Labour’s ‘rooftop revolution’ to deliver solar power to millions of UK homes

[AE-NMidlands]

https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... f-uk-homes

Ed Miliband sets new rules on solar panels and approves three giant solar farms as Labour seeks to end years of Tory inaction
Keir Starmer’s new Labour government today unveils plans for a “rooftop revolution” that will see millions more homes fitted with solar panels in order to bring down domestic energy bills and tackle the climate crisis.
The energy secretary, Ed Miliband, also took the hugely controversial decision this weekend to approve three massive solar farms in the east of England that had been blocked by Tory ministers.

The three sites alone – Gate Burton in Lincolnshire, Sunnica’s energy farm on the Suffolk-Cambridgeshire border and Mallard Pass on the border between Lincolnshire and Rutland – will deliver about two-thirds of the solar energy installed on rooftops and on the ground in the whole of last year.
Now, before Wednesday’s king’s speech, which will include legislation for setting up the new publicly owned energy company GB Energy, ministers are working with the building industry to make it easier to buy new homes with panels installed, or instal them on existing ones.

etc.
About time too, let's hope agrivoltaics catch on and land isn't necessarily lost to food production.

[AGT]

Good, it will no doubt see improvement in the grid, a local town near me has to wait until 2027 until network improvements allows a solar farm

[Tinbum]

I disagree, solar should be on rooftops first and land should be used for food production. Small scale is ok but its going to be a free for all now just done to maximise profits.

[Kommando]

Solar panels are mandatory for new builds with roofs in right direction locally to me. Being sold to mainly young people with families the houses are empty during peak production and export payments are low. So the panels get put in the garage by the builders and the roof is fully tiled, box ticked. I get cheap new panels. Law of unintended consequences. There are hectares of unproductive land that cannot be farmed and warehouse roofs, why use productive farm land. WW2 was nearly lost in the Battle of the Atlantic, it nice to assume a war will never affect the UK again but not a gamble I would take. Germany lost WW1 due to a starving population from an effective blockade.

[Mart]

I disagree, solar should be on rooftops first and land should be used for food production. Small scale is ok but its going to be a free for all now just done to maximise profits.

I honestly believe that there has been a lot of misunderstanding and downright misrepresentation of solar farms in the UK, much spread by the previous Gov. The vast majority are installed on land rated as 3b (or worse), which is classed as moderate quality, for lower yields of cereal crops and for grazing.

Also worth remembering the statistic that the equivalent of the UK's whole leccy demand could be met from PV installed just on 2% of England's land. Currently about 2% of the land is covered in golf courses and golf related sites. So if for instance, we eventually reach a stage where 10% of our leccy comes from PV farms, then that's 0.2% of England, or 10% of golf courses!

So in reality, the amount of land needed/used for PV farms is tiny, the land used is lower quality, and it can typically still be used for grazing, so there is no significant impact on UK food production.

Lastly, and not sure this is a reasonable/fair argument, but PV generation will be many times more efficient than crop production on this land, so even if there was some food loss, then it may be better to get the energy gains, and suffer a small food loss/import increase.

I do of course believe that roof mounted PV, plus all of the other options, such as car park canopies etc, are even better again, but I don't believe the food loss from 3b land use is actually significant.

Hope this makes sense.

[resybaby]

Im also in the 'not on farm land' camp. Rooftops first.
Estate i live on is generally big bungalows, so big simple roofs, and a big % face south.
Two new house renovation projects a hundred metres away are akin in size to a small supermarket each now, prob circa £3m price each - and not a panel on either of them despite a massive total rebuild. One has three huge ASHP's outside.
Id guess out of approx 100 of the houses in my immediate area, perhaps five have a few panels. mr and mrs Resybabys certainly has twice the next nearest sized local array.
That said there is a lot of low value, unused, scrubland along the spine of Cornwall that could probably be much better used if covered in panels, a shame that sort of land isnt prioritised over the cropable areas.

[Oliver90owner]

Im also in the 'not on farm land' camp. Rooftops first.
Estate i live on is generally big bungalows, so big simple roofs, and a big % face south.

Some systems in France are raised sufficiently to allow arable cultivations below. Yes, extra expense but should not be ruled out. Sheep can graze under most arrays already, I would think, but might have ramifications with security devices.

South facing is likely less important for young marrieds out at work. Early morning and late afternoon from an east-west installation may well be more useful.

‘Roll on’ with Mallard Pass, which is local to me. Perhaps could do with a couple of wind turbines, too.

[Tinbum]

Also worth remembering the statistic that the equivalent of the UK's whole leccy demand could be met from PV installed just on 2% of England's land. Currently about 2% of the land is covered in golf courses and golf related sites. So if for instance, we eventually reach a stage where 10% of our leccy comes from PV farms, then that's 0.2% of England, or 10% of golf courses!

So in reality, the amount of land needed/used for PV farms is tiny, the land used is lower quality, and it can typically still be used for grazing, so there is no significant impact on UK food production.

It's not just low grade land though!

Round here they have a proposal for 3000+ acres and a lot is on land that is productive, it's pretty well all arable now. I can't see it being used for grazing. It's also the scale, turning countryside into an industrial area.

The argument about golf courses is just rubbish. In the majority of cases we already have the golf courses. If we had to be self sufficient in an emergency it would be easy to farm them!!

[dan_b]

I guess if you want large scale deployment quickly and at low cost, then ground mount grid scale solar farms are the answer.

But that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t also be putting them on the roof of every house and every commercial building.

Easy win is for new builds and for those to be done properly, but as soon as you start looking at existing roofs of what ever type of building, it becomes more expensive, compromised by shading, pitch, orientation and everything else, and of course who owns the roofs on those buildings.

As from other threads the concept of agrivoltaics does mean the land can continue to have productive use for farming, just not necessarily wheat/ large scale arable.

It’s a clear step in the right direction though after a decade of basically nothing happening from a policy or implementation point of view.

[Mart]

Also worth remembering the statistic that the equivalent of the UK's whole leccy demand could be met from PV installed just on 2% of England's land. Currently about 2% of the land is covered in golf courses and golf related sites. So if for instance, we eventually reach a stage where 10% of our leccy comes from PV farms, then that's 0.2% of England, or 10% of golf courses!

So in reality, the amount of land needed/used for PV farms is tiny, the land used is lower quality, and it can typically still be used for grazing, so there is no significant impact on UK food production.

It's not just low grade land though!

Round here they have a proposal for 3000+ acres and a lot is on land that is productive, it's pretty well all arable now. I can't see it being used for grazing. It's also the scale, turning countryside into an industrial area.

The argument about golf courses is just rubbish. In the majority of cases we already have the golf courses. If we had to be self sufficient in an emergency it would be easy to farm them!!

Hi, I mentioned the golf courses for scale. Just to show that there isn't a shortage of farmland, especially this low grade arable/grazing land. If there are genuine concerns about crop production then a tiny reduction in golf related land, or beef production would more than make up for it. If the actual farmland/grazing land needed is a tiny fraction of that golf figure, say 10% or less(?) then how can the PV be a problem/concern.

Also, I didn't say it was all low grade land, I actually said the vast majority. I believe the figure for PV farms is ~80% on 3b or lower grade land. And there are restrictions on 3a and higher.

The impact on UK crop production from PV farms will be somewhere between zero and negligible, it's simply not a real issue, but at the same time, I fully appreciate that many people are genuinely concerned, which I believe is down to misinformation and anti-RE FUD.

I'm sorry if this seems rude or argumentative, but there really is no issue regarding solar farms and crop production losses*. But there is a need to expand RE generation and the mix as quickly as possible.

Lastly you suggest turning countryside into an industrial area, but we weren't talking about the countryside, we were talking about low grade agricultural land, and farming is an industry. There are of course strong arguments for some of this low grade land to be returned to nature, especially woodland/forestry, and PV farms whilst not on anything like that scale, do dramatically increase the amount of wild flowers and pollinators.

*Yes it is entirely sensible to have concerns over loss of crop production, but when the issue is analysed and the scale is taken into account, those fears should dissipate almost entirely.