In any ecosystem, the survival of two similar carnivorous species depend on at least two fundamentals, food and space. If food is plentiful but space is at a premium, then conflict between the two species is inevitable. The same applies to always hungry and fast spreading renewable energy developers.
A wind farm developer Seagreen, and a solar farm developer Tealing Park Solar Ltd, are at war over a former WW2 RAF base.
From the Times:
” Wind & solar companies are normally allies in the hunt for subsidies but the rewards are now so great that they are fighting each other for the control of a former wartime airfield.”
Seagreen wants to build a 3bn/3500MW offshore wind farm off the east cost of Scotland, it will need the airfield for a substation. Tealing Park Solar has applied for planning for a 31MW solar farm covering the equivalent of 70 football pitches on the same land.
Both parties are objecting to the other’s proposal.
The owner of the land is objecting to the wind farm. He has granted a long lease to the solar farm, at (a reported) £900/acre/yr.
It is estimated that the solar farm would receive 29 million over 15 years; the wind farm, 15 billion over the same period, when all phases of construction are completed. Seagreen has told the local council that the wind farm is of “national importance”. Seagreen may wish to apply for a compulsory rights of entry, if they do not come to an arrangement with the landowner, however a recent ruling from Ofgem has raised doubts whether this would be possible.
Read the Times(£) article here.
Tallbloke's Talkshop 
“15 billion” over 15 years? Is that right?
The Renewable Energy Foundation supplied the 15 billion figure to the Times. Whether it is correct or not is another matter.
Johnnuk
15 bn looks about right.
3500MW at 35% utilisation = 10731 GWh pa
At a subsidy of £100/MWh
= £1.073 bn pa. Guaranteed for 15 yrs!
Not bad for an investment of £3bn
And £15bn is just the subsidy – not incl what they might receive for the electricity at market rates.
Thanks Paul, they say money doesn’t grow on trees! Sorry Andrew I’ve dragged the focus from the key issue of your article but I was totally “gobsmacked” as they say when I saw this figure in this context.
I’ll look out for the share issue by Tealing Park Solar if there’s any left after the usual suspects have had their noses in the trough.
There’s sharks in Norfolk, too, as fishermen flounder:
“A fishermen’s group has criticised an energy firm for using a High Court injunction to prevent fishing in an area off the Norfolk coast.
Company Dong Energy said it needed to survey near Blakeney Point as part of its plans for a wind farm.
The injunction orders fishing gear to be removed from the area by Friday.
National Federation of Fishermen’s Organisations said the injunction was “regrettable”. Dong Energy said it had tried to avoid legal action.
The injunction says fishermen must also “not fish in the survey area” in The Wash until 22 October, said Dong Energy.”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-norfolk-28772089
christ on a bike. Fifteen billion. Not only is this immoral but I’d consider it bordering on the criminal.
In honor of the WWII RAF base, I say give both “warring” parties an old RAF fighter and let them have an air duel. Winner takes all.
The 15 billion figure seems a bit low to me.
Assume the windfarm operates at 35% of capacity – not unrealistic for the North Sea. That is averaging 1225 MWh, or 10.7 million MWh per annum.
By 2016, I estimate the ROC subsidy will be £44.50, or £89.00 for the 2 ROCs that offshore wind receives per MWh. Add in £50/MWh for the wholesale price of electricity, gives a revenue of £139/MWh.
That is £1,487m per annum, or £22.3 bn over 15 years.
With a bit of inflation the total revenue will be around £26bn – £29bn.
I can get to £15bn by assuming
– 25% of capacity (maybe allowing for some turbines to be shut down for maintenance, or have short lives.)
– No inflation
– £131/MWh revenue.
Wow, a fight over who gets to foist the bigger scam on tax payers. There is no way those contracts are worth a glass of warm spit over their stated lifetimes.
My bet is that within a few short years both companies and all of their schemes will be shut down and in bankruptcy, leaving the landowner and creditors trying to clean up the mess.
According to Seagreen only 1.05 GW is currently proposed (“phase 1”), http://www.seagreenwindenergy.com/assets/phase1-offshore-addendum1.pdf
Yikes! There are acres and acres of recently installed solar panels around Milford Haven. Now I understand why, because as the sun doesn’t shine much here, the rewards are worth the effort.
A solar farm in Scotland? Madness. It just shows how over-the-top the subsies are and why cowboy developers are rushing to cash in here in the south-west, which is supposed to be the sunniest part of the UK.
Subsidies for a wind farm would be paid under CfD, not the RO scheme as manic uses in his calcs.
Phillip – agree absolutely about the subsidies, but the east coast of Scotland (and low lying islands like Tiree in the west) get lots of sunshine (Tiree averages about 220 hours in May) and the cooler winds mean the panels work at higher efficiency than those in the south. The sun is up from 4.30am to 10pm in June/July, so long days also. So some parts of Scotland are good for PV, as long as you are not wanting to generate any power in the winter (when only 20 hours of sunshine per month are not unusual)! And winter in Scotland is usually late October to early April.
OT
I have submitted for a preprint publication article:
LENGTH OF DAY (LOD) COINCIDENTAL CORRELATION WITH SOLAR ACTIVITY
It can be reached at this temporary address:
Click to access LODvsSSN.pdf
If article is accepted, the web address is likely to change, so if of any interest to you save the pdf file (not only the link).
Thanks
Phillip,
You are correct about having to use the CfD values.
These are contained on Table 1 – Strike Prices (Page 7) at
Click to access Final_Document_-_Investing_in_renewable_technologies_-_CfD_contract_terms_and_strike_prices_UPDATED_6_DEC.pdf
Assume
(a) the 15 years are from Apr-2016. Year 1 strike price £150, Yr 2 £140, Yr 3 £140
(b) Strike price from Apr-2020 is £120 (the target for offshore wind costs). So for 2019/2020 assume £130.
(c) No inflation thereafter.
From above, assume output is 35% of theoretical capacity. This gives £20.2bn of revenue over 15 years.
£15bn of revenue is from 26% of capacity.
Assume 3% RPI inflation after 2020, and only 23.33% of capacity is need to get £15bn of revenue.
Alternatively, Assume 3% RPI inflation after 2020 and output of 35% of capacity gives £22.5bn of revenue. The projected revenue is unduly pessimistic.
If the full cost (capital and maintenance) is £12bn, £15bn revenue would give 20% margin, whereas £22.5bn revenue would give 46.7% margin. From a PR perspective, it is best to be a tad pessimistic over revenue.
“The owner of the land is objecting to the wind farm. He has granted a long lease to the solar farm, at (a reported) £900/acre/yr.”
Puzzling. Having looked at the site on google maps there is a sizeable plot with electricity grid distribution services already there. I wonder why would the wind farm people be trying to apply for something on land they neither own or control. As it is power related are their any statutory rights that would give either the wind farm company or National Grid the authority to throw their weight around?
Thanx Vuk – look forward to hearing more
Reblogged this on Cornwall Wind Watch and commented:
see also Wardell Armstrong (wind consultant) objecting to a wind application here which they did the LVIA for because their other client wants to bring tin mining back to the area and you can’t have both going on in the same field.
lapogus,
Of the long summer days, how many hours is the sun high enough to drive the solar panels to generate significant fractions of their capacity? My uderstanding of far northern days is that the sun spends a significant portion of time low in the sky. This means a great deal of the sunlight is attenuated through the atmospehre and the incidence of angle would be quite low.
I believe that while solar panels are a nifty small scale niche source, they are incredibly wasteful of public resources, land and capital in large arrays. The vast majority of so-called alternative energy ‘investments’ will turn out to be rent seeking and cronyism, if the record is any guide. The fantasy that merely budgeting for some marvelous solution to the alleged need for renewables is one that has moved into the range of obsession if not delusion. But there seems to be no shortage of those willing to get tax payer and investor money to help sufferers of this condition spend excess money.
For 15 billion sterling you could build at least 5 Westinhouse AP1000 NPPs with a nameplate capacity of over 5 GWe. At 90% utilization that works out at 39,420 GWh pa. That amount of electricity would cost ~$4 billion here in Florida but at least 4 billion sterling in the UK.
So explain to me again why you folks are investing three times as much money to generate electricity that won’t be available when the wind does’nt blow.