Does anybody here take the Greens seriously?

[Rusty Nails]

In other words, NIMBY.

Strange how we rarely see Nimbyism in in the likes of Scunthorpe or Rochdale or Merthyr… and those areas are more likely to have actual back yards rather than nice gardens.

 

[briantrumpet]

Strange how we rarely see Nimbyism in in the likes of Scunthorpe or Rochdale or Merthyr… and those areas are more likely to have actual back yards rather than nice gardens.

Glad to see that Sdaffodilhorpe doesn't get censored here.

 

[Pblakeney]

The report says fires. There will be one during the site's lifespan. Chemicals used in fighting it with pollute the aquifer.
Yes, NIMBYs but not necessarily black and white.

Apparently there was 3 farm fires in Kent in 2025 so cancelling the solar farm will not cancel fires. Not black and white.

 

[Pross]

Whilst I'm in favour of renewables (incl. solar farms), this point I don't fully understand as agriculture comes down ultimately to needing light (for grass & crops to grow). But solar panels need light so more solar panels taking more light means less light for agriculture.

In terms of biodiversity, wildlife, etc. I can see how they can compliment each other but for agricultural production I'm confused.

The solar panels on this site are 3m high at one end and nearly a metre at the other. That presumably allows enough light in for the grass to grow and for sheep to more around freely. They also provide shade. I've walked through quite a few solar farms with sheep grazing happily around and under the panels. Obviously they affect arable farming though. I've looked on Streetview for this site and none of the images show crops (or livestock for that matter) in most of the fields the panels are being installed in. I guess they could be on rotation and the timing of the Streetview has just been when they are lying fallow. Having income from solar can also be the difference between whether a farm is viable of not (no idea if that's the case here though).

 

[briantrumpet]

The solar panels on this site are 3m high at one end and nearly a metre at the other. That presumably allows enough light in for the grass to grow and for sheep to more around freely. They also provide shade. I've walked through quite a few solar farms with sheep grazing happily around and under the panels. Obviously they affect arable farming though. I've looked on Streetview for this site and none of the images show crops (or livestock for that matter) in most of the fields the panels are being installed in. I guess they could be on rotation and the timing of the Streetview has just been when they are lying fallow. Having income from solar can also be the difference between whether a farm is viable of not (no idea if that's the case here though).

My guess would be too that the shade is valuable for slowing moisture loss from pasture in the summer, just at the time when animals need to store up energy for the winter ahead. And that's quite apart from the benefit of shade for the animals.

I dare say that practices will adapt as time goes on to balance between food production and solar power arrays, though, as you say, the nature of arable would rule out solar, though I think solar and fruit & vegetable would be practicable, if one thinks about how greenhouses work.

 

[Rusty Nails]

The solar panels on this site are 3m high at one end and nearly a metre at the other. That presumably allows enough light in for the grass to grow and for sheep to more around freely. They also provide shade. I've walked through quite a few solar farms with sheep grazing happily around and under the panels. Obviously they affect arable farming though. I've looked on Streetview for this site and none of the images show crops (or livestock for that matter) in most of the fields the panels are being installed in. I guess they could be on rotation and the timing of the Streetview has just been when they are lying fallow. Having income from solar can also be the difference between whether a farm is viable of not (no idea if that's the case here though).

Such solar panel setups are ideal for pig farms.

 

[Pblakeney]

Whilst I'm in favour of renewables (incl. solar farms), this point I don't fully understand as agriculture comes down ultimately to needing light (for grass & crops to grow). But solar panels need light so more solar panels taking more light means less light for agriculture.

In terms of biodiversity, wildlife, etc. I can see how they can compliment each other but for agricultural production I'm confused.

Stories of it being mutually beneficial. Google is your friend.
https://www.theguardian.com/environ...win-sheep-farmers-renewables-energy-companies

 

[Psamathe]

Stories of it being mutually beneficial. Google is your friend.
https://www.theguardian.com/environ...win-sheep-farmers-renewables-energy-companies

The examples in the article cite cases where the solar farms are on land that wasn't part of the farm so becomes additional grazing area rather than taking land from being cultivated to being grazed solar farm.

Similarly, saving solar operators from mowing grass does not help arable productivity.

I'm certainly not anti (in many situations I'd be supporting). Also properly managed solar farms will normally increase biodiversity and increased populations (something I'd be supporting above agricultural productivity).

 

[Psamathe]

Such solar panel setups are ideal for pig farms.

From a sustainability perspective I think we need to reduce meat consumption and thus switch land area to arable. But locating the reduced meat production onto solar farms certainly means no conflict over who gets the light (plants or solar panels).

 

[Pross]

Such solar panel setups are ideal for pig farms.

And you can also make money disposing of bodies for the local organised crime gangs.

 

[Pblakeney]

The examples in the article cite cases where the solar farms are on land that wasn't part of the farm so becomes additional grazing area rather than taking land from being cultivated to being grazed solar farm.

Similarly, saving solar operators from mowing grass does not help arable productivity.

I'm certainly not anti (in many situations I'd be supporting). Also properly managed solar farms will normally increase biodiversity and increased populations (something I'd be supporting above agricultural productivity).

1. If the land wasn't being used prior then that is a win-win.
2. Saves the operators costs so that helps their productivity.
3. Another win-win.

 

[Psamathe]

1. If the land wasn't being used prior then that is a win-win.
2. Saves the operators costs so that helps their productivity.
3. Another win-win.

If land wasn't being used before agree. But applications in my area are for cultivated farmland.

There is an argument (I accept with qualifications) that diverse renewable generation is crucial to us all but the qualification comes in that it isn't if we waste that generated energy on vast data centres spending their creating pictures of Andy Burnham wearing a bikini.

We seem quite bad at making use of brown field sites (eg developers don't like them as building on clear arable land is cheaper).

Bottom line I find confusing is energy input going 100% to food production vs eg 50% to food production plus 50% to energy generation. Not saying it is a problem, just I'm not a botanist so maybe don't appreciate the conversion efficiencies of plants.

 

[Pross]

If land wasn't being used before agree. But applications in my area are for cultivated farmland.

There is an argument (I accept with qualifications) that diverse renewable generation is crucial to us all but the qualification comes in that it isn't if we waste that generated energy on vast data centres spending their creating pictures of Andy Burnham wearing a bikini.

We seem quite bad at making use of brown field sites (eg developers don't like them as building on clear arable land is cheaper).

Bottom line I find confusing is energy input going 100% to food production vs eg 50% to food production plus 50% to energy generation. Not saying it is a problem, just I'm not a botanist so maybe don't appreciate the conversion efficiencies of plants.

I don't think Brownfield is as suitable for solar. I'm certainly no expert and Purple Penguin probably knows more but I always though a sloping, generally southwards facing site tends to give the best efficiency. Brownfield tends to be flat so panels would get less sun otherwise I'd have thought they be popular for solar farms as they would need to do less remediation than, say, residential where the clean up costs cn be prohibitive and they would also generally have good existing access.

 

[Psamathe]

Brownfield tends to be flat so panels would get less sun otherwise I'd have thought they be popular for solar farms as they would need to do less remediation than, say, residential where the clean up costs cn be prohibitive and they would also generally have good existing access.

Surely brownfield can have any slope (facing any direction or flat), just as arable land?

For developers it's not an either/or when it comes to brownfield vs arable as plenty of farmers happy to sell arable for development (at above arable land prices) and just leave brownfield as unused. Planners seem happy to approve development on arable land as they can only respond to applications and can't say "why not build it on this brownfield site".

 

[Pblakeney]

If land wasn't being used before agree. But applications in my area are for cultivated farmland.

There is an argument (I accept with qualifications) that diverse renewable generation is crucial to us all but the qualification comes in that it isn't if we waste that generated energy on vast data centres spending their creating pictures of Andy Burnham wearing a bikini.

We seem quite bad at making use of brown field sites (eg developers don't like them as building on clear arable land is cheaper).

Bottom line I find confusing is energy input going 100% to food production vs eg 50% to food production plus 50% to energy generation. Not saying it is a problem, just I'm not a botanist so maybe don't appreciate the conversion efficiencies of plants.

1. Fair.
2. Data centres will be the cause of one (if not more) of the next crises.
3. Agreed. I'd cover all car parks and warehouses for starters.
4. Me neither.