ACHES – Weekly Picks


Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Chint Solar (proposed Thurstaston Solar panels complex) has NOT included BESS (Battery Energy Storage Systems) within its scoping request to Wirral Council dated November 2025. What are the implications?

12th February UPDATE

REPRESENTATIVES OF CHINT GROUP HAVE STATED THAT A LAND DEAL HAS BEEN STRUCK AND THAT BATTERY ENERGY STORAGE SYSTEMS WILL NOT BE USED AT THE THURSTASTON SOLAR COMPLEX

“If my company was installing a solar ‘farm’, would the Environmental Impact Assessment regulations expect me to declare the presence of Battery Energy Storage Systems?”

Yes, if your company is installing a solar farm with Battery Energy Storage Systems (BESS), Environmental Impact Assessments (EIAs) will likely require you to declare the presence of the BESS. 

Environmental Impact Assessments are mandatory for large-scale developments, including solar farms with BESS, to evaluate potential effects on air, water, noise, biodiversity, and ecological systems.  The presence of BESS significantly increases the scope of these assessments due to specific risks such as:

Fire and explosion hazards from lithium-ion batteries, which can release toxic fumes and cause thermal runaway. 

Groundwater contamination from potential chemical leaks or firewater runoff.

Noise pollution from cooling systems, inverters, and transformers. 

Visual and landscape impacts from additional infrastructure. 

Waste management considerations, especially at end-of-life.

As highlighted in multiple sources, including Dentons and UL, BESS projects must undergo detailed assessments covering these environmental and safety risks.  Furthermore, the UK government is actively moving to integrate BESS into the Environmental Permitting Regulations (EPR), which will formalize requirements for pollution control, fire safety, and waste management.  This regulatory shift reinforces the need to disclose BESS in EIAs. 

In summary, declaring the BESS is not optional—it is a critical part of the EIA process to ensure compliance, risk mitigation, and public transparency. 

“What important factors should I be aware of should the Battery Energy Storage Systems be removed from the design?”

Removing Battery Energy Storage Systems (BESS) from your solar farm design simplifies the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) but introduces other critical considerations:

Grid Stability and Intermittency

Without BESS, the solar farm’s output becomes fully intermittent—generating power only during daylight hours. This can exacerbate grid imbalances, especially during evening demand peaks (“duck curve”), requiring backup from fossil fuel plants or grid-scale storage elsewhere. 

Reduced Land and Environmental Footprint

Eliminating BESS removes risks tied to battery systems: fire hazards, chemical leaks, and toxic waste at end-of-life. This reduces the EIA’s scope, particularly around pollution control, firewater runoff, and hazardous waste management.

Lower Capital and Regulatory Burden

BESS often triggers stricter permitting, especially for systems over 50MW (previously classified as Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects in the UK). Removal streamlines approval and reduces compliance costs related to battery-specific regulations. 

Energy Export Limitations

Without storage, excess daytime generation may be curtailed if grid demand or transmission capacity is insufficient, reducing project efficiency and revenue potential. 

Environmental Trade-offs

While BESS adds complexity, it enhances renewable reliability. Removing it may indirectly support continued reliance on non-renewable peaker plants, offsetting some carbon benefits.


Return to Bomb Alley 1982 – The Falklands Deception, by Paul Cardin

Amazon link


http://paulcardin.substack.com

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

Physics Demonstrates That Increasing Greenhouse Gases Cannot Cause Dangerous Warming, Extreme Weather or Any Harm

https://co2coalition.org/publications/physics-demonstrates-that-increasing-greenhouse-gases-cannot-cause-dangerous-warming-extreme-weather-or-any-harm/


Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

WATCH: Starving the Data Centre Beast – #SolutionsWatch


Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

These pin-striped f*cking scabs couldn’t give a shit about planet Earth and the environment / pollution, et al. as long as they’re kept in the splendour to which they’re accustomed, and living the high life

“Banks are falling over themselves to leave the banking climate alliance. Not good, eh?”

Yes — major banks are abandoning the Net Zero Banking Alliance (NZBA), and it’s a worrying sign for climate accountability. 

By early 2026:

All six largest US banks (JPMorgan, Bank of America, Citigroup, Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, Wells Fargo) have left. 

Canadian banks (BMO, TD, CIBC, National Bank) followed, citing legal threats. 

European banks like HSBC, Barclays, and UBS have also exited. 

Even Triodos, a green bank, quit — calling the alliance’s softened stance a “step in the wrong direction”. 

The NZBA has now ceased as a membership body, shifting to a non-binding guidance framework.  Critics say it’s effectively collapsed under political pressure, especially after Trump’s 2024 re-election and attacks on ESG. 

While banks claim they still back net zero, their actions — and continued fossil fuel financing — tell another story. 


Return to Bomb Alley 1982 – The Falklands Deception, by Paul Cardin

Amazon link


http://paulcardin.substack.com

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Free speech for me but not for thee

My comment went down well … 🙂


Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

WYOMING is standing against INTERNATIONAL TYRANNY


Stand against censorship and surveillance, join Reclaim The Net.

Wyoming has taken a historic step to insulate American speech from foreign interference with the introduction of the Wyoming Guaranteeing Rights Against Novel International Tyranny and Extortion (GRANITE) Act, House Bill 0070, which would be the first US law designed to create a private right of action against foreign censorship enforcement.

Representative Daniel Singh introduced the bill, declaring that “foreign governments have decided they can threaten American citizens and American companies for speech that is protected by our Constitution…Wyoming is drawing a line in the sand.” The measure aims to establish Wyoming as a refuge for free expression and digital innovation, directly challenging what lawmakers describe as an escalating campaign of transnational censorship pressure.

The legislation provides that any Wyoming resident, business, or US person with servers in the state may sue foreign governments or international organizations that attempt to enforce censorship demands against them for First Amendment protected speech. Each violation could cost the offending entity at least $1 million or 10% of its US revenue, whichever is higher.

The GRANITE Act prohibits Wyoming courts and agencies from recognizing or enforcing foreign censorship judgments. It also forbids any state cooperation with such orders, including extradition requests or data demands linked to speech that is constitutionally protected in the US. Under the bill, no Wyoming authority may help a foreign state investigate, penalize, or prosecute individuals over lawful expression.

We obtained a copy of the bill for you here.

Service of process provisions ensure that foreign governments cannot use procedural loopholes, such as registered agents or international legal treaties, to intimidate Americans into silence. The bill emphasizes that even receiving a foreign censorship demand within Wyoming constitutes harm occurring inside the state’s jurisdiction.

A Response to Global Censorship Campaigns

Lawmakers cited specific examples in the bill’s findings, including the UK’s Office of Communications (Ofcom) threatening US-based platforms with fines, Brazil’s Supreme Court ordering the shutdown of X, and similar enforcement efforts from the EU’s Digital Services Act.

Supporters argue these cases show a growing pattern of international attempts to penalize American companies and individuals for online speech that is lawful under the First Amendment. Wyoming’s legislature describes this as “foreign coercion and intimidation” incompatible with constitutional protections.

The GRANITE Act positions Wyoming as a legal sanctuary for companies and individuals facing overseas censorship. The bill explicitly encourages technology firms to relocate or host their servers in the state to benefit from its protections.

Representative Singh summarized the principle simply: “The First Amendment doesn’t stop at the water’s edge just because a foreign bureaucrat sends a threatening letter. If you’re in Wyoming, you speak freely. Period.”

By establishing substantial penalties and a clear jurisdictional framework, Wyoming seeks to deter foreign authorities from targeting US speech through financial or legal pressure. The legislation is drafted to remain within federal constitutional boundaries, aligning itself with the federal SPEECH Act, which blocks enforcement of foreign defamation judgments inconsistent with the First Amendment.

Federal Attention

According to Singh’s office, a similar version of the GRANITE Act is now under review in Congress, with reported interest from the White House and the US State Department.

If enacted, this law could mark the strongest legal defense yet against extraterritorial censorship, reflecting a broader American effort to assert that domestic free speech protections cannot be overridden by foreign regimes or international bureaucracies.

Preston Byrne, a US-based attorney who represents online platforms 4Chan and Kiwi Farms in disputes over international censorship demands, was instrumental in drafting the Wyoming GRANITE Act.

Byrne describes the new law as a decisive response to foreign governments seeking to impose speech restrictions on American platforms through measures like the United Kingdom’s Online Safety Act. “If Australia attempted to enforce its social media ban against a company with a sufficient Wyoming nexus, the GRANITE Act’s shield would protect that company from that enforcement, and the ‘sword’ would expose Australia to a lawsuit with statutory damages of minimum $1 million,” Byrne said.

He explained that the law’s reach is not limited to Wyoming corporations but extends to anyone who establishes a basic connection to the state. “To use it, all you need to do is create the requisite Wyoming nexus, and hosting content in-state is enough,” Byrne said.

This feature effectively turns Wyoming into a safe harbor for speech and digital publishing, allowing platforms to situate part of their infrastructure within the state to gain legal protection from censorship attempts originating overseas.

Byrne emphasized that the legislation respects the sovereignty of other nations while firmly defending the rights of those under Wyoming’s jurisdiction. “Foreign governments remain free to do what they want on their own soil. What GRANITE does is it stops foreign governments from communicating threats to persons with a Wyoming nexus, by making those threats toothless in Wyoming, and by imposing a high cost for making the threats,” he said.

Under the act, such “threats” could trigger lawsuits carrying statutory damages of at least $1 million per violation, along with attorney fees and other remedies.

Byrne characterized the law as not merely defensive but transformative in scope. “We are going to free the entire world with this law,” he said in a statement to Reclaim The Net, reflecting a broader ambition to extend the protections of the First Amendment into the digital sphere and to provide a model that other states could adopt.

By establishing a clear legal boundary against foreign censorship demands, Byrne believes the GRANITE Act could become the legal template for safeguarding free expression in the face of increasing global pressure to regulate online speech.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

Details emerge of US concentration camp for Gaza. It’s GENOCIDE


Return to Bomb Alley 1982 – The Falklands Deception, by Paul Cardin

Amazon link


http://paulcardin.substack.com

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Paul Mason plotted to sue The Grayzone over factual reporting, new leaks show


Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

The COVID Shot Turned the Human Body Into a Transmitter | Redacted


Return to Bomb Alley 1982 – The Falklands Deception, by Paul Cardin

Amazon link


http://paulcardin.substack.com

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment