Am I possibly right in thinking that all of these sites , often built onto greenfield sites .. Are likely to be turned into brownfield sites perfect for building houses/industrial estates .

– Situated near other bigger settlements
– nice big electric supply created especially for them
– nice south facing fields so create nice views ?

Obviously the term for the panels is 25 years , so we won’t see anything until then..

I don’t know if that’s the case or not. Around our way they are normally on privately own farm land.

What I do understand is that a lot of these sites are planting with wild flowers around the panels to create a habitat for wildlife and to encourage bees and what not. I quite like that.

One near us : http://www.dailyecho.co.uk/news/11656445.Controversial_plan_for_giant_solar_farm_on_Hampshire_estate_given_go_ahead/

“This is not housing, this is 25 years only and then it will be taken away and our children in the future will benefit from this.”

Some councillors were against the plans with planning panel chairman Phil Bundy saying: “My concern is about the industrialisation of this part of land between Romsey and Cllr Nigel Anderdon said he believed it was the right idea but in the wrong place and Rownhams.”

However, the plans were approved

I don’t get how it is “industrialisation” of land? The panels provide power without damaging the land underneath and that land may even still be used for farming – plenty of grazing needed to keep the grass away from the panels – get the sheep in!

Rachel

We do some testing for the sites and they aren’t usual development sites. Developers look for sites with a fairly certain set of criteria for solar farms and it’s usually poor quality fields they ask for in areas unsuitable for residential development. So, no, I don’t think they are for housing.

Ok.. Fair enough 🙂

Big one near Romsey built on farmland. Certainly an eyesore.

Can you define “eyesore”? What’s wrong with them?

If you just don’t like them, let’s build a gas power station there instead? Or a nuclear one? Or how about just stop using mains electricity?

These are the choices. Make them.

Rachel

Big one near Romsey built on farmland. Certainly an eyesore.

Depends on you (pun intended) point of view.

Roses are red
solar farms are blue
it’s a matter of perspective
what looks good to you.
(got to the second line and thought it too good not to finish[i]mediocre[/i])

They’re no higher than hedges, so have no impact on the skyline, and just form another ‘crop’ producing electricity rather than cooking oil[i]bio diesel[/i]. No more of an eyesore than a strawberry field, or anything else that’s grown under black plastic.

The panels provide power without damaging the land underneath and that land may even still be used for farming – plenty of grazing needed to keep the grass away from the panels – get the sheep in!

Having watched the ones being built just south of the M4 at J11, ohh it damages the field. Miles and miles of trenches for buried cables. Nothing irreparable, but it looked like the Some for moths.

They certainly are visible in Cornwall.. We have hills and everything down here !

Choices.

I certainly wouldn’t put them next to the road, clearly visible.

I hate the wind farms nearly as much, the ones in the sea are even worse than those on land

plus … I’d rather have Nuclear

Can you define “eyesore”? What’s wrong with them?

Nothing wrong in principle, but how come you can put up a barn/industrial unit and not have cover it with solar panels?

When all the available new builds have solar panels fitted, we can move on to retro fitting them to supermarket roofs etc and then we can think about using poor quality pasture as a last resort.

Marko

Nothing wrong in principle, but how come you can put up a barn/industrial unit and not have cover it with solar panels?

It is a lot cheaper to build one big array on a greenfield site than multiple smaller sites, the subsidies funded by electricity bill payers has been significantly reduced.

regarding farming – we have had tens of acres of farmland turned into solar farms/power stations around here. Those fields used to be full of sheep and used to produce hay.

I am yet to see a single sheep return to them and you can no use the land for hay. The whole point of the solar panel is to use the sunlight over it’s area so it drastically reduces the light available on that field to grow the grass, I also wonder what the water run-off effect is as it will probably just cause a soggy mess in front of the panel.

That said I am massively PRO-renewables, I just wish the UK government had not made such a hash of solar. The FITs were too generous and too open to abuse by the wrong people and are now pretty much gone. But on the flip side they were there to kick the industry into action and they have resulted in a massive uptake and a massive drop in solar cost and production efficiency.

What we should have done is made it a planning requirement that every new home and industrial building had a roof full of solar panels on all suitable aspects. Office block roofs could have been filled with them, sports centres, council buildings, bus and train stations, airports, farm buildings, industrial units etc etc all should have been first on the list before fields. I know it’s not that simple due to roof loadings on existing buildings and access etc and fields are an easy option but put generation near to use and near to existing power infrastructure and make the system more efficient.

oh and I forgot about car parks:

This wouldnt be much more difficult than installing on a greenfield site and could actually reduce with the problem of installing roads, grid connections etc and provide us with nice covered car parks and tie it in with electric car charging.

The only problem is the public who will probably try and steal them or vandalise them if you put them in a city. Out in the countryside we are a lot more civilised.

The FITs were too generous and too open to abuse by the wrong people and are now pretty much gone.

I am not sure what you mean by the wrong people, if you have an incentive the policy objective is to get the stuff deployed, it was – if you try and pick and choose who benefits you will inevitably end up with less deployment.

What we should have done is made it a planning requirement that every new home and industrial building had a roof full of solar panels on all suitable aspects.

Having to meet “green” standards is quite often a requirement, normally a particular BREEAM rating is required. This doesn’t necessary mean solar is proscribed, but often it will be a cost effective option to help meet the requirement. Having said that this is all very well in areas of high economic activity where good development returns are anticipated, if you are trying to regenerate an area, it is another obstacle that can deter investment. Obviously this is a local question, but that is where the decision resides as I understand it.

However, the plans were approved

It’s pretty much up and I’m guessing will be running very soon

(I imagine handily placed right by a road, too – if you want to steal a load of wiring)

I am not sure what you mean by the wrong people, if you have an incentive the policy objective is to get the stuff deployed, it was – if you try and pick and choose who benefits you will inevitably end up with less deployment.

There has been a lot of fudging of applications to properties that should have had money spent on reducing energy, people who could afford the panels anyway grabbed the payments encouraged by cowboy companies who were in it to make a quick buck with as little effort as possible, fudging of figures to maximise RHI payments, High FITs keeping prices inflated etc etc.

I would have rather seen lower FITs (or a sooner but more gradual reduction) along with proper assessments of suitability and means testing and priority on council owned buildings so eliminating the payments to the householder but letting them benefit from the free electricity.

People could afford the panels but they wouldn’t have invested because the returns would have been insufficient, likewise if you had means tested you would have had bugger all deployment. An incentive if to be effective will generally only benefit those who can deploy capital who tend to be rich. To you exclude the wealthy, you get very low uptake.

jambalaya – Member
Choices.

I certainly wouldn’t put them next to the road, clearly visible.

I hate the wind farms nearly as much, the ones in the sea are even worse than those on land

plus … I’d rather have Nuclear
Most of the solar farms I see are barely visible from the roads running past, purely because the fields have hedges, which shield them from view, except from a fair distance away, when they look like small lakes.
Whereas a turbine is visible from thirty miles away.

I hate the wind farms nearly as much, the ones in the sea are even worse than those on land

this might be the only recorded instance of this sentence in the history of the planet. Top grade nimbyism!

certainly wouldn’t put them next to the road, clearly visible.

Yes, it must ruin the view of all that tarmac, metal and glass.

I hate the wind farms nearly as much, the ones in the sea are even worse than those on land

It’s taken me all this time, until this sentence, to realise that jambalaya is the most dedicated and misunderstood troll of all time 🙂

That one near romsey is on my lunch time loop. I think it’s pretty nasty looking to be honest used to be a nice green field. Trucks made a right mess oftheroad but assume that’ll get sorted once they are finished. Overall I feel a bit nimby about them. No less ugly than a wind farm.

I’ve never really noticed them before. But what must be a relatively small one was the backdrop to a scramble I was riding in Sunday.
Can’t say it was an eyesore, it was just what it was. The countryside isn’t a chocolate box, its a working environment. A few minutes on you stopped noticing it.

I’d rather have Nuclear

Because of course, a whackibg great big nuclear power plant isn’t at all an eyesore

Because of course, a whackibg great big nuclear power plant isn’t at all an eyesore

No, but one of them, in the middle of nowhere would probably generate more power than a whole county of solar panels.

probably generate more power than a whole county of solar panels.

Probably, and certainly at a far higher cost and certainly produce nuclear waste.

I certainly wouldn’t put them next to the road, clearly visible.

Best place for them surely. WGAS about the view south of the M4 around J11? There are clusters around the A303 too, and I’ve always thought it made sense (as long as it’s actually contributing and not just a green wash / subsidy farming).

not just a green wash / subsidy farming

Not sure about the green wash – even the Green party seem to think it’s environmentally inept to put solar panels on productive agricultural land. It’s undoubtedly subsidy farming.

One has been built near us. The planning application had pictures showing how it would be rendered invisible by adjacent hedges and trees. No one was the least bit surprised when the trees and hedges were cut down after it went in.

Edit: There’s a floating one on a reservoir near Heathrow. That makes more sense.

one problem with nuclear is that it isn’t easily ‘turn off and on-able’. Good for base load on the grid but inflexible. This makes it a poor partner for variable renewables like wind and solar. Plus by the time its built it will be outdated technology.
A combination of wind, solar, batteries, and biogas would be more sustainable and flexible.

Plus by the time its built it will be outdated technology.

It doesn’t look like Hinkley Point will be operational by the time a lot of it’s middle aged fans on this forum snuff it, if it gets funded.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-35989850