Plan for 40 acre solar power and sheep farm at Ainderby Steeple, near Northallerton, generates opposition

How the solar panels would look - with plenty of room for sheep to graze beneath

How the solar panels would look - with plenty of room for sheep to graze beneath

First published in News by

A PLAN to combine solar panels and sheep on a 40 acre farm site beside a conservation village mentioned in the Domesday Book is generating some fierce opposition.

Northallerton businessman David Kerfoot and his neighbours have announced their opposition to proposals to install 29,528 1.6m by 1m photovoltaic panels across fields currently used for sheep grazing, at Ainderby Steeple, near Northallerton.

Two nearby schemes, proposed by farmers Stuart Charlton and Philip Sanderson, would see sheep continue to graze the land beneath the panels, which would be mounted on poles, eight foot above the ground.

Objectors say views from the village and the grade I listed St Helen’s Church would be ruined, and highlight that the Wensleydale heritage railway runs along the boundary of the solar farm site.

Planning agents for the farmers said the schemes would generate energy to supply more than 1,600 homes and said hedgerows would be planted to screen the farm, which would be operated on the land for 20 years.

They stated: “The addition of the solar farm would not result in any change in the character of the village itself and although would result in a change in elements of its setting, it is not considered that this represents a significant change.

“The proposed solar farm would introduce a new land use to the area, but the retention of existing hedgerows with reinforcement planting to fill and enhance the density of the vegetation cover would minimise the perception of the development throughout the year.”

The National Grid has raised concerns over the proximity of its high pressure transmission gas pipes to the proposed site, while Natural England said the proposal may present opportunities to enhance the landscape and wildlife at the site and bring benefits to the community.

David Kerfoot, chairman of vegetable oils business The Kerfoot Group, said allowing the scheme would set a precedent which could lead to the village being surrounded by solar farms.

Mr Kerfoot: “The sheer size of these schemes will dominate the countryside which is not acceptable.”

His neighbours have claimed house prices in the village would fall by up 15 per cent and that Ainderby Steeple would become known as “the solar panel village”.

Resident Edward Jones wrote: “To call it a solar farm or, as the applicant and agent referred to it at the recent parish meeting, a solar park is an utter delusion and an insult to our intelligence.

“It certainly would not be a park, nor would it any longer look like a farm.”

It is understood the scheme will be considered by Hambleton District Council’s planning committee next month.

Comments (32)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

10:17am Sat 5 Apr 14

Robert_ says...

Lets carry on living in the past. Lets not use modern technology to produce green energy. It will spoil the view for a hand full of people.

Get with the times.
Lets carry on living in the past. Lets not use modern technology to produce green energy. It will spoil the view for a hand full of people. Get with the times. Robert_
  • Score: 19

10:35am Sat 5 Apr 14

Copley23 says...

So what that its mentioned in the Doomsday book......there are some 13418 towns and villages recorded in the Domesday Book, covering 40 of the old counties of England. The majority of these still exist in some form today.

So we don't build near any of them! Pah!

Let's all move to North Yorkshire and live in a museum.
So what that its mentioned in the Doomsday book......there are some 13418 towns and villages recorded in the Domesday Book, covering 40 of the old counties of England. The majority of these still exist in some form today. So we don't build near any of them! Pah! Let's all move to North Yorkshire and live in a museum. Copley23
  • Score: 13

11:50am Sat 5 Apr 14

Voice-of-reality says...

A simple plebiscite should settle the issue with three questions:

1. Be beholden unto Russia for gas
2. Face a future of uncertain energy production as coal powered stations are closed due to EU regulations with resultant increased energy costs
3. Have a relatively unobtrusive development in your community

The sensible answer is evident - the 'yorkshire' answer is I expect 'none of the above'.
A simple plebiscite should settle the issue with three questions: 1. Be beholden unto Russia for gas 2. Face a future of uncertain energy production as coal powered stations are closed due to EU regulations with resultant increased energy costs 3. Have a relatively unobtrusive development in your community The sensible answer is evident - the 'yorkshire' answer is I expect 'none of the above'. Voice-of-reality
  • Score: 0

12:33pm Sat 5 Apr 14

David Lacey says...

These "renewable energy" scams wouldn't go ahead unless they were heavily subsidised. Electricity produced by PV attracts payments of about 13 pence per Kwh (double the domestic price). This power is produced at maximum rate when it isn't needed - high summer. In winter - when it IS needed - nothing is generated. It is a ridiculous way to meet the ludicrous carbon targets agreed to by the government and ignored by almost all of the world including Germany, India, China and the USA.
.
This PV farm is simply a money maker for rich people.
.
For a safe secure low carbon and low cost way to generate electricity we must get fracking now.
These "renewable energy" scams wouldn't go ahead unless they were heavily subsidised. Electricity produced by PV attracts payments of about 13 pence per Kwh (double the domestic price). This power is produced at maximum rate when it isn't needed - high summer. In winter - when it IS needed - nothing is generated. It is a ridiculous way to meet the ludicrous carbon targets agreed to by the government and ignored by almost all of the world including Germany, India, China and the USA. . This PV farm is simply a money maker for rich people. . For a safe secure low carbon and low cost way to generate electricity we must get fracking now. David Lacey
  • Score: -15

2:20pm Sat 5 Apr 14

bambara says...

No let's not build any renewable forms of generation in the coutryside where a few 10's of people live. Let's build huge ugly dirty coal fired poluting generation just outside of the big towns and cities, where they can spoil the view for tens of thousands.

True Solar isn't great at the moment being restricted to peak operation in summer and during the day, (it will be handy once we can use it to split water and produce Hydrogen for future generations of Hydrogen fuel cell cars)
Of course if the developer had suggested a wind farm the nimbies would have been even more agitated.
No let's not build any renewable forms of generation in the coutryside where a few 10's of people live. Let's build huge ugly dirty coal fired poluting generation just outside of the big towns and cities, where they can spoil the view for tens of thousands. True Solar isn't great at the moment being restricted to peak operation in summer and during the day, (it will be handy once we can use it to split water and produce Hydrogen for future generations of Hydrogen fuel cell cars) Of course if the developer had suggested a wind farm the nimbies would have been even more agitated. bambara
  • Score: 9

2:30pm Sat 5 Apr 14

bambara says...

" For a safe secure low carbon and low cost way to generate electricity we must get fracking now. David Lacey "

Couple of slight issues with that statement David.

1. Fracking has definately not been shown to be safe. Polution of ground water, localised earthquakes, and the prospect of being able to light the gas coming out of your water supply is probably going to make most people nervous of having fracking in the area they live in.
2. Low carbon, it definately ISN'T. When you take a hydrocarbon reserve from under the ground and burn it to produce power, by definition that IS NOT LOW CARBON.

But I am sure that lots of petro-chemical companies will be ploughing a lot of resources into buying / lobbying politicians in an effort to ensure that the licenses to exploit the fracking opportunity and make huge profits out of it are facilitated.
" For a safe secure low carbon and low cost way to generate electricity we must get fracking now. David Lacey " Couple of slight issues with that statement David. 1. Fracking has definately not been shown to be safe. Polution of ground water, localised earthquakes, and the prospect of being able to light the gas coming out of your water supply is probably going to make most people nervous of having fracking in the area they live in. 2. Low carbon, it definately ISN'T. When you take a hydrocarbon reserve from under the ground and burn it to produce power, by definition that IS NOT LOW CARBON. But I am sure that lots of petro-chemical companies will be ploughing a lot of resources into buying / lobbying politicians in an effort to ensure that the licenses to exploit the fracking opportunity and make huge profits out of it are facilitated. bambara
  • Score: 13

2:44pm Sat 5 Apr 14

David Lacey says...

Sorry bambara. You are utterly and completely wrong. Fracking is perfectly safe and the scare stories perpetrated by people like you will soon be shown to be fallacies.
.
And methane is the lowest carbon based gas being four parts hydrogen to one part carbon.
.
We can continue to listen to doom mongers like you or revolutionise our country the way that they have in the USA. The choice is ours.
Sorry bambara. You are utterly and completely wrong. Fracking is perfectly safe and the scare stories perpetrated by people like you will soon be shown to be fallacies. . And methane is the lowest carbon based gas being four parts hydrogen to one part carbon. . We can continue to listen to doom mongers like you or revolutionise our country the way that they have in the USA. The choice is ours. David Lacey
  • Score: -11

3:59pm Sat 5 Apr 14

Colcat says...

From the BBC website:

Methane:
'Even though it occurs in lower concentrations than carbon dioxide, it produces 21 times as much warming as CO2. Methane accounts for 20% of the 'enhanced greenhouse effect'.

Just saying.
From the BBC website: Methane: 'Even though it occurs in lower concentrations than carbon dioxide, it produces 21 times as much warming as CO2. Methane accounts for 20% of the 'enhanced greenhouse effect'. Just saying. Colcat
  • Score: 2

4:13pm Sat 5 Apr 14

David Lacey says...

What are you saying? That cow **** (= methane) are ignited on emission? It is true that methane UNBURNT is a "greenhouse gas" but when burned it produces water vapour and carbon dioxide. We are talking about fuel here, not raw emissions of methane. Your message has no relevance.
What are you saying? That cow **** (= methane) are ignited on emission? It is true that methane UNBURNT is a "greenhouse gas" but when burned it produces water vapour and carbon dioxide. We are talking about fuel here, not raw emissions of methane. Your message has no relevance. David Lacey
  • Score: -4

4:50pm Sat 5 Apr 14

spottycow says...

No problem with this come and do it near where i live . IVE got a ninety foot indoor tennis arena just sixty feet away from our lounge did we object NO BECAUSE IT GIVES ALOT OF PLEASURE TO OUR YOUNG KIDS YOU ARE NOTHING BUT NIMBYS . HOPE IT GETS THE GO AHEAD YOU NASTY PEOPLE
No problem with this come and do it near where i live . IVE got a ninety foot indoor tennis arena just sixty feet away from our lounge did we object NO BECAUSE IT GIVES ALOT OF PLEASURE TO OUR YOUNG KIDS YOU ARE NOTHING BUT NIMBYS . HOPE IT GETS THE GO AHEAD YOU NASTY PEOPLE spottycow
  • Score: 8

8:40pm Sat 5 Apr 14

bambara says...

"And methane is the lowest carbon based gas being four parts hydrogen to one part carbon."

NOTE - it is true that for a given amount of energy produced Methane will produce less CO2 than either oil fired or coal fired generation, and this is a good thing.
This though does not make it a "low carbon" option. It just makes it a less high carbon option.

"Fracking is perfectly safe and the scare stories perpetrated by people like you will soon be shown to be fallacies."
This is not true.
1. The fracking industry itself accepts that it loses 1-3% to the atmosphere (21 x as potent a greenhouse gas as CO2) and others estimate anything up to 7%.
2. Cases in the USA of contamination of ground water have been found both as a result of spills (Pensylvania), as a result of fracking of shallow deposits (Bradford county), and as a result of the indirect impact of drilling through multiple layers of rock containing non-comercial levels of natural gas at lower depths (sorry don't have the details of that one)
3. Fracking in Blackpool (that is the one in the UK) resulted in localised earthquakes in the area. Now OK that was a minor quake, but it was as the result of 1 test well, and not full scale comercial extraction.

So David I stand by my statement, Fracking has not been shown to be safe. It may be a viable option to act as a stop-gap in the move away from a carbon based energy economy, but there are risks associated, and any decision to give fracking the go ahead must be qualified, and should include unlimited liabilities for the companies involved.
If they can do it safely, ok. If not they must be on the hook for the enviromental, social and commercial damage they do.
"And methane is the lowest carbon based gas being four parts hydrogen to one part carbon." NOTE - it is true that for a given amount of energy produced Methane will produce less CO2 than either oil fired or coal fired generation, and this is a good thing. This though does not make it a "low carbon" option. It just makes it a less high carbon option. "Fracking is perfectly safe and the scare stories perpetrated by people like you will soon be shown to be fallacies." This is not true. 1. The fracking industry itself accepts that it loses 1-3% to the atmosphere (21 x as potent a greenhouse gas as CO2) and others estimate anything up to 7%. 2. Cases in the USA of contamination of ground water have been found both as a result of spills (Pensylvania), as a result of fracking of shallow deposits (Bradford county), and as a result of the indirect impact of drilling through multiple layers of rock containing non-comercial levels of natural gas at lower depths (sorry don't have the details of that one) 3. Fracking in Blackpool (that is the one in the UK) resulted in localised earthquakes in the area. Now OK that was a minor quake, but it was as the result of 1 test well, and not full scale comercial extraction. So David I stand by my statement, Fracking has not been shown to be safe. It may be a viable option to act as a stop-gap in the move away from a carbon based energy economy, but there are risks associated, and any decision to give fracking the go ahead must be qualified, and should include unlimited liabilities for the companies involved. If they can do it safely, ok. If not they must be on the hook for the enviromental, social and commercial damage they do. bambara
  • Score: 7

8:46pm Sat 5 Apr 14

Voice-of-reality says...

If fracking is not safe (which I doubt) then the future is even simpler - nuclear is once more the saviour of the west. Clean, safe, reliable, and homegrown.
If fracking is not safe (which I doubt) then the future is even simpler - nuclear is once more the saviour of the west. Clean, safe, reliable, and homegrown. Voice-of-reality
  • Score: -3

10:59pm Sat 5 Apr 14

bambara says...

Not sure from the comment if you are doubting that fracking is safe, or doubting that it is unsafe VOR, but either way the cleanliness of nuclear is something of an interesting point given the estimated £70bn bill to clean up Sellafield.
At the moment, unfortunate as it is we are faced with only an option of attempting to pick "least worst" options.
Green and Clean = expensive
Coal - Dirty and no longer available as all the mines have been closed
Oil - Dirty and limited availability, sources unsecure
Conventional Gas - Slightly less dirty but local sources running low and others very insecure
Fracking Gas - Uproven technology, but locally available.
Nuclear - Do it and the waste hangs around for thousands of years.

Oh for the option of Fusion, but that technology isn't available. so we may be stuck with Fracking.
Is it a good option? Not sure.
Is it clean? Nope, but there are worse options.
Is it sustainable? Nope not in the long term, but it will keep the lights on.

& if you think you have seen trouble with the Nimbies over wind farms and solar arrays, you ain't seen nothing yet.

So expensive or not we had better make use of the green option, cos we are going to need it.
Not sure from the comment if you are doubting that fracking is safe, or doubting that it is unsafe VOR, but either way the cleanliness of nuclear is something of an interesting point given the estimated £70bn bill to clean up Sellafield. At the moment, unfortunate as it is we are faced with only an option of attempting to pick "least worst" options. Green and Clean = expensive Coal - Dirty and no longer available as all the mines have been closed Oil - Dirty and limited availability, sources unsecure Conventional Gas - Slightly less dirty but local sources running low and others very insecure Fracking Gas - Uproven technology, but locally available. Nuclear - Do it and the waste hangs around for thousands of years. Oh for the option of Fusion, but that technology isn't available. so we may be stuck with Fracking. Is it a good option? Not sure. Is it clean? Nope, but there are worse options. Is it sustainable? Nope not in the long term, but it will keep the lights on. & if you think you have seen trouble with the Nimbies over wind farms and solar arrays, you ain't seen nothing yet. So expensive or not we had better make use of the green option, cos we are going to need it. bambara
  • Score: 9

11:22pm Sat 5 Apr 14

Voice-of-reality says...

However, the wind turbines are not reliable and their cost is greater than the output they produce. As for the nuclear waste being around for thousands of years - that of course assumes that science does not progress over thenext milennium. I do believe in fracking and in nuclear - both can be embraced and bring prosperity to the north. Of course, we could ignore global/EU 'targets' with regard to coal - given that, in reality, even if we do cut our carbon emissions to zero (which we won't) it makes little difference given the carbon waste produced by China and India. What we do, is a a largely meaningless drop in the ocean - whereas tackling their energy (and population) problems is the more radical solution needed.
However, the wind turbines are not reliable and their cost is greater than the output they produce. As for the nuclear waste being around for thousands of years - that of course assumes that science does not progress over thenext milennium. I do believe in fracking and in nuclear - both can be embraced and bring prosperity to the north. Of course, we could ignore global/EU 'targets' with regard to coal - given that, in reality, even if we do cut our carbon emissions to zero (which we won't) it makes little difference given the carbon waste produced by China and India. What we do, is a a largely meaningless drop in the ocean - whereas tackling their energy (and population) problems is the more radical solution needed. Voice-of-reality
  • Score: -6

7:21am Sun 6 Apr 14

bambara says...

VOR you are way off on the scientific facts on this.
"the average windfarm produces 20-25 times more energy during its operational life than was used to construct and install its turbines" - Note average not the best ones, and not assuming perfect conditions. This is the real world average.

It takes a wind turbine between 3 and 6 months to generate the energy required to manufacture and install it. (So a good one in good -not perfect- conditions produces double the average.)

Lack of reliability, like the wind itself. We can't guarantee the wind, so we need to find a way of storing the power wind farms generate, as we need to find a way of storing the power solar, hydro, etc... generates. (Splitting water to produce hydrogen for hydrogen fuel cells is the obvious, but not the only option)

Nuclear of course is touted widely, but stating that this is reliable ignores the fact that many of the nuclear plants have horrendous records for being out of action requiring maintenance.

Could we ignore global carbon emmisions. Well it is quite a big risk to take.
With climate change the risks range from levels of impact on the planet that could potentially be "mitigated" and adapted to, through to the slim possibility that the increase in carbon release from Methane clathrates in the ocean, allied to releases from permafrost in Canada and Siberia could result in huge increases in CO2/CH4 greenhouse effects, and this could in itself acidify the oceans to the point where the little plankton creatures that live in the top 10m of the water may be unable to survive. Now that would be an issue because those creatures produce over 50% of the Oxygen in the atmoosphere. Put simply they die = We die. All of us, all over the entire planet.
How big is that risk, scientists don't have enough information to say at the moment. But balancing that against the alternatives, is there any alternative that makes that a risk worth taking?

I will state that one again just to be clear, in simple terms:
THERE IS A RISK ASSOCIATED WITH GLOBAL WARMING WHICH REALISTICALLY RESULT IN THE EXTINCTION OF HUMANITY.

Now do you really want to do nothing and wait for China and India to act?
VOR you are way off on the scientific facts on this. "the average windfarm produces 20-25 times more energy during its operational life than was used to construct and install its turbines" - Note average not the best ones, and not assuming perfect conditions. This is the real world average. It takes a wind turbine between 3 and 6 months to generate the energy required to manufacture and install it. (So a good one in good -not perfect- conditions produces double the average.) Lack of reliability, like the wind itself. We can't guarantee the wind, so we need to find a way of storing the power wind farms generate, as we need to find a way of storing the power solar, hydro, etc... generates. (Splitting water to produce hydrogen for hydrogen fuel cells is the obvious, but not the only option) Nuclear of course is touted widely, but stating that this is reliable ignores the fact that many of the nuclear plants have horrendous records for being out of action requiring maintenance. Could we ignore global carbon emmisions. Well it is quite a big risk to take. With climate change the risks range from levels of impact on the planet that could potentially be "mitigated" and adapted to, through to the slim possibility that the increase in carbon release from Methane clathrates in the ocean, allied to releases from permafrost in Canada and Siberia could result in huge increases in CO2/CH4 greenhouse effects, and this could in itself acidify the oceans to the point where the little plankton creatures that live in the top 10m of the water may be unable to survive. Now that would be an issue because those creatures produce over 50% of the Oxygen in the atmoosphere. Put simply they die = We die. All of us, all over the entire planet. How big is that risk, scientists don't have enough information to say at the moment. But balancing that against the alternatives, is there any alternative that makes that a risk worth taking? I will state that one again just to be clear, in simple terms: THERE IS A RISK ASSOCIATED WITH GLOBAL WARMING WHICH REALISTICALLY RESULT IN THE EXTINCTION OF HUMANITY. Now do you really want to do nothing and wait for China and India to act? bambara
  • Score: 4

10:19am Sun 6 Apr 14

David Lacey says...

You are all ignoring one simple fact. Energy does NOT equal electricity. You have all focused on electricity but referred to it as energy. 80% of UK homes are heated by gas A fossil fuel but by definition it is the lowest form of carbon we have. How are we going to keep warm , heat furnaces, cook food etc without safe secure gas supplies?
.
The answer is that we must get fracking ASAP. It is safe. It will benefit communities involved in its operations.
You are all ignoring one simple fact. Energy does NOT equal electricity. You have all focused on electricity but referred to it as energy. 80% of UK homes are heated by gas A fossil fuel but by definition it is the lowest form of carbon we have. How are we going to keep warm , heat furnaces, cook food etc without safe secure gas supplies? . The answer is that we must get fracking ASAP. It is safe. It will benefit communities involved in its operations. David Lacey
  • Score: -3

11:48am Sun 6 Apr 14

CTRILEY says...

"A PLAN to combine solar panels and sheep on a 40 acre farm site beside a conservation village mentioned in the Domesday Book is generating some fierce opposition."

My question is how much demand is there for sheep fitted with solar panels?
"A PLAN to combine solar panels and sheep on a 40 acre farm site beside a conservation village mentioned in the Domesday Book is generating some fierce opposition." My question is how much demand is there for sheep fitted with solar panels? CTRILEY
  • Score: 0

11:59am Sun 6 Apr 14

David Lacey says...

Baaaah!!!
Baaaah!!! David Lacey
  • Score: 0

2:01pm Sun 6 Apr 14

bambara says...

Do androids dream of electric sheep...

But seriously, it is only a generation ago that gas heating was almost unheard of in the NE, everything was coal.
A generation from now it could all be about hydrogen fuel cells, or ground source heat pumps, micro generation, perhaps hybrid heating similar to the hybrid car technology, or some tech we have not even considered. May be that we use this new idea for extracting the coal from under the north sea using high pressure steam wells.
One easy option would be more of the anearobic digestion plants which generate gas from waste. Plenty of waste goes to the sewage farms at the moment, how much bio-gas could we get from that, and how much more from what goes to landfill?
Do androids dream of electric sheep... But seriously, it is only a generation ago that gas heating was almost unheard of in the NE, everything was coal. A generation from now it could all be about hydrogen fuel cells, or ground source heat pumps, micro generation, perhaps hybrid heating similar to the hybrid car technology, or some tech we have not even considered. May be that we use this new idea for extracting the coal from under the north sea using high pressure steam wells. One easy option would be more of the anearobic digestion plants which generate gas from waste. Plenty of waste goes to the sewage farms at the moment, how much bio-gas could we get from that, and how much more from what goes to landfill? bambara
  • Score: 0

4:02pm Sun 6 Apr 14

David Lacey says...

All excellent ideas and they have a niche in the overall energy mix. But none will have mass applications in the next 10 years when we face a crisis.
All excellent ideas and they have a niche in the overall energy mix. But none will have mass applications in the next 10 years when we face a crisis. David Lacey
  • Score: 1

4:59pm Sun 6 Apr 14

cushybutterfield says...

These negative politically correct liberal ****NIMBYS make me sick, they oppose anything which they think will impinge on their 'well shod cosy world whether it be hamlet, village or Town'.. The North East is desperate for JOBS and WORK for young people and ANY reasonable NEW INDUSTRY they oppose. *** Canada and the USA and other counties are 'light years ahead of Britain on FRACKING......if most of these NIMBYS had their way, the rest of Britain would be living in 'unlit, 'unheated wattle mud Huts', yet take away ANY OF THE NIMBYS, Gas, Water, Electricity, and or Heating Oil supplies and you would never hear the end of constant whinging, bleating and demonstrating. The Solar Panels are going to be masked by TALL Hedges and when you go through some of these hamlets and villages, you see crumbling, rotting Greenhouses with broken-glass, so GIVE ME a SOLAR HEATING Site any day. It begs the question. Has the Doomsday Book ever provided ONE MODERN NEW JOB ?.
These negative politically correct liberal ****NIMBYS make me sick, they oppose anything which they think will impinge on their 'well shod cosy world whether it be hamlet, village or Town'.. The North East is desperate for JOBS and WORK for young people and ANY reasonable NEW INDUSTRY they oppose. *** Canada and the USA and other counties are 'light years ahead of Britain on FRACKING......if most of these NIMBYS had their way, the rest of Britain would be living in 'unlit, 'unheated wattle mud Huts', yet take away ANY OF THE NIMBYS, Gas, Water, Electricity, and or Heating Oil supplies and you would never hear the end of constant whinging, bleating and demonstrating. The Solar Panels are going to be masked by TALL Hedges and when you go through some of these hamlets and villages, you see crumbling, rotting Greenhouses with broken-glass, so GIVE ME a SOLAR HEATING Site any day. It begs the question. Has the Doomsday Book ever provided ONE MODERN NEW JOB ?. cushybutterfield
  • Score: -2

8:07pm Mon 7 Apr 14

gjh says...

This is an excellent idea. Surely having a reliable, local source of power is far better than relying on imported gas or nuclear power. Every town and village should have one of these.
This is an excellent idea. Surely having a reliable, local source of power is far better than relying on imported gas or nuclear power. Every town and village should have one of these. gjh
  • Score: 2

9:01am Tue 8 Apr 14

David Lacey says...

It's not reliable. When the sun don't shine it doesn't work. That's during darkness and in winter when we need most of our electricity. Think again.
It's not reliable. When the sun don't shine it doesn't work. That's during darkness and in winter when we need most of our electricity. Think again. David Lacey
  • Score: -1

1:16pm Tue 8 Apr 14

gjh says...

David Lacey wrote:
It's not reliable. When the sun don't shine it doesn't work. That's during darkness and in winter when we need most of our electricity. Think again.
Er, they do work in winter. They rely on light, not sunshine.
[quote][p][bold]David Lacey[/bold] wrote: It's not reliable. When the sun don't shine it doesn't work. That's during darkness and in winter when we need most of our electricity. Think again.[/p][/quote]Er, they do work in winter. They rely on light, not sunshine. gjh
  • Score: 2

2:48pm Tue 8 Apr 14

David Lacey says...

Not quite correct. The intensity of the light they receive is what dictates the amount of power generated. Hence they work much better the further south you go and have maximum effect at the equator. But putting that aside, daylight hours in winter are limited to 6 or so and the intensity is low. For all practical purposed PV arrays produce zero power from October to March. And surely you accept that they don't work at all when it is dark? The truth is that PV is of maximum use when demand is at its lowest and of minimum use when demand is at its highest. I trust you find this helpful.
Not quite correct. The intensity of the light they receive is what dictates the amount of power generated. Hence they work much better the further south you go and have maximum effect at the equator. But putting that aside, daylight hours in winter are limited to 6 or so and the intensity is low. For all practical purposed PV arrays produce zero power from October to March. And surely you accept that they don't work at all when it is dark? The truth is that PV is of maximum use when demand is at its lowest and of minimum use when demand is at its highest. I trust you find this helpful. David Lacey
  • Score: -2

5:47pm Tue 8 Apr 14

gjh says...

David Lacey wrote:
Not quite correct. The intensity of the light they receive is what dictates the amount of power generated. Hence they work much better the further south you go and have maximum effect at the equator. But putting that aside, daylight hours in winter are limited to 6 or so and the intensity is low. For all practical purposed PV arrays produce zero power from October to March. And surely you accept that they don't work at all when it is dark? The truth is that PV is of maximum use when demand is at its lowest and of minimum use when demand is at its highest. I trust you find this helpful.
Yes, ok, they do not work when it is dark, but then power stations will not work when the gas/oil/coal has run out. When it is not dark though the arrays produce power without burning the earth's finite resources; without needing dangerous,expensive processes to exploit those resources and without polluting the environment. As I wrote before every town and village should have one of these.
[quote][p][bold]David Lacey[/bold] wrote: Not quite correct. The intensity of the light they receive is what dictates the amount of power generated. Hence they work much better the further south you go and have maximum effect at the equator. But putting that aside, daylight hours in winter are limited to 6 or so and the intensity is low. For all practical purposed PV arrays produce zero power from October to March. And surely you accept that they don't work at all when it is dark? The truth is that PV is of maximum use when demand is at its lowest and of minimum use when demand is at its highest. I trust you find this helpful.[/p][/quote]Yes, ok, they do not work when it is dark, but then power stations will not work when the gas/oil/coal has run out. When it is not dark though the arrays produce power without burning the earth's finite resources; without needing dangerous,expensive processes to exploit those resources and without polluting the environment. As I wrote before every town and village should have one of these. gjh
  • Score: 1

7:14am Wed 9 Apr 14

Ally F says...

(D.L.) "Electricity produced by PV attracts payments of about 13 pence per Kwh (double the domestic price)."

Wow, can you let me know your electricity supplier please David.? I'm with Ovo and paying a fixed tariff of 12.5p per kWh, which I thought was a fairly competitive domestic price!

I don't have a problem with solar parks, farms, wind turbines, etc. They are a drop in the ocean with regard to our country's energy demand, but all forms of renewable energy should be encouraged.

Concerns about nearby house prices to this proposal are irrelevant from a planning evaluation point of view, they are not a material planning consideration, but usually the underlying reason behind most objections.

Within the regulatory framework we have in the UK, fracking will be safe and reliable. People forget that in the USA there is much less regulation - a land owner theoretically owns the land at the surface and underneath to the centre of the earth, and the mineral wealth therein and the extraction rights. Wells can be bored in the ground with little or no regulatory oversight as to their integrity and construction. Incidents of ground water contamination have occurred in the USA, but not through the fracking process itself, which takes place a much greater geological depths than groundwater sources, but by the well integirty issues allowing contamination from the well bore and casing to the ground water table near the surface.

That is extremely unlikely in the UK, all licenses for oil and gas exploration and production are granted by the State, and under the Petroleum Act 1988 shale gas belongs to the Crown not the landowner. There is a very strict regulatory framework concerning well construction and integrity. I'm not saying it is risk free, nothing is. But the risks are mitigated and controlled in the UK far more so than in other countries.
(D.L.) "Electricity produced by PV attracts payments of about 13 pence per Kwh (double the domestic price)." Wow, can you let me know your electricity supplier please David.? I'm with Ovo and paying a fixed tariff of 12.5p per kWh, which I thought was a fairly competitive domestic price! I don't have a problem with solar parks, farms, wind turbines, etc. They are a drop in the ocean with regard to our country's energy demand, but all forms of renewable energy should be encouraged. Concerns about nearby house prices to this proposal are irrelevant from a planning evaluation point of view, they are not a material planning consideration, but usually the underlying reason behind most objections. Within the regulatory framework we have in the UK, fracking will be safe and reliable. People forget that in the USA there is much less regulation - a land owner theoretically owns the land at the surface and underneath to the centre of the earth, and the mineral wealth therein and the extraction rights. Wells can be bored in the ground with little or no regulatory oversight as to their integrity and construction. Incidents of ground water contamination have occurred in the USA, but not through the fracking process itself, which takes place a much greater geological depths than groundwater sources, but by the well integirty issues allowing contamination from the well bore and casing to the ground water table near the surface. That is extremely unlikely in the UK, all licenses for oil and gas exploration and production are granted by the State, and under the Petroleum Act 1988 shale gas belongs to the Crown not the landowner. There is a very strict regulatory framework concerning well construction and integrity. I'm not saying it is risk free, nothing is. But the risks are mitigated and controlled in the UK far more so than in other countries. Ally F
  • Score: 0

9:09am Wed 9 Apr 14

studio says...

David Lacey wrote:
These "renewable energy" scams wouldn't go ahead unless they were heavily subsidised. Electricity produced by PV attracts payments of about 13 pence per Kwh (double the domestic price). This power is produced at maximum rate when it isn't needed - high summer. In winter - when it IS needed - nothing is generated. It is a ridiculous way to meet the ludicrous carbon targets agreed to by the government and ignored by almost all of the world including Germany, India, China and the USA. . This PV farm is simply a money maker for rich people. . For a safe secure low carbon and low cost way to generate electricity we must get fracking now.
Frack Off.
[quote][p][bold]David Lacey[/bold] wrote: These "renewable energy" scams wouldn't go ahead unless they were heavily subsidised. Electricity produced by PV attracts payments of about 13 pence per Kwh (double the domestic price). This power is produced at maximum rate when it isn't needed - high summer. In winter - when it IS needed - nothing is generated. It is a ridiculous way to meet the ludicrous carbon targets agreed to by the government and ignored by almost all of the world including Germany, India, China and the USA. . This PV farm is simply a money maker for rich people. . For a safe secure low carbon and low cost way to generate electricity we must get fracking now.[/p][/quote]Frack Off. studio
  • Score: 1

9:16am Wed 9 Apr 14

David Lacey says...

Ally - you have confused payments to producers with payments from users. And it was my fault. A PV array is a generator - just like a mini power station - and the producer (home owner) is paid about 13 pence per kwh which is double the amount paid to the big gas and coal based generators. What you are paid bears no relation to what the tariffs for users are. I didn't make this clear and apologise for the confusion so created. But I am now correct.
.
Your conclusions regarding fracking are 100% correct and I applaud your enthusiasm for this major energy source.
Ally - you have confused payments to producers with payments from users. And it was my fault. A PV array is a generator - just like a mini power station - and the producer (home owner) is paid about 13 pence per kwh which is double the amount paid to the big gas and coal based generators. What you are paid bears no relation to what the tariffs for users are. I didn't make this clear and apologise for the confusion so created. But I am now correct. . Your conclusions regarding fracking are 100% correct and I applaud your enthusiasm for this major energy source. David Lacey
  • Score: 0

2:47pm Wed 9 Apr 14

theWorkerScum says...

Amazing clean energy proposed and all they worry about is a potential 15 percent drop in their house prices. greedy ##!?@?!s
Amazing clean energy proposed and all they worry about is a potential 15 percent drop in their house prices. greedy ##!?@?!s theWorkerScum
  • Score: 1

4:26pm Wed 9 Apr 14

RealLivin says...

I had solar panels fitted to my house a few months ago and they have already halved my electric bill, while they still have many short coming, in that you need to use the power as its generated and lower light yields lower power, and as yet there are no low cost efficient storage systems to store what you generate. What did surprise me when doing this was the 14.9 p per kw I get paid for just generating the power and the 4.6p when I send it back to the grid, while I am happy to make this I would have thought a better idea was for me to be able to bank my energy not used for the winter so winter costs dont rise by much. This would also stop plans like this were the only end product is money for those how build this solar farms. While researching my panels I heard stories of farmers connecting barns to the grid just to pump solar into the grid for a nice 6 figure retirement plan, if this keeps going we will end up with a energy divide as bit as the north/south divide were those that cant afford to install panels will be left unable to afford the rising energy costs. WE DO NEED SOLAR and WIND FARMS so why not install them to areas that are already built up, such as all houses, why cover land require for grazing or food crops with subsidies for bio fuel crops we are quickly running out for space to grow food.

The Government already subsidise insulation installs why not solar or wind even if the homes dont get paid for their energy generated at least it will reduce their energy costs, in fact why dont energy companies do this as per the other companies that install free solar panels and claim the feed in Tarrif, this way they get more energy generated at lower cost (than building and running a power plant) and they are paying themselves for generating the power (as long as the tarrifs last).

Covering useful land with Solar and Wind farms makes a mockery of the environmental issue when we have more than enough roofs that could be covered.
I had solar panels fitted to my house a few months ago and they have already halved my electric bill, while they still have many short coming, in that you need to use the power as its generated and lower light yields lower power, and as yet there are no low cost efficient storage systems to store what you generate. What did surprise me when doing this was the 14.9 p per kw I get paid for just generating the power and the 4.6p when I send it back to the grid, while I am happy to make this I would have thought a better idea was for me to be able to bank my energy not used for the winter so winter costs dont rise by much. This would also stop plans like this were the only end product is money for those how build this solar farms. While researching my panels I heard stories of farmers connecting barns to the grid just to pump solar into the grid for a nice 6 figure retirement plan, if this keeps going we will end up with a energy divide as bit as the north/south divide were those that cant afford to install panels will be left unable to afford the rising energy costs. WE DO NEED SOLAR and WIND FARMS so why not install them to areas that are already built up, such as all houses, why cover land require for grazing or food crops with subsidies for bio fuel crops we are quickly running out for space to grow food. The Government already subsidise insulation installs why not solar or wind even if the homes dont get paid for their energy generated at least it will reduce their energy costs, in fact why dont energy companies do this as per the other companies that install free solar panels and claim the feed in Tarrif, this way they get more energy generated at lower cost (than building and running a power plant) and they are paying themselves for generating the power (as long as the tarrifs last). Covering useful land with Solar and Wind farms makes a mockery of the environmental issue when we have more than enough roofs that could be covered. RealLivin
  • Score: -2

7:42pm Wed 9 Apr 14

Fireside says...

Chairman of vegetable oil business which imports palm oil is opposed to Solar Farm. Does he realise how unethical the production of palm oil is? Acres of tropical forest decimated on a daily basis to produce oil whilst killing wildlife, affecting climate change - the list goes on... Whilst he admires his view of the conservation village noted in the Doomsday Book! NIMBY'S
I hope this application gets the go ahead.
Chairman of vegetable oil business which imports palm oil is opposed to Solar Farm. Does he realise how unethical the production of palm oil is? Acres of tropical forest decimated on a daily basis to produce oil whilst killing wildlife, affecting climate change - the list goes on... Whilst he admires his view of the conservation village noted in the Doomsday Book! NIMBY'S I hope this application gets the go ahead. Fireside
  • Score: 4

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree