Download the ‘CPRE SPRING REVIEW’

Dorset CPRE is well aware of the climate emergency, the severe impact the Ukraine conflict has had on energy prices, and is fully supportive of renewable energy development.

Rupert Hardy Chair North Dorset CPRE

The government’s recent policy paper, Powering Up Britain, was meant to address our slowness in introducing measures to meet Net Zero, but has so far been criticised for lacking ambition and offering very little new money. The government is still prioritising offshore wind power to supply the majority of our renewable energy needs, but is now aiming also for 70GW of solar ground and rooftop capacity, a fivefold increase by 2035, but it is very unclear how this will be funded or implemented.

There appears too much reliance on pulling in private money. Next year a solar roadmap will be published on how this will be achieved, but we remain concerned that too much focus will be on greenfield solar, which could desecrate our countryside, and not enough on rooftop, where the government has belatedly focused and which we wholeheartedly support.

What can Dorset do, as new offshore wind is less likely to be proposed here and the main contribution will come from solar in Dorset. To combat climate change, Dorset Council (DC) aims to meet a huge renewable energy target of 3.8TWh/yr by 2050, up from current generation of 0.5TWh/yr. Developers will retort that we have plenty of potential sites to build solar farms on, or solar power plants which they really are, and that we should take advantage of the high solar irradiance of the county. However, do not be deceived by the frequently misleading data issued by solar trade associations, whose members are more concerned with profit than saving the planet.

This spring we expect a planning hearing in North Dorset on the 190-acre solar farm developers wish to build at Pulham/Mappowder. We have not objected to a number of less damaging solar farms, but we are opposing this one on grounds of the harm it will do to the setting of the Dorset Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB), and the beautiful pristine countryside it is tasked with protecting, as well as adverse impact on amenity and flooding risk.

An application for another large solar power plant close to the iconic Horton Tower in East Dorset is imminent, but thankfully a 1400 acre one near Chickerell was recently withdrawn at the proposal stage. More will be coming though. Is this a price worth paying?

Key Factors Affecting Solar Farms

We would argue that it is not a price worth paying and that rooftop solar could provide the same output, although we are supportive of <5MW community-funded solar farms. Key factors that should be considered are:

• Solar farm inefficiency: They are hugely inefficient compared to offshore wind. Solar’s efficiency rating is 11%, compared to 40% for offshore wind.

• Negative impact on landscape quality: Solar farms are mostly power stations that industrialise our beautiful Dorset countryside, loved both by residents and tourists. In particular the AONBs should be protected. Cumulative impact from several solar parks in close proximity will exacerbate the damage, as can be seen from Badbury Rings, an ancient monument.

• Adverse effect on heritage assets and their setting: We have lots of historic churches, houses and ancient monuments which have huge cultural significance for Dorset.

• Loss of good agricultural land and food security: Many solar farms are being built on high grade productive farmland, such as at Spetisbury, which is unforgiveable at this time, with food prices rocketing as a result of the invasion of Ukraine. Food security should be paramount. Development should be limited to brownfield sites and poor-quality agricultural land. It can be argued that land graded 3b should not be considered as “poor” as much is productive and often soil here is better able to hold more moisture than higher grades. This was proved in last year’s long hot summer. There was talk last summer of government including 3b in its definition of “Best and Most Versatile” land, but this was squashed by Thérèse Coffey.

• Wildlife and biodiversity: Developers may suggest token gestures such as sheep grazing, but sheep rarely graze under panels, and mostly just on the grass margin. Birds and bat deaths are common as they mistake glass panels for water, while the routes of transitory animals are blocked, forcing them to cross roads.

• Amenity: Most prospective solar farms have footpaths and bridleways crossing them, which are used by residents and visitors alike for enjoying the countryside.

• Permanent or temporary land use? Most solar farms are leased for 30 or 40 years, with a strong likelihood of an extension being applied for. A 40 year period represents two generations relating to a farming tenancy. Land may never revert to agricultural use.

• Tenant farmers ignored: Solar proposal decisions are often taken by landowners against the wishes of their tenants, who farm the land.

• Battery storage: Many solar farms now incorporate this, but lithium-ion batteries present a dangerous fire risk which fire brigades find difficult to deal with.

We would argue that government needs to have a clearer solar policy, which it does not compared to development of land for residential purposes. The proliferation of solar applications across the country makes it imperative that there is clearer guidance on grounds for refusal or acceptance of applications. We would also like stronger local landscape policies in Dorset Council’s emerging Local Plan.

Why do 95% of Households and 98% of Businesses in Dorset Have No Rooftop Solar

Opposition to industrial-sized solar farms in the countryside is growing, as demands for food security and nature recovery are clashing with net zero goals. Promoting rooftop solar makes much more sense as Dorset CPRE have calculated that by installing solar panels on only 64% of currently unutilised buildings, you can reach the maximum government target for 2050 for Solar PV in England of 117.6 TWh, according to the Dynamic Dispatch Team at the Department for Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy, without building another solar farm (search for renewable energy reports on https://dorsetcpre.org.uk). The figure for Dorset would likely be similar.

We ask why 95% of households and 98% of businesses in Dorset had no roof-mounted solar as of December 2021. The answer was first a failure by government and Dorset Council, despite its declared Climate Emergency strategy, to make it mandatory for new housing developments to fit solar panels on every roof. After much badgering it appears Dorset Council is finally looking at ways it can impose new planning conditions on developers. Other local authorities have already done this. Retrofitting older buildings will be expensive, but VAT on domestic solar PV was dropped a year ago.

Another way would be to increase funding of community energy groups, like Purbeck Energy, who facilitate the fitting of solar panels at discounted prices. This would cost much less than subsidising directly millions of home owners, and yet Powering Up Britain has said little on this.

Community Energy Groups

The phasing out of domestic solar panel subsidies in recent years meant that individuals became reluctant installers, despite the drop in prices of panels, while cash-strapped local authorities have been unable to help, but community energy groups sprang up with the goal of offering panels at very competitive rates. It is a growing movement in which energy generation is owned not by large industrial companies but by local communities, with the profits invested back into the community. However last year Community Energy England, in advance of the second reading of the Local Electricity Bill, said that Ministers were failing to respond to growing support for community renewable energy, or properly plan for growth in line with net-zero commitments. Over 300 MPs committed their support to this Bill, which is designed to ensure that Ofgem creates a Right to Local Supply framework, which would help community energy. The Bill appears to be stuck in some Westminster crevice, but the government appears to have other priorities! Despite this, in 2021 Sustainable Swanage and community energy group, Purbeck Energy, launched a project to offer Swanage residents the chance to get solar panels for their properties at competitive rates. They use a company, IDDEA, which has already made over 2,500 installations across southern England. The Swanage Mayor, Mike Bonfield, was fully supportive and praised it as a “brilliant scheme”. How about more Dorset towns encouraging the same? Solar PV on Public, Industrial, and Farm Buildings One of the reasons for slow progress on industrial buildings has been issues of building ownership and leasehold arrangements, complex planning processes, as well as roof weight and warranties.

High energy prices now mean owners of commercial buildings are looking at rooftop solar wherever they can, especially as installing panels on these properties is so much cheaper than for domestic, thanks to scale. The government is at least now consulting on changes to permitted development rights with the aim of simplifying planning processes for large commercial rooftop installations.

Progress is now being made to improve the energy efficiency on public buildings in Dorset too, where ownership is clearer. The first major push came from DC’s Low Carbon Dorset team, who gave grants of £5m to fund 4.1MW of projects, both public sector and business, thanks initially to the European Regional Development Fund.

‘Hazelmead’ is being built on the north-western edge of Bridport. The houses are designed to be affordable, high quality and energy efficient. also given £19m by the government for more renewable projects. This was one of the biggest grant packages given by the government, so well-done DC! It paid for panels to go on the roof of Durlston Castle, the arts centre, County Hall in Dorchester, and various schools. In North Dorset, Blandford and Gillingham Schools are busy installing panels.

Bridport based Dorset Community Energy, which facilitates community ownership of renewable energy production, has financed the installation of panels on twelve schools and four community buildings throughout Dorset, such as Blandford Community Hospital. Thanks initially to the Lottery and many local shareholders it has funded over 1.5MW of panels. We hope to see more of these community-led projects.

DC in its briefing to its Climate and Ecological Emergency Support Group in November spoke of the progress made on decarbonisation of DC properties, including rooftop solar installation. They will be funding now directly most of the Low Carbon Dorset unit, which otherwise was due to close having distributed all the grants given them.

Farmers are fitting panels to their buildings but it is estimated that only a small proportion of farmers so far in Dorset have done so. Weight problems are often quoted as to why less retro-fitting is done but access to the Grid is another.

Mole Energy have been busy promoting the fitting of panels to farm buildings here, but have emphasised the serious Grid capacity issues, which got worse through 2022. They say the rapid phasing out of domestic subsidies in 2016 meant many solar PV installers had to diversify and the associated tradesmen left the industry, so there may be too few installers now too.

Other Solutions in Europe

France announced plans to fast track renewable energy by mandating car parks nation-wide be covered by solar panels – a popular policy that could generate up to 11GW of power. With good planning and design, 20,000 hectares of car parking space in the UK could potentially yield an additional 8GW of solar capacity alongside tens of thousands of new homes. This compares to 14.5GW of solar capacity operational in the UK.

Belatedly the government will now introduce permitted development rights for solar canopies on non-domestic car parks, but this is not the same as mandating it, which would achieve so much more.

Conclusion

We want our government to adopt a renewables strategy that prioritises rooftops, surface car parks and brownfield sites in a concerted effort to attract wide public support. Grid capacity issues need to be resolved too. If implemented quickly, the policy could drastically reduce energy bills during the cost-of-living crisis and speed up the transition to net zero, while leaving as much countryside as possible available for farming and nature restoration. Much hinges on the promised government solar road map. Four urgent national policy changes are needed:  • A national land use strategy to balance the competing demands for development, energy and infrastructure, food security and nature recovery; and planning policy amended so that it actively promotes solar panels on agricultural land avoiding the best and most versatile agricultural. 

• Solar panels should be mandatory for all new buildings; and planning permission should not be granted for commercial or public car parking spaces unless they also provide solar energy generation.

• Much more needs to be spent on home insulation, compared to the puny amount promised so far.

• The government needs to give more financial support to community energy.

Finally we do not want dozens of solar power plants desecrating our precious countryside land! It is not a price worth paying.

Rupert Hardy Chair North Dorset CPRE

“Overstating the public benefit by over 90%, no matter how welcome the low carbon energy contribution, is misleading and simply wrong.”

“By generating electricity in smaller amounts closer to end-users, we can dramatically increase energy efficiency, reduce carbon pollution, improve grid resiliency, and curtail the need for new transmission investments”.

One often reads in the news, even in technical magazines, that a newly installed solar development produces sufficient electricity to cover the energy demands of, say, 10,000 households. Most people have no idea that such a message is misleading.

This is, however, not clear to everybody, especially in the case of the average voter (and most policymakers), who are unfamiliar with capacity factors, utilisation factors and load factors. One often reads in the news, even in technical magazines, that a newly installed solar development produces sufficient electricity to cover the energy demands of, say, 10,000 households. Most people have no idea that such a message is misleading.

Firstly, final electricity use is only 12% of total global energy use. Secondly, households consume, on average, only 20% of the electricity needs of a modern nation. Globally, 46% of electric energy supplied goes to industry and the remaining 34% is for services. Using only households as a criterion for covering electricity demand gives an over optimistic idea of such a solar development’s achievements. Thirdly, solar developments’ output is variable and cannot be relied on to cover a given demand.

Solar photovoltaic (PV) panels also show large output variability. They do not produce at night, and have limited output in the darker seasons. Backup power is required for these renewable sources, and cogeneration and distributed generation are the best options.

For a proper analysis of the need for and benefits of local generators, we must distinguish between capacity factors, utilisation factors and load factors. Today, exactness is crucial in order to understand the implications of these factors.

We can define the capacity factor as the averaged unrestricted output divided by the installed capacity. For solar PV panels in the UK the capacity factor is around 11%. If solar developments’ output was noticeably curtailed, their so-called utilisation factor would be lower than the capacity factor. The utilisation factor of a generator is the actual averaged output divided by the installed capacity. The load factor of a generator is the instantaneous output divided by its nominal capacity.

Imagine a case of no renewables in a system, while fuel-based generators have a utilisation factor of 60%. The load factor might vary between 100% and 60%. Now, volatile renewable generators will be connected with the same installed capacity as the fuel-based generation. If the renewable generators have a capacity factor of 15%, and their output is not restricted, the utilisation factor of the fuel-based generators will decrease from 60% to 45%. For large central power plants, this would mean operational and financial disaster.

Distributed generation, however, can offer the required flexibility. Its load factor can vary widely. Because of its relatively low capital costs, even a lower utilisation factor is not a problem. So, it is essential to know all about capacity factors, utilisation factors and load factors and are not taken in by the ‘standardised’ and misleading claims of developers.

By generating electricity in smaller amounts closer to end-users, we can dramatically increase energy efficiency, reduce carbon pollution, improve grid resiliency, and curtail the need for new transmission investments.

Distributed generation (also called on-site generation or decentralised generation) is a term describing the generation of electricity for use on-site, rather than transmitting energy over the electric grid from a large, centralized facility (such as a coal-fired power plant). As economic development outpaces the expansion of electricity supply in some areas of the country, and with other regions facing constraints on the ability to deliver power where and when it is needed, it is important to encourage local options for electricity transmission.

Did you know that there’s enough space on commercial rooftops in the UK to provide solar-powered energy for 19 million homes? That’s almost two thirds of homes in the country. So, when rooftops across the country can host so much of the new solar power we need, why are we not ensuring every suitable roof is being used for solar panels?

With increasingly extreme weather and rapidly declining wildlife populations, time is running out to take meaningful action on the climate emergency. And as a critical source of low carbon renewable energy, the government is aiming to quintuple the amount of solar energy we generate by 2035.  Putting solar panels on rooftops means we can spare precious land for food, farming and wildlife.  

This will help generate electricity close to where it is needed and can even help families and businesses cut sky high energy bills.  That’s why we’re launching a campaign to unleash a rooftop revolution in the UK, and we want you to be a part of it. To find out more about our upcoming campaign, why not check out our recent explainer on solar energy, the countryside, and what we’re doing about it. 

We’re regularly asked for help in challenging inappropriate industrial scale energy projects that would spoil the countryside and take high quality farmland out of production just when we need it most.  And to protect nature and our treasured landscapes, we have a duty to make the best possible use of our finite land. 

But climate breakdown poses the biggest threat to our countryside, and we need renewable energy. In this explainer, we’re asking the question – how can the two be reconciled? We believe that rooftop solar is an obvious solution. With the right initiatives from the government, the roof of every warehouse and every car park could be turned into a clean power station, cutting carbon emissions, slashing energy bills, and protecting our countryside.   

Of course, we’ll need to have some ground-mounted solar too. But why not get as much as possible on our rooftops first, while prioritising energy efficiency, demand reduction and empowering rural communities to say what is right for their local area?  By prioritising rooftop solar we can leave more land to tackle other pressing challenges facing our society like the decline of nature and the need for more homegrown food. 

Our most recent explainer goes into these pressing issues and our approach to tackling them in more detail. Why not give it a read, and share it with your friends and family? Check out the explainer We’ll be in touch more over the coming weeks as our campaign heads towards its big launch day. Until then, you can help us by spreading the word – thanks in advance for all you do. 

Best, Chris Chris Hinchliff
Campaigns Manager | CPRE The countryside charity

The necessary storage miracle doesn’t exist

From The Telegraph

 

“The present policies of just forcing wind and solar into the market and hoping for a miracle have been memorably and correctly likened to jumping out of an airplane without a parachute and hoping that the parachute will be invented, delivered and strapped on in mid-air in time to save you before you hit the ground.”

“If we had 100 per cent nuclear backup for solar and wind, we wouldn’t need the wind and solar plants at all”.

“Solar power disappears completely every night and drops by 50 per cent or more during cloudy days. “Capacity” being a largely meaningless figure for a wind or solar plant, about 3000 megawatts (MW) of wind and solar capacity is needed to replace a 1000 MW conventional power station in terms of energy over time”

Many governments in the Western world have committed to “net zero” emissions of carbon in the near future. The US and UK both say they will deliver by 2050. It’s widely believed that wind and solar power can achieve this. This belief has led the US and British governments, among others, to promote and heavily subsidise wind and solar.

These plans have a single, fatal flaw: they are reliant on the pipe-dream that there is some affordable way to store surplus electricity at scale.

In the real world a solar farm’s output often drops below 10 per cent of its rated “capacity” for days at a time. Solar power disappears completely every night and drops by 50 per cent or more during cloudy days. “Capacity” being a largely meaningless figure for a wind or solar plant, about 3000 megawatts (MW) of wind and solar capacity is needed to replace a 1000 MW conventional power station in terms of energy over time: and in fact, as we shall see, the conventional power station or something very like it will still be needed frequently once the wind and solar are online.

The governments of countries with a considerable amount of wind and solar generation have developed an expectation that they can simply continue to build more until net zero is achieved. The reality is that many of them have kept the lights on only by using existing fossil fired stations as backup for periods of low wind and sun. This brings with it a new operating regime where stations that were designed to operate continuously have to follow unpredictable fluctuations in wind and solar power. As a result operating and maintenance costs have increased and many stations have had to be shut down.

In fact it’s already common to see efficient combined-cycle gas turbines replaced by open-cycle ones because they can be throttled up and down easily to back up the rapidly changing output of wind and solar farms. But open-cycle gas turbines burn about twice as much gas as combined cycle gas turbines. Switching to high-emissions machinery as part of an effort to reduce emissions is, frankly, madness!

Certain countries are helped because their power systems are supported by major inter-connectors to adjacent regions that have surplus power available. The increasingly troubled French nuclear fleet, which formerly had plenty of spare energy on tap, for a long time helped to make renewables plans look practical across Western Europe.

But this situation is not sustainable in the long term. Under net-zero plans, all nations will need to generate many times more electricity than they now can, as the large majority of our energy use today is delivered by burning fossil fuels directly. Neighbouring regions will be unable to provide the backup power needed; emissions from open cycle gas turbines (or new coal powerplants, as in the case of Germany at the moment) will become unacceptable; more existing base load stations will be forced to shut down by surges in renewables; more and more wind and solar power will have to be expensively dumped when the sun is shining and the wind is blowing.

Power prices will soar, making more or less everything more expensive, and there will be frequent blackouts.

None of this is difficult to work out. Building even more renewables capacity will not help: even ten or 100 times the nominally-necessary “capacity” could never do the job on a cold, windless evening.

Only one thing can save the day for the renewables plan. Reasonable cost, large scale energy storage, sufficient to keep the lights on for several days at a minimum, would solve the problem. 

What are the options?

First, we need to consider the scale of the issue. Relatively simple calculations show that that California would need over 200 megawatt-hours (MWh) of storage per installed MW of wind and solar power. Germany could probably manage with 150 MWh per MW. Perhaps this could be provided in the form of batteries?

The current cost of battery storage is about US$600,000 per MWh. For every MW of wind or solar power in California, $120 million would need to be spent on storage. In Germany it would be $90 million. Wind farms cost about $1.5 million per MW so the cost of battery storage would be astronomical: 80 times greater than the cost of the wind farm! A major additional constraint would be that such quantities of batteries are simply not available. Not enough lithium and cobalt and other rare minerals are being mined at the moment. If prices get high enough supply will expand, but prices are already ridiculously, unfeasibly high.

Some countries are gambling on hydro pumped storage. Here the idea is to use electricity to pump water uphill into a high reservoir using surplus renewables on sunny, windy days: then let it flow back down through generating turbines as in a normal hydropower plant when it’s dark and windless.

Many pumped systems have been built in China, Japan and United States but they have storage sufficient for only 6 to 10 hours operation. This is tiny compared with the several days storage that is needed to back up wind and solar power through routine sunless calm periods. Much larger lakes at the top and bottom of the scheme are needed. There are very few locations where two large lakes can be formed with one located 400-700 m above the other and separated by less than 5-10 km horizontally. Such a location must also have an adequate supply of make-up water to cope with evaporation losses from the two lakes. Another problem is that at least 25 per cent of the energy is lost while pumping and then generating.

Hydro pumped storage will seldom be a feasible option. It cannot solve the problem on a national scale even in countries like the USA which have a lot of mountains.

Carbon capture and storage (CCS) for fossil fuel stations is also touted as way of avoiding the problems of wind and solar power. But this is not a technology, just a case of wishful thinking. In spite of many years of work and enormous amounts of money spent, nobody has yet devised a technology that can provide large scale, low cost CCS. Even if capture worked and didn’t consume most or all the energy generated, storing the carbon dioxide is a huge problem because three tonnes of carbon dioxide are produced for every tonne of coal burned.

Hydrogen is another technology which is often suggested for energy storage: but its problems are legion. At the moment hydrogen is made using natural gas (so-called “blue” hydrogen). This, however, will have to stop in a net-zero world as the process emits large amounts of carbon: you might as well just burn the natural gas. Proper emissions-free “green” hydrogen is made from water using huge amounts of electrical energy, 60 per cent of which is lost in the process. Storing and handling the hydrogen is extremely difficult because hydrogen is a very small molecule and it leaks through almost anything. At best this means that a lot of your stored hydrogen will be gone by the time you want to use it: at worst it means devastating fires and explosions. The extremely low density of hydrogen also means that huge volumes of it would have to be stored and it would often have to be stored and handled cryogenically, creating even more losses, costs and risks.

The conclusion is simple. Barring some sort of miracle, there is no possibility that a suitable storage technology will be developed in the needed time frame. The present policies of just forcing wind and solar into the market and hoping for a miracle have been memorably and correctly likened to “jumping out of an aeroplane without a parachute and hoping that the parachute will be invented, delivered and strapped on in mid-air in time to save you before you hit the ground.”

Wind and solar need to be backed up, close to 100 per cent, by some other means of power generation. If that backup is provided by open-cycle gas or worse, coal, net zero will never be achieved: nor anything very close to it. 

There is one technology that can provide a cheap and reliable supply of low-emissions electricity: nuclear power. Interest in nuclear power is increasing as more and more people realise that it is safe and reliable. If regulators and the public could be persuaded that modern stations are inherently safe and that low levels of nuclear radiation are not dangerous, nuclear power could provide all the low cost, low emissions electricity the world needs for hundreds or thousands of years.

But if we had 100 per cent nuclear backup for solar and wind, we wouldn’t need the wind and solar plants at all.

---

GEORGE ORWELL’S MINISTRY OF TRUTH – 1984

One of the Developer’s senior executives has stated:

“I love that our solar parks are filled with wildflowers, skylarks, brown hares and even barn owls.”

However, their Application ‘Environmental Statement’ for North Dairy Farm paints a more realistic picture. While not the whole story, here are a few extracts.

BADGER

The Applicant notes: “Killing or injury or disturbance by the physical clearance of habitats during site clearance and hazards during construction. There is the possibility that badgers may become trapped in open trenches, pits, or pipework”.

BREADING BIRDS

“Skylark, corn bunting, house sparrow, linnet and yellowhammer could suffer habitat loss, Killing or injury of individual birds and damage or physical clearance of habitats during site clearance. The Site clearance stage will involve the loss of arable and grass ley farmland at the Site, which will represent the temporary loss of nesting and foraging resources”.

DESTRUCTION OF ACTIVE NESTS and Potential for breach of wildlife legislation during construction.

Because of the “Physical clearance of habitats during site clearance, there is potential for the killing and injury of individual ground nesting birds and damage or destruction of their nests during vegetation clearance (removal of arable farmland). This will lead to a breach of wildlife legislation, as the nests of all birds are protected from destruction whilst in use”.

BROWN HARE

There could be: “Habitat loss, killing or injury caused by the physical clearance of habitats during site clearance. The clearance stage will involve the loss of arable and grass ley farmland at the Site, which will represent the loss of foraging resources for Brown Hare. The clearance stage of the arable land could result in death or injury to leverets which typically lie in shallow scrapes in the soil and stay immobile”.

STREAMS HABITAT

There could be: “Degradation and Incidental pollution incidents during site construction and operation maintenance”.

The Applicant’s Environmental Statement does propose mitigation to reduce the effects of the identified harms the development would cause, but major energy infostructure developments “filled with wildflowers, skylarks, brown hares and even barn owls” are, like Orwell’s ‘Ministry of Truth’ a work of fiction!

The Applicant claims that the: “existing grass ley fields are of low intrinsic ecological value”. They also claim that replacing them with their ‘improved grassland’, then forever shading it with about 114 acres of impervious PV panels, will suddenly bring about a ‘net increase’ in the biodiversity of the area of 53.69 %. Now that is going to take some doing as the proposed development Site is already wonderfully biodiverse.

The existing high levels of biodiversity are, in part, because the area is surrounded by ancient hedgerows, waterways and fields that have remained almost unchanged since the Middle Ages. The hedgerows are a ‘Priority Habitat’ which form species rich bio-motorways (the only sort in Dorset!) for wildlife to thrive in the area.

• The Applicant’s Assessment notes that 36. species of birds were recorded during the visits to the Site, including 13 Red and 4 Amber listed. Almost all were associated with the existing field boundaries and mature trees.

• Nine species of bats were recorded in the Assessment. Great crested newts are certainly present in the pond on Site, and the four (unsurveyed) ponds within 500 metres of the boundaries are known to support a local population. The pond on Site is described as dry “for most of the year” but shown in Fig 5. To be full of water!

• Fifty-two species of Moths and butterflies are recorded. Many are rare and associated with the national and international designated sites close by. (Within their zones if influence)

• There are Records of Brown Hare, Badger, Otter, Water Vole, Harvest Mouse, Roe Deer, Squirrel, Hedgehog and Mole.

• Key ‘Interest Features’ include River, brook streams and ditches, an avenue of oak trees. Wide linear features, the pond and ancient hedgerows are a Priority Habitat.

BUTTERFLY CONSERVATION NOTE: “Butterflies and moths are sensitive indicators of the health of our environment”. “Dorset is one of the best areas in the UK for butterflies and moths”. Aners Gorse (Just 1100 metres from the proposed development) is a wonderful remnant of the once-extensive commons of north Dorset.

The Applicant claims that the: “existing grass ley fields are of low intrinsic ecological value”. They also claim that replacing them with their ‘improved grassland’, then forever shading it with about 114 acres of impervious PV panels, will suddenly bring about a ‘net increase’ in the biodiversity of the area of 53.69 %. Now that is going to take some doing as the proposed development Site is already wonderfully biodiverse.

The existing high levels of biodiversity are, in part, because the area is surrounded by ancient hedgerows, waterways and fields that have remained almost unchanged since the Middle Ages. The hedgerows are a ‘Priority Habitat’ which form species rich bio-motorways (the only sort in Dorset!) for wildlife to thrive in the area.

The Applicants Breeding bird surveys identified the likely presence of at least 26 breeding bird species, 9 of which appear on one or more schedules or lists of species of conservation importance. Most of these species were associated with the hedgerows at the Site, except for skylark and corn bunting (which uses arable fields for both breeding and foraging). Territorial displays by skylark were observed throughout the breeding bird surveys indicating nesting. Corn bunting breeding is assumed to occur.

Wintering bird surveys identified at least 36 species using the Site, 17 which appear on one or more schedules or lists of species of conservation importance. Small flocks of corn bunting and linnet were recorded over the arable fields. Both species are Red Listed.

The Proposed Development and removal of the arable fields would impact on notable/protected bird species though the disruption of breeding, and a reduction in foraging and nesting opportunities.

DEATH OF LEVERETS, LOSS OF HABITAT

Local Brown Hare is present on Site including arable farmland which will be lost during construction of the Proposed development. Brown Hare is a Species of Principal Importance (SPI). Development at the Site has the potential to cause significant direct effects on brown Hare (e.g., injury/death of leverets, loss of habitat supporting this species, and habitat fragmentation). These effects could lead to reductions in populations of this species at the Site.

The Great crested newt receives substantial protection under wildlife legislation and is also a SPI. Development at the Site has the potential to cause direct effects on Great crested newts (e.g., injury/death, loss of habitat supporting this species, and habitat fragmentation). These effects could lead to reductions in populations of this species at the Site and outside of the Site.

THE APPLICANT’S ECOLOGY ASSESSMENT – SOME KEY POINTS.

● The Applicant’s Assessment notes that 36. species of birds were recorded during the visits to the Site, including 13 Red and 4 Amber listed. Almost all were associated with the existing field boundaries and mature trees.

● Nine species of bats were recorded in the Assessment. Great crested newts are certainly present in the pond on Site, and the four (unsurveyed) ponds within 500 metres of the boundaries are known to support a local population. The pond on Site is described as dry “for most of the year” but shown in Fig 5. To be full of water!

● Fifty-two species of Moths and butterflies are recorded. Many are rare and associated with the national and international designated sites close by. (Within their zones if influence)

● There are Records of Brown Hare, Badger, Otter, Water Vole, Harvest Mouse, Roe Deer, Squirrel, Hedgehog and Mole.

● Key ‘Interest Features’ include River, brook streams and ditches, an avenue of oak trees. Wide linear features, the pond and ancient hedgerows are a Priority Habitat.

● There is a risk of mortality of Hares during construction and dismantling phases of the development.

● Harvest mice would be impacted by the loss of arable seed production. As would seed eating birds including Skylark, linnet, Yellowhammer and Corn bunting.

● Ground nesting birds would potentially be harmed.

● Six ‘Potential breaches of wildlife legislation’ during construction and dismantling stages of development are identified.

● Fifteen ‘Minor adverse (environmental) effects at site level’ identified in the Applicants Assessment.

● The ‘Internationally Designated’ Rocksmoor Special Area of Conservation (SAC) is 1900 metres from the proposed Site. And the Nationally Designated ‘Blackmoor Vale Commons and Moors Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) is 1300 metres northwest of the Site. The ‘Alners Gorse Conservation Reserve is just 1100 meters away northeast.

● There is a Plantation on Ancient Woodland (Humber Wood to the west of the site.

● With six ‘Sites of Nature Conservation Interest (SNCI) within 2000 metres of the proposed development.

● Mitigation is offered for the identified harms– but it is simply an attempt to ‘gild a Lilly’. The area and proposed Site are already exceptionally biodiverse. The mitigation proposals, while welcome is little more than a land owner would be expected to aim for under the Government’s policy. Government to pay more to farmers who protect and enhance the environment.

Table 3. Species records.

Aardvark EM Ltd 16 SWE Project Ref No: 176  North Dairy Farm August 2020

South West Ecology Ltd.  Ecology Assessment E: steve@swecology.co.uk  T: 07931 332925 Web: http://www.swecology.co.uk

Mammals

Brown Hare Lepus europaeus

Brown Long-eared Bat Plecotus auratus

Common Pipistrelle Pipistrellus pipistrellus

Eurasian Badger Meles meles

European Otter Lutra lutra HR (2010), W&C

European Water Vole Arvicola amphibius

Harvest Mouse Micromys minutus

Nathusius’ Pipistrelle Pipistrellus nathusii

Serotine Eptesicus serotinus

Soprano Pipistrelle Pipistrellus pygmaeus EPS, Hab (1992),

West European Hedgehog Erinaceus europaeus NERC (2006)

Birds

Barn Owl Tyto alba

Black Redstart Phoenicurus ochruros

Bullfinch Pyrrhula pyrrhula

Cuckoo Cuculus canorus

Dunnock Prunella modularis

Fieldfare Turdus pilaris

Hobby Falco subbuteo

House Sparrow Passer domesticus

Marsh Tit Poecile palustris

Merlin Falco columbarius

Red Kite Milvus milvus

Redwing Turdus iliacus)

Reed Bunting Emberiza schoeniclus

Skylark Alauda arvensis

Song Thrush Turdus philomelos

Spotted Flycatcher Muscicapa striata

Starling Sturnus vulgaris

Tree Pipit Anthus trivialis

Amphibians

Great Crested Newt Triturus cristatus

Invertebrates

August Thorn Ennomos quercinaria

Autumnal Rustic Eugnorisma glareosa

Beaded Chestnut Agrochola lychnidis

Blood-Vein Timandra comae

Brindled Beauty Lycia hirtaria

Brown Hairstreak Thecla betulae

Buff Ermine Spilosoma lutea

Centre-barred Sallow Atethmia centrago

Cinnabar Tyria jacobaeae

Deep-brown Dart Aporophyla lutulenta

Dingy Mocha Cyclophora pendularia

Dingy Skipper Erynnis tages

Dot Moth Melanchra persicariae

Dusky Brocade Apamea remissa

Dusky Thorn Ennomos fuscantaria

Ear Moth Amphipoea oculea

Figure of Eight Diloba caeruleocephala

Forester Adscita statices

Garden Tiger Arctia caja

Ghost Moth Hepialus humuli

Grass Rivulet

Perizoma albulata subsp. albulata

Green-brindled Crescent Allophyes oxyacanthae

Grey Dagger Acronicta psi

Grizzled Skipper Pyrgus malvae

Heath Rustic Xestia agathina

Knot Grass Acronicta rumicis

Large Nutmeg Apamea anceps

Large Wainscot Rhizedra lutosa

Marsh Fritillary

Euphydryas aurinia

Minor Shoulder-knot Brachylomia viminalis

Mottled Rustic Caradrina morpheus

Mouse Moth Amphipyra tragopoginis

Oak Hook-tip Watsonalla binaria

Oak Lutestring Cymatophorina diluta

Pale Eggar Trichiura crataegi

Powdered Quaker Orthosia gracilis

Rosy Minor Litoligia literosa

Rosy Rustic Hydraecia micacea

Rustic Hoplodrina blanda

Sallow Cirrhia icteritia

September Thorn Ennomos erosaria

Shaded Broad-bar Scotopteryx chenopodiata

Shoulder-striped Wainscot Leucania comma

Small Blue Cupido minimus

Small Emerald Hemistola chrysoprasaria

Small Heath Coenonympha pamphilus

Small Phoenix Ecliptopera silaceata

Small Square-spot Diarsia rubi

Sprawler Asteroscopus sphinx

Wall Lasiommata megera

White Admiral Limenitis camilla

White Ermine Spilosoma lubricipeda

Protection levels

EPS European Protected Species includes species from Bird (1979), Hab(1992)

and HR(2010)

W&C (1981) or WCA species included in the Wildlife and Countryside Act (1981) Schedules

1(birds), 5(animals) and 8(plants)

Hab (1992) European Protected Species from Habitats and Species Directive II and IV

HR (2010) or Hab 2/4 Habitats Regulations (1994) includes those now covered by Conservation of

Habitats and Species Regulations (2010)

PBA (1992) species protected by the Protection of Badgers Act (1992) S41

NERC (2006) Species of Principle Importance in England, NERC Act (2006), Section 41 list

Government to pay more to farmers who protect and enhance the environment

DORSET’S UNIQUE GEOGRAPHY AND HYDROLOGY

The Local Authority notes: “Future flooding across Dorset is inevitable with the frequency and magnitude of flood incidents expecting to increase due to climate change”.

Dorset’s unique geography gives the county a range of challenges regarding flood risk. The relatively steep clay catchments in the north west of the county are at risk from extreme flash flooding, while the chalk catchments have a tendency to respond more slowly to rainfall. The nature of groundwater flooding means that in certain areas and communities, flooding can last for long periods of time.

The Upper Lydden and Wonston Brook catchments, that almost surround the North Dair Farm, feed into the Upper Stour and Blackmore vale catchment. This sub-area is a seasonally waterlogged catchment, which responds rapidly to rainfall and, because of this, has a dense network of streams and tributaries. Water from this sub-area is a main source of flood risk for areas downstream.

The Authority’s vision and preferred policy (Policy Option 6) for the sub catchment is: “we will take action with others to store water or manage run-off in locations that provide overall flood risk reduction or environmental benefit”. This policy applies to this sub-area for the following reasons:

• This is a large rural sub-area with opportunities for changing how the land is used and possible flood attenuation through improving/maintaining connectivity between channel and floodplain in line with environmental objectives. This will help reduce peak flows and potentially benefit other sub-areas downstream.

So, rather than placing approximately 55 acres of impermeable panels where the catchments meet, it would be more in line with the Environment Agency and Council policy aims to plant extensive riparian buffers, to protect those downstream.

“As democratically elected representatives they are expected to receive and consider representations and lobbying from those interested in the issues they are determining”.

A High Court judge recently considered the right of local councilors to receive correspondence from the public and to consider it when making decisions. Richard Harwood QC analyses the outcome.

Richard Harwood KC is a barrister at 39 Essex Chambers. 

The High Court has ruled, for the first time, whether members of the public can write to councillors, and whether councillors can read those letters in advance of taking decisions. The case concerned the practice of the London Borough of Hackney of prohibiting planning committee members from reading correspondence sent to them about forthcoming applications.

Holborn Studios run the largest photographic studio in Europe. Redevelopment is proposed by their landlords, with a scheme which will not accommodate them. In 2017 planning permission was quashed because an unfair failure to reconsult on amendments and a failure to disclose application documents in breach of a legitimate expectation: R (Holborn Studios) v London Borough of Hackney [2017] EWHC 2823 (Admin). A new application was considered by Hackney’s Planning Sub-Committee in January 2019. Shortly before the meeting Holborn Studio’s managing director wrote to the committee members about the officers’ report and received this reply from the chair:

“Planning members are advised to resist being lobbied by either applicant or objectors.”

Holborn Studio’s solicitors, Harrison Grant, then wrote to the planning officers, copying in the committee members, explaining why the officer’s recommendation to refuse the application should be rejected. They also said that Hackney’s approach of not allowing committee members to read representations sent to them was unlawful. A councillor replied that he had been given legal advice that he “should forward any lobbying letters to Governance Services and refrain from reading them”. Consequently, he said, “I have not read your email”. In an addendum report the officers responded to the solicitors’ letter:

“Members are warned about viewing lobbying material as this can be considered to be prejudicial to their consideration of the application.”

This reflected the Council’s leaflet ‘How to have your say at the Planning Sub-Committee’, sent to the public in advance of the meeting “it is advised that you don’t contact any of the councillors before a meeting”.

The particular issue was whether the public could write to councilors about decisions they will be making and whether those councilors could consider those representations. The point was remarkably free of any judicial authority, apart from a passing comment by Dove J in R(Legard) v Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea [1] that “As democratically elected representatives they are expected to receive and consider representations and lobbying from those interested in the issues they are determining”.

Holborn Studios relied on Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights and the common law.  Article 10 provides “Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information … subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society”. In R(Lord Carlisle of Berriew v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2] Parliamentarians asked for the exclusion of a dissident Iranian politician from the United Kingdom to be lifted to enable her to address meetings in Parliament on issues associated with Iran. Lord Neuberger said at paragraph 91, discussing meetings with MPs and Peers:

“These are hugely important rights. Freedom of speech, and particularly political speech, is the foundation of any democracy. Without it, how can the electorate know whom to elect and how can the parliamentarians know how to make up their minds on the difficult issues they have to confront? How can they decide whether or not to support the Government in the actions it wishes to take?”

Baroness Hale emphasised that whilst the politician could still speak to UK Parliamentarians by video or audio link, or they could see her in Paris, preventing a meeting at Westminster was still an interference with the Parliamentarians’ Article 10 rights.

Holborn Studios also relied on the common law as being in step with Article 10 citing Lord Steyn in R v Secretary of State for the Home Department ex p Simms [4]:

“The starting point is the right of freedom of expression. In a democracy it is the primary right: without it an effective rule of law is not possible. … In Attorney-General v. Guardian Newspapers Ltd. (No. 2) [1990] 1 A.C. 109, 283-284, Lord Goff of Chieveley expressed the opinion that in the field of freedom of speech, there was in principle no difference between English law on the subject and article 10 of the Convention.  …

“Freedom of expression is, of course, intrinsically important: it is valued for its own sake. But it is well recognised that it is also instrumentally important. It serves a number of broad objectives. First, it promotes the self-fulfillment of individuals in society. Secondly, in the famous words of Holmes J. (echoing John Stuart Mill), “the best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market:” Abrams v. United States (1919) 250 U.S. 616, 630, per Holmes J. (dissenting). Thirdly, freedom of speech is the lifeblood of democracy. The free flow of information and ideas informs political debate. It is a safety valve: people are more ready to accept decisions that go against them if they can in principle seek to influence them. It acts as a brake on the abuse of power by public officials. It facilitates the exposure of errors in the governance and administration of justice of the country …”

Dove J referred to the Local Government Association’s publication “Probity in Planning” which says “Lobbying is a normal part of the planning process”. It was “indisputably correct” that “that issues in relation to freedom of expression and the application of Article 10 of the ECHR were engaged in the communication between members of a local authority, and in particular members of a planning committee, and members of the public who they represent and, on whose behalf, they were making decisions in the public interest” (para 78).  He held (para 78):

“Similarly, bearing in mind the importance of the decisions which the members of the planning committee are making, and the fact that they are acting in the context of a democratically representative role, the need for the communication of views and opinions between councillors and the public whom they represent must be afforded significant weight. In my view, it would be extremely difficult to justify as proportionate the discouragement, prohibition or prevention of communication between public and the councillors representing them which was otherwise in accordance with the law. Here it was no part of the defendant’s case to suggest that the communication which the claimant made in their correspondence in respect of the committee report was anything other than lawful.”

Mr Justice Dove concluded (para 79):

“Receiving communications from objectors to an application for planning permission is an important feature of freedom of expression in connection with democratic decision-making and in undertaking this aspect of local authority business. Whilst it may make perfect sense after the communication has been read for the member to pass it on to officers (so that for instance its existence can be logged in the file relating to the application, and any issues which need to be addressed in advice to members can be taken up in a committee report), the preclusion or prevention of members reading such material could not be justified as proportionate since it would serve no proper purpose in the decision-making process. Any concern that members might receive misleading or illegitimate material will be resolved by the passing of that correspondence to officers so that any such problem of that kind would be rectified. In my view, there is an additional issue of fairness which arises if members of the planning committee are prevented from reading lobbying material from objectors and required to pass that information unread to their officers. The position that would leave members in would be that they would be reliant only on material from the applicant placed on the public record as part of the application or the information and opinions summarised and edited in the committee report. It is an important feature of the opportunity of an objector to a planning application to be able to present that objection and the points they wish to make in the manner which they believe will make them most cogent and persuasive. Of course, it is a matter for the individual councillor in the discharge of his responsibilities to choose what evidence and opinion it is that he or she wishes to study in discharging the responsibility of determining a planning application, but the issue in the present case is having the access to all the material bearing upon the application in order to make that choice. If the choice is curtailed by an instruction not to read any lobbying material from members of the public that has a significant impact on the ability of a member of the public to make a case in relation to a proposed development making the points that they wish to make in the way in which they would wish to make them.

The standard correspondence clearly advised against members of the public writing directly to members of the committee; there was no warrant for that advice or discouragement and it impeded the freedom of expression of a member of the public who was entitled to write to a member of the planning committee setting out in his or her own terms the points they wish to be considered in respect of an application and expect that the member would have the opportunity to read it.”

The permission was not quashed on this ground since whilst committee members had thought they were obliged to disregard a letter from Holborn Studios’ solicitors, their points were made by their QC at the committee meeting.

The judgment establishes, surprisingly for the first time, the right of local councillors to receive correspondence from the public and to consider it when making decisions. Part of that is the right of the public to write. There is also a recognition that members can and will be lobbied, whether in writing, in meetings, at social events or chatting in the street. Provided that is done openly, in particular, that correspondence is copied to officers whether by the writer or the recipient, that is not simply legitimate, but an important part of the democratic process.

The planning permission was quashed because the council failed to make affordable housing viability assessments available to Holborn Studios and the public. These were background papers and given government policy and guidance on transparency, the public interest did not allow these to be exempt information. Dove J found that the viability material which was published to justify a reduced affordable housing contribution was ‘opaque and incoherent’. This aspect of the case is considered in detail here.

Richard Harwood KC is a barrister at 39 Essex Chambers. He appeared for Holborn Studios in both cases, instructed by Susan Ring of Harrison Grant.

The importance of being fully informed about solar generating capacity.

Have you ever achieved the miles per gallon or the Electric Vehicle range claimed by the manufacturer?  Almost certainly not!

The industry’s claims about Solar energy ‘capacity’ are, it seems, also prone to mislead.  Developers currently base their calculations on a theoretical number of homes that might be supplied, and projected CO² savings, all based on the “nameplate” or “design capacity“ of the generating plant. However, the power rating of a solar PV panel, which makes up the nameplate capacity, is calculated using ‘Standard Test Conditions’ (STC) indoors and under laboratory conditions. STC only match real conditions in the UK for a few days of the year.  The actual outputs for most days are significantly below the STC criteria.

Other factors which also reduce the nameplate capacity are:

• DC/AC conversion ratio (clipping) – 2-5% loss
• Invertor efficiencies – 2-5% loss
• Dirt on panels – 2% loss
• Year-on-year performance degradation of PV panels – 0.5% loss (over 20 years 10%)

The largest reduction relates to the load factor i.e., the ratio of how much solar electricity is generated as a proportion of the total solar nameplate capacity for any given year.

Taken from the government’s Digest of UK Energy Statistics (DUKES) the load factor for Solar PV in 2022 was 10.2. a reduction of 89.8% of the nameplate capacity.

Taking a real-world example of a proposed solar development of 49.9 MW – where the developer claims 12617 houses will be powered with a saving of 10433 tonnes of CO² emissions – applying the above factors to these figures shows the true potential of the solar generation development.

                           Claimed                                                                     Real

The actual public benefit in this example is approximately 1156 houses supplied, and not the 12617 houses stated in the design capacity – and 957 Tonnes CO² a year saved, not 10433.  Overstating the public benefit by over 90%, no matter how welcome the low carbon energy contribution, is misleading and simply wrong.

(BSR claim for the proposed North Dairy Farm development: 49.9 MW “This is equivalent to the annual electrical needs of approx. 13,000 family homes. The anticipated CO2 displacement is around 13,000 tonnes per annum”.)

UNREASONED CLAIMS

Developers do not volunteer this ‘real’ information. So, it falls on planning officers, councillors, and the public at large to research the technology and ask the right questions during the planning application process.

If the developer’s overstated claims about the perceived public benefits are left unchallenged, the actual benefits, will not be in the minds of officers and councillors when they consider the merits of a solar application. In some instances, this could lead to inappropriate and ill-considered planning outcomes, based on unreasonably claimed benefits that would never materialise.

A related issue is a misconception that the local community will benefit from the electricity generated by solar development. There is a recent example where a planning committee was told: “This is energy for (two nearby towns), all of it, not a bit of it, all of it”. The reality was that all the electricity generated was distributed to the national grid, for the benefit of communities elsewhere. There was no specific or exclusive electricity supply benefit to the local community. In another case, significant harm to protected rural landscapes was justified to the local community, only for them to find out later that all the energy produced was not available to them as it had been contract ‘pipelined’ to power City of Landon office blocks!

We all have a duty to ensure that decision-makers are well-informed about material planning matters.  Asking the right questions at the right time. This is particularly important for complex generating technologies, and where the impact they will have on valued landscapes and food production can cause significant local harm.

The need to address the climate and ecological emergency has become even more urgent. The war in Ukraine has exacerbated a food and energy/fuel security and supply crisis – and Dorset homes and fields have been lost to fires caused, in part, by climate change. There surely cannot be anyone in the planning process who opposes the switch to low-carbon energy.

National and local planning policies stress the need for renewable low carbon green energy, but they also underline that the change must: “not be at the expense of the environment they are trying to protect.” As the Prime Minister stated at COP27, ‘there can be no solution to climate change without protecting and restoring nature’.

Many thanks to Jan Owen and the Ham Conservation Group (near Creech St Michael)

Modular nuclear plants sound the death knell for large-scale solar

Published by West Welwyn Solar Plant Action Group

The need to transition away from fossil fuels towards clean forms of energy is universally accepted. The UK has been particularly successful at implementing offshore wind but the lack of a clear strategy on solar up to now has led to a “gold rush” with developers seeking permission for sites across the country, often in unsuitable locations, aiming to make a quick buck. Farmers, attracted by the promise of higher income from renting their land for solar than they can make from farming, have often been only too happy to play along.

Now things are set to change. Following hot on the heels of the UK Government’s recent announcement that nuclear power will be categorised as a clean energy source, news that a US-based developer of small nuclear reactors has signed a deal to sell 24 of its power plants to UK customers, subsidy-free, is a major boost to the UK’s chances of achieving net zero energy targets. It also potentially sounds the death knell for the large-scale solar plant planning applications proliferating across the UK.

Compared to solar, small nuclear plants – sometimes referred to as “modular” plants – need significantly fewer natural resources to build, take up a fraction of the land and produce a vast amount more energy. Importantly they also work 24 hours a day, 365 days of a year, not just when the sun shines or when the wind blows. This is particularly important for heavy energy users with 24-hour operations, such as data centres.

Last Energy said the £100m modular units, which are two-thirds the size of a football pitch, can output 20MW of electricity, enough to power 40,000 homes and can be operational in less than 3 years. In comparison, a solar development of 100 acres would typically claim to be able to produce sufficient energy to power 10,000 homes. In reality, this is likely to be much lower due to the intermittency of solar.

The intermittent nature of the output from renewables, particularly solar, means that it is necessary to have an alternative energy infrastructure in place, and ready to step in at a moment’s notice, to deliver 100% of the country’s requirements at any one time. If not fossil fuels, then the only current alternative is nuclear. The implications of this are that if a country is building sufficient capacity to provide 100% of its energy requirements then nuclear will have to do the heavy lifting, supported by renewables, principally offshore wind.

What does this mean for the long-term viability of large-scale solar projects. Larger modular plants, such as that being developed by Rolls Royce, would provide 100 times more power and still only take up around 25 acres of land. In addition, the heat generated from modular nuclear plants can be used for other heat-intensive applications, such as the manufacturing of cement.

In a global context, putting more emphasis on nuclear will reduce the huge environmental damage and human cost caused by mining the scarce resources required to build solar panels and battery storage. More often than not these mines are located in poorer countries around the world and, as nuclear is put front and centre of the drive to transition from fossil fuels to clean energy, many fewer such mines will be required to produce the materials and minerals required for solar panels. Throw into the mix our current reliance on hostile powers, principally China, to mine and/or refine these commodities and the need for nuclear becomes irrefutable.

Given the shift towards nuclear, one has to question why we would allow our countryside to be carpeted in solar panels, often taking the place of productive agriculture, when they are likely to be obsolete within a relatively short period of time. Given the 30 to 40-year commitments and payback for solar plants, who will pay for the decommissioning and removal of panels when this happens? It is not difficult to imagine fields of abandoned panels rotting away unmaintained and local councils (or more accurately, tax-payers) having to foot the enormous costs of removing and disposing of them.

There is no question that solar still has a role to play – for local, small-scale energy production it makes a lot of sense. It is high time the government passed legislation (as in Germany) to require solar panels to be placed on rooftops of all new properties. Indeed, advances in technology, bringing to market solutions such as solar tiles, and even solar glass, mean that this option will become even more attractive. There are 250,000 hectares of south-facing warehouse space in the UK which is crying out to be used for solar energy to provide power to such businesses and local communites. In France the government has passed legislation requiring all car parks over a certain size to install solar panels and it is not uncommon there to see solar panels lining central reservations of motorways. These are the appropriate applications for solar.

Returning to the potential for nuclear, many firms are now developing modular nuclear plants. Rolls Royce’s design will produce 470MW of energy at £3.8m per megawatt compared to £10m per megawatt at the new Hinkley C plant under construction. The argument that nuclear is too expensive and takes too long to implement (never a logical argument in the first place as surely negating climate change requires the right solutions whatever the cost?) is now null and void. Renewables alone will never achieve net zero objectives and we must press ahead with building as many modular nuclear plants as possible. Now the government has opened up the industry to green subsidies this will happen quickly.

There is of course the question of safety. Those who argue that nuclear isn’t safe have little grasp of the concept of relative risk. The construction process for building a nuclear plant in the UK requires every component to be built and tested and then re-built for the actual project. Even toilet cubicles are protected by reinforced steel and concrete so that if a plane crashes into a nuclear installation, not only is the reactor protected, but the controller can’t be killed if they happen to be on the loo at the time! Safety rules are belts and braces and then some.

As far as nuclear waste is concerned, we know how to deal with this safely and effectively. There are no examples of people being injured or killed by nuclear waste. It’s stored remotely and/or underground in unimaginably strong containers and there isn’t a risk when being transported for the same reasons. Nuclear waste containers have been tested over the last 40 years by running them into concrete bunkers at 80MPH, being dropped on steel spikes, burned in jet fuel fires at thousands of degrees and sunk in deep water for weeks.

The reality is that any risk is non-existent compared to those we routinely accept in our daily lives, such as crossing the road or getting in a car.

There is no question that the world needs to move away from fossil fuels to clean alternatives. Relying on renewables alone to do this, as some advocate, is simply pie in the sky. Renewables are intermittent, we don’t have the natural resources to build sufficient renewable infrastructure and even if we did, the mining and manufacturing processes are hugely environmentally damaging in themselves. In addition, continuing to rely on China for the supply of a significant proportion of the materials needed is pure folly. The solution, which the UK government now seems to have grasped, is nuclear, supported by offshore wind with solar used for small-scale local energy provision. It is imperative that the UK Government makes this strategy crystal clear and that local government continues to refuse large-scale solar plants in sensitive locations.