Plans to Ban Solar Energy on England's Farmland Criticized by Landowners (theguardian.com) 193
"Farmers have urged whoever succeeds Liz Truss as UK prime minister to abandon plans to ban solar energy from most of England's farmland," reports the Guardian, "arguing that it would hurt food security by cutting off a vital income stream."
Truss, who resigned on Thursday, and her environment secretary, Ranil Jayawardena, hoped to ban solar from about 41% of the land area of England, or about 58% of agricultural land, the Guardian revealed last week. They planned to do this by reclassifying less productive farmland as "best and most valuable", making it more difficult to use for energy infrastructure.
Members of the Country Land and Business Association (CLA), which represents 33,000 landowners, told the Guardian having solar on their less productive land allowed them to subsidise food production during less successful years, as well as providing cheap power for their estates and homes in their local area.
One farmer made the case succinctly to the Guardian. "We make unequivocally more from our solar panels than from farming."
Members of the Country Land and Business Association (CLA), which represents 33,000 landowners, told the Guardian having solar on their less productive land allowed them to subsidise food production during less successful years, as well as providing cheap power for their estates and homes in their local area.
One farmer made the case succinctly to the Guardian. "We make unequivocally more from our solar panels than from farming."
Not exclusive (Score:5, Informative)
Farming and solar generation can use the exact same land in many (most?) cases.
There is no need to ban this.
Re: (Score:3)
Farming and solar generation can use the exact same land in many (most?) cases.
There is no need to ban this.
There is a case for solar on farms as wind breaks etc but generally you have to pick one or the other for a given piece of land to be meaningfully productive either at creating energy or growing food. Windmills are a much better choice for dual use where possible.
Re: (Score:3)
Wrong [wired.com]. There are several crops which do better in partial shade and do not appreciate having full sun beating down on them for 8-10 hours per day. They also tend to be things that human beings like to eat, rather than feed corn and soybeans.
Re: (Score:3)
Wrong [wired.com].
Because the UK is in the same climate zone as Colorado, USA.... Ooh, wait... It's not..
There are several crops which do better in partial shade
Yeah, because they try to grow them in the fucking desert at a much lower longitude. Of course the plants will like a little shade.
But we are talking about the UK here. The place where the sky has more shades of grey than the book.
Re: (Score:3)
You're welcome to identify the parent comments that were specific to the UK instead of general statements.
Grandparent was talking about there being no reason for the ban. The ban refers to the plan in the UK that is the topic of the article.
So now agriculture is limited to things that have chlorophyll rather than raising grazing animals?
Well, to be honest (and i'm not a native speaker) i thought the word agriculture encompasses only plant cultivation. Agro refers to a field and culture refers to growing things on it / working it. Apparently i misunderstood this word.
How many farms have you run, big guy? Worked on? Driven past in the last fortnight?
My only experience is the (small, 5 hectares) family farm.
Re: (Score:2)
The big point is: where possible.
Fo an isolated farm that wants to use its own power before selling surplus to the grid, solar is much simpler in every regard.
It starts with moving the panels in a pick up, installing them one by one, when you have 10 ready, you connect them to the farm/storage or what ever - rinse and repeat. Simple.
For wind you need a huge truck, basically a temporary road to the installation base, a crane. A digger machine etc. Much more people to do the work, solar can basically be done
Re: (Score:3)
The ban isn't about food supply.
It's about keeping NIMBYs happy, and reducing competition for fossil fuels and the insanely expensive nuclear they are still building.
People are very protective of the "green belt" in the UK, despite us having so much of it they treat it like an endangered species. Fields of solar panels don't fit with their ideal of what Britain should look like.
Re: (Score:2)
Depends on how dense such a solar field is.
Re: (Score:2)
There is no need to ban this.
There is definitely a nee to regulate this - so that if farmland is being used for solar, it's being done in a way that still allows the land to be used for mixed use agriculture, with sufficient spacing and elevation so sheep, crops or whatever can grow between or under rows of panels.
What we definitely don't want to see is farmland paved over with solar farms that make the land unusable for anything else.
Re: Not exclusive (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Farming and solar generation can use the exact same land in many (most?) cases.
Yeah, in the fucking deserts of colorado.
You do know that we're talking about the UK here, right?
Re: Not exclusive (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Which works until the government decides that you need to use a lot less fertilizer in order to meet their climate goals. Now you're back to leaving fields fallow.
https://torontosun.com/news/national/trudeau-pushes-ahead-on-fertilizer-reduction-as-provinces-and-farmers-cry-foul
Re: (Score:2)
> torontosun.com
Har, someone quoting the Toronto Sun for a science matter!
It's almost universally true that if the "newspaper" has "sun" in the name, you shouldn't be quoting it for anything other than celebrity gossip.
Re: (Score:2)
And what is that fertilizer made up of?
Dead dinos?
Seeing the problem yet?
Re: Not exclusive (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
The solution is to put solar panels on barns. My grandfather was a chicken farmer, nasty birds. He had two chicken houses. One was 1020' long and the other 900' long. You could have put a lot of panels on those roofs.
Re: Not exclusive (Score:5, Informative)
The solution is to put solar panels on barns.
Putting panels on pre-existing rooftops costs twice as much as grid-scale ground-level solar farms.
In any case, the location of the panels should be a business decision. The government should not be "picking winners".
Odd that this proposal is coming from a PM who claims to be a conservative. Fortunately, she'll be gone soon.
Re: (Score:2)
Comparative Generation Costs of Utility-scale and Residential-Scale PV [brattle.com]
Re: (Score:2)
rotating some fields to lay fallow for a couple years to regain fertility.
We do not do that since roughly 200 years anymore. We use crop rotation and fertilizes.
Re: (Score:3)
No wind can be engineered for with ballast and stout structure. The panels can be at a tilt to sun the plants. And what they can actually can do in benefit is cool the field in the summer when those plants are vulnerable from overexposure and drought. You share the plants during the harshest peak of of summer and sun them after rains and irrigation to yield a better overall crop.
This is true. So much stuff grows under our local installs it needs mowed. So you could plant crops like winter wheat.
Re: Not exclusive (Score:5, Informative)
Plants require direct sunlight. You cannot grow anything worth eating in the shade of a solar panel..
BULLSHIT
Some plants require direct sunlight. Some grow better in partial shade, or full shade. Many farmers grow foodstuffs beneath solar panels.
Re: Not exclusive (Score:5, Informative)
Many berries do not like direct sunlight. Plants can get sunburn.
There are fields under plastic tents and solar panels even protect from hail.
It's certainly not as straight forward as putting solar on every field but farmers are smart enough to maximize their income. If they can produce produce AND power, you bet your derriere they will.
Re: (Score:2)
UK is not Egypt.
No, it isn't. But even in England, there are leaf crops like lettuce and spinach which will grow in partial shade. Shade can inhibit many leaf crops from bolting.
This isn't a decision the government should be making.
Re: (Score:2)
Plants require direct sunlight. You cannot grow anything worth eating in the shade of a solar panel..
BULLSHIT - Some plants require direct sunlight. Some grow better in partial shade, or full shade. Many farmers grow foodstuffs beneath solar panels.
True, but running a combine over (or around) solar panels will probably be problematic. :-)
Re: (Score:2)
To harvest lettuce and brassica's?
Re: (Score:2)
True, but running a combine over (or around) solar panels will probably be problematic. :-)
Crops that grow in the shade and crops that are harvested with combines are disjoint sets.
Re: (Score:2)
Not really, as farming machines in Europe are rather small (and you can trust that a farmer know show big his machine is) - and if you want to farm and have solar same time, the solar panels are obviously set up high enough fitting your farming habits.
Re: Not exclusive (Score:5, Insightful)
Not all farms grow just crops. Some have cattle and horse pastures. Plenty of room to put a solar panels on poles. The animals would get some use out of it as shade.
Re: Not exclusive (Score:5, Informative)
Not true at all. Agrivoltaics is a well studied field of research by now, and recent results show that you can sometimes even increase the yields of your crops by having (spaced) solar panels on top because it regulates microclimatic parameters. It's not as simple as "block sun so plant no grow".
See e.g., https://link.springer.com/arti... [springer.com]
Re: Not exclusive (Score:5, Informative)
Also known as Argrisolar.
It works great because in most cases the amount of sunlight available is not the limiting factor on plant growth. As I recall, many/most common crops can only actually metabolize somewhere around 40% of the sunlight available in an average day.
So if you block half of that with an intermittent field of solar panels (checkerboard, stripes, etc.) high enough to be out of the way of farm equipment, the plants are still getting more sunlight than they can use, and the shade helps reduce evaporation and with it the amount of irrigation needed.
Re: (Score:3)
Not true at all. Agrivoltaics is a well studied field of research by now, and recent results show that you can sometimes even increase the yields of your crops by having (spaced) solar panels on top because it regulates microclimatic parameters. It's not as simple as "block sun so plant no grow".
See e.g., https://link.springer.com/arti [springer.com]...
Oh come on look at the chart on pg59 they are barely collecting any energy on the panels in their experiment while logging substantial reduction in yields. The panels are at quite a high northern latitude, 16 feet in the air and each row is over 20 feet apart. Just because you can do something does not mean it is worth doing.
Solar panels themselves are basically free compared to the supporting infrastructure required to use them. Nobody is willingly going to install something like this.
Re: (Score:3)
Wrong again [wired.com]. Someon
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Because the land is flat. And strictly speaking you do not need a road to go to a random place and put up a turbine.
no idea why outsiders always think they know better than the insiders.
If those guys want to set up solar over wind -> their decision. Can't be so hard to grasp.
And the article is: some idiots in a bureaucracy want to take away the right to decide from them. Hu? You grasp the implication?
There are so many things to consider, I really wonder why some idiots on the internet think they know mor
Re: (Score:2)
Wrong again [wired.com].
Fuck off already with that wired article. That article is about Fucking Desert, Colorado and not Rainpiss, UK.
Additional examples are left as an exercise for the reader.
No, the onus is on you to find even one example of this working in the UK climate.
Re: (Score:2)
They get the energy the panels are specced for and according to the direction they are positioned.
What is your critics about that?
Re: (Score:3)
Don't forget to add bi-facial panels into this mix. Spacing panels correctly not just means plants can grow, but it means more energy collected during the morning and evening due to light coming up from beneath, which gets about a 10% addition for energy collected.
Solar panels are more of a "why not?" question on a farm. If you have a shed, toss panels on it, and you now have a place for light, or even a batter and refrigerator. The Aussies have refrigerators in the middle of nowhere with panels on them
Re: (Score:3)
The only thing it can't really do is drive A/C systems...
It does that just fine: inverters are awfully good now.
Re: (Score:3)
Plants require direct sunlight. You cannot grow anything worth eating in the shade of a solar panel. If half your land is covered in solar panels, then by definition, half your land cannot be used to grow crops.
Unless you assume food materializes on supermarket shelves. Then it's all good.
It's surprising, but in our area, plants grow very well under the panels - to the point that they need mowed. I don't know how plants that need a lot of sun do, certainly corn wouldn't work because it grows very tall. But even here in the Northeast, we have some crops that do better with netting over them. A not related item is that a lot of birds like to put their nests under the panels. Hig survival rate of nestlings being protected from the elements, and warm and cozy.
Re: (Score:2)
Plants require direct sunlight.
False. Not all plants require direct sunlight. Some do quite a bit better in muted light. Additionally plants do not require 12 hours of direct sunlight. Many of them benefit from being in the shade during the day.
No one here is proposing full coverage here.
Honestly I'm afraid to read the rest of your comment given this start but here goes...
If half your land is covered in solar panels, then by definition, half your land cannot be used to grow crops.
Yep basically exactly what I expected. By the way how much farming experience do you have? No need to answer.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually wrong depending on crop. Some crops do a lot better with reduced sunlight and indirect sunlight.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
> You cannot grow anything worth eating in the shade of a solar panel
Someone forgot to tell all the farmers that do this across Europe and Japan. It even has a name, agrophotovoltaics. Properly arranging the panels can increase yields by reducing noon-time evaporation, peak ground temperatures and UV crop damage. In one large test field in Europe, yield improved 60% over the non-PV harvest. More typical numbers are around 25%. There is a cost of doing this, you have to raise the panels higher, so there a
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
We can genetically modify the plant so that it doesn't waste energy, because it won't need to power all its systems. Furthermore we can reflect the light that falls between its leaves back to it. Also, losses from insects/animals/blight would be zeroed. Ultimately, the answer is direct tissue synthesis.
Re: (Score:2)
We can genetically modify the plant so that it doesn't waste energy ... how so?
Sure, and the laws of physic suddenly change because you genetically modified a plant
Hint: plants are some of the most "photovoltaic" devices on the planet.
Re: (Score:2)
the plant can still only use 8% of that 20%...
1. Grow lights use LEDs which can be tuned for the exact wavelengths best absorbed by chlorophyll.
2. The LEDs can run only when there is surplus power and turn off during demand peaks. Energy is fungible, so the LEDs can run at night using surplus power from nukes or wind if that is cheaper.
Re: (Score:2)
No. Plants only use a small percentage of the sunlight that falls on them. The best plant, sugarcane, only achieves 8% efficiency converting sunshine to chemical energy. Most other plants are between 0.1% and 2% efficient. Whereas, a solar panel is typically 15% to 20% efficient.
Therefore, it's theoretically possible that you could put up a bunch of solar panels, use some electricity to drive grow lights to grow your crops under, and still have some electricity left over on top of that.
You are "theoretically" correct it is possible to design solar panels and crops that absorb different frequencies and don't interfere with each other. It is possible to install solar panels so that they selectively shade fields especially nonproductive ones to reduce water consumption. What is possible is not the same as what is available or economically credible.
In the real world you won't see the same or better yields with panels than without them so when you go down that road you are trading food for e
Re: (Score:2)
In the real world you won't see the same or better yields with panels than without them
Lol. Yes you do get better yields. Read something about it.
Is not hard.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Putting solar panels over rich, fertile, 3 main crops a year, fenland fields, is in nobodies interests.
Exactly. What you put over rich, fertile, 3 main crops a year fields is supermarket parking lots and dogbox housing estates and McDonalds drive-throughs, that's how you make the real money.
Non-techies should not make technical decisions (Score:5, Insightful)
It's fine not to be a techie as it takes all kinds to make a world but laypersons should know their limitations and weaknesses.
Modern society is so complex one must put in serious study just to ask useful questions let alone solve problems. Noobs should sit back, watch and learn rather than micromanage. See the Russian government and armed force for what happens when the powerful but intellectually vulnerable have power.
Re:Non-techies should not make technical decisions (Score:5, Insightful)
It's fine not to be a techie as it takes all kinds to make a world but laypersons should know their limitations and weaknesses.
If you've spent any time on Slashdot, you could easily see that "techies" suffer from some pretty severe cases of tunnel vision...to the point that they can't fathom how simple the solutions to some problems can be.
"Techies" make idiotic proposals all the time.
What?! (Score:2)
"Techies" make idiotic proposals all the time.
This makes me so mad that it makes we want to exit my Emacs web browser and write you an angry email on my Emacs email client! The only thing stopping me is my inability to reliably press the five key keyboard shortcut!
Anyone know why (Score:2)
I know trickle down & tax cuts for the rich is bad for the economy, but the Stock Markets don't think that. Usually it boosts things. The markets crashed so hard after her announcement she was forced to resign.
I know that the people funding her campaign were counting on her to crash the economy (no joke, they bought short positions against the British pound), but I don't know how they figured out her braindead p
Re:Anyone know why (Score:5, Insightful)
I know trickle down & tax cuts for the rich is bad for the economy, but the Stock Markets don't think that.
Stock markets didn't crash, in fact it barely moved. The pound did and so did bond yields, the things almost solely dependent on the economy.
There's more than one type of market.
but I don't know how they figured out her braindead polices would lead to an immediate crash when the crashes from doing Trickle down usually take a few years to hit.
The market didn't crash on the announcement of trickle down economics as a policy. It crashed on a budget hole and reckless tax cuts on that budget hole. If your brother borrows $1000 from you, and then saves the money to repay you in a month, you would likely be open to lending him money again. If he instead blows it gambling and then goes out, gets a credit card, maxes out the credit card on nothing, leaving him not only owing you $1000, but leaving you second inline to his bank's debt too, you're not likely to lend him money again.
Pounds and bond value sank (and a rating downgrade occurred) because a lunatic was in charge of finances and people had little faith in UK's economic position.
Re: (Score:2)
The Pound crashed due to her demonstrating that she has no understanding of economics and is driven entirely by ideology.
Her policy was basically the same as one enacted by another conservative government in the early 70s, which lead to power cuts and recession. Guess what, we are facing power cuts and recession again.
It's essentially an imbecile tax. The risk of lending the UK government money went up because a moron was in charge.
Re: (Score:2)
And it doesn't answer the question of why the markets reacted the way they did. Tax cuts for the rich don't hurt markets until the cuts to social services start to have negative effects on the broader ec
Re: (Score:2)
They were unfunded tax cuts, the kind that drastically increase a nations debt. Also after 40+ years of austerity, there isn't much to cut without really breaking society.
Here in Canada, we have the young new Conservative leader who plans massive tax cuts along with massive austerity, the market will eat it up and it will be really happy when he dismantles our democracy as well. Sadly the young, well I guess closer to middle aged, have really lit into the right wing, republican type, viewpoint.
We will have a new Prime Minister next week (Score:2)
So this could well change -- as the Guardian article says; but I know that many slashdotters do not read what is linked.
Re: (Score:3)
Liz Truss used to work for Shell (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Why doesn't anyone talk about this? Ban Solar, Support Fracking?
Probably because her past employment is irrelevant to her stupid decisions. She could have worked in Charlie's chocolate factory for all anyone cares, it doesn't change her campaign position.
If you're implying that she's a Shell agent placed in power to something something, then don't bother. Shell hasn't campaigned for UK to restart fracking. They know the problems it causes in the UK's geology since it's similar to the Netherlands, where they are currently fighting a legal battle about the damage they cau
Re: (Score:2)
[shell.com] they have spent literally billions of dollars buying solar energy suppliers in the past 2 years. It would make zero sense for them to be against it.
Think again: https://www.clientearth.org/pr... [clientearth.org]
Shell is exactly as deep into renewables as is needed to make them look good enough and not an inch more.
They plan on riding the fossil train all the way to the end.
As usual, Conservatives are self-serving bastards (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
"Conservative" is synonymous with "self-serving bastard" worldwide, ...
Well, of course. Why do you think they induced the brexit? There is no benefit from leaving the EU for the overwhelming majority of UK people. Brexit was basically a power grab for the purpose of more efficient exploitation. Truss is a perfect example of the forces that arranged for brexit to happen.
How weird (Score:2)
What a strange place to live in, where crap land is fought over. We have so much crap land in the US that you could just install miles and miles of solar panels in...
I guess it's different in England, where they don't have this sort of thing? Everyone must be living on top of each other?
Re: (Score:3)
It's not about productive land vs marginal land. This is about property rights. The people who want to put up panels want to do it because it's more lucrative for them than farming. They were farming because the land is very productive, but in this post brexit era, life is not all that rosy for producers, hence the desire to diversify into solar. It is very true that solar on these lands will reduce actual food production. And they are rather ugly I admit. There's plenty of marginal land, yes, but the
Re: (Score:2)
It is very true that solar on these lands will reduce actual food production.
No it wont.
You should read up on that.
Unless Tomatoes, Cucumber or Lettuce etc. is not food for you.
70m people living in half the size of texas (Score:2)
"Everyone must be living on top of each other?"
Not everywhere, but in the south east and midlands, pretty much yes. Either way, good farmland is scarce and under pressure from population growth but as others have said, solar and farming are not mutually exclusive. In fact sheep are often used to keep the grass short in solar farms built on fields.
No Johnson (Score:2)
I assume that she was more or less doing what Johnson wanted to do but was afraid of doing. So keep Johnson out.
Ridiculous (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Actually kind of a funny finger slip...
Re: (Score:2)
No, it's because they have more farmland than they need to produce the food they consume
Not true, as far as I can tell. In 2020, the UK imported 46% of the food it consumed. [www.gov.uk] There's something more complicated going on here with the economics. Over the past couple of centuries, it has been common for marginal farmland in advanced economies to go out of cultivation since it's cheaper to import food from countries with lower production costs.
Re:If solar is more profitable than farming (Score:4, Informative)
The UK also exports billions in food. The fact that much of what people eat is imported does not mean a country would starve without trade, it just means people would have to change what they eat. For important nutritional staples, I believe the UK produces enough to survive an embargo.
Re: (Score:3)
Do you have any stats to support that? I'm seeing at least a couple of links saying that the UK is not self-sufficient in food production, though they don't go into the numbers.
I'm more familiar with the UK's economic history in the 1800s, when a million acres went out of cultivation because the victory of free trade forces via the repeal of the Corn Laws led to grain imports from Eastern Europe and North America being cheaper than local production.
Re: (Score:2)
Because a country imports food does not mean it is not self-sufficient with its own food.
It means that, as it turns out, food can be sold outside of their borders as well.
Re: (Score:2)
Have you never gardened? Little well farmed? Things like lettuce, peas, brassica's hate full summer sun and die. I plant them at the shady end of my garden and they do wonderful with very little direct sun. Especially lately with the weird summers we've been having, and the UK is similar in weird hot dry summers lately.
Many crops hate 40C+ temperatures along with months of no rain
Re: (Score:3)
Crime in the coastal-elite blue States is out of control right now.
Yes the coastal elite state of Florida has a higher crime (and suicide) rate than California (in spite of having an older population), the only thing is .. Florida is a red state.
Re: (Score:2)
Note, by crime I mean violent crime like murder. Not petty theft. Petty theft might be low in Florida (I havent checked) since there is nothing to steal there.
Re: Conservatism died (Score:2)
Check the homicide rate, violent crime stats depend on subjective classification. Homicides do not.
Re: (Score:3)
The top five, and 9 of the top 10 states for murder are red states. Reference on murder rates: https://fernandinaobserver.com... [fernandinaobserver.com]
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Your parent post gave very specific numbers and a reference to where those numbers came from. Where are yours?
Re: (Score:2)
Are you mentally challenged? When everybody is fighting a catastrophe that is not the situation to scream "freedom!" and make things worse. You must be one of those "conservatives" that serve to illustrate that conservatives are dumber than regular people. Actual emergency measures do not fall under "authoritarian" unless you are as dumb as bread.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Conservatism died (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
"Patriot: the person who can holler the loudest without knowing what he is hollering about." Mark Twain
"Patriotism is usually the refuge of the scoundrel. He is the man who talks the loudest." Mark Twain
Re: (Score:3)
Trump lost Georgia by 10,000 votes and begged the governor to "find" those votes. The governor should have checked the morgue; Covid deaths in Georgia were 12,000. A similar thing happened in Arizona.
Re: (Score:3)
There was no forced masking or vaccination anywhere. The vaccine mandate was if you wished to work in certain spaces, schools, or health care you had to get vaccinated. Mandates for vaccines already existed in healthcare and even some colleges before Covid. Every state has mandates of how to conduct yourself in public. For example, you can't walk around in Florida naked without being put in jail. You want to talk about mandates, how about DeSantis blocking companies from choosing to hire unvaccinated people
Re: (Score:2)
And btw, you could avoid the vaccine by showing covid test results.
Re: (Score:2)
Typo: I meant DeSantis blocked companies from firing unvaccinated people.
Re: (Score:2)
People think that COVID is just like the flu, it won't be bad for them, and fuck everyone else.
No matter how healthy you are, you can get long COVID or die.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm double vaccinated, but got Covid 3 weeks ago. ... it at least keeps the muscles warm, and somehow distracts from the pain.
I stil have it. No idea why.
It is "bearable", if you do not mind being barely functional in the early morning untill you have enough tee/coffee and other drinks.
My body hurts like after 3 or 4 days hard sports in a row. Everything hurts. Can not sit, can not walk, can not lay down, can not really sleep. So I do easy garden work
Sounds perhaps worth than it actually is, but the sleep d
Re: (Score:2)
I'm so sorry to hear that. I've been living with similar issues for some time, and wouldn't wish it on my worst enemies. You are right, the lack of sleep is one of the worst aspects.
I hope you manage to recover somehow. The WHO has called on the world to look for treatments for Long COVID, and now so many people have it there might be progress. Before when it was just Chronic Fatigue Syndrome, there was very little research being done. Try to stay positive and good luck.
Re:Conservatism died (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
They are doing both on the same land you numpty. They can't afford to keep the land on the farming alone while competing with imports, and people can't afford what food would cost if they they didn't have the competition.
Re: (Score:2)
You read the part in the summary where they want to reclassify land so that putting up solar panels is no longer allowed, right?