This may engender some debate, but I think it could make for an interesting discussion as long as participants stick to the specific topic and don't start feverish rants about certain banned subjects.

We were driving through the southwest USA the past few days and saw several massive solar power plants.  I though to myself how great it was that we were using essentially barren, unused land for something so productive, and doing it in an area that is ideal for solar power as it receives 300+ days of sun a year.

I decided to look into where other solar plants were located and came across an article about the Sunnica solar plant in the southeastern UK.  A lot of local residents have opposed the project for years and they were stunned to discover that the power plant has recently been approved.

The plant will cost an *estimated* 600 million pounds(likely to increase a lot if it's like 99% of other govt-funded projects) and will cover 2,500 acres of land, *about a thousand of which is productive farmland*.  The plant will employ a whopping 27 full-time personnel once it's up and running(it'll create lots of jobs!!!!), and the developers and govt. claim that it will provide power for 172,000 homes(highly unlikely and grossly overestimated IMO).  It is estimated that the life of the plant will be 40 years(again, an optimistic estimate).

Now, anyone who's spent any considerable time in the UK knows that it ain't exactly a sunny place.  In fact, the UK receives an estimated 1,435 hours of sunshine per year, and there are 8,760 hours in a year, so for 84% of the year these solar panels will not receive full sunlight and thus will not be able to produce as much power, and of course they will produce no power at all at night.

Personally, I'm very skeptical about projects like this which make no practical sense, and I wonder about the sanity of folks who think they are a good idea.

Thoughts?

Dave

Yes, there is opposition to it. Some of their objections are exaggerated and some seem valid.

In terms of "when the sun doesn't shine" it includes battery back up.

In terms of viability, then the experts in question will have calculated the amount of energy it can deliver in terms of available sunlight.

I don't know enough about the project to comment further in regard to its viability. 

23 hours ago, dave2013 said:

Personally, I'm very skeptical about projects like this which make no practical sense, and I wonder about the sanity of folks who think they are a good idea.

Thoughts?

Dave

Hi Dave. These things are being built all over the south/south east of the UK at the moment as they do make a great deal of sense for the promoters of these schemes.

Modern solar farms don’t need sunshine to be efficient, they need daylight.  
The UK is currently undergoing something of a revolution in our energy sector. The demand for electricity is soaring and solar power is now the cheapest form of electricity generation we have.

These things aren’t being built with taxpayer money, it’s all private capital. Returns on solar farm investment are between five to ten percent currently and are forecast to rise. Once these solar farms are up and running they become tradeable assets in their own right too.

If you build them on flat, open farmland they’re simple to build and simple to maintain. The biggest hurdle for potential solar farm builders are overcoming our local government planning system that means major projects can take years to come to fruition.

For this reason solar farms projected to provide over 50mw are know classified as national infrastructure projects and planning permission is granted by central government. 

In theory this will greatly streamline the planning process as it generally allows developers to ride roughshod over local objections - as in the solar farm you mention.

However, it also turns these sort of projects into political footballs. In terms of area the UK as a whole is not that much larger than Texas but we manage to cram sixty-six million people in here. Hence we suffer from chronic nimbyism. Plenty of these sort of projects have been waiting approval - with associated rises in costs - whilst the government waits on the electoral cycle before plucking up the courage to say yes to these things.

We’ve had our general election now so the permissions are starting to flow again. 

Due to historic mismanagement of UK energy provision over decades we now find ourselves in a situation where under certain circumstances the lights really could go out.

As we’re a little, well connected place with a generally benign climate this isn’t a situation the British public are used to. Our governments are naturally anxious not to let this happen so at the moment solar farms tick a number of happy boxes for them.

4 hours ago, DD_Arthur said:

Modern solar farms don’t need sunshine to be efficient, they need daylight.  

Oh yes, solar panels do work with just daylight, but with cloud cover their output drops by half, and as much as 90% in certain cases, so they don't produce nearly as much current to supply immediate power needs, not to mention what is required to charge the batteries that are needed when the sun goes down and when the daytime output drops due to heavy cloud cover.

There are solar farms in the UK that cover 1,000 acres and only produce 500MW.  Currently, many thousands of acres of UK land is used for solar power which is just 5-8% of the total renewable energy in the UK.  I just don't think it's practical.

You could build far fewer nuclear power plants, which take up a lot less space and are much more efficient than solar, to produce the power you need.  Add to the mix all the wind power you currently have, which does work pretty well in the UK, and you'd be good to go.

I think a few people are getting rich off of this solar power scheme.  BTW, the same stuff is going on here with wind and solar power.  There are literally trillions to be made over the next decade by the relative few who get a piece of the action, especially the politicians.

Like I've said before, there are places where solar or wind makes economic and environmental sense, and places where it just doesn't.

Dave

Edited September 11, 20241 yr by dave2013

6 hours ago, dave2013 said:

Like I've said before, there are places where solar or wind makes economic and environmental sense, and places where it just doesn't.

Dave

Well…yes. However, in the case of the solar farm in southern England that you mention the developers are obviously content to bet some six hundred million that they’re right and you’re wrong.

 

 

8 hours ago, dave2013 said:

Oh yes, solar panels do work with just daylight, but with cloud cover their output drops by half, and as much as 90% in certain cases, so they don't produce nearly as much current to supply immediate power needs, not to mention what is required to charge the batteries that are needed when the sun goes down and when the daytime output drops due to heavy cloud cover.

 

I would think that the guys with the calculators will have done the necessary calculations and deemed the project viable. Both solar and wind are complimentary. Its not about one technology. Seasonal electricity generation potential in the UK helps to balance supply across the year. UK doesn't have permanent cloud cover all year long. 

The main objection to the Sunnica project seems to be about using viable farmland instead of industrial land or brownfield sites. Trouble is, there's a lack of suitable brownfield sites for large scale solar and they aren't usually located close to the electricity transmission system. Or where its most sunny. 

 

8 hours ago, dave2013 said:

You could build far fewer nuclear power plants, which take up a lot less space and are much more efficient than solar

 

Except that it takes a long time to design, build and commission a reactor (it will be a decade for Hinkley Point, I recall) and of course, as mentioned... there are NIMBY's to deal with (Not In My Back Yard) and that applies to having a nuclear reactor in your backyard too. 

Cost is a huge consideration too, with nuclear being more expensive than solar in the UK.

https://cleantechnica.com/2013/02/19/solar-power-cheaper-than-nuclear-in-cloudy-old-england/

 

Quote

Solar PV is now the cheapest source of electricity around the world – including in the UK, where the cost of utility scale solar has fallen in cost by 88% since 2010, and the cost of rooftop solar panels has declined by as much as 60% since 2010.

https://www.energy-uk.org.uk/insights/electricity-generation/#:~:text=Solar PV is now the,much as 60% since 2010.

 

Wind, solar, tidal, wave... and yes, our existing nuclear plants, are all required. the bigger the variety the better. 

I'm hoping the new geothermal technology utilizing a magnetron will come to fruition. It will mean that accessing geothermal energy will be possible pretty much anywhere and existing power plants could be utilized. 

 

 

Edited September 11, 20241 yr by martin-w

11 hours ago, DD_Arthur said:

However, in the case of the solar farm in southern England that you mention the developers are obviously content to bet some six hundred million that they’re right and you’re wrong.

My point is not that the developers won't make money on this.  On the contrary, some people will make out like bandits, especially the developers.  Are you also saying that there are no govt. subsidies at all for this stuff?  I'm doubtful.

My point is that building thousands of acres of solar plants in a country with very limited agricultural land and non-ideal weather is just not very practical.

There are more efficient forms of energy production for a country like the UK such as wind and nuclear.  Yes, nuclear does have a stigma attached to it, but that is based on a few isolated and very rare incidents in the past which did not result in actual meltdowns, except for Chernobyl which was a catastrophe.  Newer designs are much safer and cleaner and produce a lot less waste.

Here in the USA there are hundreds of thousands of acres of barren land in the southwest that are ideal places to build solar plants due to the prevalence of sunshine.  I would not build huge solar plants in Tennessee where I'm from as the weather is more similar to UK weather, only warmer.

There seems to be a hysteria and extreme sense of urgency with this stuff so people aren't thinking clearly and making rational, practical decisions.  These bad decisions will be very costly in the long run.

Just my 2c.

Dave

11 hours ago, martin-w said:

I'm hoping the new geothermal technology utilizing a magnetron will come to fruition.

Geothermal wells have their risks as well, and can be very expensive.  The capacity factor, however, is just as good as nuclear.

I'd also be concerned about drilling these extremely deep holes in the ground no matter what tech is used.

Dave

1 hour ago, dave2013 said:

Here in the USA 

Hi Dave. Since you want to discuss the development of solar farms in the UK it might first be worth considering that we're not in the USA and what applies there will almost certainly not apply here for a whole variety of reasons.

Yes, there are evidently big margins to be made at the moment by developing solar farms in the UK. This is because there is a big demand for electricity generation right now and solar farms can be up and running in a matter of weeks and months at a relatively low outlay.

Whether you believe it or not there are no government subsidies for these commercial developments.

There are subsidy schemes available for domestic solar panels, i.e. fitted to homes and there are also subsidy schemes for farmers who want to power their farms using solar panels to cut costs but these subsidies are actually provided by a levy on the profits of our power companies.

The UK does not have a shortage of agriculture land. Due to advances in farming techniques and equipment we currently have more productive acreage under cultivation than at any time in our history. We also have some of the lowest food prices in Western Europe. 

As for the weather not being ideal; as I said before, these developers and investors seem very willing to put their money up for them so I suspect that despite what you might think they are very practical indeed.

As Martin has pointed out above, the generally agreed plan is to have a mixed economy of power generation using for the most part renewable sources. The UK does indeed have plenty of weather, a promising amount of geo-thermal potential and a vast and so far almost entirely untapped amount of tidal energy we can exploit for electricity generation.

The advantages are two fold; we can meet the targets we have set ourselves when it comes to phasing out hydrocarbons for electricity generation and that in turn means we won't be dependant on imported energy from unreliable sources who hate our guts....

As I write this the biggest civil engineering project in Europe is going full steam ahead some seventy miles up the road from me. Hinckley C nuclear power station is due to come on stream sometime in the early 2030's. At present estimates it will have cost somewhere in the region of 35 to 40 billion pounds and taken nearly fifteen years to build.

It is funded seventy per cent by a company owned by the French government and thirty per cent by a company owned by the Chinese government.  It is projected to have an operational life of fifty years. 

It is quite possible that the decommissioning costs of this power station will be similar to its construction costs. 

The electricity it produces will be the most expensive in British history for the consumers who will be charged for it as someone's going to have to pay for that building cost.

In order to get this vast project off the ground the decommissioning costs have not been factored in to the overall estimates.  We are basically handing over these sort of problems to our grandchildren. 

Ten years ago, when our government was still in love with the Chinese government and their money, the plan was to build a series of new super reactors on the scale of Hinkley C at existing nuclear generation sites around the UK. 

Unfortunately....or fortunately, reality has now intervened, our governments have recognised that getting into bed with the Chinese is not a good idea and it seems highly unlikely that any of these other schemes will now come to fruition when renewable sources are now showing such promise.

 

2 hours ago, DD_Arthur said:

Since you want to discuss the development of solar farms in the UK it might first be worth considering that we're not in the USA and what applies there will almost certainly not apply here for a whole variety of reasons.

I never said that what applies here would apply there.  In fact, I made it clear that it makes more sense to build solar plants in parts of the USA where there is a lot of unproductive, barren land and 300+ days of sunshine/year as opposed to areas further east.

One thing is for certain - UK electricity is not cheap at all compared to what I pay.  The average cost per kw/hour in the UK is 22p, whereas here it is about half that.  Renewable power is by no means cheap, as many are starting to discover.

The nuclear plant you speak of seems like a big, corrupted debacle, made worse by the involvement of foreign countries.

2 hours ago, DD_Arthur said:

The UK does not have a shortage of agriculture land. Due to advances in farming techniques and equipment we currently have more productive acreage under cultivation than at any time in our history.

The UK imports about 40% of its food, so it is by no means self-sufficient.  In fact, last year the head of the national farmers union said that the govt. must make the UK more self-sufficient and less reliant on imported food.  I would be trying to preserve as much farmland, or potential farmland, as possible instead of using it for solar panels.

Like I said, the consequences of poor decisions based on feeling good about being "carbon-neutral" or "net-zero" will be felt, maybe not in the near future, but most certainly over the long-term.

I think this discussion has pretty much run its course.  It is evident that you are an advocate for solar power in the UK and that's your prerogative.  I don't think it makes a whole lot of economic or environmental sense.

Dave

8 hours ago, dave2013 said:

There are more efficient forms of energy production for a country like the UK such as wind and nuclear.

Renewable power is by no means cheap, as many are starting to discover.

 

Quote

Solar PV is now the cheapest source of electricity around the world – including in the UK, where the cost of utility scale solar has fallen in cost by 88% since 2010, and the cost of rooftop solar panels has declined by as much as 60% since 2010.

https://www.energy-uk.org.uk/insights/electricity-generation/#:~:text=Solar PV is now the,much as 60% since 2010.

 

 

Cambridge is nearly in the red zone. I suspect that you are underestimating the amount of sun that some parts of the UK receive. You seem to think that unless there are 300+ days of sun per year then solar PV isn't viable. This simply isn't true. 

 

Edited September 12, 20241 yr by martin-w

6 hours ago, DD_Arthur said:

It is funded seventy per cent by a company owned by the French government and thirty per cent by a company owned by the Chinese government.  It is projected to have an operational life of fifty years.

I find that quite pathetic. Why are we so averse to investing in our own national infrastructure projects?

59 minutes ago, Christopher Low said:

I find that quite pathetic. Why are we so averse to investing in our own national infrastructure projects?

We don't have any of "our own national infrastructure projects", as they have all been sold off years ago.
Investment thinking in the UK is based on short term profit, which does not allow for long term
strategic planning, so "we" have left that to "foreign" investors, who in the main, have more sense and
less need for instant financial gratification.

6 hours ago, martin-w said:

Solar PV is now the cheapest source of electricity around the world – including in the UK

Yet your electricity cost is twice the average cost of electricity in the USA.  In other European countries it's even higher.  Just ask Germany how their industry and economy is being adversely impacted by high energy costs. 

Currently, solar only accounts for about 3-5% of the UK's energy production.  Are you planning on covering hundreds of thousands, and maybe millions, of acres with solar panels in a country as small as the UK?  Please.

6 hours ago, martin-w said:

You seem to think that unless there are 300+ days of sun per year then solar PV isn't viable. This simply isn't true. 

I never said it isn't viable.  Only daylight is needed for photovoltaic cells to produce current.  However, the less sunlight they receive the less efficient they are.  The capacity factor for solar drops a lot when there is cloud cover - I think the average in the UK is around 25%.  Like I said, there are places where solar is very efficient, therefore less solar panels are needed to produce a given amount of power, and places where it is much less efficient, so for the same amount of power you'd need 2-3 times as many panels.

I get that you guys need to transition to forms of power that you don't have to import, but IMO building your own nuclear plants would be the smart way to go.  Heck, even France figured that out.

Dave

50 minutes ago, dave2013 said:

Yet your electricity cost is twice the average cost of electricity in the USA.

 

 I don't live in the UK. 

Well the UK doesn't generate much from solar do they. 😄 As you said, only a few percent.

having said that, comparing the US to other regions is a difficult comparison to make because there are so many variables. It's noting to do with efficiency though. In the UK electricity price is determined by the most expensive source to meet demand, so gas sets the wholesale price of electricity in the UK, this is due to the reliance on gas powered plants to balance supply and demand  Another reason is that electricity is subject to certain taxes. There are also levies added to pay for schemes for fuel poverty and they are more directed at electricity than gas.

I'm no expert though.

 

1 hour ago, dave2013 said:

Are you planning on covering hundreds of thousands, and maybe millions, of acres with solar panels in a country as small as the UK? 

 

Me? I couldn't afford it.  😄    As said, renewable energy is about variety. Solar, wind, tidal, wave, geothermal, nuclear, etc. Nobody is going to plaster the UK with panels.

 

1 hour ago, dave2013 said:

I never said it isn't viable.  Only daylight is needed for photovoltaic cells to produce current.  However, the less sunlight they receive the less efficient they are. 

 

I'm not talking about viable in terms of being capable of generating electricity, sticking some electrodes in a potato can do that 😄 I mean being financially viable, efficient enough, capable of generating sufficient electricity in the UK's solar environment. If it wasn't then the companies in question wouldn't be building the plants. I'm talking about capable of generating electricity at a reasonable price compared to other sources. Obviously PV cells generate more or less electricity dependent on their location and total annual sunlight. Egypt, Sudan, Libya, and some areas of the US receive the most sunlight, but that doesn't mean that countries with less sunlight can't successfully utilize solar power.

 

1 hour ago, dave2013 said:

Like I said, there are places where solar is very efficient, therefore less solar panels are needed

 

Of course, but we don't need VERY efficient. We need efficient enough. In the UK they have generated as much as 40% of their power, at times, from renewables. When you have a mix of renewable technologies they balance each other out. When the winds not blowing the sun might be shining, when the suns not shining the wind is blowing. Fun fact: we Guerns send our food waste to the UK where it's burnt for power. 

 

 

1 hour ago, dave2013 said:

I get that you guys need to transition to forms of power that you don't have to import, but IMO building your own nuclear plants would be the smart way to go.

 

As already said, it takes a decade at the least to plan and build a nuclear plant. The UK has to import uranium from across the world, mainly the US, Australia, Democratic Republic of Congo, I recall. The Conservative party were supporting nuclear expansion, not sure if the new Labor government will. there is interest in modular reactors, of course, I believe Rolls Royce are working on the tech.