Sunak to snooker Solar

[Tay]

I agree with that.

Farmland should be for farming not solar farming.

Put panels on industrial roofs first.

Tend to agree, electrical infrastructure is mostly there already and unless you fly drones all the time you'll rarely see them.

[Mart]

For me it's an opportunity to develop something with rather more wildlife value than the standard monoculture field, with essentially zero impact on overall food production.

That to me, is the main point.

Totally agree that the beauty of PV is that can be installed on 'land' that has no other value, such as roofs, carparks etc etc..

But the Gov seems to be (again) playing up false fears about food loss v's PV farms. The land in question is at the lower quality end, and can be dual purpose, such as grazing, which much of it may have already been for such use.

It's not a binary choice of food v's PV, since PV farms can boost biodiversity and soil improvements, and the amount of land to be taken up, even at the most extreme end, is virtually negligible, as you've pointed out. It's also entirely possible that the energy extracted by the PV, will outweigh the energy from food - so in the worst case, we could compare energy imports/exports to food imports/exports for a more balanced conclusion. UK PV is not great, but it is important, as a mix of RE inputs will be greater than the sum of the individual parts.

I may be wrong, but I suspect the Gov arguments on this matter are false, and once again play to voters fears. The same applies to wind turbines industrializing the countryside, BEV's taking away people's choices for cars, RE as a whole bankrupting the UK if we move too fast, and so on, for heatpumps, energy efficiency etc etc - playing up the negatives, even if they are minimal, whilst ignoring the benefits.

Looking to the other extreme/possibility, we have agri-voltaics (such as grazing PV land, but potentially crop growth too). With sparser, higher mounted PV, it can be possible to get about 80% of the PV potential, and 80% of the crop potential, so a combined 160% use of the land. Or, even going so far as to mount bi-facial panels vertically, with their sides facing east and west. This idea, would result in minimal loss of the crop land/potential, and also provide valuable generation earlier and later in the day, whilst not competing with max gen, and potentially minimum prices around midday - but poor winter gen.


Edit - Not 100% happy with this post, may be the Long Covid paranoia/anxiety, but I think it may come over combative, which is not my intention.

I actually prefer the idea of mounting PV on existing structures, to make use of otherwise valueless land. I also suspect, but could be wrong, that smaller roof mounted demand side PV, is more economically viable than PV farms. That's because the lower CAPEX enjoyed by the PV farm, may be outweighed by the lower OPEX of roof mounted PV, and the higher value of the leccy on the demand side (retail price savings, v's wholesale price sales).

My issue, is that I feel the Gov arguments are false, and designed to cause division. The land used for PV, and I assume the land in question here, if it is all about 3b classed agricultural land, is not high(est) quality, and the amount involved, not at all significant.

[Krill]

It's also entirely possible that the energy extracted by the PV, will outweigh the energy from food - so in the worst case, we could compare energy imports/exports to food imports/exports for a more balanced conclusion.

I'd be incredibly wary of this line of reasoning. It's not straightforward given the already mentioned points of biodiversity, but it can't factor in other issues such as availability and inbuilt inefficienies of transporting goods, tax and tariffs and, as shown by Ukraine, war.

That said, I would take the position that the idea that just in time manufacturing can hide behind unsuitable, inadequate and down right shoddy buildings as an excuse to not use solar PV is unacceptable and building regs should be far more stringent. In effect, the argument is that it costs business and damages profitability so everyone else has to pay a price due to a less robust energy grid.

(Although I'd also like all hipped roofs to be banned except in high windspeed areas so perhaps I'm a bit ornery on building construction).

[spread-tee]

Personally I think it is a cynical attempt to screw up the ambitions of future administrations in the hope they will fail and loose power in 2028-9, along with selling of land purchased for HS2, scrapping proposed increased EPC requirements for rental properties, etc. Put bluntly "cutting the green crap"

It may help the argument to consider that just 1.2% of UK land has a building on it, that's every type, commercial, domestic, industrial etc. That is an area of about 2800 square KM, if say 25% of those roofs were suitable which is probably optimistic we could possibly generate about 77,000GWh/yr which is undoubtedly a lot, but given we use in the UK about 185,000,000GWh/year primary energy we still have a long way to go.

Obviously there is a balance to be had between food and energy production as they are both critical, but it seems we do need quite a lot of land to decarbonise completely, or more realistically at least release ourselves from Pootins tyranny.

[Mart]

It's also entirely possible that the energy extracted by the PV, will outweigh the energy from food - so in the worst case, we could compare energy imports/exports to food imports/exports for a more balanced conclusion.

I'd be incredibly wary of this line of reasoning. It's not straightforward given the already mentioned points of biodiversity, but it can't factor in other issues such as availability and inbuilt inefficienies of transporting goods, tax and tariffs and, as shown by Ukraine, war.

That said, I would take the position that the idea that just in time manufacturing can hide behind unsuitable, inadequate and down right shoddy buildings as an excuse to not use solar PV is unacceptable and building regs should be far more stringent. In effect, the argument is that it costs business and damages profitability so everyone else has to pay a price due to a less robust energy grid.

(Although I'd also like all hipped roofs to be banned except in high windspeed areas so perhaps I'm a bit ornery on building construction).

LOL, I'm just as ornery. We have a gable end house, with E/W PV, but there are absolutely loads of houses near me with south facing roofs, but hipped. Lovely couple of ladies I know from walking our dogs, asked me for thoughts on PV and batts for their house. I reviewed the quote, but siad I was highly skeptical of the viability due to shading from tall trees. Had a good look at their roof, and garage etc etc, but it was simply awful for PV. Such a huge shame.

I do still look back fondly on the Trienergia triangular panels. No idea if they were any good, but a nice idea.

Trienergia Gallery

[Mart]

Hiya Desp, my concern, is that we, on here, are having a good faith debate/discussion on PV v's food.

But, I don't believe there really is an issue of concern. I think we're being played by this Gov, who for a month+ have started trying to create doubts and concerns about RE, BEV's, HP's etc etc, for political reasons. Effectively undermining all the pluses, by spreading questionable negatives.

After Rishi announced the change to the 2030 deadline for full ICEV's*, one of the MP's went on Sky news and sowed doubts about their viability, including a claim that after "5, 6, 7, or 8 years, range drops to 50%". That's a lie, I can't believe he knows that little, whilst being willing to take part in an interview on the matter.

However, there's always Hanlon's Razor - "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity."

.... but I'm not convinced that that level of stupidity is possible, perhaps I'm being too kind/generous.


*MP's could have reassured the public, that they can still buy secondhand ICEV's after 2030 (85% of annual UK car sales are SH), and that petrol PHEV's will be available until 2035, so if so minded, a person could by a new 'ICEV' up to 2035 and never plug it in. In reality, sales of ICEV's will collapse this decade, as the virtuous circle (economies of scale, falling batt costs etc) kicks in for BEV's, whilst such issues go into reverse for ICEV's - the vicious circle. So Rishi was hiding behind pointless and false claims, presumably to win votes, or support from the Conservative party members.

[dan_b]

It's the Tory way of setting a false comparator to make you take sides in everything - divide and rule.

"Solar vs food"
"EVs vs the economy"
"Take back control vs the EU"
"Us vs Them"

They've always done it. And still they get away with it.

[spread-tee]

Absolutely Mart, there probably is some kind of compromise that suits both food and energy production, it is as Dan says a divisive ploy to smokescreen the fact that the present GOV is ruining the country to their advantage. Don't be fooled by them they are not stupid, they by design are in power much longer than they deserve, and getting very rich into the bargain. Why wouldn't they want that outcome? Sadly to they seem to be following the GOP in the US of not really wanting to govern properly but just trashing everyone else's prospects.


Desp

[Petertc]

It's a tricky situation, they don't want to pay farmers subsidies if they can help it,
If the farmers can make more buy leasing out the land for solar..
Farming may be a way of life but no good if it's not a way of making a living.
We have high welfare and environmental standards in the UK. With these standards it means that UK farmers can't complete in global market.
Then you have the national parks, giving 3 weeks notice of Up to 60% reduction in stockings rates . Farming your planning 3- 4 years in advance with live stock. 3 weeks notice is just stupid. Farming is not like a factory where you can reduce production at the touch of a button, sorry gone a bit off topic here.
I'm an ex farmer, but still have a few contacts and have also been involved solar park projects.

[AlBargey]

Another interesting graphic on land use from the National Food Strategy:




I don't know why whenever I post a link at whatever size I choose they're still always tiny?..

We - including myself eat too much beef and other meats at an unsustainable amount as a society, (more land area for the UK's beef consumption than the area of the UK.. crazy!) In the current climate crisis, a few fields for solar is small fry in the scheme of things, but in the right direction, although I think agrivoltaics is a much better solution, and yes chuck panels on every roof possible too.

But if we're worried about using livestock pasture, which we're not really, but if we were, would it really hurt, seeing as it's not a sustainable food for human consumption / energy use, to rather use a tiny fraction of it for solar generation and eat one or two less steaks a year?