Solar “farms” have featured in several articles on Cliscep, including John’s “Birdaggedon 3” and my own “Solar Giant Parks on Kent’s Lawn.”

Solar Giant talks about the project that began life as “Cleve Hill” and became “Project Fortress,” presumably as the irate locals started to grab their pitchforks. It was a nominal 350 MW with a footprint of 360 ha. They are expecting it to be sunny in Kent, because the typical ratio of land to power for solar farms is 2 ha : 1 MW. (According to Biofuelwatch via the NFU, and based on inspection of some planned schemes).

As I may have mentioned at some point, solar developers treat 50 MW (= c. 100 ha = 250 acres) as an important threshold. Once your project reaches 50 MW, it becomes nationally significant, and you have to go through more onerous planning procedures. Below that level (they love 49.9 MW for some reason…) you might get lucky and get the go-ahead from the local planning authority.

I decided to see how many Cleve Hills / Project Fortresses were in train, and so visited the Planning Inspectorate website to find out.

You can usefully apply filters, etc.

In so doing, I found 34 solar schemes in the works that exceed 50 MW (actually, the smallest is 100 MW). I was rather surprised to see that Cleve Hill is rather more than a troll than a giant: it ranks only 22nd in power. The biggest is the 840 MW Botley West Solar Farm. On our rule of thumb, this will cover 1680 ha, or if you prefer that metric, about 2,400 football pitches. It might do a bit better than that, because of the 34, it’s one of the most southerly.

This map shows the locations of the 34, and the circles are in proportion to each scheme’s size (not to scale). Together the 34 would have a nominal power of 14.7 GW (nothing at night). And there are a lot of 49.9 MW schemes to add to that. (The one Mark noted as rejected on the Birdaggedon 3 thread, Radlett Green, was 49.9 MW. It was rejected by the local planning authority in 2021 and the developer appealed to the Planning Inspectorate. It’s a rational move for a developer to have a punt at an appeal, given the amount of dosh that they have sunk into the proposal.)

Three of the schemes have been consented: Cleve Hill (2020); Little Crow (2022); and Longfield (2023). Decisions for three others are pending, and the rest are at various stages, many yet to submit planning proposals.

I provide this overview for interest. If I find the time, I will look at some of the sites in more detail. I am particularly interested of course in how they deal with matters ecological. My guess is that I will find much to disagree with in their Environmental Statements.

As far as I know, all the proposed developments have their own websites. For some reason, the developers’ preferred metric is how many houses their panels can power. It’s sometimes rather hard to find out how much land their scheme is going to cover. That though, you may be unsurprised to learn, is the preferred metric of the organised opposition groups, of which there are at least a few (I haven’t looked in detail yet).

Personally, I think solar PV at our latitude, with our weather, is a crazy plan. One in which the metric is not electrons flowing out of the farm, but greenbacks flowing into it’s owners’ pockets. But then, I’m an old cynic.

Solar and Britain: the perfect choice for a country “insane, and unsure of itself.”

Featured Image

Nothing to do with Britain. What happens when solar panels meet a hurricane (US Virgin Islands, via FEMA here).

21 Comments

  1. Thanks, Jit, a useful summary of the latest developments in the ongoing attempt to trash what is left of our once green and pleasant land.

    I very much agree that at our latitude and with our climate, relying on large-scale solar makes even less sense than relying on wind farms.

    This, I hope you agree, is a useful place to report on further developments.

    Like

  2. JIT, you are not alone. Consider the track record in the US southwest, where sunshine abounds.

    In short, solar has not been shining very bright since it came on the scene in the ’70s. Indeed, even in the sun-drenched Southwest, solar has proven inefficient, unreliable, and — when all costs are considered — expensive. That should be a warning:

    If it struggles here, in ideal conditions, how well
    can it be expected to perform in the rest of the country?

    https://rclutz.com/2023/01/09/southwestern-solar-bright-shining-disappointment/

    Liked by 1 person

  3. But why? When we lived near San Francisco (other side of the Bay) we installed rooftop solar water heating. We never regretted it. I was moved to Dallas so we didn’t get the full benefit but it added value when we sold our house. We would do the same again, but eastern England doesn’t get sufficient sunshine.

    Like

  4. Jit – thanks for the post & solar resource map above. just shows how useless solar resources are in the UK. wonder why Chile comes out as a hot spot (no pun intended)?

    Like

  5. ps – from your post pic, wonder what happens to any lecy cables running from that devastated solar farm? from the bottom right we see a sign “danger high voltage”!!!

    Like

  6. Ron, I think you can safely say that solar panels in England are not going to perform as well as they do in California.

    Alan, there are reasons why what might be good for us personally might not be so good generally. Having solar panels may well be a good idea for individual households, and they become ever more viable under present conditions: increasingly expensive electricity and increasingly cheap panels thanks to over supply. But they may act parasitically on the system as a whole, unless the demand is synchronised with the generation – which it most emphatically is not in the UK.

    Dougie, there is another photo somewhere from a year or two later with a rather post-apocalyptic feel about it. The panels have now been replaced I think, or certainly tidied up. I guess they may well still be live in that shot, but you could always disconnect them at night.

    Liked by 2 people

  8. Jit, At the risk of being pedantic, the 50MW output level changes the ground rules. 50MW and above, and the application is for a power station, and so comes under the 1989 Electricity Act, and usually falls under s36 of that Act. All a consequence of the miners strike.

    So here in Scotland the application goes to the Energy Consents Unit of the Scottish Government, who to some degree then make the decisions. However, the application has to be referred to the local planning authority as “consultees” and also to lesser mortals such as nearby community councils, and a host of other statutory bodies such as SEPA, Nature Scotland etc etc. If the Local Authority (the Planning Committee) decide to object, the Act stipulates that there “must” be a PLI.

    After the planning inquiry, Scottish Ministers review the Reporter’s decision, and decide whether to endorse it, or occasionally, overrule it. It’s not just Solar Arrays now— also numerous BESS units, where the notional output is above 50MW. Local opinions get lost in the process — as types like CCs and local objectors are told to make their comments to ECU and NOT to the Local Authority (in many areas, it varies a bit). This is because ECU is the deciding body, and the LA is just another consultee, we are told time and again….. not a happy subject. the clue is in the name — Energy CONSENTS Unit.

    Liked by 2 people

  9. Thanks Jit – a timely reminder that solar farms above 45degN are as purposeful as a chocolate fireguard – in the UK, if it weren’t for taxpayer & consumer funding via subsidies, CfDs etc, there would be zero business case for them, commercially or technically

    Like

  10. Jit – thanks for the pic update – looks like that solar site has just been left to rot.

    Like

  11. Jit- from your 2nd link –

    “If you’re unlucky enough to live in an area that is prone to hailstorms and are concerned for the well-being of your expensive solar panels there are several options available.

    Here are 5 that might just prevent your panels from getting a few facial scars.

    1. Buy a durable cover that can be quickly slung in place when a storm is inevitable.
    2. A polymer plastic called methacrylate is a highly recommended plexiglass shield that can be sprayed over the solar panels to add an additional layer of protection without impeding sunlight.
    3. Erecting a cage of mesh wiring over the solar panels is an excellent barrier to avoid any solar panel damage from hail, as long as the gaps are small enough.
    4. By installing a system that can change the angle of the solar panels, it would be possible to remotely tilt the panels into a vertical position to avoid the worst pelting of the hailstones.
    5. Purchase solar panels with the highest rating against severe storm incidents.4 UL 61730 and UIC 61730 are the highest ratings against hailstone impacts, while IP68 is the highest waterproof and dustproof ratings.”

    Like

  13. Dougie, I get the feeling that they were being a bit cheeky in using a field of panels damaged by a hurricane as support for the damage that hailstones might cause.

    Like

  14. Jit – wonder what happens when it rains cats & dogs (prompted by post by Tony:-)

    Like

  15. I note that the exceptional rainfall that occurred earlier this week in The UAE, where the equivalent of one and a half year’s rainfall fell between Monday night and Tuesday evening (so clearly weather) is officially described as a “climate event”.

    Like

  16. Alan,

    Some notes:

    Cloud-seeding operations preceded the storms. Their potential impact has to be allowed for:

    https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/middle-east/cloud-seeding-global-warming-what-caused-widespread-flooding-and-brought-dubai-to-a-grinding-halt/articleshow/109364695.cms

    It is normal for a year’s worth of rain to fall in one day in that region. It’s how the local weather works.

    Every time it happens, it floods. Dubai has no storm drainage system.

    They say this is unprecedented but records only go back to 1949.

    The rest is just standard extreme weather event attribution science. Cue Prof. Otto.

    Like

  17. Interesting John, those clouds must have been absolutely “loaded for bear”. Then to attribute the rainfall to “climate” makes this attribution so utterly ludicrous. Someone’s head will roll. Hopefully the 🌦️ “climate” forecaster.

    Like

  18. Suspect widespread nature of the rain (affecting Oman and Bahrain as well as the UAE) suggests it was not caused by cloud seeding. Rain reported to have affected Oman first and UAE issued “climate”/weather warning before being drenched.

    Like

  19. Alan,

    Indeed, the weathermen had forecast the storms, but someone went up and seeded regardless. I don’t think anyone should be saying the seeding ’caused’ anything, but it either works or it doesn’t, and if it does then it may have a bearing on how severe the rainfall could have been in at least some of the areas. On balance, however, I don’t think too much should be made of it.

    Like

  20. As was mentioned in the BBC weather report (I think) – “last time this happened was 75yrs ago”

    reported with the usual mantra “it will get worse climate scientists say “good news for Aquifers in the region thou”

    Like

Leave a comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.