PV farms.

[Andy]

The car park being covered with solar at cost of millions is small fry by comparison, but architecturally it has to withstand "twats in cars" ..the increased elevation adding a lot to the project, ..that car park won't be free much longer despite being very empty (Arse end of the Cambridge busway) ..planning means that the empty car park offers weather protection, but little to none to those embarking / departing.

That's funny. I tweeted a reply to Robert Lewellyn (Fully charged) tounge in cheek saying the same after he posted a photo of one going up. I got this reply

"One of the most common things about any new technology is that men, and I'm ashamed to say it is always men, will instantly suggest that a huge list of problems or lethally dangerous outcomes are guaranteed. It's a parking cover and it's still under construction"

He's obviously not watched people parking and observed the odds of cars being dinged.

[ClockmanFRA]

Here in France, we now have official permission from the strong agriculture lobby to erect our 9.6KW static array in our field.

In fact it has set a precedent for our region, as the agriculture board/committee folk said, "your array will be on stilts for your sheep to graze underneath".

I have related our story here to a local council chap in Rutland who is fighting against huge PV arrays across good Agricultural land. He even talked to the Developers about getting the array high enough. The developers’ comments... " There is no commercially obtainable system on the market at the moment, and to get it high means great costs and even higher installation costs", As my friend said, "seems to me they want to maximise their profit margins no matter what, and they just don’t give a damn”.

[Tinbum]

Soil map-

[Stig]

The other thing farmers have to consider is risk, growing crops or even livestock means the chance of making a massive loss if the weather's not right (e.g. this year's droughts). A solar farm probably only has +/-10% variation year to year, you can see why that might be an attractive type of diversification.

[Oldgreybeard]

I do think that some people lose sight of the fact that farming is just a business, like any other. Farmers will do whatever earns them the most income as a general rule. Arguably farming should be treated by the government in the way it was during WWII, when maximum productivity of food was paramount, to the extent that the government ensured there was additional free labour (the Land Army, plus loads of PoWs) as well as subsidies to make farms more productive and switch production to foods that were needed.

That was the only time in the past century where the government has treated farming as a strategic industry, that needed to be maintained and developed, for the good of the population as a whole.

Over the past few decades, farmers have become the bad boys. The have their prices driven down by what amounts to a buying cartel of supermarkets, they very often lose money on crops, due to a host of reasons beyond their control (like the nitrogen fertiliser price crisis). Farms have diversified into industrial crops, because there's more money in them, but in doing so have upset lots of environmentalists. If they choose to make their farms more eco-friendly then they need to find a way to make that pay. Some around here have other income streams. Nearest one to me runs a big shoot, has built a lodge that was originally for shooting guests to stay at, and is now turning that lodge into a wedding and functions venue.

Another farm, around 8 miles away, has a thriving farm shop, PYO and a big maze for kids to have a go at just before the harvest. All ways of generating more revenue to cover the falling income from farming itself.

If we want food security, and want British farmers to be able to produce all the food we need, then we need to provide the means for farmers to do that. They will not do it if they are paid less for their produce than it costs to produce it.

[Tinbum]

I totally agree and haven't lost sight that it's a business, but recent events have shown how we are at the whim of others.

Farmers have diversified round here with some small scale PV. The local farm to us has every roof covered in PV and has done for many years. He has some ground mount as does the farm next to him. The one next to that has an anaerobic digester and there is another large one of those on another local farm.

Food security is massively important, as is energy and the environment. Something the size of this at 3000 acers ( about 4.7 square miles) has a massive effect on the local environment. It's probably at least double the size of the local Town!

Government should be helping the farmers and the environment.

[Mr Gus]

We need to call out govt as to whether the terms energy security & food security are hyperbole / bullsh1t
The next 5 years are going to be very unstable in terms of containing the problem so a putin & what's to be done with that vast area of land if we have to all wade in there, in which case call it 40 years, that's before climate uncertainties.

Energy & food therefore "priority one" with as much home brew of each.
The little triangle of field by me, up to a decade ago was not financially viable, for the past 5 it has been,

Not paying it heed has got us to where we are now.

[Oliver90owner]

Does anyone know of any farmer who has installed more than about 150kW of PV? I don’t.

All the farmer is doing is basically renting his land for a fixed period of time, from which (s)he derives income. No real difference than how most large wind turbines are financed?

[Mart]

Arguably, putting solar panels on land is a more efficient use of it than growing crops or fattening cattle or sheep on it, in terms of useful kWh per hectare. Grazing animals are the very least efficient, plants aren't great (even specially bred biomass crops) and solar comes out on top by a large margin, IF, getting useful energy from land is the only consideration.

When ground PV is associated with any form of compatible grazing, then the efficient use of the land increases markedly.

There are also very large tracts of land in the UK that we can't do much with in terms of growing crops or grazing animals. Not all land can be productive, so unless it's a landscape worth protecting because of its appearance or for reasons associated with biodiversity etc, then it may as well have solar panels on it.

I very much agree. And with all of the ideas for agrovoltaics, such as bifacial panels mounted vertically, with E/W orientations, I don't think the land loss is that great, and can be managed.

A great stat, that I did check was correct about 10yrs ago, using 15% efficient panels (now we are at about 20/21% for common panels), is that 'only' 2% of England would need to be covered in PV panels to generate the equivalent of our (UK's) annual leccy consumption. Obviously this is just a simple metric, doesn't account for seasonality, and isn't suggesting a singular approach, it's just for scale. The point goes on however to explain that roughly 2% of England is currently covered by golf courses and golf related land. I say we combine the two, what can possibly go wrong .... FORE!

[AE-NMidlands]

I very much agree. And with all of the ideas for agrovoltaics, such as bifacial panels mounted vertically, with E/W orientations, I don't think the land loss is that great, and can be managed.

A great stat, that I did check was correct about 10yrs ago, using 15% efficient panels (now we are at about 20/21% for common panels), is that 'only' 2% of England would need to be covered in PV panels to generate the equivalent of our (UK's) annual leccy consumption. Obviously this is just a simple metric, doesn't account for seasonality, and isn't suggesting a singular approach, it's just for scale. The point goes on however to explain that roughly 2% of England is currently covered by golf courses and golf related land. I say we combine the two, what can possibly go wrong .... FORE!

do you mean vertical bifacials with the lines N/S orientated, i.e. the panels face E/W?
I think the terminology needs to be clearer, as to me "panels mounted E/W" immediately suggests lines of panels in that orientation...
(I can't see panels surviving in mountainous areas either where there is wild weather in the winter and the steep slopes are currently only useable for sheep grazing (and walking!)
I would return most golf courses to agriculture, agrivoltaics equally acceptable...
A