Solar ... In the news

Martyn1981

QrizB said:

Martyn1981 said:

I found this article thought provoking. The main gist is the argument over changing the countryside, which is a fair discussion, but I hope people understand that PV farms may be a change, but you get used to them quickly. Wind turbines have more impact, but that can also be positive, as some oddballs like me ...... love em.

Light … or blight? Anger rises at plan for Britain’s biggest solar farm

A proposed new £600m solar farm in eastern England – covering an area eight times bigger than Hyde Park in central London – faces opposition over claims it would be a “blight” on the countryside.

The scheme, which would provide power for up to 100,000 homes, will cover nearly 2,800 acres near Newmarket, more than 10 times bigger than any scheme built to date in Britain. It is one of more than 900 solar farms in the planning pipeline to help provide green energy.

Wow, 2800 acres is over 1000 hectares - ten grid squares - and (using my rough reckoner from the previous page of this thread) could host something like 1GWp of solar farm.

I see the local MP asking:

Sir Edward Leigh ... told parliament last month: “Is it not time we looked at how we can stop these companies bypassing local planning and secure proper community gain and the protection of agriculture, and ensure that there are buffer zones around villages?”

I reckon a solar farm *is* a buffer zone against development. Once you've built it, you're safe from housing, industrial estates, retail parks etc. on the land. And, with some care when laying the farm out, the land can still be used for recreation.

That's a good point, hadn't thought of that. Bit like a permanent crop growing in a field. Might even become a tourist attraction. There's a large PV farm gone up near where we take the dogs for a walk, but we're not (yet?) allowed to walk on that bit of council owned land, which is a shame, would love to see it more closely.

TBH when I first read the headline it took me all the way back to the nutty campaigns the DM used to run against RE and PV, and their article describing a small PV farm as 'blighting an idyll' since it can be seen from a helicopter.

Also required a lot of careful photo cropping to avoid what is situated approx one mile north of the PV, though there is a clue in the top left hand corner of the second photo.

An idyll blighted by 18,000 solar panels: Seen from the sky, the reality of alternative energy

PV farm on Google earth, to the east of Langley.

But the DM comments are worth reading, really positive about the solar farm.

Spies

A country full of NIMBY's, that's why everything takes so long to get built. 

Martyn1981

Spies said:

A country full of NIMBY's, that's why everything takes so long to get built. 

But ...... I always look for the positive ...... there is some good news. Much of the negativity is natural human fear of change, especially, dare I say it, in older men (myself being one), but even 'we' can change. A great statistic comes from the quarterly public attitude surveys.

Back at the start of the last decade, whilst renewables had great support, especially PV and offshore wind, onshore wind lagged behind with about 67% support, and 12% opposition. But by the end of the decade, support had grown into the 70's, whilst opposition had fallen to about 8%.

The reason I find that so fascinating, is that the ~33% drop in opposition happened during the time that onshore wind 'impacted' us both visually and financially (with the green subsidy). So when reality arrived, a large chunk of those people opposed went 'meh!' And I find that so encouraging ........ but regardless, the future belongs to 'de yuff' and they seem to embrace change.

Positive waffle over.

NigeWick

My view on solar:- It should be on every roof even vaguely facing the best direction. All new builds should be orientated for best solar productivity, have batteries & the facility to export to the grid.

The more places producing and storing electricity, the more resilient our system will be.

2nd_time_buyer

Martyn. I think you are right, it is rarely as bad as people think it will be. There is a lot of scaremongering in the press that does not help.

It would be interesting to see on an individual project level if people tend to soften their stance a few years down the line after a solar/wind project has been built.

Near us, there was the proposal for the wind farm off the Jurassic coast (that got turned down). My daughter had to give an argument in objection of it for a school project. We did a lot of research together on it. I must admit it was a real struggle to make the anti case. The main point she (and the anti campaign) focused on was that local businesses said that they would lose billions of pounds from lost trade because people wouldn't want to vidit the Jurassic coast as the view would be spoilt and it might lose its UNESCO status. We just couldn't relate to the viewpoint at all. It seems absurd to me, that the view of a wind farm out at sea would influence people's decision to visit - different folks, different strokes I guess. For what it is worth, my daughter got top marks.

Sorry for the ramble

QrizB

NigeWick said:

My view on solar:- It should be on every roof even vaguely facing the best direction. All new builds should be orientated for best solar productivity, have batteries & the facility to export to the grid.

The more places producing and storing electricity, the more resilient our system will be.

I was looking for something on the forum and the idiosyncratic search function threw up this thread from a decade ago, if anyone wants a bit of a blast from the past:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/3824051/solar-panels-a-bit-of-a-gimmick

Martyn1981

2nd_time_buyer said:

Martyn. I think you are right, it is rarely as bad as people think it will be. There is a lot of scaremongering in the press that does not help.

It would be interesting to see on an individual project level if people tend to soften their stance a few years down the line after a solar/wind project has been built.

Near us, there was the proposal for the wind farm off the Jurassic coast (that got turned down). My daughter had to give an argument in objection of it for a school project. We did a lot of research together on it. I must admit it was a real struggle to make the anti case. The main point she (and the anti campaign) focused on was that local businesses said that they would lose billions of pounds from lost trade because people wouldn't want to vidit the Jurassic coast as the view would be spoilt and it might lose its UNESCO status. We just couldn't relate to the viewpoint at all. It seems absurd to me, that the view of a wind farm out at sea would influence people's decision to visit - different folks, different strokes I guess. For what it is worth, my daughter got top marks.

Sorry for the ramble

Cheers and well done to your daughter.

I'm baffled by the anti-tourism aspect of offshore wind farms, not only are they tiny to the eye (due to their distance), but I'd go to see them as they add to the view.

I like seeing our local WT (2.5MW) each day, but the local news article when it went up was horrendous, all about how some people who could see it from their homes, weren't notified about the planning application directly, but the roads mentioned were 1.5 miles away. I told Wifey and she read the article but asked if I'd seen the online comments, when I checked they were all positive, yet the article only contained negative comments! I still remember two comments, one from a man who literally spoke for me by saying 'a giant spinny thing, what's not to like', and an excellent comment from a lady, "I've got better things to worry about than a giant fan two miles away."

After it was built (10yrs ago?) I was chatting with a lovely old man, who I used to meet walking the dog, and he'd been teaching me about all the birds and wild fowl on the local lake. He said "it's completely spoiled the view*", and I pointed out that it was 1.25 miles away, and with an extended arm with index finger pointing up, the entire WT including blades was covered by just the tip of the finger. I then pointed to the two rows of pylons, about 30 in view, one 20m behind us, the 4 line main railway on whose bridge we were standing, the main Cardiff landfill tip in the distance, the multiple roofs of the 4 or 5 industrial estates between us and the WT, the steel works in the far distance, and the flyover touching the tip of the lake ...... he saw the humour and we had a good laugh about it, but he still said he'd oppose any more WT applications if they happened. Oh well!

*Not changed it in a small negative way for him, positive for me, but "completely spoiled the view".


Regarding tourism, I'm really having to dig into the depths of my brain, but I recall a small survey done in the UK about 10yrs ago. It might have been for Cornwall, but I'm not sure. Folk were asked if the deployment of RE, including onshore wind and PV would impact their decision to visit the area again. The vast majority said they simply didn't care, but a small percentage, I think less than 5% could even have been about 2%, said they would be less likely to visit again, and a similarly small percentage, but interestingly slightly larger than the negative, said they'd be more likely to visit again. Thinking back now, I don't recall the tourism damage argument coming up much for many years now.

[And you described your post as a ramble.  ]

JKenH

Interesting point about the rows of pylons. They are necessary because we like our generating plants, be they nuclear, coal, gas, wind or solar, to be somewhere other than near where we live. 

https://www.alamy.com/pylons-and-wind-turbines-at-keadby-north-lincolnshire-uk-image432281876.html

ABrass

JKenH said:

Interesting point about the rows of pylons. They are necessary because we like our generating plants, be they nuclear, coal, gas, wind or solar, to be somewhere other than near where we live. 

https://www.alamy.com/pylons-and-wind-turbines-at-keadby-north-lincolnshire-uk-image432281876.html

Is that taken directly from the switching station or the power plant? It isn't exactly a great view the other way either.

JKenH

ABrass said:

JKenH said:

Interesting point about the rows of pylons. They are necessary because we like our generating plants, be they nuclear, coal, gas, wind or solar, to be somewhere other than near where we live. 

https://www.alamy.com/pylons-and-wind-turbines-at-keadby-north-lincolnshire-uk-image432281876.html

Is that taken directly from the switching station or the power plant? It isn't exactly a great view the other way either.

I couldn’t work out just where it was taken but there is an awful lot going on there with the largest onshore wind farm in England, a CCGT plant already running and two more on the way (plus carbon capture). There used to be a coal fired station there when I was a lad. In addition to Keadby the lower reaches of the Trent and Ouse were home to High Marnham, Cottam, West Burton, Drax, Eggborough and Ferrybridge coal fired stations. Handy for the pits of Nottinghamshire and South Yorkshire as well as the river water. I used to tell my kids that they were cloud factories and living just NE of West Burton that’s how it seemed on an otherwise sunny day.