You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
I've been down a minor rabbit hole this morning prompted by this from my former (I've moved) MP,
. Summary: the basic argument seems to be that large scale solar is uneconomic.
My initial thoughts were just that she's reacting as a politician might and supporting vocal local NIMBYs. Certainly riding round Warwickshire big solar farms (and the related No Solar Here! protest signage) seem to be popping up all over the place, so one way or another it does seem to be an issue.
The internet doesn't pop much up, best I can find is this:
https://www.ref.org.uk/ref-blog/374-the-economics-of-utility-scale-solar-generation-summary
Which does seem to indicate that large scale solar economics in the UK is somewhat sunny day (sorry!), but not disastrously so, and i can't help thinking most large project economic projections are, so it doesn't concern me too much. My uninformed gut feel is that solar is surely a valuable part of the mix as sun and wind are rarely seen together in this country.
And although the https://singletrackmag.com/forum/off-topic/the-solar-thread/#post-13550972 popped up here, that seems to be more focussed on home installs.
So, what do we know?
p.s. (NSIPs: https://www.solarpowerportal.co.uk/ones-to-watch-nsip-movements-in-2025/ )
Edit. https://www.ref.org.uk/ref-blog/365-wind-power-economics-rhetoric-and-reality I've had a scan of this linked from the above too. Quite sobering if true - claims that offshore wind economics are similarly flawed, and that net zero costs (based on offshore wind I think) would be 10% of GDP rather than 1-2% claimed by the 'mainstream'.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_Energy_Foundation
The Renewable Energy Foundation (REF), founded in 2004 by UK TV personality Noel Edmonds,[1] is a United Kingdom-based registered charity with a stated aim of promoting the development of sustainable energy technologies. It has been characterised by its critics as an anti-wind farm organization.[2]
My initial thoughts were just that she's reacting as a politician might and supporting vocal local NIMBYs.
She's introduced a Climate and Nature bill ( private members bill that got picked by the lottery system) so on the face of it, isn't opposed to attempts to reduce the effects of climate change. Having said that; the bill also requires the govt to "halts and reverses the destruction of the natural world" so perhaps she just doesn't like the look of them after all.
Might be a case of
"Save the world!"
govt introduces efforts to reduce the reliance on fossil fuels
"No, Not like that!"
I would be very surprised if a large south-facing array in the southern half of the UK is anything but incredibly lucrative. Panels at wholesale are ~£25/400W, and you can keep using the land for livestock.
https://www.keele.ac.uk/about/news/2022/october/solar-wildlife/solar-farms-wildlife.php
https://solarenergyuk.org/news/wildlife-found-thriving-on-solar-farms/
As a general rule, other than maybe not looking great, they're pretty positive things all round. Arrays work better than small-scale stuff because of electricity transmission losses hence the need for a big field of them.
Anyway, farmers are forever on about how farming needs to be more lucrative and here's a perfect example! Lease a field to the grid for 15 years!
That said, I think there needs to be a policy of putting them over the top of large industrial estates and car parks first, that's often a lot less contentious.
The Renewable Energy Foundation (REF), founded in 2004 by UK TV personality Noel Edmonds,[1] is a United Kingdom-based registered charity with a stated aim of promoting the development of sustainable energy technologies. It has been characterised by its critics as an anti-wind farm organization.[2]
Ah. I feared that.
So the question stands really. What's the truth?
As above good for wildlife but can also be used where livestock are sheltered beneath the panels. Chickens would love the shelter and freedom from attack from above offered by a large solar array. Sheep also fit well beneath them (not so good for wildlife and plant diversity though).
With the ongoing and seemingly intractable problems in Ukraine the less oil and gas required by us from world markets the better.
I've often wondered if we should put our panels in Spain. Longer sunnier days in winter. Would that offset the transmission losses?
Covering car parks must cost lots more than putting them in a field
It's not even like they leave a lasting scar on the landscape at the end of their useful lives. No chemicals to leech into the ground requiring remediation, no large spoil tips, no huge concrete structures to blow up and remove.
I think NIMBYs sums it up perfectly.
I can see the benefits of large arrays but give that every building in the country has a roof, I can also see that using roofs and local storage in EVs and local batteries might be more useful as the energy will be where it will be used?
I've often wondered if we should put our panels in Spain. Longer sunnier days in winter. Would that offset the transmission losses?
In a few years, "we" are going to be sourcing 8% of all power from massive solar arrays in Morocco.
https://xlinks.co/morocco-uk-power-project/
I make a point of removing as many "Stop Lime Down" signs as I can when I'm out on my bike.
The arguments against Lime Down are NIMBYism of the highest order.
"think of all the trucks coming through the villages" Yes, for a couple of years - after that we have free power for 10-20y.
"solar should be on roofs, not fields" "Do you have solar on your roof?" "No". "Do you want it?" "...well, at my stage of life..." or "Well if they're willing to pay for it". "Okay, but if they pay for it, they own it, right?" "No - it's on my roof" Okay...
"this is destroying an AONB" But you can't really see it, it's hidden behind hedgerows and trees.
"Well, this is farmland - it should be used for farming" It's used for grazing only and then, only every 4 years at most.
This is the kind of crap here in the Cotswolds.
Having said that - I do believe that any new car part should have mandated panel overhangs and that any newly approved flat roof building/warehouse should have mandated panels. Either the building commissioner puts them on or the government do and then own them.
are those two posts that crazy legs cited real photos.
because the solar farms I've seen planning for (due to them being lodged on three sides of a friends house locally ) is mass permiable hard slab with high barb wire fences and perminiant 24 hour flood lighting and shipping containers about the site.
Dunno about you but im sure any sane person would fight that monstrosity
frances approach is a good one, Any new farm building - the solar providers will build you a shed so long as they get the roof for panels.
Likewise many of the larger supermarkets have large carports with solar panels over the carpark - keeps the cars cool in the sun and runs the supermarket - They often have a big board showing the power generated by the door.
are those two posts that crazy legs cited real photos.
because the solar farms I've seen planning for (due to them being lodged on three sides of a friends house locally ) is mass permiable hard slab with high barb wire fences and perminiant 24 hour flood lighting and shipping containers about the site.
Lots of ours here in North Wiltshire look like that. Google Castle Combe Race Circuit and look on Google Maps Satellite. Then look 2 miles to the east and 7 miles to the north. They all look like Crazy Legs' pictures.
I've just looked at some test results for one connection box of 13no circuits, each made up of 30no 655W modules. The irradiance was circa 250Watts/m2, suggesting thin/medium cloud cover (sunny days head up towards 1000W/m2). The box is delivering 67 Amps at around 1300V. Over the 117 boxes on site, the whole installation would be delivering around 10MW of electricity out of a maximum of 30MW. Thick cloud would drag this down, but you don't actually have to see the sun as most of you probably know.
Oh and they don't like it when it's hot.
They are designed for a 25 year lifespan usually and pretty much removable to return to green field
I've built (DC/LV electrical installation) - 2no 30MW, 1no 7MW, 1no 18MW over the past two years. Currently building a 70MW and pricing a 63MW and 73MW. I deliver around 20% of my customers portfolio and they are building for two different clients - I'd imagine there are many more major clients. There is talk of a 500MW site. I'm banking on maybe another 2 years before it all slows down. Would like 7 years and I'll comfortably retire at 60, but....
Oh and Ros Savage IS my MP. Lime Down isn't foreign owned, it's 50% funded by VC and 50% UK ownership, but is registered in Bermuda for tax purposes. Do I agree with this, not really, but even if it were owned by Winston Churchills family, they'd still be campaigning against it. They simply don't want it here. I also don't want it here. I want it everywhere.
They simply don't want it here.
Sums up most of the anti arguments by organisations like CPRE and REF. In theory they want alternative power, but don't like looking at windfarms or solar farms. 🤔
Sums up most of the anti arguments by organisations like CPRE and REF. In theory they want alternative power, but don't like looking at windfarms or solar farms. 🤔
It's become the standard anti / NIMBY playbook. They're in favour of [thing] but not here / not in this form and then they cite "reasons" (read: spurious bollocks) as to why, although [thing] works fine everywhere else it has been done, it won't work here.
That way, they come across as broadly supportive of [thing]. They fully appreciate climate change / too much traffic / the need for mobile phone signals and lots of [thing] should be done elsewhere. But not here.
They're usually a thoroughly tiresome bunch of people to deal with because they know the levers to pull within councils, the MPs / celebrities to approach and their method is usually to delay and prevaricate until the costs escalate too much for the council to deal with and the scheme will be scrapped on financial grounds rather than because it was "bad".
Large scale solar IS uneconomic, in that it has the potential to make energy so cheap that it'd be practically free. So for shareholders it's a much less convincing proposition that anything that makes them more money.
A solar farm was blocked near me a year or so ago.
Looks like there will now be 50m pylons running right where the solar farm would have been.
They now want to block the pylons of course.
If they block the pylons I can see the land ending up as development land forced through under new regs (as other land very close by has).
So the NIMBYs by blocking the least impactful solution of the solar farm could end up with the worst case of hundreds of houses.
their method is usually to delay and prevaricate until the costs escalate too much for the council to deal with and the scheme will be scrapped on financial grounds rather than because it was "bad".
The government stated an intention to reform planning processes to avoid this kind of filibustering, I really hope they manage to achieve their aim.
Large scale solar IS uneconomic, in that it has the potential to make energy so cheap that it'd be practically free. So for shareholders it's a much less convincing proposition that anything that makes them more money.
That doesn't make sense. Solar generation is traded in the same market as gas, wind, nuclear etc. so if it's that cheap to produce you're effectively making 100% profit.
Wait until a BES application is submitted then the NIMBY's and misinformation really show there face. Apparently all those nearby ill a get tinnitus, I asked if mine would be cured as I have already 🤣
Working in this area including some exposure to some consented and planned NSIP's it's a pretty common part of the list of distractions from people opposing large scale solar or any solar for that matter. A move from carbon based power generation has to happen now, everything they propose will take decades or just hasn't got the scale to make a meaningful difference, just think how long Hinkley Point C has taken, looking like early 2030 at the earliest to come on line following a start in 2012!
The profit thing is an interesting point and is one being used by Stop Lime Down a lot, not withstanding CfD's which underpin the pricing for sale of power from most sites, the fact that they are privately developed and owned shows just how viable they are. Colocating battery storage with either wind or solar makes it even more viable. I doubt they would support solar development to be tax payer funded either - unless it's nowhere near them 🤣
Stop Lime Down are incredibly well connected people and are mobilising a lot of knowledgeable people so they will be putting up quite a strong opposition- which is totally fair as it's what the consultation and inquiry process is there for - PINS are there to sift through the layers of BS and diversion and work out what are real issues.
The desperate state of the electricity distribution and transmission networks means that multiple larger scale schemes often orbiting substations with capacity, this won't change any time soon.
I'm currently reading No Miracles Needed which is a very interesting book, although quite long https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/jan/23/no-miracles-needed-prof-mark-jacobson-on-how-wind-sun-and-water-can-power-the-world
We live in Cambridgeshire with lots of smaller solar farms around, a moderate sized one going ahead about 2 miles from us, and the Kingsway Solar Farm 500 MW beast proposed about 5 miles from us. Overall I am in favour of more renewables produced in the UK but there should be considerations in place. For the 500 MW Kingsway it will remove about 1500 ha of grade 2 and 3a (ALC) agricultural land. I agree it's possible to graze livestock around these farms, but the reality around here is none of the solar farms are grazed (it's cereal, sugar beet, rape around here) and they all have deer fences to keep wildlife out. It requires the decision to put safeguards in place through conditions to ensure that we are actually using land efficiently and productively and not causing new problems.
Local planning concerns should be considered - and often are brushed aside by national infrastructure going straight to SoS - including light pollution, noise pollution, loss of access to nature and green space, loss of character of village (noting some of these proposals are right up to people's back gardens to maximise profits). The siting and routing of new pylons and transformers / battery storage on site is really important to not affect people's homes and lives. I come at this from the view, that the developers should bring forward proposals that minimise or negate disbenefit to the local community in the first place.
Then Government should be leading on the strategy of where the sites should be (to make an efficient network), what agricultural land they are willing to give up, or enforce co-production as part of Conditions, the long-term plan and regulation for electricity infrastructure including battery storage.
The proposals are supposed to follow planning policy (NPPF) for things like agricultural land losses, biodiversity net gain, noise, light pollution, safe battery storage etc. But the problem is our entire land use system relies on privately owned land "becoming available" rather than Government's having an evidence led strategy and compulsory purchase. As such, piecemeal proposals in inappropriate places get put forward, and Government accepts them to "meet targets".
deer are a vermin which are massively overpopulated compared to most of the human history on this island, and are having a pretty nasty knock-on affect to a lot of our woodland. Keeping them out of new, unpoliced grazing areas (which will help surpress their population) is a good idea.
If you buy a house on the edge of town next to a nice green bit of farmland and want it to stay farmland then, with the current political direction of travel, you'd better buy that field because if you don't something will be built there.
We have a proposed solar farm near us and predictably every posh house near the site now has a 'stop this thing' sign outside.
They really don't seem to realise that that solar farm is probably their best bet of preventing that site becoming a few hundred 'executive homes' with associated infrastructure.
I can see the benefits of large arrays but give that every building in the country has a roof, I can also see that using roofs and local storage in EVs and local batteries might be more useful as the energy will be where it will be used?
In terms of retrofitting PV, this is straightforward if the building owner and building occupier are the same entity, but this is often not the case in the UK for commercial buildings - the freeholder might retain the right to the roof space, but the occupier sees no benefit unless the f/holder is willing to share. Easier to incorporate from the start in new builds.
Some potentially good news on this front though: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c80y2j8d92no
That's really disappointing. Solar is the future. Wind just can't do it. Roz Savage may like to play the environmental card but she herself has been played by the NIMBYs (giving her the benefit of the doubt).
Large scale solar is efficient, economic, and (as others have noted) can both be good for biodiversity and doesn't even take land out of production.
It's just a bunch of luddites who don't like looking at anything new.
House roofs are certainly usable but domestic scale is relatively costly for installation/maintenance/etc, you get economies of scale with a field full of the stuff (or indeed a big flat roof industrial/commercial/public sector installation).
are those two posts that crazy legs cited real photos.
because the solar farms I've seen planning for (due to them being lodged on three sides of a friends house locally ) is mass permiable hard slab with high barb wire fences and perminiant 24 hour flood lighting and shipping containers about the site.
On my commute, I ride through healthland that's been converted to solar fields. It looks ok. No floodlighting, all pretty open fields. Can imagine plenty of wildlife in amongst it all.
Can be seen on Google Maps - https://maps.app.goo.gl/ZdEC1NWG4fhXyfVh8
can both be good for biodiversity and doesn't even take land out of production.
Grazing around them might be possible as a way to keep the vegetation down without having to bring in workers with strimmer's, but I'm not sure how productive it would be. Any grass under the panels won't see much sun so won't grow.
Still probably better than the monoculture desert soaked in chemicals that makes up most UK farmland though.
Likewise many of the larger supermarkets have large carports with solar panels over the carpark - keeps the cars cool in the sun and runs the supermarket - They often have a big board showing the power generated by the door.
I think everyone would agree with that but there's a few obstacles.
1) The buildings lifetimes. There are retail parks and large office buildings round here being knocked down that are only 20/30/40 years old. If something's already 20 years old are the building owners interested in a 20 year+ solar scheme?
2) Building owners Vs tenants as mentioned above.
3)Councils and business rates. We looked at having them installed on the warehouse unit and the council basically said it would constitute an increase in the ratable value so the business rates would go up wiping out any profit we made from the panels.
I would expect a lot of new developments probably do err towards rooftop solar, and long term that's a good thing. But in the short term I'd rather see another massive solar farm in the Chilterns than running gas turbines for electricity generation.
I feel very mixed on this. I'm very for it, we have 8kwh on the roof, a battery and both cars are electric.
But I can't get my head round the focus on turning green land in to solar farms versus mass deployment of solar on to roofs of warehouses, car parks, agricultural buildings etc. 5 good size buildings (think between a warehouse and house) near us in a small rural industrial estate, none of them have solar on the roof. The number of warehouses and factories without it, surely this should be the first port of call? Every new house should have integrated solar to the roof. Period.
I guess I'm both a NIMBY and for it? Who knows. Doesn't seem logical the current approach but it seems a better way for people to make money.
Well there's a turn up for the books. An adult conversation about the pro and cons of green energy without the usual suspects sticking their oar in, putting words in peoples mouths and turning the thread into a witch hunt of climate change deniers.
I didn't think this was possible on STW anymore!
I think there are a few issues with enforcing solar on new build homes. Firstly the roofs don’t necessarily face the correct way. So you end up with less efficient installations. Secondly it’s a adding cost burden to home buyers. Particularly for first time buyer’s that seems harsh as they are some of the hardest pressed people in the country.
It’s also not always straightforward to just put it on a roof. Realistically the roof should be in good condition before you start. This can add thousands to the cost. Imagine that thousands of homes.
I understand that, but let’s say 50% of roofs in sufficient condition and aspect!
I understand that, but let’s say 50% of roofs in sufficient condition and aspect!
The slight problem with that is it's almost always better to start with higher quality insulation and general build (as well as more tangible benefits like heat pumps) before you go for solar panels.
If you put solar panels on a house with "leaky" windows and roof, the energy you're generating is just as wasted as if it was gas or electricity from the grid. It looks good, that's for sure, it's a sort of "look, we're doing something!" but it's often fairly pointless. Therefore a large solar array in a field is much more efficient even if it's still far from the ideal solution to our energy needs.
It's still the least worst scenario. It's also the easiest to get through planning because, as mentioned above, there's none of the freeholder / occupier debate you get with houses and none of the costs are being passed on to homeowners or buyers (or home insurance companies!).
One of the biggest blockers for warehouses, at least around where I am (Stockport) is the age and condition of the units themselves. I looked at solar for our main warehouse. It would cover about 25% (possibly closer to 35% now with consumption reduction projects that I've put in place) of our needs over a year.
However, the roof, like many around here, is made from asbestos cement and hope. Even over cladding isn't an option. Leaving replacement as the only option. That puts the ROI on the project at around ten to eleven years. No CFO is signing off on that for a leased building and the landlord doesn't care. The official EPC rating for the building is a lie (rated C on the government portal) when in reality it is an F or E at best. I had a draft EPC done last year as I laughed at the "official" one. There needs to be a serious clamp down on dodgy landlords and enforcement of EPC compliance as a start.
I'd love to have solar installed but I'm now working with a small start up who have a small horizontal wind turbine that generates power from wind speeds as low as 3kph. The car park canopy solar, as per France, is a great idea. Again, I've looked at this, but it involves civil works and other shenanigans that ramp up the cost and make the ROI for businesses look unattractive.
Agrivoltaic solutions for farm land seem to be a great idea to me... you have the solar panels in fields that change angle to balance power production with allowing light/shade to the ground as needed.
This can help moisture retention in the soil, so you can still use the land for grazing livestock, or growing leafy greens, cabbage, spinach, certain fruits etc. underneath the panels. the pannels can even act as a weather shield when angled a certain way.
So you might get 'sub-optimal solar power production', but then you also have 2 income streams...sell power to the grid, and you can still happily grow quite a few different types of crops and/or put cows or sheep on the land, or maybe even rotate the land use between livestock and growing veggies to help keep the soil conditioned.
Seems like a win-win to me.
The local nimbys around here keep frothing at the mouth every time a solar 'farm' or battery storage facility goes through planning.
Approximately 1.1% of UK land is taken up by golf courses.
By contrast, solar farms take up 0.1% of UK land.
I can't find a figure for equestrian use, but I'd imagine it would be similar, or greater than golf.
Nobody bats an eyelid when a field is taken out of productive use for equestrian purposes, but all hell breaks loose if a farmer wants to diversify and install large solar
🤯
Let alone the water use. My aunt lived in Surrey with continual warnings about the aquifers being at risk of running dry. So she objected to a golf course being built on the basis that it would use valuable water resources. They wrote back saying it’s ok they’ll use their own bore hole 🤦♀️
I've often wondered if we should put our panels in Spain. Longer sunnier days in winter. Would that offset the transmission losses?
Seems to work ok here. Basslink - the line between Tasmania and the mainland means they can export or import power depending on conditions (almost all Tas generation is hydro). 15 years ago i remember visiting an office where they had screens showing the flows around the 'grid' that displayed cable temperatures etc.
Solar has taken far longer to take root than it should have done in Australia, for various reasons. It's still responsible for only about 10% of power but rooftop solar is apparently now on 37% of houses. And there's loads on factories, industrial units etc.
Our local council's operation is powered entirely by a solar farm. And yes, people here whinge about the impact on farming when a solar farm is proposed too.
Solar generation is traded in the same market as gas, wind, nuclear etc. so if it's that cheap to produce you're effectively making 100% profit.
The question is will that change especially the fact the, often, small amount of gas in use controls the price for everything else.
Which is where effective storage comes into play and seems to be something missing in the UK right now. We are ramping up the generation capability but then are buggered either when conditions aint right (either too little or too much in the case of wind).
Whilst there are some storage being put in it tends to be headline news when it does happen.
Which is where effective storage comes into play and seems to be something missing in the UK right now.
There is no 'effective storage'. Even the largest batteries are for very short term grid balancing only. Effective storage is pumped hydroelectric scale projects that even if there was the political will to commission there isn't enough suitable geography in the UK.
As a general rule, other than maybe not looking great, they're pretty positive things all round.
The thing is, they’re mostly in fields behind high hedges, so can’t be seen except through field entrances, and from a distance and from higher ground, are barely visible, just a muted dark grey, like a large lake. I can say this with some confidence, as there’s one built on a former waste tip that’s visible from one of my favourite viewpoints, and until I looked at the site through binoculars, I actually thought it was a large artificial lake.
It’s actually visible in this photo, in the middle distance, although I’d be surprised if many people can pick it out; people I’ve asked when I’ve been there couldn’t.
For anyone interested in the actual numbers behind all this - how much land we need, why not on buildings, is there enough room for pumped hydro storage etc, Our World In Data is a great site:
https://ourworldindata.org/
Hannah Richie that works there has written a fantastic book detailing a lot of this as well:
Not the End of the World: How We Can Be the First Generation to Build a Sustainable Planet https://g.co/kgs/Tgko2qY
Also on Spotify premium as a free title now, really worth a listen
@konagirl That deer fence keeps out predators too, allowing plantlife and birdlife to really flourish. As an example the fenced areas around Bradwell on Sea nuclear plant are teaming with raptors and other birdlife as nothing and no one gets in to disturb nests on the ground (on pain of armed police shooting them).
I can see the benefits of large arrays but give that every building in the country has a roof, I can also see that using roofs and local storage in EVs and local batteries might be more useful as the energy will be where it will be used?
You really need a combination. Local generation works well for certain use cases, bulk, central generation for others.
I get a mix of solar and hydro here. I pass a couple of dozen medium sized arrays on the way to work, and we have several large arrays on the roofs of our offices and factories. There's also a biggish array that i can see from my old office window.
That's got exactly one extra building. Has a fence round it, but that's mostly to keep the sheep in.
Probably 1/3rd of my colleagues/neighbours have solar. I'm still looking into it. Unfortunately it's looking like it's too expensive, as i don't actually use that much, and would probably need a new roof at the same time.
It’s actually visible in this photo, in the middle distance, although I’d be surprised if many people can pick it out; people I’ve asked when I’ve been there couldn’t.
There's a massive one on the Wiltshire downs, took me a long while to figure out it wasn't just a crop of strawberries (or other crop that requires acres of plastic sheeting) from a distance.
It's like windfarms, you think it's going to spoil a landscape somehow, but in reality it's just 'there' and you don't really notice it much at all.
It's like windfarms, you think it's going to spoil a landscape somehow, but in reality it's just 'there' and you don't really notice it much at all
Not sure I agree with that. There's a small one, four windmills, near us and it is a hideous scar on the landscape, a solar farm would probably be less obtrusive than it
there are 4 turbines visible out my french doors at various distances and a line of medium pylons ..... from close to barely visible.
like solar panels at the same distance they are fairly unobtrusive - as per all the examples above.
If they were in the field next door i can understand why people wouldn't want to live next to any of them the closer they are the more obtrusive they are