There are issues with major projects for energy generation that affect our landscape and agriculture. Heat pumps, solar panels and wind turbines are being heavily promoted while the saving of energy use is frequently overlooked and underrated. All of these energy generation installations come under the umbrella of high tech and require their own energy input in their making and installation. The siting of the largest installations are often contentious, especially in my own county of Northamptonshire.
As a member of the technical committee of Campaign for Protection of Rural England (CPRE) I see arguments for and against these installations. In their favour, under the Conservative government, they gave a lifeline to landowners, either struggling to make any profit from traditional farming or those seeking to make an easy profit from selling off fields, where land designated as agricultural could not be sold for housing.
However, the case against will be the loss of agricultural land for producing our own food. Under the Labour government the push for these large installations taking up hectares of countryside has now accelerated due to their policy for the UK to generate its own independent energy resources.
Energy generation installations impact wildlife
There is an even greater impact on the countryside and wildlife. In my part of North Northamptonshire, we have wildlife corridors that allow for the movement of animals, especially muntjac, hares and rabbits. Two large proposals for a solar farm (77 hectares, now approved) and 11 wind turbines (614 hectares, in the planning process) will cut right across these corridors.
In my work for CPRE, I have listed objections, one of which noted that the suggested payment of £20,000 offered by the applicants to the Welford Parish Council could also part fund ‘Trees for Welford’; I stated that this is “somewhat ironic, given the ambition to increase biodiversity will be paid for by the loss of it.” The proposed wind turbines are close to the historic hamlet of Stanford-on-Avon and at 200 metres in height are normally used at sea but here, for the first time, they are deep inland. They would be unacceptably dominant in this unspoiled landscape and are also in the path of migratory birds from Europe to the nearby reservoir. To their credit, the Conservatives had banned on shore wind farms, now reversed.
The loss of agricultural land
Councillors have repeatedly explained to me that their decisions to approve projects are made with the reasoning that less than 1% of agricultural land will be taken up by solar farms. This is an indiscriminate use of a statistic, which does not consider localised needs for protecting particular stretches of land for wildlife and ignores the highest grades of productive land.
To counter the loss of the countryside, CPRE has been promoting the use of solar installations on warehousing and other industrial sites. We have tried to insist that this gets included in the strategic plans used by the unitary authority. However, the electricity grid is often not able to cater for this level of input and storage so there are considerable technical difficulties, let alone a high risk of fire in battery storage in remote locations. There is also possible future contamination of land and therefore drinking water, including the Stanford reservoir.
Application processes and carbon credits push development
There are other issues here. Many of the smaller scale applications for power generation that take agricultural land fall under the 50MW level which would automatically generate the need for a more rigorous Environmental Impact Assessment. The Welford solar farm application as well as the wind turbine scoping application were for 49.9MW, a clear avoidance of that higher level of care.
It is also questionable how an applicant can propose a level of ‘compensation/benefit’ as yearly payment to the community, (under Local Community Benefits in this link) should the application be accepted. District councils are also at a disadvantage financially. If their planning officers refuse an application and it goes to appeal, they have few resources to fight a lengthy legal battle. A district councillor mentioned to me that there is a default position to approve if possible, which shows any democratic objections may be overridden, a much more serious matter.
Quite apart from generating electricity as a utility, a concealed commodity is the sale of carbon credits. A consultant worked out for me that for a 49MW solar farm, the estimated saving is between 8,052 tonnes of CO2 per annum and 21,070 tonnes of CO2 per annum (due to varying climate and electricity generated.) At the current UK trading rate of £41.84 per tonne this gives an annual value of between £336,896 and £881,569. This is the real asset value of this kind of installation and explains how their progression can be so highly funded and fought for, dwarfing any local opposition.
Alternatives: improve our existing buildings and reduce energy demand
As these high tech installations get promoted, they swamp any alternative solutions. I was a former founder and director of the Low Energy Architecture Unit (at the then University of North London), where we promoted passive solar architecture. Instead of complex subsidised installations that cost a great deal (for example, £8-12,000 for a heat pump for the domestic sector), the insulation of existing homes for half the cost can reduce energy use, often by 30-50%.
Our existing housing built prior to 1980 represents 78% of our building stock. Together with other existing buildings, they use 60% of the energy we need in the UK so this sector must be the main target. The current grants available insist that either a heat pump or solar panels must be installed alongside insulation. This perpetuates the reliance on high tech installations that are not always satisfactory and can be difficult to maintain long term. The grants are also means-tested and complex to negotiate. So insulation is not funded as a first standalone measure.
As climate change affects us people are investing in air conditioning leading to increasing energy demand. Passive measures for blinds or shutters and reflective surfaces for walls and roofs should be part of the normal measures promoted to prevent heat gain. These should sit alongside draught proofing and insulation for heat loss.
Heat pumps? Insulation is a better option
Although gas has to be replaced by heat pumps in new buildings by 2025 and existing ones by 2035, this will increase electrical demand. The rationale is to reduce reliance on imported gas but although they are also much cheaper to run than gas, they require larger bore pipes than normal for central heating. Again, the installation cost can be greater than the capital cost of insulating well.
The real dilemma is how householders and others can obtain some measure of support for the more basic improvement of insulation. There should be incentives in reducing electricity or other energy demands by organising short-term loans paid back through utility bills. As the bills would then theoretically reduce, homeowners should see a relatively short payback period which would make no difference to their outgoings. Earlier energy schemes did experiment with this approach but it seems the current grant aid scheme has taken over.
Energy to be saved as well as produced
Many people are supportive of alternative power generation and rightly so, but they are not aware of all of the issues. When we have critical areas of land that are worth fighting for, parish and district councils are up against highly organised consultants with very detailed submissions that they are ill-equipped to deal with on equal terms. There is little opposition in the national press, although Private Eye with its ‘Agri Brigade’ is worth following. The market for improving buildings now leans heavily into supporting higher tech solutions. Instead, let’s promote saving energy as well as producing it.
For those interested in these issues I would recommend Land Smart by Tom Heap, Atlantic Books 2024.
