A firm is consulting the public over plans for a huge sunfarm that is proposed to be more than twice the size of a similar facility on the edge of North Walsham.

To send a link to this page to a friend, you must be logged in.

Lumicity has drawn up plans to site 40,000 solar panels on 64 acres of farmland at Northrepps, two miles south of Cromer.

It would dwarf the sunfarm next to the Bittern Line railway near North Walsham, which has 18,000 panels.

Pegasus Planning Group, which is acting for Lumicity, has written to residents and councils in the area to ask for their views about the proposed energy facility, which would be located behind North Norfolk Business Centre, which is on the A140 at Crossdale Street.

In a letter, Colin Virtue from Pegasus, said: “This will ensure a constant and affordable source of energy, contribute to economic stability and provide a further form of diversification to support rural economies.”

He added that the panels would be no more than 2.5m above the ground, at 25 degrees from horizontal.

And he said: “It is anticipated that the application proposal will have the potential to generate up to 9.9MW of power annually. This equates to the annual energy consumption of 2,508 homes.”

The plans are set to be discussed by Northrepps Parish Council at its next meeting on August 7.

Mr Virtue said the site had been chosen because of a “number of factors”, including the “benefit of high annual sun hours” and its proximity to a primary substation and existing power lines.

He said: There is no glare from the panels because they absorb the sunlight. Therefore, they will appear as an innocuous black image in the landscape.

“Grass can still be grown within the site and also sheep may be allowed to graze between the rows, thus a farming activity can co-exist with the solar element.”

He said the panels would operate for 25 years, and added that there would be “no noise or emissions”.

54 comments

  • WW. The pro-turbine lobby will always lose because they are an insignificant minority, 20% at best for Bodham, 11.5% at end of play for N Walsham. The real problem is that although some, most probably, are decent people with ideas of a, perhaps, greener future, my experience is that most are also woefully ignorant of the facts. It is a good thing to be pro what you think is a good thing, it is not good to be pro something you know little or nothing about! Then try and argue your way out of the situation. Virtually no-one I have spoken to or argued with re wind turbines had any idea of the potantial output. Take the NWalsham one for example, 2300Kw according to the blurb, in reality in provable local winds 400Kw if lucky. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to download the brochure from Enercon, and look at the data sheet, you don't even need to extrapolte the output graph, the output for each metre per sec windspeed is in a column! But if they're not prepared to do even this simple thing, then, please don't try and argue the case, for, to me!! Thanks for your support.

    Report this comment

    windup

    Monday, July 30, 2012

  • Ian, I would not disagree or argue with any of the points you have raised, however, where the objections against the location of the wind turbines, or wind turbines generally? Location of anything that may cause a hazard to any means of transport need to be carefully considered, had they put Scroby Wind farm in the main shipping channels there would have been numerous objections, which would have all been totally acceptable. Problem I have is people object to any kind of development if it does not fall into their way of thinking or may have an impact on them. Look at all the fuss over the NDR or Norwich airport development, both of which the area desperately need to boost economy and tourism. As for mythical volcanos, as a pilot I am sure you can remember all the disruption that prevented you guys from flying a few years ago, or am I wrong about that as well?

    Report this comment

    Mr T

    Monday, July 30, 2012

  • It has to be nuclear.

    Report this comment

    Mad Brewer

    Monday, July 30, 2012

  • Derek. I agree that Colin got a bit carried away re constant power but you are incorrect in the efficiency aspect, please let me explain. Solar panels are circa 12% efficient, but that's only in their ability to convert available light into electricity. The 9.9Mw quoted is the rated power for the system, and will only happen in ideal conditions. Let's assume it is dark 12hrs per day averaged over the year in UK, that means an average output of 9.9 divided by 2 = 4.95Mw, now lets assume an average daytime performance of 70% to allow for poor light, clouds etc, then it'll be good for an average of circa 3.5MW averaged over the year, remember that's per hour. Wind turbines are similarly inefficient in their ability to take the available wind and convert the energy, the problem they have is, as like today, when there is no wind, there is no output, at all!

    Report this comment

    Windless

    Saturday, July 28, 2012

  • No onshore windfarms, please. These panels and off shore turbines, are the way forward

    Report this comment

    weaversway

    Friday, July 27, 2012

  • Now we're talking, proper renewable energy! Probably invisible to most, totally silent, 2.5 metres above ground, (that's just over 8ft to the imperial folks!) Easy to maintain, no noise, no light flicker, probably a home rather than a threat, to bats! Sheep can still graze. No 400ft behemoth dominating our landscape, generating perhaps 400Kw (quite a way from 9900Kw) if its lucky in our local winds. I really hope this goes ahead and predict now that it will with infinitely less of the fuss generated at either N Walsham, or Bodham wind turbine applications. And, before anyone says so, I KNOW it doesn't work in the dark, it DOES however work irrespective of the windspeed!

    Report this comment

    Windless

    Friday, July 27, 2012

  • Nothing to do with shooting David. But keep trying,

    Report this comment

    Callum Ringer

    Saturday, July 28, 2012

  • @Muad - yes because it works off light.

    Report this comment

    Bedford Canary

    Friday, July 27, 2012

  • CR. "Genatec had said it would invest thousands of pounds in landscaping by planting hedgerows and woodland" This, I believe in some vain hope of hiding the clearly unwanted turbine and appeasing the anti masses somewhat? Clearly these trees, ponds and hedgerows are being planted on agricultural land (I know you're going to say rough land) but all land is capable of being brought into food production of some sort. So here we have a turbine (hopefully WONT have a turbine) standing on a pole which is also able to take land out of potential food production! Quite an achievement when you think about it! Looking out of my window right now the air is quite still, so potential turbine output......ZERO. Cloudy and overcast but quite bright, so potential solar farm output 5,000Kw. Says it all for me!!!

    Report this comment

    windup

    Saturday, July 28, 2012

  • Thank you WW. I too have a problem with the NIMBY word, so I have created a personal rule, and, believe me, MY rules are unbreakable. It is a simple rule...... If I see the word NIMBY in any post I automatically and irreversibly ignore whatever is in the rest of the post. You could argue I may miss something important, but I feel the risk to be minimal!!!!

    Report this comment

    windup

    Monday, July 30, 2012

  • Sayitasitis once again fails to say it as it is. Re-instating a pond is neither trying to hide a wind turbine nor is it using up any arable land. The key to that is the word "re-instate" they were there anyway. Secondly, planting Hedgerows is something to be encouraged everywhere to encourage biodiversity, I imagine these will be on field boundaries where originally hedgerows would have been. As far the woodland being used to deliberately shield the view of a turbine, it all depends on where they are planted. If you are so concerned about the worlds starving all of a sudden, (most NIMBYs become concerned with something suddenly to try and mask the fact it is really only there own self interest they are bothered about) perhaps you would give your garden over to crops, and conserve your energy by cutting out the moaning from your diet.

    Report this comment

    Callum Ringer

    Saturday, July 28, 2012

  • @muad Yes, as the solar panels do not need sun, as such, just light. Clearly they'll work better when its sunny, but they'll work well in any reasonable light conditions. What won't work, however, when its not windy, is a wind turbine!! I have the wind data for RAF Coltishall going back 25 years, comprehensive data, the average windspeed is 11.5mph, I doubt its much different there?

    Report this comment

    Windless

    Friday, July 27, 2012

  • Weaversway, we are discussing land use, as well as Energy supply. It may be your opinion that Turbines are inefficient but they are considerably more efficient per square meter than a solar farm. No one is suggesting that Wind farms are supposed to feed the world, I am merely arguing that filling useful arable land with solar panels is not the best use of land. Use that land for crops and put solar panels on rooftops. That is common sense, but, I don't expect that to be in abundance with you self interested NIMBYs . . .

    Report this comment

    Callum Ringer

    Saturday, July 28, 2012

  • Mr T. Sorry if this is repeated, yet again my post has been sent for moderation, no idea why. I feel that if we were to meet, we'd disagree on surprisingly little! I actually agree re using agricultural land to produce energy, marginal is OK, I am totally against, for example, bio diesel. If your hypothetical 10acre smallholding used the house and barn roofs for solar, then, assuming reasonably south orientation, that would be far more effective than a wind turbine, and no land is lost. As to solar at sea, BTW, all lit navigation buoys and all, now unmanned lighthouses are solar powered! I wouldn't expand that to offshore solar farms though. As to offshore cost, it's not as bad as you'd think. Transport is simple,, all comes by ship, installation is straighforward if you have the correct installation vesel (harvesting 300acres of wheat without a combine would be tricky for example) The costs are shared between the number of turbines (88in Sheringham shoal), and there's only one cable to the nearest grid point. The huge advantage though, is that they are then placed where it is........WINDY!!! You are correct though, the real answer is Nuclear.

    Report this comment

    Windless

    Monday, July 30, 2012

  • Guys, you are ALL missing the point. When planning permission is passed for any kind of "Green" energy, and I use the term fairly loosely having been involved in it for many years, the land used is generally green field and residential use is not permitted. When the life of the panels, windmills, whatever has elapsed, typically 25 years, the land by definition automatically becomes brownfield and therefore planning for houses is infinitely easier to obtain. Ask yourself one question, if "Green" energy is so efficient, why does it need to be subsidised to the tune of billions of YOUR money ? Your personal bills will all be £100 higher this year than they need to be and you have absolutely no say in the matter.

    Report this comment

    Turkish Martin

    Tuesday, July 31, 2012

  • Callum - That was a quick answer - how do you know?

    Report this comment

    David Ramsbotham

    Saturday, July 28, 2012

  • Callum. Forgive me, I've doing some sums, again. You see all this woodlandpondshedgerows etc has been bothering me. If you have a wind turbine up a wee pole, then its hard to see why you need to plant these things, so there must be some motive, just appeasing the (known) anti locals cannot be enough. Then, the penny dropped. If the Northrepps application for 64 acres would generate 9,900Kw, then 1 acre would generate 154Kw, I hope you're still with me here. So if Mr Genatec had decided to NOT plant woodlands, hedges etc over only 6 acres, then a solar option on those acres, would generate 928Kw, way in excess of the most optimistic potential of the absurd turbine proposed. And then there'd be no need for the absurd and hugely unwanted turbine in the first place.........as the meerkats say.......simples!!

    Report this comment

    windup

    Saturday, July 28, 2012

  • Mr T – you state that pro windfarmers are prepared to listen but you and others chose to ignore Ian's alternative solution on renewables. By the way but off the point old fashioned wind mills were abandoned because they were inefficient and intermittent – sounds familiar! Also, please note that the main purpose of my petition [which can be accessed by googling “petition 22958” and following the link] is to hopefully trigger a meaningful debate in Parliament on this issue.

    Report this comment

    David Ramsbotham

    Monday, July 30, 2012

  • I think the grazing sheep will need fitted sunglasses or anti-glare bins, I also believe this another con on the sheeple of Britain.

    Report this comment

    nrg

    Saturday, July 28, 2012

  • MJG - I agree with you that "green" energy [wind or solar panels] would not be financially viable if current financial support was withdrawn. Also, as you say, very few people are fully aware of the impact that the proliferation of these structures is having on the environment now, particularly in China, or will have in the future when they become obsolete. Unfortunately at the current time we have to accept this situation as a "fait accompli" not least because it is Government policy to pursue this nonsensical route.  Hopefully all is not lost. We must try to influence our local councils and elected representatives to ensure that these structures are not built but, if they are, the one which will have the least effect on the people and environment of Norfolk is chosen. On this basis the consensus appears to be that solar panels would be preferred.

    Report this comment

    David Ramsbotham

    Tuesday, July 31, 2012

  • Is this all a fusion of fiction with fission?

    Report this comment

    Mad Brewer

    Sunday, July 29, 2012

  • Callum Sorry, I clearly touched a nerve there! BTW ponds clearly do not hide windmills but even you couldn't deny they're on LAND! You said, also "where originally hedgerows would have been", presumably before they were grubbed out for agriculture in the first place. So, they were lost, to produce more food one hopes, now they are being replaced, in the field boundaries, and therefore reducing the available land for food production.....just a thought!

    Report this comment

    windup

    Saturday, July 28, 2012

  • The pro-turbine lobby are loosing the argument and have not come up with any facts to counter Ian's excellent analysis. So what do they do? Shout their mantra NIMBY and runoff in some claim that others are starving the poor people of the world. Please?

    Report this comment

    weaversway

    Monday, July 30, 2012

  • Mr T. You are so wrong it is hard to know where to start! I am ex RAF aircrew with 6000 flying hours, all in large aircraft, C130 Hercules and BAe Nimrod. I also still fly , a lot, today, as do my work colleagues using the local helicopters to the Southern N Sea platforms. Do you, even in your wildest dreams, think for one moment we are going to even microscopically endanger Flight Safety for the sake of some ridiculous turbine NOT generating any useable amount of electricity. You better believe we are not! The absurd N Walsham application was refused by 3 STATUTORY objections, all aviation related. One from Norwich radar, it would have adversely affected their radar. One from NATs, for intereference with the comms masts at Gunton and Trimmingham. One from MOD for the Royal Air Force operated coastal radar at Trimmingham, all, let me remind you, STATUTORY. One final note to highlight the weakness of your post...... You accuse ME of clutching at straws, then start to worry about some mythical volcano plunging the world into darkness, and your only concern seems to be that the solar panels won't work!!

    Report this comment

    Windless

    Sunday, July 29, 2012

  • Sayitasitis, very well put. Good post

    Report this comment

    weaversway

    Monday, July 30, 2012

  • Thank you WW. If this appears twice it is, yet again because of site moderation, no idea why. I have invented a new rule in my life, and MY rules are irreversible! Any post I see with NIMBY in it I automatically and irreversibly ignore. You may argue I may miss something important, but I feel that to be a minor risk!!!!!

    Report this comment

    windup

    Monday, July 30, 2012

  • Here we go again, national security being breached by a few wind turbines, threats to society, will destroy the world with planes falling out of the skies, please change the very boring record and stop being so melodramatic. Do you think pilots are idiots and would fly into these things? When it is thick fog planes often do not fly, however boats still operate at sea, have you thought of the massive environmental impact if a super tanker ran into a wind farm, could be another Amoco Cadiz on the horizon, chances of that happening are about as remote as a wind turbine being a hazard to a commercial airline. Even if wind turbines were 100% efficient the anti brigade would dream up some other reason why they should not be developed. What good is a solar panel farm if we get a major volcanic eruption that blocks the sun’s rays? You people really are grasping at straws.

    Report this comment

    Mr T

    Sunday, July 29, 2012

  • Hit a nerve you have not, sayitasitisnt - Mind you your continued ability to overlook the point can get a little annoying, but I can't say I am unfamilier in dealing with NIMBYs - I do find your logic somewhat bizarre, using land for hedgerows is vital to the3 biodiversity of the hedgerows and is an important use of land, creating corridors thriving with varying flora and fauna - Solar panels can be better placed on roof tops rather than occupy swathes of land used for crops. By your logic though in a time of great amounts of famine globally we should upset the entire balance of the planets ecosystem by encouraging the ripping out of hedgerows and mass deforestation, I'm merely advocating being a little bit more sensible and appreciate the bigger picture with our energy policy, but feel free to advocate the decemation of North Norfolk landscape by creating massive prairie like landscapes devoid of character and an abundance of species, not sure it will win you many friends though.

    Report this comment

    Callum Ringer

    Saturday, July 28, 2012

  • Mr T and Callum - you're avoiding the point. What do you think of Ian's brilliant idea?

    Report this comment

    David Ramsbotham

    Sunday, July 29, 2012

  • Be really interesting to see sheep grazing on 64 acres of land covered in solar panels! Now I wonder just how many wind turbines we could get on 64 acres? and the sheep could still wander about. Food and something to cook it with. Solar panels are good but they do take up a lot of space, plus I think wind turbines are far prettier and less hazardous to birds, just imagine all those poor creatures falling out of the sky when they see their reflection in all that glass and try to adjust their plumage!

    Report this comment

    Mr T

    Friday, July 27, 2012

  • Thank you Weaversway. If there was ever a more odious application for a pathetic wee, absurd, wind turbine,then Bodham wins every time. It is difficult to see how you could upset more people with a single application than this one. Even the most stalwart defendent of it must now see it is no more than a cash supply for the already rich landowner. it will generate absolutelty NO useable energy to the Grid, it will not employ a single British person, it won't be made in Britain, Erercon are German, it will be installed by Germans, they will leave after about a week. It will have circa 500Kg of rare earth Neodimium magnets in it, produced in about the most environmetally bad way possible in China, then shipped several thousand miles to Germany. It will have Glass Re-inforced Plastic blades, all non-recyclable, and made using environmentally unfriendly chemicals. The blades will be transported, again unenvironmetally from Germany to Bodham, and the end result of all of that is perhaps 300 to 400Kw of energy that the Grid wouldn't know what to do with. It really would be hard to make this up!!

    Report this comment

    Windless

    Saturday, July 28, 2012

  • See, this is where the irrationality of the NIMBYs comes out again. They are quite happy to let acres of arable land be used for energy production at a time when we have millions of starving mouths around the world, because their priorities in life only stretch as far as there own simple existence. - Bring on the turbines.

    Report this comment

    Callum Ringer

    Friday, July 27, 2012

  • @Ian, and you think the sun will be more reliable than the wind here?

    Report this comment

    muad_dib_85

    Friday, July 27, 2012

  • Reflecting through this there is a continuous thread. I hope, really hope that I am not seen as one who opposes renewable energy, indeed I work in offshore wind. My real despair is that those who are so desperate to have ONSHORE wind are so terribly ignorant of the facts. Offshore you build vast fields of 50's or 100's, all connected to the grid by one cable, Sheringham shoal has 88 turbines, a combined output of 317Mw, a useable amout of energy, and a useful addition to the National Grid. 317Mwh = 317000Kwh. The proposed turbine for Bodham, for example is rated at 900Kwh, it will never achieve that, but let's be kind, that's 0.28% of Sheringham shoal, a completely useless amount of electricity, probably more of an embarrasment to the National Grid than a help. Yet whole communities are divided, friends fight with ex friends, the only winner is the already rich landowner, who, now, also has no friends, all for enough energy to fill his pockets from the absurd subsidies. And then, as seen below, feels the need to plant woods etc on land areas which would have generated more power than the absurd turbine.???

    Report this comment

    Windless

    Saturday, July 28, 2012

  • .....sheep may be allowed to graze between the rows.....I hope the eco-wind generated by the sheep is harvested as well. I estimate 5 eco-therms of wind per sheep per day.

    Report this comment

    Rhombus

    Friday, July 27, 2012

  • New woodshedgerows are being planted and ponds being cleared to help save the planet. Nothing to do with shooting then?

    Report this comment

    David Ramsbotham

    Saturday, July 28, 2012

  • Ian - your logic and solution to the Bodham turbine problem outlined below is brilliant. The proposed woodlands to be used for the panels, the proposed hedgerows used as a screen and the duck ponds could be used for shooting. Mr Genatec could still graze sheep in the knowledge that he has a very good income flow from the panels or he could retire abroad. The open skies and landscape of North Norfolk would be protected for all, including tourists, to enjoy and locals could continue to live harmoniously in a peaceful and friendly environment. Bats, birds and other wildlife would benefit too. Both civil and military aircraft could continue to fly safely through our skies and the security of our country would not be compromised. I could go on as the benefits of your solution are endless. Let's hope someone passes the idea onto Mr Genatec. Are you still there Callum?

    Report this comment

    David Ramsbotham

    Sunday, July 29, 2012

  • As I understand it the risk is not about a plane flying into a turbine. It is about a turbine affecting the radar systems and the plane flying into something else. In a similar way a turbine could compromise the security of our country by producing "ghost" aircraft which operators cannot identify.

    Report this comment

    David Ramsbotham

    Monday, July 30, 2012

  • Callum - I would be interested to hear your views on Ian's idea of a more efficient and more acceptable form of green energy in North Norfolk i.e. solar panels instead of wind turbines.

    Report this comment

    David Ramsbotham

    Tuesday, July 31, 2012

  • Forgot to add, if you want to know the true environmental cost of PV panels or Windfarms, Google " China environmental catastrophe". This is where all the heavy metals and magnetos are produced which are crucial to construction of green energy. Thousands of acres of land have been poisoned for the foreseeable future and the land around the factories is a sea of toxic mud. Maybe we should investigate what damage these products cause in production, and has anyone done a dust to dust trial on something like a PV panel ? How do you dispose of it in 25 years time, you cant just bury it as its full of heavy metals !

    Report this comment

    Turkish Martin

    Tuesday, July 31, 2012

  • Hi Callum, of course you are entitled to your views...but fail to see how littering the countryside with inefficient turbines will feed the starving of the world. Seems to me an illogical argument. We are discussing energy supply. But hey, you think what you like

    Report this comment

    weaversway

    Friday, July 27, 2012

  • David, I haven’t seen a brilliant idea yet, all I see is the anti wind turbine brigade making the usual campaign noises, you have even started a national petition so that very clearly shows your position on any development regarding wind turbines. As stated previously opinions will always be divided but at the Pro’s are prepared to listen as opposed to having a closed door, blinkered outlook. Just think if our predecessors had been so anti wind units large areas of land would be flooded due to no wind pumps and we would still be grinding corn by hand due to no wind mills.

    Report this comment

    Mr T

    Sunday, July 29, 2012

  • I'm still here david - Trying to understand the NIMBY logic is not something that comes naturally. - Do tell me though, David If the civil and military aircraft and the safety of our country were at risk, why have the MOD and Norwich airport not sent in an objection to the application? North Norfolk would be far from ruined by a single turbine operating close to already existing Pylons which you probably also think spoil the view. Planting some trees and hedges is an environmental benefit. In all honesty I don't mind if I can see the Turbine. It wont make any difference to my quality of life at all. Perhaps my non existent self interest is the reason for that. Just because something is divisive is not a reason not to have it. There are usually people who are against most things, like a housing development in a village for example. even though the very survival of the community would depend on people actually living there.

    Report this comment

    Callum Ringer

    Sunday, July 29, 2012

  • CR I checked and , yet again, the only word in your post starting with N was.........well we all know by now!. Only a few weeks ago you were worried that we would run out of electricity if the Bodham turbine isn't built, you now are worried that millions of starving will be miraculously fed from 64 acres. It's a bloody good job we have Nuclear! However, this is not an N word, you will find over the next few weeks that most WANT this in their backyard, the ONLY place for turbines is, and I believe I may have mentioned this before, offshore!!! BTW It seems that Weaversway and I completely agree.

    Report this comment

    windup

    Friday, July 27, 2012

  • From NNN re Sheringham council:- "Genatec had said it would invest thousands of pounds in landscaping by planting hedgerows and woodland " So here we have a wind turbine, standing on a pole in a field. Yet, to appease the anti's and try to show goodwill to the community, large areas of agricultural land is being used to plant the hedges, dig ponds, plant woods. I know you will say this is marginal land, but most land can be made able to produce some form of crops to feed the world's starving. Even worse, a lot of this planting is a vain attempt to hide the thing! So now when someone comes up with an idea which generates proper amounts of electricity, it becomes a crime and denies the world starving of potential food!!! It would be hard to make this up! And, BTW, Mr T, each of the one acre plots you want to put wind turbines in in the solar farm wouldn't have a hope of generating the same power if they were left as solar panels. Also, you may perhaps have spotted, it's not easy to get permission for onshore wind in these parts!!

    Report this comment

    windup

    Saturday, July 28, 2012

  • why doesnt the government suggest every house in th uk has a roof full of solar panels? then we could all benifit from our own electric supply and earn some cash by selling to the national grid they in turn supply factories etc at a cheaper price. on second thoughts thats too easy and would give others a slice of this money making scheme.

    Report this comment

    i am mostly wrong??

    Saturday, July 28, 2012

  • TTTTTalking about our Generation!

    Report this comment

    LittleEnoch

    Sunday, July 29, 2012

  • I can see nuclearly now.....

    Report this comment

    Mad Brewer

    Sunday, July 29, 2012

  • Ian, point I was making regarding the volcano was, it is about as likely to happen as a commercial airline, or helicopter, flying into a wind farm, which is highly unlikely, but could happen. The only real issue I have with Solar farms is the vast area of land that is required, for example 64 acres is a pretty big garden in any ones books. We have already agreed the efficiency can be somewhat limited, especially in the good old English summer. These things are brilliant in places like Frorida or Australia and will not be as efficient in the UK. Why is it everyone seems to think offshore is the ideal place for everything? Do they not understand the massive additional cost? Unlikely that Solar panels could be used offshore purely due to the environmental issues, salt, sea spray, high winds (great for turbines) and again the massive costs. I am all in favour of offshore wind farms but we also need to consider alternative energy for possibly farmers or small holdings who wish to become more self sufficient, how could any farmer give up 64 acres and still function? One wind turbine on a 10 acre farm may have benefits and the farm could still function. Every little helps in my mind and unless we continue to develop alternative energy supplies then Nuclear is probably the only answer.

    Report this comment

    Mr T

    Monday, July 30, 2012

  • Why not compromise and have the best of both worlds? If this solar farm is intended to cover 64 acres why not leave four separate one acre plots at strategic points and erect four wind turbines? This way we cover all weather eventualities, just a thought but then again the anti wind turbine brigade will still come up with arguements against as it appears they have one blinkered veiw and will not change, unlike the weather!

    Report this comment

    Mr T

    Saturday, July 28, 2012

  • New woodshedgerows are being planted and ponds being cleared to help save the planet. Nothing to do with shooting then?

    Report this comment

    David Ramsbotham

    Saturday, July 28, 2012

  • Once again it is Ian who sticks to the facts an gives a common sense idea and summation. Onshore are just what he describes - divisive and just a money maker for landowners. I reiterate, please don't go off on a tangent an think somehow this has got something, anything, to do with altruistic feeding the world. That is another issue.

    Report this comment

    weaversway

    Saturday, July 28, 2012

  • I think Colin Virtue from Pegasus got a bit carried away when he said it would give a constant source of energy. Has he forgotten that solar panels only work during daylight hours? Hardly constant. This scheme like all solar farms is a wasteful use of land. Solar installations are on average only 12% efficient, so the average output throughout the year of this 9.9 MW plant is likely to be about 2MW. A 2MW gas fired plant, using methane from waste or mains gas would probably occupy no more than an acre, and its output would be constant throughout the year, day and night, and much more manageable for the National Grid. Furthermore a piece of land unusable for other purposes could probably be found for it. We should be very wary of these solar schemes. One of the largest companies in America, Solandra, received $535 million in federal loans, then went bankrupt, leaving the American tax payer to pick up the bill. Solar farms only exist on huge subsidies and are extremely poor value for money. The power from these plants costs around 4 times that of a gas generator according to government figures, and we all know they generally under-estimate the cost of everything.

    Report this comment

    Derek Colman

    Saturday, July 28, 2012

  • Mr T. Thanks for your response. You make a slightly valid point re the volcanoes preventing flight for a day or two, (a once in a 100yr event) but even though it prevented flight it had no measurable effect on light over solar panels. I have said this many times, I am NOT against renewable energy, even wind, indeed my wee robot is wandering over the seabed off Newcastle doing on offshore wind farm electrical connections right now. And that is the point, offshore is the only practical place for these things, read below in my previous post, 88 in Sheringam shoal, 157 for Dudgeon, in places where its properly windy. Not some ones or twos, in wholly inappropriate places generating next to no useable electricity. As an example of what I mean, this is the 43rd comment on this article, and its about SOLAR! And we're all essentially arguing about ONE turbine! I would bet there were less comments about the whole issue of Sheringham Shoal. That alone, for me, shows just how contentious and unwanted onshore wind is.

    Report this comment

    Windless

    Monday, July 30, 2012

The views expressed in the above comments do not necessarily reflect the views of this site

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

Norfolk Weather

Partly Cloudy

Partly Cloudy

max temp: 8°C

min temp: 6°C

Five-day forecast

loading...

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT