Are any of you guilty of nimbyism - objecting to solar farms?

M0nica

Katie59 I quite agree, but the discussion was about growing crops.

The problem I can see with grazing sheep on good quality agricultural land, which will not go into a crop rotation, is high stocking rates and that the build up of sheep droppings will make good soil even richer and the rapid growth of grass and weeds fed by the droppings may make the land unsuitable for sheep grazing and difficult to crop as hay.

Land used only for grazing is generally poor quality and often acid soils, and grazing densities are low so that the benefit of the droppings to the poor soil sustains a steady crop of grass. Un fortunately land of that type is not often suitable for solar farms.

Sheep eat just about anything green and growing, MOnica. Perhaps they're not quite as efficient grassland cleaners as goats, but they're not far behind them. That's why George Monbiot complains about them so vociferously. They devastate ecosystems.

Around my area we have lots of sheep grazing hillsides that are unsuitable for arable cultivation. They'd be absolutely fine for putting solar panels on so long as they have the correct aspect. So I'm not altogether sure why you think 'land of that type' isn't suitable?

Calendargirl

Makes sense to have all new builds, factories etc have solar panels, but no one seems to mention that unfortunately not all properties are suitable for them.

They need to face the right way, have the right pitch, not overshadowed by other buildings, trees, hedges etc.

We had solar panels installed a few years ago, we fitted the criteria, but I look around at other properties as I walk about, and think “That roof would be no good for solar”.

I’m not sure that applies so rigidly nowadays, with the most modern solar panels. We’ve just moved to a new-build and every house has them, on N/S/E/W aspects, depending on which way each house is facing.

The building manager says modern panels are much more ‘sensitive’ to the sun and light so should provide some power most of the time, unless it’s heavily overcast. This is in Scotland, so I imagine further south they’d work even better.

Cropping is impractical, sheep are always rotationally grazed, moved onto fresh pasture every 3 or 4 weeks to prevent parasite build up. Normal practice, along with a low stocking rate, they would even have shade and shelter from rain, sounds a pretty good deal to me.

Goats were mentioned, they are browsers not grazers, much rather eat bushes and hedges before grass, they also chew fences and would probably damage electrical wiring too.

So how much energy do solar panels provide during Nov-Jan when it's dull and overcast every day? Days are very short and sometimes so dark we need the lights on all day.

Basically, at the time of year when we need most energy the solar panels have no sun.

Chestnut

So how much energy do solar panels provide during Nov-Jan when it's dull and overcast every day? Days are very short and sometimes so dark we need the lights on all day.

True, to balance that more wind power is produced in winter to balance that out somewhat. The Grid produces a nice graph that shows the energy “mix” from day to day, you will see solar is quite a small part compared to wind.

No I wouldnt object to solar or wind farms. I quite like the look of the windmills although I believe they can be noisy. They are no more unsightly than ugly pylons, advertising placards or buildings smeared with graffiti.

So how much energy do solar panels provide during Nov-Jan

Loads. Its light they need, not sunshine. Also if I remember correctly they are also more efficient at lower temperatures. But don't quote me on that!

volver

^So how much energy do solar panels provide during Nov-Jan^

Loads. Its light they need, not sunshine. Also if I remember correctly they are also more efficient at lower temperatures. But don't quote me on that!

You are correct, we have solar panels and they haven’t been as efficient when we have had the really high temperatures this summer.

biglouis I have always said this, that no-one seems to object to the pylons in the countryside and the telegraph poles in the street, which all look hideous if you actually look at them. Yet they complain about wind turbines looking ugly.

At this moment solar power is providing us with 12% of the power we are consuming. That must be close to their maximum. have a look at this site[[ gridwatch.co.uk/]] I check it almost as frequently as I check Gransnet. It is fascinating watching how the mix of our electricity power changes fromm day to day and hour to our. At its best renewables and non-CO emitting power sources can be producing almost halh our power. At other times it can be barely 15%. All depends on temperature and weather.

volver

^So how much energy do solar panels provide during Nov-Jan^

Loads. Its light they need, not sunshine. Also if I remember correctly they are also more efficient at lower temperatures. But don't quote me on that!

Well there's not much light during Nov-Jan either, short daylight hours and often very overcast and extremely dull. If there's no wind then the wind turbines will stop turning. I'm just not convinced that renewables can provide reliable energy for 68 million people. I wish I was.

A very interesting thread and many people with specialist knowledge here, but MOnica I got into a muddle with one of your longer posts. At the beginning you make the point that profitability depends on the price people are willing to pay for the product. But at the end you say that it seems that the Bristol tidal barrier may at last be commercially viable (excellent news). Is there an underlying inconsistency here? Can it now be done more cheaply or who is now willing to pay more?
[Sorry, OP to divert from solar farms again.]

Just noticed that wind power currently accounts for only 1% of our current power consumption. That is the problem with wind, one day it is all over you like a rash, the next day it avoids you like the plague.

All those hundreds of wind turbines, offshore and on, currently producing next to no power at all.

I had thought of that, it's been very still here for some weeks, windows open every day and rarely any breeze going through the house at all.

winterwhite power prices have gone up, which must make it more competitive, but I believe, more than anything that there is an environmental imperative to fund these huge schemes that can provide so much of our power and have such enormous life spans . The 120 years mentioned in the paperwork, is probably a conservative figure.

The plan initially was to start work on the tidal lagoon in Swansea Bay and the consortium still have up this site with its promise of construction starting in 2020 www.tidallagoonpower.com/projects/swansea-bay/

Unfortunately in 2018, the UK government got cold feet and withdrew funding theswitch.co.uk/energy/producers/swansea-tidal-power-lagoon

The Swansea lagoon was to be one of several along the coast that could, with the Severn Barrage (if it was resurrected), provide 20-30% of the power we currently use, and of course, it is operational 24/7.

There is a tidal lagoon power station in Brittany - The Rances Barrage. That has been operational for almost 60 years - and wil probably be operational for another 60 years at least.

Chestnut

volver

So how much energy do solar panels provide during Nov-Jan

Loads. Its light they need, not sunshine. Also if I remember correctly they are also more efficient at lower temperatures. But don't quote me on that!

Well there's not much light during Nov-Jan either, short daylight hours and often very overcast and extremely dull. If there's no wind then the wind turbines will stop turning. I'm just not convinced that renewables can provide reliable energy for 68 million people. I wish I was.

Geothermal never stops, because the earth is warm.

The tide rises and falls with alarming regularity.

Water keeps flowing through barrages and down mountains.

Wind and solar aren't the only renewables we need to think about.

An area near me is a proposed site for a new wind farm ( we already have some in the vicinity) but the size of the proposed turbines is huge, 820ft to go on top of a mountain and they are proposing 26 of them to bring that into focus ,the Shard in London is 1016 ft , normal turbines in an adjacent area are 475ft. So obviously the people are objecting to them because it is going to be a blot to the semi rural mountain but this objection is purely on the actual size . The company have been unable to answer many questions about noise and how safe they would be at that height in high winds put to them by our local MP. The group have mentioned that one site in that was recently turned down in Scotland the turbines were 620ft high. I am in favour of them in principle, but the sheer scale of these does put me off.

Many thanks, MOnica. I'd forgotten about the Rance barrier. The French are more clear-sighted that we ever seem to be. Where there's a will.....

But volver, we have very few rivers/mountains etc to provide significant hydro power, which is why we already have so little. The same with geothermal power. Fine for Iceland set over the mid Atlantic ridge and an active earthquake and volcano zone, but much less useful for us.

What we have is the sea, we should be powering ahead (sorry about the pun) to build the tidal lagoons that can provide so much power 24/7 - and their power generation will be unaffected by droughts, as hydro power is.

The other technology, a long time coming but the first prototype commercial unit is finally running, is power directly from the movement of the water in the sea and there are quite a number of sites round the country where tidal currents tidal currents are strong enough to provide reliable power.

Both these power sources are reliable, and unaffected by weather and seasons.

We do quite well for hydro in Scotland. Even now, in the middle of a drought.

Some friends in Germany have a house heated by geothermal, you don't need a volcano.

But I definitely agree about the sea.

We have two solar farms near us. Both have crops planted in the field and the farmers seem to have no problems at ploughing, planting or harvest. One feeds directly into the National Grid and the other provides all the electricity for the major hospital that stands next to it. I have no problem with solar panels or wind farms and much prefer them to polluting coal/gas fired/ nuclear power stations.

sheep are always rotationally grazed, moved onto fresh pasture every 3 or 4 weeks to prevent parasite build up.

I really think not, Katie59. Sheep around my area (and there are a lot of sheep around my area) stay on the same fields for months at a time. Where are you getting your information from?

MaizieD

^sheep are always rotationally grazed, moved onto fresh pasture every 3 or 4 weeks to prevent parasite build up.^

I really think not, Katie59. Sheep around my area (and there are a lot of sheep around my area) stay on the same fields for months at a time. Where are you getting your information from?

Same here, MaizieD. The field behind us is grazed almost all the time. It might occasionally be empty for a few days, but never more than a week.

Chestnut i do look at telegraph poles and think them ugly, ditto pylons at times.

But since, neither I, nor any other poster on this thread, has a problem with solar farms, beyond, on occasion, their siting, which applies to telegraph poles, pylons and any other human-made prominent feature in the landscape, it is not really an issue.