It's a throwaway caption, but I think this is actually quite an important point:
"Though I guess it’s quite easy to picture some solar panels in a field"
I generally find people imagine enormous rows of bleak blackness. But having travelled through northern Germany last year, I was surprised at just how unobtrusive many are. They are slightly lifted off the ground, meaning lots of green and biodiversity underneath. But not high enough off the ground to be visible from outside the field.
Mostly agree, but the China point is a serious one worth unpacking.
Unfortunately we've allowed a situation to develop where a strategic adversary has (shock!) behaved adversarialy and reacted to our stated goals by moving to control the supply chain for our green buildout.
Worse, it's not just China in general but Xinjiang specifically in which production has been centralised. With credible evidence of human rights abuses of the Uighur minority (including forced labour) comes a real dampener on any solar buildout.
We need alternative supply chains, but this will take time to build. I'm forced to conclude that your final footnote holds the only credible way forward: i.e. do the massive fission buildout we ought to have done 20 years ago, with the fuel sourced from our close allies (who have it in abundance).
The key question that the objectors need to answer is "does opposing this development lead to more or less solar power in the UK?" They've decided that pushing for community ownership is more important than getting more solar power. It's a bit everything-bagel.
Re. note 2, solar panels in conservation areas/on listed buildings, the examples I use are churches. Invariably listed, invariably oriented east/west, so with a long south-facing slope. St James Piccadilly, by Christopher Wren, has had solar panels for about 20 years. At a lower level, I’ve seen pics of village churches with the panels mounted in a cross shape, either positive or negative. Clever, funny and useful.
I would though like more research or info on solar slates. I first encountered them in a heritage debate - again, about 20 years ago. They undoubtedly look far better than superimposed panels. They even look far better than ordinary artificial slates. Then they were less efficient but I don’t know what developments have happened since.
None of this is any reason for not insisting on having them on e.g. warehouse roofs as well.
It's a throwaway caption, but I think this is actually quite an important point:
"Though I guess it’s quite easy to picture some solar panels in a field"
I generally find people imagine enormous rows of bleak blackness. But having travelled through northern Germany last year, I was surprised at just how unobtrusive many are. They are slightly lifted off the ground, meaning lots of green and biodiversity underneath. But not high enough off the ground to be visible from outside the field.
Mostly agree, but the China point is a serious one worth unpacking.
Unfortunately we've allowed a situation to develop where a strategic adversary has (shock!) behaved adversarialy and reacted to our stated goals by moving to control the supply chain for our green buildout.
Worse, it's not just China in general but Xinjiang specifically in which production has been centralised. With credible evidence of human rights abuses of the Uighur minority (including forced labour) comes a real dampener on any solar buildout.
We need alternative supply chains, but this will take time to build. I'm forced to conclude that your final footnote holds the only credible way forward: i.e. do the massive fission buildout we ought to have done 20 years ago, with the fuel sourced from our close allies (who have it in abundance).
Couldn't agree more!
Thanks James- enjoyed this.
The "at scale" bit is so important. The old coal fired power stations on the Trent were 2000MW, so we need a lot of wind and solar.
Also, if you've been close up to a solar farm, you'll notice lots of wildlife underneath the panels. RSPB has done some work on this.
The key question that the objectors need to answer is "does opposing this development lead to more or less solar power in the UK?" They've decided that pushing for community ownership is more important than getting more solar power. It's a bit everything-bagel.
Great article. Definitely worried about the First Australian War and the consequent London bar staff shortage now though.
Re. note 2, solar panels in conservation areas/on listed buildings, the examples I use are churches. Invariably listed, invariably oriented east/west, so with a long south-facing slope. St James Piccadilly, by Christopher Wren, has had solar panels for about 20 years. At a lower level, I’ve seen pics of village churches with the panels mounted in a cross shape, either positive or negative. Clever, funny and useful.
I would though like more research or info on solar slates. I first encountered them in a heritage debate - again, about 20 years ago. They undoubtedly look far better than superimposed panels. They even look far better than ordinary artificial slates. Then they were less efficient but I don’t know what developments have happened since.
None of this is any reason for not insisting on having them on e.g. warehouse roofs as well.
Thanks James, this is the kind of article that you excel at!
Thanks for this James. I agree on all your points.