Climate Catastrophe

:man_shrugging:

Cemeteries turned into solar farms without relatives being told

Story by James Badcock

image

Valencia has begun turning its cemeteries into solar farms, prompting anger from relatives of the dead who say they were not consulted over the plan to meet net zero targets.

Officials in the Spanish city hope to build Europe’s largest urban solar farm with close to 7,000 panels being built on graveyards, under a project named Requiem in Power (RIP).

Three small cemeteries have so far started generating renewable power with larger sites next in the €3.2million (£2.6 million) project, which is part of the city’s plans to become carbon neutral by as early as 2030.

Unveiling hundreds of solar panels gleaming atop tombs in the 200-year-old Campanar cemetery earlier this month, Carlos Mundina, a local official, admitted that relatives of the deceased had not been consulted on the plan.

“This is a public-owned facility and the [graves] are leased for 30 or 50-year periods so we don’t need to consult anyone,” Mr Mundina, Valencia’s climate and energy transition chief, said.

“Cemeteries are places of absolute quiet, something solar energy does not disturb,” he added.

A city hall spokesman said: “We are looking for all public space possible to help meet our targets.”

Most of the electricity will be by public services and slightly over 10 per cent kept aside as free energy for vulnerable families.

‘They should ask the people first’

“I had no idea. I wonder about the aesthetic aspect,” María Luisa Mora, a 76-year-old whose parents are buried in Valencia’s General Cemetery, said.

“It’s a bit weird. I’ve got nothing against it but they should ask the people first,” said Esther, 29, a Valencia resident.

“It’s always the same; the government just does what it wants without consulting,” she added.

Mr Mundina insisted that RIP will benefit citizens, noting that Valencia’s social services had already identified 800 households receiving assistance to pay bills who will now get energy free thanks to the extra solar power pumped into the grid.

“These users will also be taught about energy efficiency and how to make the best use of solar power by adapting their consumption to the hours of the day in which it is generated,” he added.

An organisation funded by city hall, València Clima i Energia (VCiE), has been tasked with educating citizens about climate change, helping create the city’s first energy communities of locals tasked with installing solar panels.

Empar Puchades is the president of a 62-strong energy community in the working-class Valencia suburb of Castellar, which has been allowed to place its solar farm on the roof of a local community centre.

‘All very well for better off’

“People who live in houses and who can afford to spend €8,000 or €9,000 on their own solar installation – that’s all very well. But what about folk without that kind of economic clout?” Ms Puchades said.

For a minimum initial investment of €600, community members have seen their electricity bills cut in half, especially if they can adapt to using appliances during the daytime as their energy is free when the panels are producing it.

VCiE’s Corentin Girard says better information for users and access to renewables schemes creates a double-win situation for people and the environment. “It is about reducing energy consumption, but doing it in a way that is fair.”

While it’s a decent courtesy to consult the people, but there are worse things that a government can do than doing something that actually benefits people in need.

4 Likes

Climate change is real and needs action but hopefully these people are kept to your side of the world.

We are 1000 miles north of FL in Indiana, but last night we had bad storms due to the hurricane. Loads of rain, high winds that did some damage to the house - roofline, siding, not too bad. Loads of tree branches down.

In a small Tennessee town where my wife lived as a child, it flooded really badly and people in the hospital had to get up on the roof.

A college group we know is stranded in another town and can’t get out yet, as floodwaters and mudslides have cut off all exit routes.

I’m amazed there are still climate denier’s.

As for the stop oil protesters, they would benefit from tougher policing and sentencing, as their vandalism on property is appalling. They need big fines and maybe even time locked up for that stuff, in my opinion.

The cause is noble. The means are appalling.

2 Likes

Except that they haven’t done any lasting damage on any culturally important items, have they?

1 Like

Compare the sentences for climate protesters and paedophile newscasters.

1 Like

There are always anomalies and inconsistencies to point out in the law. Of course some people don’t get what they should, and that’s wrong.

I stand by the comment that the means of protest of the stop oil group just grate - not just this particular thing, but the sporting events and blocking traffic in busy cities and so on.

I don’t know why they feel they have the right to throw stuff on paintings, or orange powder on snooker tables, or stop traffic in London, etc.

They should take their concerns to the oil companies and to government.

And obviously, on a personal level, they should ensure they are as squeaky clean as possible, taking public transport, forgoing flying, or insulating the house, turning down the heat, etc. or else they are no better than any other hypocrite who says do what I say, not what I do.

The cause is fine, even noble, but the means I’ve seen have not changed a thing, and unfortunately have strained the good will of a good many who might otherwise be more supportive.

1 Like

Agreed.
Perhaps if they were asked nicely, they’d refrain from causing non lasting damage to property which isn’t theirs?

Absolutely staggered to see what has hit Asheville. I have a lot of fond memories of that town, and a few friends still in the area - though I believe most are on higher ground near the Grove Park. Flash flooding is nothing new, it is a mountain town at the confluence of two rivers, but nothing like this scale - and the city itself is fairly well designed to deal with high waters between fairly high banks and green space next to the rivers. Not enough this time.

2 Likes

Don’t get much good news on this thread, so here’s a nice change;

7 Likes

Until this happens again

Maybe, just maybe, the UK should be building out more renewable power generation then?

1 Like

Maybe, just maybe, we are.
But maybe, just maybe, it’s not enough to make us self sufficient for the forseeable future.
So maybe, just maybe, if Norway cut exports again, we’ve no back up.
Maybe

Did you even read the article? Even when that Norwegian incident occurred, coal was barely a rounding error in the amount of electricity produced.

There’s a reason new solar and wind projects are going ahead, despite the lack of government subsidy – they simply are much more cost-effective than the fossil fuels you’re weirdly obsessed with.

1 Like

The energy they will produce for a set period will be subsidised wont it?

I can’t say as my impression is based on information that’s a little ancient, so probably out of date and wrong, but I don’t think they even have any subsidy.

The only weird obsession I’m seeing is you following me and others around this forum, with no other objective other than to at all costs prove someone wrong.
I’ve come across individuals like you all my working life, people who relish making themselves look good at the expense of making others look bad.
Fortunately in real life, those wankers end up getting a well deserved dig, unfortunately as a anonymous internet user it can’t be replicated here.

I’ve never resorted to the ignore function on this forum, until now.

You’re oddly obsessed with me for some reason? I don’t “follow” people around this forum, don’t flatter yourself so much.

It’s pathetic that you can’t handle being told that you’re wrong.

It’s through a guaranteed price so if energy prices spike the surplus earned is paid back to government.

1 Like

I’m not sure it’s necessarily subsidies as much as the guarantee of certainty that’s valuable here. As the article notes, it applies only for the first few years of operation, and that they are contracts for difference.

In other words, if the wholesale price of energy is higher than the auction price by the time the project starts operations, then they actually have to pay the government the surplus over the auction price.

It means that developers can at least ensure some level of financial viability of the project, since they have an almost guaranteed level of revenue, and they just need to ensure their costs don’t exceed that. It doesn’t mean that it’s necessarily subsidised, just de-risked. The last thing they want is to be building a project only for energy prices to be lower than what is expected to make the project viable.