access
for maintenance.

Absolutely, particularly in northern latitudes where greater spacing
is needed than those further south eg Spain.


Still very little light underneath them though and reduced water.

Agreed but the lanes and the ground adjacent to them but partially
under the arrays are frequently sufficient to provide for some grazing
and also allow the farmer/landowner to pick up some SPS subsidy.
--
rbel

Martin Brown wrote
harry wrote
Steve Firth wrote
dennis@home wrote
Dave Liquorice wrote
Broadback wrote

Never mind the farmland, let the peasants starve when there is no
food, or of course import it from abroad , and what cost is that to
global warming?

Only worry about global warming when you have food from abroad to
import. When food gets in short supply countries *will* feed their own
before exporting.

That is plainly untrue.
you only have to look at the famines in Africa caused by the export of
their basic food crops to the west to feed cattle.
they wanted the cash to buy arms and booze.

Bull****.

Not at all, he's quite right.

They will sell their produce where they can get the very best price which
is almost invariably in the rich first world countries.

Depends on what their produce is, and its just plain wrong with rice alone.

You can find examples of this all through history.

But not much since the war.

Famines occur when the locals usually unskilled labourers and subsistance
farmers living hand to mouth even in the good years cannot afford to buy
what food there is.

That's nothing like what he claimed.

And now we hand out free food to those in that situation anyway.

The leaders of these **** hole places don't give a toss about their own
poor.

The farm owners grow luxury crops for a lucrative export market.

The same was also true closer to home of the Irish potato famine.

Yes, but that doesn't happen in the west anymore.

It was disastrous for the natives of Ireland but the British absentee
landlords were still making big money through their vicious middlemen land
agents by exporting food from Ireland that nobody could afford inside the
country.

It was in fact rather more complicated than that.

Pretty much like modern Tories in fact.

Nothing like in fact.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_f...ds_and_tenants

And in particular

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_famine#Food_exports

Which says nothing like what you claimed.

In a way nothing changes

Oh bull**** on free food handouts during famines alone.

and history repeats itself

More bull****.

as unprincipled powerful elites exploit everyone lower down the foodchain

Pity about what the free food during famines does to that.

to maximise their own wealth and rob their countries of natural resources.

Even sillier on that last.

Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Fri, 18 Jan 2013 10:46:34 +0000, rbel wrote:

er no. It would be more efficient not to have the lanes, but they need
so much maintenance..
Not sure why the 'er no'. I agree that it would be more efficient to
have no lanes, all I am saying is that the ones I have looked at have
had lanes between the rows which can be grazed.

Isn't that to stop the more southerly row shadowing the more northly one.
These things aren't horizontal but inclined. The lanes also allow access
for maintenance.

They should be inclined to match the local angle of the sun above the
horizon, so in England, about 30 degrees from the horizontal.

Still very little light underneath them though and reduced water.

They reduce the light, and concentrate the water below the lower edge of
the panel, unless rain collection equipment is insrtalled..

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

"harry" wrote in message
...
On Jan 18, 8:30 am, "Rod Speed" wrote:
"harry" wrote in message

...









On Jan 17, 10:59 pm, Steve Firth wrote:
"dennis@home" wrote:
On 17/01/2013 21:43, Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Thu, 17 Jan 2013 17:04:37 +0000, Broadback wrote:

Never mind the farmland, let the peasants starve when there is no
food,
or of course import it from abroad , and what cost is that to
global
warming?

Only worry about global warming when you have food from abroad to
import.
When food gets in short supply countries *will* feed their own
before
exporting.

That is plainly untrue.
you only have to look at the famines in Africa caused by the export
of
their basic food crops to the west to feed cattle.
they wanted the cash to buy arms and booze.

Bull****.

Not at all, he's quite right.
The leaders of these **** hole places don't give a toss about their
own poor.
The farm owners grow luxury crops for a lucrative export market.

Have fun listing any country where much of that happens except where
the europeans have been kicked off their farms and still don't do that.

Showing your stupidity again Wodders.

We'll see...

Zimbabwe.

Doesn't happen there, essentially because the ****ers have taken
all the farms back from the whites and don't produce a damned
thing at all anymore.

Ethiopia

That's a lie. It produces **** all that's exported like that.

The reason they keep starving is because they keep pumping
out FAR more kids than their circumstances can possibly support.

Costa Rica. Honduras Nicoragua.

Even someone as stupid as you should have noticed that
none of those are in Africa.

Ivory Coast Sierra Leone.

They don't export luxury crops either.

Guatemala Brazil India Indonesia

Even someone as stupid as you should have noticed that
none of those are in Africa.

And we haven't seen famines in any of those except Ethiopia anyway.

Dave Liquorice wrote:
Unless the land is very poor and unsuitable for farming. In that part of
the world I find it hard to believe that there are two *large* contiguous
patches of such land. It would better under the plough or cow.

The best land for solar panels would be (near-) vertical south-facing
cliffs.

JGH

On Jan 18, 4:20*pm, jgharston wrote:
Dave Liquorice wrote:
Unless the land is very poor and unsuitable for farming. In that part of
the world I find it hard to believe that there are two *large* contiguous
patches of such land. It would better under the plough or cow.

The best land for solar panels would be (near-) vertical south-facing
cliffs.

JGH

Why?

On 18/01/2013 16:20, jgharston wrote:
Dave Liquorice wrote:

Unless the land is very poor and unsuitable for farming. In that part of
the world I find it hard to believe that there are two *large* contiguous
patches of such land. It would better under the plough or cow.

I expect it is some trick to farm the grants misguidedly made available
by the government for installed capacity rather than delivered output.

The best land for solar panels would be (near-) vertical south-facing
cliffs.

Incorrect. Unless you live on the Arctic circle and are stupid enough to
optimise for maximum output in mid winter.

If you want maximum peak summer output then a south facing roof of about
30 degrees slope is optimal at our UK latitudes.

If you are dumb enough to optimise for maximum output in mid winter then
the steepest angle is about 15 degrees away from vertical.

The altitude of the sun at southern transit is 90-latitude +/- 23.5

In practice anything between 15 and 45 degrees will work well enough
since the loss scales with the angle theta between the normal to the
collector plate and the sun as cos(theta) so for +/- 15 degrees

cos(theta) = cos(15) ~ 0.95 so 5%

Slightly steeper roofs give a better average annual return and it really
isn't all that sensitive to exact allignment.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown