Solar Panel Arrays- Agricultural Land

[wymberley]

OK, straight off, I concede I'm a tad annoyed. I lost 30 acres, but far more importantly, so did the farmer, to the Subject installation. I was given a load more land to shoot over by a developer but was made aware some of this was going the same way. This latter land and the former is separated by a large wood which cannot be shot and is riddled with fox. The latter was grazed by sheep (when given permission the owner of which was also made aware of what was coming in the short term) and most of the foxes (there was once 10 counted in this land at the same time) came out of the wood onto it. Once the sheep were moved I was hoping to trim them out as once the work starts they'll be heading in the opposite direction - towards my pheasant. Popped up yesterday as I knew the sheep had gone - too late the site is now 'owned' by the contractors. In total, some 150 acres are now out of agricultural production out of the 1000 or so that I shoot/shot over.

 

However, I'll put this annoyance to one side as it's really of no consequence.

 

My question is though, if we ignore the 'exotic' food which we import through choice as we can't grow it in the UK, has any one organisation given any thought that if these installations carry on at the pace - which seems to me to be on the increase - that they are, what would be their maximum agricultural land coverage before our ability to produce our own 'staple' foodstuff is seriously impaired?

[FalconFN]

It wouldn't take much effort to change legislation so only land of lower grades can be used. Using prime agricultural land seems a little short sighted. There are large areas of land that is no good for crops and only really good for pasture a few months of the year - that would be ideal as some grazing could still be done.

[islandgun]

Iv'e never heard of this "solar panel farming" wouldn't it be better to use up 150 acres of house roof's, I would like to see affordable solar panels fitted to all roofs through out britain

[FalconFN]

Iv'e never heard of this "solar panel farming" wouldn't it be better to use up 150 acres of house roof's, I would like to see affordable solar panels fitted to all roofs through out britain

Its pretty much the same thing but on a larger scale. The govemnent has offered a generous feed in tarrif that has effectively created a new business model, although I think they are back-tracking a bit now. Without the taffif it wouldn't be economical but its all part of reaching carbon reduction targets and increasing energy diversity.

 

There's no reason why the land under solar arrays can't be utilised, even as grazing land, but even if it isn't the increase in biodiversity will help some quota or target instead of leaving fields fallow.

[huntsman]

Solar panels on agricultural land is now the in thing,Farming subsidies have been cut,the price of dairy is on its knees.

beef stock are expensive to keep and are a long term investment.

 

As an alternative farmers are diversifying the use of land

acre for acre solar panel farming still allows farmers to reap the reward,s without having to spend out on any infrastructure.

,I have been involved in several projects mostly in the south west especially in devon cornwall areas,but lately in northwales

 

The farmers still hold all the grazing rights and still have their cattle on the land but also take a huge cut in the begining prior to any installation and also a percentage of the power generated and sold to the grid.

[wymberley]

Iv'e never heard of this "solar panel farming" wouldn't it be better to use up 150 acres of house roof's, I would like to see affordable solar panels fitted to all roofs through out britain

Funny you should say that. The estate which took the 30 acres off their tenant farmer has countless other tenanted farms, former estate workers houses and redundant farmhouses rented out and several trading estates and on not one building is there a solar panel. They suggested to said farmer that he could graze sheep whereupon he mentioned that he had a beef herd. Not to mention that the sheep would need to wear cycle helmets and someone would need to invent a grass that grew despite a total lack of sunlight getting on to the ground.

[islandgun]

just googled agricultural solar panels, the ones on the large sheds do look very workable, but yes there doesn't look enough room underneath the field ones for anything other than hens, looks to me like the method of planting them in a field is the cheapest, shame because it looks like a good idea, on roofs !

[Yellow Bear]

Sadly - and it is 18 months since I checked and things may have changed - the "carbon footprint" of production and instillation is greater than the projected energy output during the life of the panel in places where there is not 2500 hours of full sun per year and this is forgetting the other production, installation, and maintenance costs. Also don't forget de-commissioning costs as they have a limited life.

 

In other words, if you just burnt the fuel you would get more energy than you do from the panels at a lower cost.

 

Without government subsidies they would not be practical or economic- they are just a nod to the "green" element in this country and a waste of taxpayers and energy users money as well as adding more to (and I use the term loosely as I don't consider it man made) climate change.

[Fisherman Mike]

Some facts...

 

To me its a no brainer..

 

Some facts about solar farms

1. They generate electricity locally and feed into the local electricity grid using a free source of energy (the sun) to generate electricity on bright cloudy days as well as in direct sunlight.

2. For every 5MW installed, a solar farm will power 1,515 homes for a year and save 2,150 tonnes of CO₂

3. They represent time-limited, reversible land use and provide an increased, diversified and stable source of income for landowners

4. They may have dual purpose usage with sheep or other animals grazing between rows, and can help to support biodiversity by allowing small animals access to otherwise fenced-off land, with bird and insect fodder plants and wildflowers sown around the modules.

5. If 10,000MW of solar was installed on the ground, it would only use 0.1% of UK agricultural land area, whilst being able to generate enough electricity for over 3 million homes.

6. There are no moving parts, and maintenance is minimal

7. There is no by-product or waste generated, except during manufacturing or dismantling.

8. They have lower visual and environmental impacts than other forms of power generation

9. Renewables give the customer the choice of buying green electricity and reduce reliance on scarce fossil fuels

[loriusgarrulus]

There seem to be a lot sprouting on land by the A50 on the way into Stoke on Trent. :(

[FalconFN]

Yellow bear, I think the carbon footprint is bigger than other forms of renewables but it is still much lower than burning fossil fuels. I can't remember exactly but I think solar is slightly above nuclear on that front but not by much.

 

Diversity of supply is also an important factor though.

[islandgun]

Sadly - and it is 18 months since I checked and things may have changed - the "carbon footprint" of production and instillation is greater than the projected energy output during the life of the panel in places where there is not 2500 hours of full sun per year and this is forgetting the other production, installation, and maintenance costs. Also don't forget de-commissioning costs as they have a limited life.

 

In other words, if you just burnt the fuel you would get more energy than you do from the panels at a lower cost.

 

Without government subsidies they would not be practical or economic- they are just a nod to the "green" element in this country and a waste of taxpayers and energy users money as well as adding more to (and I use the term loosely as I don't consider it man made) climate change.

so the bottom line is making the panels last longer several times longer and on roofs

Edited February 8, 2015 by islandgun

[Yellow Bear]

Some facts...

 

To me its a no brainer..

 

Some facts about solar farms

1. They generate electricity locally and feed into the local electricity grid using a free source of energy (the sun) to generate electricity on bright cloudy days as well as in direct sunlight.Output is there it is true but on a bright cloudy day as you put it this can drop as low as 25% - and the power is produced mainly at times when"homes" do not require much input in this country.

2. For every 5MW installed, a solar farm will power 1,515 homes for a year and save 2,150 tonnes of CO_{2 Deduct from a proportion of the high carbon dioxde created during manufacture.}

3. They represent time-limited, reversible land use and provide an increased, diversified and stable source of income for landowners As I said high dismantle and recycling costs to add to viability life span at full output less than 20 years

4. They may have dual purpose usage with sheep or other animals grazing between rows, and can help to support biodiversity by allowing small animals access to otherwise fenced-off land, with bird and insect fodder plants and wildflowers sown around the modules.Stacked the way they were on the last designs I looked at the area beneath is about as productive as a evergreen woodland

5. If 10,000MW of solar was installed on the ground, it would only use 0.1% of UK agricultural land area, whilst being able to generate enough electricity for over 3 million homes.

6. There are no moving parts, and maintenance is minimal True, however if I remember the OMI correctly they require testing electrically annually and cleaning four times a year. Both high labour intensive activiies.

7. There is no by-product or waste generated, except during manufacturing or dismantling. See previous post ref production an disposal.

8. They have lower visual and environmental impacts than other forms of power generation. True and they are silent but still an eyesore

9. Renewables give the customer the choice of buying green electricity and reduce reliance on scarce fossil fuels. As I said if they just burnt the fuel when needed instead of now they would use less

There speaks a man that supplies them - I have answered some of your points above in red.

[FalconFN]

so the bottom line is making the panels last longer several times longer and on roofs

They do go on roofs already but if you want maximum efficiency you want them exactly at the right angle and pointing in exactly the right direction.

[FalconFN]

There speaks a man that supplies them - I have answered some of your points above in red.

You may want to check out the facts though as some of your answers are quite inaccurate.

[ack-ack]

They do go on roofs already but if you want maximum efficiency you want them exactly at the right angle and pointing in exactly the right direction.

Tru dat. Even if they have perfect aspect its sometimes not viable / practical. I did a GIS excersise in slope and aspect with urban landsat data and less than ten percent of roof area was suitable.

[Nial]

Some facts...

 

To me its a no brainer..

 

Some facts about solar farms

1. They generate electricity locally and feed into the local electricity grid using a free source of energy (the sun) to generate electricity on bright cloudy days as well as in direct sunlight.

2. For every 5MW installed, a solar farm will power 1,515 homes for a year and save 2,150 tonnes of CO₂

3. They represent time-limited, reversible land use and provide an increased, diversified and stable source of income for landowners

4. They may have dual purpose usage with sheep or other animals grazing between rows, and can help to support biodiversity by allowing small animals access to otherwise fenced-off land, with bird and insect fodder plants and wildflowers sown around the modules.

5. If 10,000MW of solar was installed on the ground, it would only use 0.1% of UK agricultural land area, whilst being able to generate enough electricity for over 3 million homes.

6. There are no moving parts, and maintenance is minimal

7. There is no by-product or waste generated, except during manufacturing or dismantling.

8. They have lower visual and environmental impacts than other forms of power generation

9. Renewables give the customer the choice of buying green electricity and reduce reliance on scarce fossil fuels

 

FM, where did you get these 'facts'?

 

Here's the output data for the local 'Solar Meadow'....

 

http://www.variablepitch.co.uk/stations/2703/output/

 

During the winter the output is ~1% of the nameplate capacity, ie they effectively produce nothing.

This is Scotland so the south of England might get one or two percent more.

 

 

This study, by a professional engineer solar farm operator in Spain and an academic shows that there solar panels

give a return on energy invested of ~2.4:1

http://www.amazon.com/Spains-Photovoltaic-Revolution-Investment-SpringerBriefs/dp/144199436X

 

Based on this work and de-rating the UK for our relative solar insolation, it's likely that many solar panels installed in the UK

never generate the energy required to maunfacture, install and maintain them.

 

They are negative energy devices, yet we're still throwing money at them.

 

It's madness.

[norfolk dumpling]

Got one the size of 19 footy pitches a couple of miles from me with an even larger one planned the other side of the A146. The first is an elderly farmer with little in the way of family (? pay for his care home) and the second a titled guy who has recently been caught for several millions by HMRC. I can't blame either of them but they are hideous in the countryside.

[FalconFN]

Nial, I don't disagree with some of what you say but I dissagree with your figures, or at least your representation of them. The output isn't 1% in winter as you say, it is 10% as I think you have taken the rated kW and multiplied that by 24 rather than the 7 or 8 hours of daylight. Edinburgh isn't exactly a prime solar gathering area either, so farms in the south and east of England will perform considerably better.

 

Personally, I'm unconvinced that they make much difference but they are a usefull resource if used in the right areas, and they do spread the energy burdon a bit wider.

[pob]

The arrays that I am seeing spring up (Norfolk, Cambridgeshire Fens) have absolutely no room for dual use. Nothing will grow under the ones I am seeing.

 

When i studied renewables a good few years ago there were real issues with the embodied energy in building PVs and uncertain service life. Performance degraded quite markedly over the extended payback period.

 

i do worry about the impact of lost production if the land has changed from arable use. If sugar beet production is marginal, farmer's are tempted to change, but that doesn't help overwintering geese, for example. I'm not only concerned about quarry species, but wildlife in general. Grazing land isn't such a loss though, I would suspect.

 

I was a little surprised to hear that there were generous subsidies/feed-in tariffs still available. I thought that had drastically reduced in 2010. But at the speed they seem to be going in, clearly not.

Edited February 9, 2015 by pob

[old man]

IMHO, just successive Governments playing at trying to save the planet with our money. Just another form of control?

 

We should go Nuclear and be done with it?

 

All this about making us feel guilty for brewing a cup of tea, that's a joke, again on us?

 

Volcanoes can't be stopped pumping out can they?

 

They are all trying to stop the world doing what the world has done forever, moving with climate change from hot to cold?

[FalconFN]

IMHO, just successive Governments playing at trying to save the planet with our money. Just another form of control?

 

We should go Nuclear and be done with it?

 

All this about making us feel guilty for brewing a cup of tea, that's a joke, again on us?

 

Volcanoes can't be stopped pumping out can they?

 

They are all trying to stop the world doing what the world has done forever, moving with climate change from hot to cold?

Is 'saving the planet' not a worthwhile activity then? If we didn't bother the world would be in a much worse state - the control of CFCs is a good example.

 

I think nuclear should and will be a large part of our future but currently that too has very serious issues, not least due to supply problems of the finite source of fuel and the huge problem with waste disposal (which we still haven't addressed with our current plants). We need nuclear but as part of a diverse supply.

 

I don't think anyone should feel guilty about brewing a cup of tea, not sure where that idea came from?

 

Volcanoes and other tectonic activity has been a part of the natural cycle of emission and absorption of carbon for millions of years, it's the extra carbon that's being released incredibly rapidly, that was previously laid down and locked away for millions of years, that the scientific consensus says is causing the problems.

 

No, they are trying to slow the very rapid change in climate that is very likely to be caused by anthropogenic activities. Whether you think it's man made or natural, one thing for sure is that: Rapid climate change = famine, flood, war, and massive financial costs. And suntans.

[wymberley]

one thing for sure is that: Rapid climate change = famine, flood, war,

Don't wish to over dramatise this, but that is the reason for the OP. If global warming increases the sea levels then we'll have even less of our finite agricultural land because it's flooded. If we continue to remove even more out of production, then with a growing population, there's a danger that by utilising to much of what's left of it for quite inefficient power generation we're going to have to rely even more on someone else for our food and in the event of war we've possibly got the famine. More ration books, rock salmon and ****** carrots. Oh, and an orange for Christmas! Far fetched, but you get my point.

Edited February 9, 2015 by wymberley

[scolopax]

I would think there is a danger that land used for solar panel arrays could be legitimately declared as a "brownfield site" once the panels are removed, allowing in the house builders, once it is under bricks and mortar it is never coming back.

[wymberley]

I would think there is a danger that land used for solar panel arrays could be legitimately declared as a "brownfield site" once the panels are removed, allowing in the house builders, once it is under bricks and mortar it is never coming back.

+1. Not so much a danger, though, more a given.