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

Both solar panels and wind turbines are not environmentally friendly at all.

You have to look at the lifetime environmental impact of, say, the turbine blades compared with carbon rich fuels or nuclear, versus the GW they can produce over a lifetime. And as the article says, in the EU the materials that make up the blades can be re-purposed.

Nothing is free, as was said above. Compared with oil or gas, wind turbines win hands down.

MaizieD

I rather think that people objecting to solar farms on fields are doing so on aesthetic rather than environmental grounds. As far ass I'm aware though don't pose an environmental challenge.

Though I agree that, as I said earlier, solar PV panels can go just about anywhere.

I disagree I'm afraid. Both solar panels and wind turbines are not environmentally friendly at all. Both in the materials copper, steel etc used to build them and the fact that they are not bio degradable. There are huge transport costs involved also. The average lifespan of a wind turbine blade is short and we are now seeing the problem of disposal
www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2020-02-05/wind-turbine-blades-can-t-be-recycled-so-they-re-piling-up-in-landfills

MaizieD

^But as I said earlier, land with solar panels can’t be used to grow crops, so they should not be placed on prime agricultural land when there are so many other options.^

Perhaps I'm not following this as closely as I should be, but who is saying that the farms that have been refused planning permission (as per the OP) were on prime agricultural land?

I thought it was just the general idea of solar farms that we were discussing?

Some of the proposed sites that had planning permission rejected were on prime agricultural land, sorry I didn’t make that clear. The problem being, not that you can’t grow the crops, but that you can’t use combine harvesters and tractors to crop them.

volver

Agrivoltaics, apparently. ? Solar panels and crops on the same land.

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agrivoltaics

?

But as I said earlier, land with solar panels can’t be used to grow crops, so they should not be placed on prime agricultural land when there are so many other options.

Perhaps I'm not following this as closely as I should be, but who is saying that the farms that have been refused planning permission (as per the OP) were on prime agricultural land?

I thought it was just the general idea of solar farms that we were discussing?

Agrivoltaics, apparently. ? Solar panels and crops on the same land.

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agrivoltaics

MaizieD

Fleurpepper

MaizieD

I rather think that people objecting to solar farms on fields are doing so on aesthetic rather than environmental grounds. As far ass I'm aware though don't pose an environmental challenge.

Though I agree that, as I said earlier, solar PV panels can go just about anywhere.

Certainly not my case. My objection is definitely on environmental grounds, bird and other wildlife habitat- makes absolutely no sense as long as we have billions of m2 of industrial, farming, public, private, etc, of roof surface.

And yes, it is ugly and ruins the countryside- but that is secondary to above.

While I was looking for pretty pictures of solar farms to show that they can coexist with some farming activities, such as sheep grazing, I came across a blog by someone who had been studying some solar farms for the effect on birds over a number of years and he had found that they had no adverse effect on bird life. They offered birds a food source and some protection against predators.

They can be underplanted with wild flowers for pollinators and I see no reason why they can't provide a habitat for small animals like mice, moles, voles, hedgehogs etc. I think that rabbits and hares would manage pretty well, too.

They don't look very good but they don't create barren deserts in which wildlife can't exist.

Though perhaps you have more information?

But as I said earlier, land with solar panels can’t be used to grow crops, so they should not be placed on prime agricultural land when there are so many other options.

I am not a NIMBY. I believe all should do their bit. Al should be required to tolerate solar farms including Tories in the balmy south of England.

The Sahara desert isn't in the EU. I doubt if Maggie could have stopped them.

I'm all for solar and wind power. However I do think solar panels should be in place on all warehouses and similar before valuable farmland is used. We are a small island with an ever increasing population and we need to produce food just as much as we did in WW2.

I have a vague recollection from several years ago about an EU plan to build solar panels in the Sahara desert but Thatcher wanted nothing to do with it.

Yes, I remember your posts in support of tidal power on here, M0nica. DH too and he was very disappointed when the Severn Barrage project was shelved.
The Mersey has a high tidal range too.

Fleurpepper

MaizieD

I rather think that people objecting to solar farms on fields are doing so on aesthetic rather than environmental grounds. As far ass I'm aware though don't pose an environmental challenge.

Though I agree that, as I said earlier, solar PV panels can go just about anywhere.

Certainly not my case. My objection is definitely on environmental grounds, bird and other wildlife habitat- makes absolutely no sense as long as we have billions of m2 of industrial, farming, public, private, etc, of roof surface.

And yes, it is ugly and ruins the countryside- but that is secondary to above.

While I was looking for pretty pictures of solar farms to show that they can coexist with some farming activities, such as sheep grazing, I came across a blog by someone who had been studying some solar farms for the effect on birds over a number of years and he had found that they had no adverse effect on bird life. They offered birds a food source and some protection against predators.

They can be underplanted with wild flowers for pollinators and I see no reason why they can't provide a habitat for small animals like mice, moles, voles, hedgehogs etc. I think that rabbits and hares would manage pretty well, too.

They don't look very good but they don't create barren deserts in which wildlife can't exist.

Though perhaps you have more information?

Callistemon I have been championing the use of tidal power for more years than I can remember, as has DH.

Chestnut

Whichever source of energy there is always a price to pay. There is no easy solution for keeping 68 million people warm and connected online.

it is not easy, that is clear. But we should address the humongous waste going on daily in industry, business, shops, homes, streets, etc. As we recycling, number one is REDUCE first.

Those huge warehouses being built all over the place ruin the countryside, they should all be covered with solar panels. As said, so should shopping centres, factories, schools, etc, etc, and all new built homes, by Law.

makes absolutely no sense as long as we have billions of m2 of industrial, farming, public, private, etc, of roof surface.

Yes, I agree.

MaizieD

I rather think that people objecting to solar farms on fields are doing so on aesthetic rather than environmental grounds. As far ass I'm aware though don't pose an environmental challenge.

Though I agree that, as I said earlier, solar PV panels can go just about anywhere.

Certainly not my case. My objection is definitely on environmental grounds, bird and other wildlife habitat- makes absolutely no sense as long as we have billions of m2 of industrial, farming, public, private, etc, of roof surface.

And yes, it is ugly and ruins the countryside- but that is secondary to above.

tidal power

DH has just been expounding the possibilities and benefits of tidal energy here. I was the only one around to listen, unfortunately.

What a positive and (mostly) unanimous thread!

IMO, the environmental impact of solar farms needs to be assessed. No point in having solar farms to "save the environment" if their installation does more harm that good. That said, I strongly believe in having as many PV panels as we can manage.

The idea that renewable energy is not consistent is deceptive. Obviously there is no solar energy at night. Well, not much! But renewables includes solar, wind, tidal, geothermal, hydro...I'm sure there are others I haven't thought of. We need to have a system that forecasts usage, which we already have, and then forecasts which systems we need to have online to compensate for any shortfall in (e.g.) solar.

The problem with fracking is not just with the way that fracking itself works, its that the products of fracking are oil and gas. So they are carbon-heavy. The problem with nuclear, despite what any body tells you, is that not only are the reactors inherently dangerous - see the Ukraine comment above - but we have no idea how to manage the by products and they remain radioactive for 10s of thousands of years. So exchanging damaging carbon for even more damaging uranium is typical of the short term solutions today's governments think will solve their problems.

This is interesting. I don't think anyone has posted any info about it so far, apologies if I am repeating things.

bigissue.com/news/environment/seagreen-scotland-new-wind-farm-energy-bills/

Ah, I get it, MOnica!
Thank you so much for a detailed and patient explanation !

Ixin the profitability or otherwise of wind farms depends on how much they are being paid for each unit of electricity. Anything is profitable if the price is high enough. In fact the industry is still subsidiesd through a complicated system described here www.ft.com/content/1edba6f4-295e-44b8-9d97-82bc4d3c04ec

DH has been working in the offshore wind industry for 20 years and he thinks that the life of a wind turbine offshore may be shorter than believed, for technical and engineering reasons, so the cost of the power may be even more than expected.

The biggest problem is that if too much of our power comes from weather dependent resources, we may find that at times demand for power will exceed supply and parts of the national grid will need to shut down over varying size areas in the UK. Until large scale battery technology improves and can be made safe, or other ways are found to store surplus power, the only way to assure the imdustry can meet the growing demand for power is firstly through tidal power, initially building the tidal barrage power stations, planned some years ago for the Bristol Channel, and reviving the Severn Barrage. Tidal barrages require very high tidal rise and fall, in the UK, this means the Bristol channel, tidal power, which looks as if, after many decades of disappoinment , it may just be becoming commercially possible and finally nuclear, despite its downsides.

Solar panels and wind farms, and other kinds of natural energy are absolutely the way forward in my opinion. I don't mind them near to me. Better than living next to a nuclear power station. More investment is needed in the sun and the wind to power us.

Callistemon21

Would it not be better to ensure that all new-build houses and commercial property were fitted with solar panels, give good subsidies for households, landlords, businesses to fit them to existing properties rather than use up what might be usable agricultural land?

Id think that doing this in addition to solar farms is the way to go

I’d rather have a solar farm in the field behind my house than fracking in the area.

Whichever source of energy there is always a price to pay. There is no easy solution for keeping 68 million people warm and connected online.