Professor Gordon Hughes recently posted an interesting article regarding the economics and utility of solar farms at higher latitudes. It’s well worth a read, but for me the key sentence was this:
Even on assumptions that are either extremely optimistic (based on actual evidence rather than fantasy forecasts) or inconsistent with current economic conditions, developing solar plants in locations north of 53°N makes no sense.
Why, then, is there a mad rush to build solar developments in Scotland? And why is there a sudden rush to build them in Cumbria? I live at well north of 54°N, and there are two massive projects planned a short distance from where I reside. The first (reported on here and here) is between Egremont and Dent Fell, on the edge of the Lake District National Park (my estimate is that it’s within two miles of the National Park boundary), and (quite apart from the latitude issue) is in a completely inappropriate location. At least, that’s what I think, and so do many people who live closer to the site than I do. At 200 acres, it’s the size (depending on how one measures these things) of 125 football pitches. It’s to be called (for no good reason, so far as I can see) Cobra Castle Solar Farm, and the developer’s website contains a number of what I regard as questionable statements:
This site has been carefully selected to deliver clean, renewable energy while supporting biodiversity, ecology and the local community.
“Clean” and “renewable” is a matter of opinion. I don’t know where the solar panels will come from, but given that the IEA reckons that more than 80% of such products are made in China, there has to be a good chance that some if not all of the Cobra Castle solar panels will be manufactured there – using electricity generated by coal, possibly using Uighur slave labour, and being transported halfway round the world in diesel-fuelled ships. That’s before we discuss the mining of the materials utilised in their manufacture.
The proposals are temporary…
I accept that forty years (the proposed life of the plant) is less than permanent, but it will span the active years of someone in their late teens when it’s built, so it’s not exactly short-term.
During this time, the land will maintain its greenfield classification…
What does that mean? Is that under planning legislation? It will certainly be converted to a massive industrial site, with associated Battery Energy Storage System (BESS).
Generating cheap, renewable energy…
This is a claim that is often made for renewables, but as we have seen it is certainly questionable.
The proposed 35MW, 200 acre solar farm would be able to generate enough green energy to meet the annual energy needs of approximately 15,000 homes.
This claim is dependent on it achieving electricity generation at the levels claimed, and I have no way of knowing how accurate the claim is. Naturally it makes no mention of the fact that it will produce next to nothing in winter, nothing overnight, and is generally unreliable. I can’t state with confidence how much capacity will be lost over time due to photovoltaic degredation, but over 40 years I imagine it will not be insubstantial. All of which means that the headline claims should be treated with caution. And even if the headline figure is accurate, it amounts to intermittent electricity for just 120 homes for every football field of solar panels.
Genuine benefits for local residents including a community benefit and education fund of £680,000 over the projects [sic] lifetime.
This should also be probed for clarity. £680,000 sounds like a lot of money, but over 40 years it represents just £17,000 p.a. or little more than £1 p.a. for each of those 15,000 homes whose energy needs the developers claim they will meet. And that assumes that we take the headline figure at face value. Is it to be index-linked? Is it to be spread over 40 years without indexation? If so, it will be virtually worthless before very long.
There is to be a community consultation which closes on Sunday 13th April. I hope the locals take the opportunity to probe the above claims and to make their opposition clear. The problem is, it doesn’t matter how many people object, and however lucid their objections. We all know that the consultation process involves little more than going through the motions, since with the government’s obsessive drive to grid decarbonisation and its proposed amendments to the planning laws, it will be nothing short of a miracle if this proposal does not receive planning permission.
Which is a long-winded way of leading in to the proposed solar farm development I really want to talk about, namely Lostrigg Solar. My interest in this development was piqued when I spotted a pile of glossy brochures in my local library the other day. They are hot off the press (dated March 2025) and are numerous copies of the Lostrigg Solar “Statement of Community Consultation”. If the prospect of Cobra Castle’s 200 acres is daunting to environmentalists, then Lostrigg Solar’s 417 hectares (or approximately 1,030 acres, or 584 football pitches) might induce a shudder. The glossy magazine tells us that in addition to the photovoltaic panels, there is to be a co-located BESS, an on-site sub-station, and a range of supporting infrastructure, including inverters, transformers, switchgear, and security measures such as fencing, CCTV and lighting.
Acronym alert: because the development is so vast (with a “potential generation capacity of up to 100 megawatts (MW)”), it is classified as a Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project (NSIP) – a designation triggered at 50 MW. This means that it requires a Development Consent Order (DCO) under the Planning Act 2008. As part of this process, a Statutory Consultation must take place for a minimum of 28 days, but first, pursuant to section 47 of the Planning Act the developer has to prepare a Statement of Community Consultation (SoCC), to explain how it will carry out the Statutory Consultation. This all seems very worthy, but also very bureaucratic, and rather pointless, given that under the current government the odds are that this development will be rubber-stamped by the Secretary of State in due course in any event, whatever well-founded objections local communities may raise during the Statutory Consultation.
There is a Preliminary Environmental Information Report (PEIR), with accompanying Non-Tecnical Summary (NTS) and other draft DCO documents, including draft Management Plans, Draft Design Approach Document (DAD) and draft Policy Compliance Document (PCD). With me so far? If not, this might help:
The PEIR sets out potential impacts and accompanying mitigation.
The draft Management Plans outline the proposed management regimes for the Proposed Development.
The draft DAD sets out the design approach and design parameters.
The draft PCD sets out a detailed schedule of all the relevant national and local planning policy and how the Proposed Development responds to these.
There is a Core Consultation Zone and a wider consultation area, plus “seldom heard, hard to reach, groups and wider outreach”. Commendably, these include the likes of West Cumbria Society for the Blind, Cumbria Deaf Association, Cumbria Academy for Autism, Alzheimer’s Society West Cumbria and North Cumbria West Community Team, and many others, who my instincts tell me probably won’t be very interested, but it appears to be inclusive and therefore looks good. Among those others, however, are a surprising number of bodies who I suspect are bound to be both interested and supportive. It’s only when you see them listed that you realise how far the Green Blob’s tentacles spread. Bear in mind that this is just in respect of west Cumbria: Bridgefoot and Little Clifton Energy Hub Working Group (Bridgefoot and Little Clifton Energy Hub is a working group of Bridgefoot and Little Clifton Parish Council, set up to look for ways the community and residents can reduce energy costs, improve energy efficiency and thereby reduce carbon emissions”); Cumbria Action for Sustainablity (“We are Cumbria’s climate change charity. We’re here to help Cumbrians to reduce their carbon footprint and prevent climate change.”); Cumbria Sustainability Network (The network meets monthly online and helps the groups to strengthen their influence on carbon reduction at a more strategic level in county, by working collectively as well as campaigning as individual groups. The CSN is an important part of the Zero Carbon Cumbria Partnership, helping to ensure that the voice of the community takes centre stage in the county’s carbon reduction plans. The CSN is supported by a coordinator, thanks to the Zero Carbon Cumbria funding from the National Lottery’s Climate Action Fund.”); Friends of the Earth – Cumbria; Cumbrian Energy Revolution (“We believe the best way to develop the West Cumbrian economy is through a green revolution concentrating on renewable energy rather than expanding the nuclear industry”); South Lakes Action on Climate Change (what’s it got to do with them? – they’re nowhere near the Proposed Develoment, though that didn’t stop them vociferously opposing the proposed coal mine); Zero Carbon Cumbria; and Cumberland Council Climate Team.
I think it’s fair to say that this “outreach” section of the exercise is aimed at reaching people with little or no interest (not likely to respond and not likely to object, but boxes duly ticked) and also in generating as many positive and supportive responses as possible from reliably vocal renewables cheer-leaders..
Back to the process. Once the consultation exercise has been completed, the application goes to the Planning Inspectorate (PINS), as the body responsible for managing the examination process for NSIPs. In the case of energy-related NSIPs, however, PINS acts on behalf of the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (currently Mr Miliband). Should PINS accept the application for examination, an Examining Authority will be appointed, and the public will be able to submit a relevant representation and become an interested party. The application will then be examined and a recommendation made to Mr Miliband (assuming he’s still the relevant Secretary of State by then). He will review the recommendation and decide whether to grant consent. I don’t imagine William Hill will give me long odds on a bet on the outcome. In which case, really, what’s the point of all of the above?
By the way, the application is being submitted by a subsidiary of German company RWE, so this will be yet another piece of critical energy infrastructure owned by a foreign company. They’re a little more coy than the proposed developers of Cobra Castle, and they don’t commit to any specific sum with regard to community benefits, merely observing that the development “has the potential to support local initiatives through a community benefit fund which would take the form of annual payments spread across the 40-year operational period”. They have, however, used the same crib sheet as Cobra Castle (I suspect these are standard claims with developments of this sort, however outlandish they may be) – claiming the potential to boost local biodiversity such as by establishing wildflower meadows and grassland areas (despite the fact that much of the area they propose to blight already consists of such areas); explore opportunities to enhance green infrastructure, such as woodland blocks and hedgerow planting; explore opportunities for continued low intensity grazing during operation; and provide opportunities for enhanced public operation and access.
I note the lack of commitment – “explore opportunities” is not the same as saying they have firm proposals to put forward. It’s difficult to see how the industrialisation of a vast area of farmland can be described as enhancing biodiversity, but that’s the topsy turvy world we now live in.
Within fairly close proximity, then, we see two proposed developments that are at a northerly latitude where they make no sense, which when they go ahead will industrialise existing farm land, and which involve (especially in the case of Lostrigg) massive bureaucratic exercises that are surely nothing more than a charade, a pointless formality. My money is on both developments being granted planning permission without much difficulty. Should the local authority refuse permission for Cobra Castle Solar Farm I have no doubt permission will be granted on appeal, and Lostrigg, being a NSIP which will go to Mr Miliband and will be rubber-stamped with enthusiasm and alacrity.
I shall be watching developments. If it turns out that I am wrong, I will eat humble pie in a comment below the article. Watch this space.
Climate Scepticism 
Grotesque. Lostrigg alone equates to the industrialisation of an area of Cumbrian countryside roughly the same size as the large town of Workington itself and according to Gordon Hughes, even at the current rate of generous subsidies on offer in AR6, given its latitude, it cannot be economically viable. In other words, RWE will not recoup the capital and maintenance costs of developing and running Lostrigg at the current auction market prices for solar. So why is this planning application going ahead? I suggest it it a loss leader. RWE have agreed with the government that they will develop this site purely to notch up yet another contribution to the government’s carbon reduction targets and in return, the government will make sure that they profit from more lucrative developments elsewhere. Lostrigg will do nothing to address an imaginary ‘climate crisis’ and next to nothing to supply secure, inexpensive, reliable energy to power homes and businesses. But it will look good on paper – another step towards Miliband’s impossible Net Zero dream. And all that talk about ‘community benefits’, ‘sustainability’, ‘clean power’ and environmental and wildlife benefits is just BS. The community and the environment are better off without this mass industrialisation of the countryside, and the ‘climate’ and weather won’t notice a goddamn thing. It’s sickening. My guess also is that this land, after being abused for solar development, will not be returned to rural use, but will end up being developed as housing and other industrial use. That’s probably part of the long term plan. The massive expansion of Workington eastwards towards the Lake District. No doubt a mega mosque will feature somewhere too.
LikeLike
Jaime,
It’s not impossible that RWE has committed to this as part of an ongoing arrangement with the government whereby it makes massive profits from generous CfDs and lots of subsidies generally. A look at the sections of RWE’s website dealing with its UK renewables (existing and in the course of development) is rather scary, if one believes in energy security, in UK energy being owned by UK companies or by the UK government, and if one believes that unreliable renewables are a mistake:
https://uk.rwe.com/our-energy/offshore-wind/
https://uk.rwe.com/our-energy/onshore-wind/
https://uk.rwe.com/our-energy/solar-power/
As regards solar:
RWE is a global leader in renewables, with significant experience and expertise in the development, construction and operation of innovative clean energy technologies. We are committed to developing projects that benefit the local community, the natural environment, and wildlife.
With over 1 gigawatt (GW) of solar energy projects approved in the UK since 2022, we are committed to benefitting local communities, the environment, and wildlife through innovative solar and co-located battery storage solutions.
As a leading partner in the delivery of the UK’s clean energy transition and energy security, RWE is progressing a mature project pipeline with a combined capacity of around 6.7 GW, split into c. 4.4 GW of solar and c. 2.5 GW of co-located battery storage. We are on track to commission hundreds of megawatts (MW) of new solar capacity annually, with over 500MW of solar farms currently under construction in the UK.
RWE has a mature development pipeline of solar projects which already have grid connections and land secured, as well as the necessary planning approvals from the relevant authorities already in place. Our first UK solar projects entered construction in 2024 and the first of these will become operational in 2025.
At the same time, we are continuing to grow our development portfolio. We were the most successful solar developer in Auction Round 5 of the Contracts for Difference, securing agreements for six UK solar projects, followed by a further three successful projects in the most recent auction. Together, these projects account for enough renewable electricity generation capacity to power thousands of UK homes, support local supply chains and jobs, and make an important contribution to the UK’s ambitions for net zero and energy security.
Why Solar?
Solar and co-located battery storage are an important part of the UK’s future energy mix, and a key component in the decarbonisation of our energy system. The new UK Government has committed to achieving clean power by 2030. To support this, the Government is aiming to triple solar capacity by the end of the decade.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Mark:
RWE:
Yep, Lostrigg is a loss leader, as I suspected. If Net Zero doesn’t fall apart pronto and if Miliband isn’t sacked, preferably this spring, then untold damage will be done to the British economy and the rural environment and way of life.
LikeLike
On the sole issue of latitude of solar, should the public be concerned?
Its installation will be a commercial decision by its proposer. Low energy output will mean we fork out fewer subsidies.
In Britain, a very broad observation is that land values are inversely proportional to latitude.
Consequently, if all other things are equal, the developer has a trade-off between up-front lower capital cost vs reduced revenue. There’s a reasonable expectation that land value will increase in the future. That, in turn, may, just may, discourage simple abandonment at the solar farm’s end-of-(profitable)-life.
LikeLike
Joe Public,
I take your point, but would counter it by suggesting that the bigger issue is the fact that the further north one goes, the less efficient and useful are solar farms. In a country as far north as the UK, our greatest need for energy is in the winter, when solar produces little, and we have least need in summer, when it produces most.
Of course , that is a common sense argument against large scale solar energy in the UK, but it is an argument that becomes more intense the further north you go.
I think this matters for at least two reasons. We should seek to optimise the efficiency of our energy supply, not reduce it, as this development does. And I have little doubt that we will be paying for this inefficient energy generation via the CfD regime in due course. It makes no sense.
Finally, I know the site of the proposed development reasonably well. It is not remotely brown field. It is productive farmland, highly visible from a main road which currently enjoys glorious views to the Lakeland hills. Those views, and the ecology of the site, will be trashed if and when this goes ahead. It represents environmental vandalism, and there isn’t even a coherent economic case in its favour.
LikeLike
The economic case gets stronger the higher wholesale electricity prices get. But on the face of it, it’s a dumb place to site a solar farm. As well as the latitude, there is also the issue of the near-constant rain in the neighbourhood.
I’ve just had a look at the habitats report and the invertebrate report. The latter leaves a lot to be desired. There also needs to be a botany survey by a competent person (Field Identification Skills Certificate Level 4 accredited by the Botanical Society of Britain and Ireland in case you would like to feed that back in the community consultation!).
The eventual Biodiversity Net Gain assessment will require close scrutiny. At a distance, it seems that it will be difficult for the development to pass on site. (It is much easier to leap this hurdle on southern arable field sites, which generally have a very low-scoring baseline, any biodiversity long since destroyed in favour of increasing productivity.)
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hi Mark. Thanks for your rapid response.
My comment referred to “… the sole issue of latitude of solar …”
LikeLike
Joe Public ,
Yes, I appreciate that, and your input is always welcome.
My response went beyond yours, but I think I covered the point you made, in the process.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Jit,
I wouldn’t go so far as to say that we experience near-constant rain here in west Cumbria. Indeed, the rivers are currently low after a fairly dry winter and a very dry March.
But I think it’s certainly fair to say that on grounds of latitude, cloud cover, rain, and proximity to centres of demand for electricity, west Cumbria must be one of the least sensible places in England to site a solar farm.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yes, it’s been quite sunny and settled here throughout a lot of Feb and March – just for a change. But there again, Lostrigg if it were built would still be generating next to bugger all because of the northerly latitude and the shallow angle of the sun at this time of year. Only now is the sun starting to feel powerful. But generally, the Cumbrian coastal zone, being on the prevailing windward side of the Lake District mountains, experiences rather more rain (and cloudy days) than further east. So meteorology and geography both argue strongly against the siting of a solar installation. This is why the UK is only the second worst densely populated place in the world to site solar – rain-sodden Ireland being the worst! Something to do with being closer to the Arctic circle than the equator, being stuck in the path of the mid latitude jet stream and having a flipping great ocean on one side and the North Sea on t’other!
LikeLiked by 1 person
I liked this comment on Ed Miliband from Jason Cowley in the Sunday Times:
The net-zero champion is a solid friend of the PM but many colleagues and donors associate him with some of the party’s most abject defeats
“We saw the second face of Labour on Friday morning when Ed Miliband was sent out on a tour of the broadcast studios. This was a rare media outing for the former party leader, who was largely hidden during the general election campaign. The day after John Healey, the defence secretary, had warned adversaries about the potential of Britain’s nuclear weapons “to do untold damage” and Starmer had threatened Putin, here was Miliband promoting the government’s plan to fit more solar panels to schools and hospitals.
The timing of the announcement was eccentric, and Miliband neglected to say until asked on LBC that Britain was importing solar panels from China. Labour MPs were irritated. They complained they were being asked to send out press releases about solar panels being fitted at their under-resourced and overstretched local hospitals.”
LikeLiked by 1 person
The proposed solar developments in Cumbria are absurd and awful, but I suppose it could be worse. This is a global descent into insanity, it seems:
“One hundred olive farmers face eviction to make way for giant solar farm
‘They’re taking our livelihood’ – Spanish farmers protest expropriation made possible by Franco-era law”
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2025/03/23/100-olive-farmers-face-eviction-to-make-way-for-giant-solar/
One hundred thousand olive trees are to be uprooted in the south of Spain to make way for solar farms.
The Junta de Andalucía, the regional government, is using a Franco-era law to carry out forced expropriations from centuries-old olive groves in the Province of Jaén, which is known as the “olive oil capital of the world”.
Greenalia, a green energy company, is allegedly poised to turn 900 hectares into large-scale solar panels and wind farms, meaning about 100 farmers could lose their land.
The worst affected areas are in the Jaén municipalities of Lopera, Arjona and Marmolejo, where the equivalent of about 100 football fields of olive trees will be lost, according to the North Campiña platform, an advocacy group.
So far 5,000 olive trees have been uprooted, sources told The Telegraph.
The farmers are protesting against the expropriation, with North Campiña taking legal action against Greenalia for alleged environmental crimes.
Juan Campos, 67, an olive farmer in Jaén, said: “We have no support from the politicians of the Andalucian government, nor from the agricultural unions; they have never contacted us, nor have the environmentalists. Where are the environmentalists?”.…
Using Franco-era laws? Eco-Fascism, then.
LikeLike
We were regularly in the Jaen area during the 90’s and 00’s, it is like travelling through a mountainous sea of olive trees dotted with little white farm houses and the occasional olive oil factory shimmering in 40 +c heat. The road from Bailen to Granada goes right through the Jaen area which spreads out as far as the eye can see. Due to the mountains and the weather, olives were always the best bet, it was against the law to cut down any tree still producing olives. It wouldn’t surprise me if that law was created and written during Franco’s era to protect the workers and the little cooperatives which ran the oil factories. The infrastructures required to build the solar farms and take the power out will cause major upheavals, not a lot of big roads in the area. If the world depended on solar this area is a mega better area than Cumbria, but it’s still dark at night !
LikeLike
If it makes no sense to build massive solar farms in northwest Cumbria, it makes even less sense to build them in Scotland. Yet now we have this:
“Welcome to Woodheads Energy Park Community Exhibition
Thank you for your interest on the first round of our community consultation for Woodheads Energy Park”
https://www.aboenergy.com/uk/company/projects/scotland/woodheadsenergypark/01_welcome.html
As summarised on the Keep the Scottish Borders Beautiful Facebook page:
The whole proposal is 187 hectares / 448 acres.
If the Lauder Threepwood/Gala North substation went ahead the battery and solar installation would happen. No substation = no solar and battery station.
They claim that 68 shipping containers full of lithium batteries AND a small substation would fit on one hectare (2.4 acres) and be sufficiently fire resistant. Does that sound realistic? Most BESS sites of 100 MW seem to be in the 5 hectare region. The site is directly south west of Lauder, ie the prevailing wind direction.
They were cagey about how they would make the money:
Could be a Contracts for Difference guaranteed price on the solar power. Doubt that is profitable in Scotland.
They could sell the nominal energy in a Power Purchase Agreement, ie to a corporation that wants sustainability credits.
They could act as turn key and sell the whole package to a new investor to negotiate an income
Or they could lease the battery part to NESO for grid stability. Highly profitable
The ecology consultants are surveying the site now. The Land Use Consultant didn’t seem aware of several species in the area.
The whole site would be surrounded by 6 ft security fencing. Most of it would run alongside a mile or so of the Southern Upland Way.
They claim there would be biodiversity enhancements, but as nearly every inch of the site would be black solar panels or lithium batteries that could only be minimal. If the site was built there would be no way to enforce compliance on any of the planning conditions anyway.
LikeLike
Mark, the point about the fencing is an important one. Developers often make claims about biodiversity that don’t account for the fact that every mammal over a certain size is shut out of the new, often large, compound. It also doesn’t account for the fact that animals moving across the landscape suddenly have to go quite a long way around to get anywhere.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Sick, sick, sick! They are going to destroy valuable arable farmland and a significant area of woodland in order to develop an ‘Energy Park’. Ooh, that sounds nice. What, is that like a Country Park then, with trees and grass and pleasant streams, benefiting both wildlife and the ‘community’? NO! It’s rows and rows and rows of grotesque black mirrors made by slaves in China surrounded by a six foot security fence, with huge lithium batteries made from leached rare earth minerals toxifying thousands of acres of land in some out of sight foreign land, destroying the environment, lives and livelihoods there, so the government here, in collusion with grifting ‘renewables’ companies, can virtue signal their intent to ‘save the planet’ from a ‘climate crisis’ invented by the Guardian! Do you want a working definition of evil, operating at the local scale? Woodheads Energy ‘Park’ is it. Look the Devil in the eye and recognise him for what he is.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Is this an unfortunate one-off, or something we can “look forward to”?
“Live: Fire crews battling huge blaze at solar farm
Residents have been warned to keep doors and windows closed”
https://www.gloucestershirelive.co.uk/news/regional-news/live-fire-crews-battling-huge-10064300
…Locals have been told to keep doors and windows closed as crews battle the blaze. It is thought the smoke may spread to Driffield and possibly further.…
Goodness only knows what’s in the smoke.
LikeLike
The firelit uplands?
LikeLike
Milliband’s dreams, one hopes.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Looks like the fire was on Friday. I can’t see any updates since then, so hopefully it fizzled out.
LikeLike
“Lake District: Save Dent Fell group set up to fight solar farm plans”
https://www.newsandstar.co.uk/news/25054982.lake-district-save-dent-fell-group-set-fight-solar-farm-plans/
…Dan Shutt, spokesman for The Save Dent Fell Group, said: “We are just local people, ordinary mams and dads who have grown up loving that landscape, and we want to preserve it for our children and theirs.
“We’re not against solar — not at all — but there are lots of places they could put a solar park if we are so desperate for solar energy. Brownfield sites like industrial estates and car parks are surely better options than blighting the landscape that we’ve grown up with?
“This site would be massive — 200 acres. I know that will be just numbers to some people, but to give you some context, that’s roughly 113 football pitches. It will be absolutely massive, and you’ll see it for miles around.
“Dent Fell has been the backdrop to our towns and villages forever. It is a treasured part of the Lakeland landscape and we must protect it.”
Dan added: “The plans have already been drawn up and published in detail on their website, so the consultation might seem like it’s all decided. What we hope is that if enough local people let them know how we feel, they might think again.”…
LikeLike
“We’re not against solar” is the wrong line from people campaigning against solar. Put it on brownfields or car parks is a non-starter. A minute later they note that it will cover 200 acres – getting on for a square kilometre, and that’s quite small in comparison to some of the solar giants we have noted in plan elsewhere (up to 1,000 ha or 10 sq. km.). There just isn’t room for all this on brownfield or car parks or the roofs of industrial buildings. As it is, the objectors are well within their rights to oppose this solar installation, but “build it somewhere else” is not a valid answer. However, it’s the same up and down the country, where people recognise the destructiveness of a specific development in their locality, but inevitably make a statement in favour of such developments generally.
Nimbyism is valid – we are likely to care about the environment around us, and want to protect it, but it should not be a way to push unwanted development onto someone else’s lawn.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Jit,
It’s just not good enough. They bloody well should be against solar, in practice, in their own back yard, and in principle against solar in anyone’s backyard, in these “cloud-bolted” northerly British Isles and especially in bloody Cumbria. Because it’s useless, even on its own terms, even if you buy in to the grim fairy tale of an evil carbon-induced ‘climate crisis’. I’m getting heartily sick of reading this brain-dead “we’re not against…” line. We need a better class of environmental protestor I fear, if we are going to make progress against these Green grifting zealots. I shall be contacting the Save Dent Fell Group, pointing out Prof. Gordon Hughes’ research just for starters.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Typical, you can contact them on Facebook . . . . . if you’re on Facebook!
LikeLike
I have posted a comment on their Facebook page mentioning Gordon Hughes’ work
LikeLiked by 2 people
Thanks Mark.
LikeLike
Jaime,
There has been no response from the Save Dent Fell Facebook group, with regard to my comment. However, someone has recently posted their email to the local MP, which includes this:
I fully support renewable energy but not on the side of a beautiful fell that Wainwright thought worthy of writing about.
One of the comments beneath that post says:
I love wind power for obvious reasons, but there’s still room at sea for more, why destroy a popular bit of landscape?
I give up.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thanks for trying Mark.
I’m inclined to agree.
LikeLike
Jaime,
We have progress – a comment agreeing with me, and asking for more links to work by Gordon Hughes, which I have supplied. Let’s hope people read them and have their eyes opened. They have about 1,000 followers on the Facebook page now.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“Group opposes 200-acre solar farm near fell”
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cp91yvpvlr7o
Oliver Dorgan, from Save Dent Fell Group, said: “We fully support net-zero and this isn’t about being against any project.“
Mr Dorgan said the group “welcomed Belltown Power coming forward and outside investment”.
“What we don’t accept is sacrificing Dent Fell and the very important role that it plays for our community.”
Wrong, wrong, wrong! I despair of such people. They allow the developers to class them as NIMBYs, for indeed that is what they are. There are many logical reasons for opposing solar farms – taking agricultural land out of use; environmental blight; their despoliation of the planet in the search for the raw materials they use; the possible use of Uighur slave labour in their manufacture; their need for subsidies; their unreliability and spectacular uselessness in winter when the energy they are supposed to provide is most needed; and their pointlessness in far northern latitudes. Ignoring all that, saying you support net zero, but you don’t want your view to be spoiled is not the way to win a very winnable argument.
And where’s the opposition to the much bigger solar farm that’s being planned just up the road?
LikeLiked by 1 person
We are in Whitby for few days enjoying some very sunny weather. We are regular visitors to either Alnwick or Whitby as we have had more regular good weather than the visits we’ve made to Cumbria . I can’t remember seeing any huge acreage of solar on the Yorkshire moors, is it so sacred it can’t be touched ? If the sunshine hours are better on the East why chase a lesser option on the West ?
LikeLike
National Park status might explain it – Northumberland and North Yorkshire Moors in the case of your holiday destinations. The Lake District National Park doesn’t extend to the area where developers want to build two huge solar farms in west Cumbria (though both will be very visible from the National Park, which suggests that perhaps it’s time to ban massive infrastructure projects from being constructed within, say, ten miles of any national park boundaries).
LikeLiked by 1 person
There is a rural zone between the Solway Coast AONB and the Lake District National park which has no real protection against poor planning; hence the two proposed massive solar ‘farms’ are in that area – which is nonetheless still very beautiful and rural and offers spectacular views of the peaks of the NW Lakes. The AONB stretches from Maryport to Silloth, then inland along the Solway estuary and marshes towards Carlisle. Hopefully, AONB status will stop Miliband from despoiling this landscape with his useless wind turbines and solar panels, although I wouldn’t be in the least surprised if it doesn’t. I’m not aware of any applications so far, but rest assured, I’ll be putting my NIMBY hat on if there are.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Jaime, we stayed in a beautiful farmhouse just inland from Mawbray, took the younger grandchildren as a first holiday away with granny and grandpa. Kids loved the huge garden and the beach at Allonby , weather was good aswell.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“‘Ed Miliband’s solar blitz has ruined my life’”
Wrong answer.
Telegraph link.
LikeLiked by 2 people
James, just a bit further along the coast at Beckfoot, you can almost walk a third of the way to Scotland at low tide. The Solway Estuary is a beautiful area – both sides of the border.
LikeLike
JamesS, solar panels will be everywhere, including, it seems, Northumberland (the bits outside the national park, anyway):
“Duke to build thousands of solar panels after criticising ‘easy money’ green projects
Duke of Northumberland accused of hypocrisy after previously criticising landowners seduced by eco-friendly energy”
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/04/08/duke-northumberland-estate-solar-farm-green-projects/
The Duke of Northumberland is planning to erect thousands of solar panels on his land despite criticising landowners seduced by the “easy money” of renewable energy……
LikeLike
I don’t want to get too technical here…..but Solar Farms, BESS and even international interconnectors are DC (Direct Current) and our grid operates on AC (Alternating Current) and these two just ain’t the same thing! Simply inverting DC to AC does NOT create the same type of AC from large spinning, high inertia, generators. Whilst it is often mentioned in passing that “grid forming” supplies are needed very few people actually seem to financially quantify these probably because they simply don’t understand them.
VAR might stand for Video Assistant Referee but also for Volt Ampere Reactive – how many advocates of “clean” energy have even heard of “Reactive Power” let alone know what it is, how it is generated and controlled and why it is so crucially important. Terms like SCL (short circuit level) RoCoF, (rate of change of frequency) IIFL (infrequent infeed loss limit) and many others are a complete mystery to Green zealots. Even the simplest concepts such as why 3000rpm and synchronicity are so important are completely lost on most of these activist types – who needs experts eh?
The way things are going – controlled by grifters and spivs – the electricity supply system (Transmission Grid + District Networks) will get progressively worse very rapidly and then it will suddenly collapse. But what do I know? – Octopus fund organisations to claim I peddle disinformation!.
LikeLiked by 4 people
Ray, yes! Yes! Yes! And let us not forget the quality of the AC waveform; ideally it should be just the 50Hz sine wave and completely free of harmonic pollution i.e. as pure as the white/green snow that the rent-seekers spread about. Regards, John C.
LikeLike
Ray S and John C,
Thanks for the input. It’s in danger of going over my head too, I freely admit. However, what you say doesn’t surprise me. I concentrate my criticism on the inappropriate location of solar farms and the damage they cause to agriculture and nature, but that there should be technical arguments against them too just reinforces the case for criticism of the UK’s energy policy.
LikeLike
Meanwhile:
“Solar farm set for approval despite objections”
Of course it is!
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c9w8gvr9g1vo
Plans for a 200 acre (about 80 hectare) solar farm are being recommended for approval, despite objections to the scheme.
Renewable energy firm Albanwise Synergy said the development near Reepham, Norfolk, would generate enough power for 14,000 homes.
Reepham Town Council and Broadland and Fakenham Conservative MP Jerome Mayhew have both objected to the proposal, citing concerns over the loss of farmland and the impact of the development on the area.
But a report advises Broadland District Council’s planning committee to approve the Pettywell solar farm, advising it would “provide a source of clean green renewable energy”.
Such plans are proving increasingly controversial, and some of the UK’s largest solar farms are being proposed for Norfolk near the likes of Dereham, Long Stratton and Diss.
Because of their size, the proposed sites are what the government calls “nationally significant infrastructure projects” – and the final say on them lies with ministers….
LikeLike
Mark, let us not forget too that wind and solar have a much lower power density per unit of land area (or sea area) than conventional (fossil or nuclear) power plant. In prof. MacKay’s book “Sustainable Energy – without the hot air” he quotes the following approximate figures (pages 112, 167, 177):-
Off-shore wind = 3 W/m^2,
Solar PV panels = 5 – 20 W/m^2 (but see Note 1 below),
Nuclear power station = 1,000 W/m^2.
Note 1. The figures above for solar appear to be very optimistic for UK sites. Based on data in MacKay (page 46) and Andrews & Jelley “Energy Science” (3rd ed., page 308) a more realistic figure for the latitude of London when annual sunshine hours are accounted for is 3.9 W/m^2.
Thus in the UK a solar farm is likely to take up about 250 times more land than a nuclear plant of the same power rating. As MacKay says (page 177), “Renewable facilities have to be country-sized because all renewables are so diffuse”. Is that why your quote says, “Because of their size, the proposed sites are what the government calls “nationally significant infrastructure projects” ” i.e. size in the sense of area consumed as much as size in the sense of intermittent power delivered?
Regards, John C.
LikeLiked by 1 person
You can reel off the very real and significant technical, economic, social, environmental etc. limitations of wind and solar until the cows come home (or don’t, because dairy farmers have been driven off their land), but it won’t make a blind bit of difference to the climate zealots and Green grifters. It’s ‘clean Green energy’ and that’s all that matters. Three words. Not all the huge mass of detail which, if it were to be assessed accurately and fairly, would mean that renewables would never be considered as anything other than a niche electrical generation capacity for an industrialised, modern nation like the UK. We’re beyond Peak Stupid – and still ascending.
LikeLiked by 4 people
This metric of “enough to power x homes” ranks somewhere between BS and outright lying. Last year I used just 2,500kWh of electricity and nearly 16,000kWh of gas (detached split level 4 bed bungalow in Kent).
So how much “power” did I use? Well obviously I consumed energy and nobody was interested (yet) in how much power I used at any given time. How much will I use if I kick out the gas combi boiler, gas oven and hob, switch the Ebac hot fill washing machine to a typical cold fill only, use an electric kettle instead of one on the gas hob etc etc.
This goes back to my “grifters and spivs” comment above. The “clean, green energy” proponents are using sales techniques that make 70’s double glazing salesmen look honest. Surely there are laws against the blatant misrepresentation we are being subjected to. Anyone know an “honest” lawyer?
LikeLiked by 3 people
Ray S,
I would like to think that Robin Guenier and I both fit into that category. Unfortunately we have retired.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Here’s another one. Cumbria is under siege:
“Solar farm ‘size of 115 football pitches’ opposed”
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cp31qew6rgpo
A residents’ group has opposed plans for a solar farm the size of 115 football pitches.
Innova Renewables Developments Limited submitted a planning application to Westmorland and Furness Council for a 203-acre (82-hectare) solar farm and energy storage system on land near Riddings Lane in Gleaston, in south Cumbria.
But Riddings Lane Solar Farm Action Group said the site would be “too industrialised” for the countryside, and raised concerns over noise during construction and from the battery storage.
The planning application said there would be “moderate to minor” impacts on the landscape character which would be “minimised” by a landscaping scheme.
But here it is again, the NIMBY pose that lets down the opponents:
A spokesperson for the resident’s group said: “We’re not against solar power, we just think there’s more appropriate places for it, such as brownfield sites.”
A better response might have been to question the wisdom of solar developments at such a northerly latitude.
LikeLiked by 2 people
South Cumbria? The more well-to-do part? From whence hail SLACC members who got together to oppose the Whitehaven coalmine in working class Cumbria. Surely, they should be admonishing local opponents against ‘clean green’ solar energy and instructing them in the error of their ways. After all, ‘we’re all in it together’ to save the planet so if that means putting up with the industrialisation of the green hills which you can see from your double-glazed picture window, then so be it. Or maybe Riddings Lane Solar Farm Action Group comprises some members of SLACC?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Interesting headline. Will power, rather than could. There’s confidence for you:
“Solar farm that will power 11,000 homes approved”
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cn7xklg14jmo
A solar farm that will generate enough energy to power about 11,000 homes every year has been allowed after developers won an appeal.
Land to the east of Denchworth, Oxfordshire, will be used despite Vale of White Horse District Council turning the plan down in May 2024.
Renewable Connections Developments Limited appealed that decision with the Planning Inspectorate and the refusal was overturned earlier this month.…
Of course it was. It’s also interesting that the firm “will power 11,000 homes” in the headline, becomes “about” 11,000 homes in the body of the article.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Good. Disconnect the 11,000 homes from the rest of the grid. 😉
LikeLiked by 2 people
Surprise, surprise:
“Government approval for large solar farm”
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cre9dewv18eo
A large solar farm in East Yorkshire has been given the go ahead by the government.
The 3,155 acre (1,277 hectares) site will be built on land around Gribthorpe, Spaldington and Wressle and Howden.
Its developers said it would produce 400 megawatts of electricity – enough to power 100,000 homes.
One local protest group said there was “severe disappointment” that the site was approved.
Due to the size of the scheme the planning application was handled by the Planning Inspectorate as it was classed as national infrastructure.
A letter outlining the decision said that the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero Ed Miliband “has concluded that the public benefits associated with the proposed development outweigh the harm identified, and that development consent should therefore be granted”….
3,155 acres is absolutely enormous. Enough to power 100,000 homes? It doesn’t say for how long, nor does it point out that it won’t do so in winter. That’s almost an acre for every 30 homes, which strikes me as not very efficient. If we used solar for all domestic electricity, that would involve covering 850,000 acres (or thereabouts) with solar panels. That’s before we consider increased electricity demand as we decarbonise, and home-owners are forced to use electric cars and ditch gas for cooking and heating. And that’s before we consider non-domestic electricity use. And what would we do in winter? This is folly on a monumental scale. I suppose we should be grateful that Miliband does at least recognise that harm has been identified from the scale. The benefits strike me as so small in the scheme of things, that his decision might possibly be attacked on grounds of Wednesbury unreasonableness (i.e. his decision is so unreasonable that no reasonable minister could have made it.
The article continues, and I have to agree:
…George McManus, spokesman for East Riding Against Solar Expansion (ERASE), said the approval “brings us a step closer to enormous swathes of agricultural land being blanketed in a million, Chinese manufactured, solar panels.”
He added: “Other projects in the pipeline will see another 20,000 acres disappear under glass.
“The East Riding is being industrialised and people need to wake up to that.“
LikeLiked by 1 person
I would love to be proved wrong, but I fear that this inquiry will simply be going through the motions. With the government being responsible for making the planning decision for this Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project, I suspect the outcome is a foregone conclusion:
“Public inquiry into huge solar farm to begin”
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c071e40yreko
A public inquiry into plans to build of one Europe’s largest solar farms begins on Tuesday.
For the next three days, open floor hearings will take place as part of the Planning Inspectorate’s examination of the controversial Botley West scheme in Oxford.
The £800m farm would cover 1,000 hectares (2,471 acres) of countryside north of Woodstock, west of Kidlington and west of Botley….
2,471 hectares! Very green….
LikeLike
I’m sure this is correct:
“Trump’s new border wall will threaten wildlife in an area where few people pass”
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/may/18/trump-border-wall-wildlife
Why, then, the lack of concern about the wildlife obstruction that is fencing around solar farms?
LikeLike
In my article above, referring to the proposed Lostrigg Solar Farm, I wrote:
…because the development is so vast (with a “potential generation capacity of up to 100 megawatts (MW)”), it is classified as a Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project (NSIP) – a designation triggered at 50 MW. This means that it requires a Development Consent Order (DCO) under the Planning Act 2008.
As someone who participated in the consultation (basically, by objecting), the developers (RWE) have just written to me to keep me up to date with developments.
In essence, the changes to NSIP thresholds in the Infrastructure Planning (Onshore Wind and Solar Generation) Order 2025 sees the solar generation level increase from 50MW to 100MW. As Lostrigg Solar Farm was always planned to generate up to 100MW, RWE have had a re-think. They no longer intend to seek a Development Consent Order under the Planning Act 2008. Instead, they now intend to seek planning consent from Cumberland Council under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.
What difference this will make to their prospects of obtaining consent, I do not know. Possibly the Council will be bold enough to turn it down, but I am not confident in that regard. In any event, Miliband would almost certainly rubber stamp it on appeal. I await further developments. Watch this space.
LikeLiked by 1 person
The Save Dent Fell group now has a website, and it is – superficially at least – quite impressive. I wish them every success. Unfortunately, it says:
We support renewable energy – but not at the cost of our heritage, our landscape, and our community’s connection to Dent.
https://www.savedentfell.co.uk/our-mission
Until groups opposing renewables developments in their back yard wake up and realise that they need to oppose net zero and stop supporting renewables in principle, then this is never going to end.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I’ve replied to Mark Jenkinson on X (pasting a screenshot of part of this article) re. the Maryport proposed solar development. If a local opposition group is set up, we can’t have them coming out with the usual ‘we support solar energy, just not here’ braindead spiel:
LikeLiked by 1 person