Skip to main content

Solar farms - like them?

 

Solar farms are spreading across the UK- and elsewhere. One reason is that installing large solar arrays on land is cheaper/MW than installing a few cells on roof tops.  But it means there is less room for food growing. And that has become a politically contentious issue. However, it’s possible to limit the problem by adjusting solar array layouts e.g. putting the cells on supports to allow plants to grow or animals to graze underneath- the so called agrisolar approach.  It’s also possible to use waste land or warehouse roofs. But so far it seems that most large solar projects around the UK, supplying over 5% of UK power, are using prime agricultural land - with some farmers evidently finding it more profitable to rent fields out to solar developers than to grow food or fodder, or farm livestock. Some local people cynically say it’s a way to keep housing developers at bay. But some others object. 

It’s not all bad news though. Solar farms can enhance wild life flora & fauna, and, done right, can protect local ecosystems. But that requires a lot of attention to detail. Same for installing floating solar arrays on lakes and reservoirs - an option that has the plus side that it reduces water evaporation & can have a cooling effect which improves cell efficiency. That’s mainly relevant in very hot climates. In the UK, the main options are land based solar farms or roof top installation for buildings, including private homes- though not everyone in ‘quaint’ rural areas likes that and there are conservation rules prohibiting developments like this.  It’s a matter of aesthetics, or taste, but soon it may mandatory to have solar on new houses under the new Future Homes Standard rules. 

The government is also trying to stimulate more uptake of roof top projects on farm barns and other buildings. The energy minister Michael Shanks recently noted that ‘Commercial rooftop solar panel installations, which includes agricultural buildings, already benefit from permitted development rights. This mean there is no limit to the capacity of a solar installation or a requirement for planning permission, though prior approval is required for installations greater than 50kW’. He added that ‘the UK’s overall approach to Net Zero commercial buildings will be set out in the government’s Warm Homes Plan strategy later this year.’

However, it’s also pushing for more solar farms on land, with large schemes, 50MW or more  being subject to central government decisions and being seen as infrastructure, as opposed to smaller projects which are subject to local council planning control.  Both can lead to local opposition, like all planning decisions.  And there can be knock-on impacts from earlier planning decisions.  For example, the Claydon proposal in North Buckinghamshire is fitted to a corner of land  which, arguably, has already  been blighted by the intersection of the new HS2/E-W rail links.

The government is trying to develop a compensation scheme for land based solar farms which might reduce opposition.  Michael Shanks said ‘the Government is determined to ensure that, where communities host clean energy infrastructure, they benefit from it directly. We recently published a working paper on community benefits, in which we proposed making it mandatory for developers to provide community benefit funds. The working paper was also a call for evidence about whether/how to expand shared ownership of renewable generation technology. We are currently analysing responses & will issue a response in due course. In the meantime, Solar Energy UK, the industry trade body, will publish a voluntary community benefit protocol later this year.’ 

The government do not seem to be rushing to deal with all this, but, although there have been some noisy opposition to some projects around the country, especially in the case of some very large schemes, the governments public opinion surveys have shown quite strong support for solar, at 86%, although down from 88% last year. That might lead you to think than most objections are rare, but positive support for new local farms is now only 47%, down from 53% last year, with local opposition at 14%, up from 9%. Although it’s often said that at most 1 percent of UK land area will be needed for solar farms and currently it’s around 0.1%, at times it can feel to locals that some areas are being plastered with them!  

I live in one such area and I do think some proposals can be too big and poorly sited for the location.  I also worry about the use of high-quality arable land. Planning guidance states that, wherever possible, large-scale solar farm development should be located on lower quality agricultural land, but it seems that developments may still occur on higher-quality land if necessary for an optimal scheme or in specific planning circumstances. With some the large proposals being contested and some more big proposals  on the way, it will interesting to see what happens - and also to some of the large battery storage projects that are being put forward. They are needed, but they can be invasive.

Despite some impact, scale and land-use issues, I’m still overall pro-solar farms, if done right. The many pro’s, and the urgency of switching to green power, I feel outweigh the relatively few problems, some of which have been overstated.  But it needs debate. There may be better alternatives in some cases. Solar clearly is going to win out across much of the world, but, for example, onshore wind is cheaper than solar in most of the UK, and wind turbine bases take up a small amount of space compared to the overall wind farm site, leaving it mostly free for farming. And offshore wind takes up no land and has much higher capacity factors than solar. Of course, you could say we need both- wind and solar, indeed all the green power we can safety get. That may include tidal power too, as well as energy saving technology in all sectors to cut demand.  But if we are really going to install 70 million solar cells in the UK, and head to maybe 50GW or more of solar, let’s do it as carefully as we can, and with proper local consultation in terms of impacts and location.  And in social terms, I would also like to see many more locally owned community-based solar farms - as well as more fully-integrated into buildings. Do it right….

 

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The IEA set out a way ahead

The International Energy Agency's new Global Energy Roadmap sets a pathway to net zero carbon by 2050, with, by 2040, the global electricity sector reaching net-zero emissions. It wants no investment in new fossil fuel supply projects, and no further final investment decisions for new unabated coal plants. And by 2035, it calls for no sales of new internal combustion engine passenger cars. Instead it looks to ‘the immediate and massive deployment of all available clean and efficient energy technologies, combined with a major global push to accelerate innovation’.  The pathway calls for annual additions of solar PV to reach 630 GW by 2030, and those of wind power to reach 390 GW. All in, this is four times the record level set in 2020. By 2050 it wants about 24,000 GW of wind and solar to be in place. A major push to increase energy efficiency is also seen as essential, with the global rate of energy efficiency improvements averaging 4% a year through 2030, about three times the av...

Nuclear- not good vibrations in France

France is having problems with nuclear power.  It was once the poster child for nuclear energy, which, after a rapid government funded build-up in the1980s based on standard Westinghouse Pressurised-water Reactor (PWR) designs, at one point supplied around 75% of its power, with over 50 reactors running around the country. Mass deployment of similar designs meant that there were economies of scale and given that it was a state-run programme, the government could supply low-cost funding and power could be supplied to consumers relatively cheaply. But the plants are now getting old, and there has been a long running debate over what to do to replace them: it will be expensive given the changed energy market, with cheaper alternatives emerging. At one stage, after the Fukushima disaster in Japan in 2011, it was proposed by the socialist government to limit nuclear to supplying just 50% of French power by 2025, with renewables to be ramped up.  That began to look quite sensible wh...

Nuclear Reliability- an uncertain route

 Nuclear energy provides reliable, baseload, low-carbon electricity that complements the variability of wind and solar’. That, boiled down, is the UK governments view, as relayed in a response by the Department of Energy Security and New Zero to a critique by Prof Steve Thomas and Paul Dorfman. Well, none if it holds up to examination. Low carbon? Not if you include uranium mining, waste handling and plant decommissioning. Baseload? A dodgy idea!  A Department of Energy minister had previously admitted that ‘although some power plants are referred to as baseload generators, there is no formal definition of this term’ and the Department ‘does not place requirements on generation from particular technologies’.  A key point is that nuclear plants are not that reliable- if nothing else, they have to be shut down occasionally for maintenance and refuelling. Add to that unplanned outages, and nuclear plants are not very sensible as backup - especially given their high capital ...