Disclaimer: The below article is part of our ‘Discussion Articles’ collection of publications designed to facilitate public discussion. The views of the author do not necessarily represent the views or policies of the Reform UK Party.
The Department of Energy Security and Net Zero, under the guidance of Chief Zealot Ed Miliband, has a fanatical obsession with Net Zero targets. It’s a bit like watching someone furiously trying to recharge their electric car using a diesel-powered generator. Net Zero, for Miliband, is not just a goal, it’s a moral crusade and a dangerous utopian ideal.
Net Zeroism is the latest ‘ism’ that threatens this country. Like it’s close relatives Communism, Trotskyism, Zionism, Pacifism, and Antisemitism, Net Zeroism is deep-rooted in ideology (environmental science and sustainability ethics), seeks to reorganise societal priorities, assumes a moral imperative, establishes a primary adversary (fossil fuels), demands political and social mobilisation, and aims at a utopian ideal. Much like Communism’s classless society, or Pacifism’s vision of a world without war, the Net Zero ambition is to create an environmentally sustainable world, free of fossil fuels. For advocates like Miliband, achieving this is not just about policy but about ushering in a new, morally superior societal order. Leon Trotsky would be proud.
The endgame in Labour’s utopian Net Zero Britian is a country saturated with solar farms, built on fertile agricultural land once given over to farming, land which is being sacrificed on the altar of environmental idealism. In order to entice farmers to turn their backs on producing food, the Labour government are using the ‘stick and carrot’ approach. The stick came in the form of the Autumn Budget, with the cynical increase in Inheritance Tax on farms. The carrot is the multi-billion pound fund the government has allocated to Net Zero subsidies, which they offer to farmers to turn their fields over to solar farm production.
The Labour government’s policies are naive, and dangerously risking the nation’s food security.
Indeed, if one is to take a close look at solar farms, including the recent proposals in North Yorkshire—such as in East Cowton, Husthwaite, and Malton—then some serious questions need to be asked about whether this is the most effective use of our agricultural resources. Are we prioritizing green energy at the expense of food security and local economies? Furthermore, can we truly call this a sustainable approach when it may undermine the very land that has historically fed our communities?
Solar Farms in North Yorkshire: A Field of Fantasies
Let’s start with the recent solar farm proposals in East Cowton and Malton—two serene and beautiful areas in North Yorkshire. Both proposals aim to convert swathes of valuable farmland into vast fields of solar panels, with proponents arguing that this will contribute significantly to the UK’s green energy goals. However, anyone who has spent more than five minutes in North Yorkshire (or anywhere in the UK, for that matter) knows that it’s not exactly known for its endless sunshine. In fact, Met Office data shows that the UK averages only 1,493 hours of sunshine per year—and that’s being generous. To put this into perspective, Spain enjoys roughly 2,500 to 3,000 hours of sunshine annually, yet even they struggle to make solar power a reliable staple of their energy grid.
The sunny dream of North Yorkshire’s solar energy suddenly doesn’t seem so sunny, does it?
Solar Farms vs. Energy Efficiency: The Empirical Facts
The biggest problem with solar farms is their inefficiency. Solar power, when generated in climates with consistent sunlight, can be a decent supplement to other forms of energy. But here in the UK, solar farms contribute only 4% to the national grid’s energy production, according to Department for Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy (BEIS).
Let’s compare this to nuclear power, which provides roughly 15% of the UK’s electricity but requires significantly less land. A single nuclear plant, such as Hinkley Point C, can produce 3,200 MW of power on a footprint of just 430 acres. In contrast, a solar farm generating the same amount of energy would require over 130,000 acres—nearly 300 times more land. That’s more fields turned into glorified mirror mazes, and fewer fields available for what they were meant for: agriculture, livestock and family walks.
Take East Cowton’s proposal, for instance. This quiet, quaint North Yorkshire village and its surroundings is known for fertile land, being ideal for agriculture. Pave over hundreds of acres of this land with shiny, reflective panels that only produce energy intermittently, depending on the mood of the clouds. According to Solar Power Europe, the efficiency of solar panels decreases by 20-25% in cloudy or overcast conditions. In short, North Yorkshire is about as well-suited for solar farms as Ed Miliband is for eating a bacon sandwich.
“Met Office data shows that the UK averages only 1,493 hours of sunshine per year—and that’s being generous. To put this into perspective, Spain enjoys roughly 2,500 to 3,000 hours of sunshine annually, yet even they struggle to make solar power a reliable staple of their energy grid”.
Solar Farm Madness: Impact on Agriculture and Local Communities
Aside from their inefficiency, solar farms wreak havoc on local ecosystems and agriculture. Natural England has raised concerns about solar farms affecting soil health, disrupting local wildlife, and even causing microclimate changes. These vast fields of solar panels absorb sunlight that would otherwise nourish crops. The National Farmers’ Union (NFU) has been vocal in opposing solar farms on productive farmland, warning that this shift reduces the UK’s food security. With the world already facing agricultural challenges, turning arable land into solar deserts seems as wise as using a fishing net to bail out a sinking boat.
In Malton, for example, residents are concerned about the loss of farmland and its impact on the local farming economy. The area, known for its high-quality livestock and food production, risks being overshadowed by acres of lifeless panels. The UK is not a vast landmass, and every acre devoted to solar panels is one fewer acre available for agriculture. And given that we import over 45% of our food, it seems counterintuitive to sacrifice valuable farmland for a technology is not efficient in our climate.
Lessons from Abroad: Where Solar Farms Struggle
The inefficiencies of solar power in the UK are not unique. In Germany, another country not blessed with Mediterranean sunshine, the government heavily subsidised solar energy in the early 2000s. While they became a world leader in installed solar capacity, they quickly discovered that solar farms could not provide a reliable power supply, particularly during their long, grey winters. Today, Germany relies on coal and nuclear power to ensure consistent energy flow, with solar contributing only around 7-8% of their energy mix. Despite investing over €1 trillion into solar energy, Germany continues to face energy shortfalls during its darker months, proving that a temperate climate and solar power are not a match made in heaven.
In the United States, states like California, which enjoys year-round sunshine, have had some success with solar farms. However, even in the sunny state, solar contributes just 17% of the energy mix, and only because it is supplemented by a robust infrastructure of natural gas and nuclear energy. The lesson? Even where the sun shines consistently, solar energy cannot stand alone.
The Real Cost of Solar Farms: Not Just Financial
Let’s not forget the sheer cost of installing and maintaining solar farms. According to Bloomberg NEF, the upfront cost of solar farms in the UK is around £1 million per megawatt. With maintenance, land costs, and efficiency losses factored in, solar power quickly becomes an expensive venture for little return. And who foots the bill for these grand solar experiments? The taxpayer, of course, through billions of pounds of subsidies handed to landowners. The same taxpayer who is already struggling under the weight of rising energy bills, increased taxes, and Ed Miliband’s ill-conceived Net Zero madness.
Alternative Solutions: Diversified Energy and Small-Scale Solar
None of this is to say that solar energy should be abandoned entirely. There is a place for small-scale solar, such as rooftop panels, which can contribute to individual energy needs without swallowing up large amounts of land. But large-scale solar farms are a misguided solution in a country that is better suited to other forms of energy production, like offshore wind, nuclear power, and even hydroelectric projects. I am not against modernity, technology or green energy. I simply want a return of common sense in the UK’s energy policies.
To achieve true energy security and efficiency, the UK should focus on a diversified energy mix that takes into account our geographical and climatic realities. Solar farms, with their inefficiency and land-use problems, should be relegated to a supporting role at best, not the centrepiece of a Net Zero policy driven more by radical ideology than practicality.
Conclusion: Ed Miliband’s Sunny Delusion
Ed Miliband’s obsession with Net Zero, particularly solar farms, is the equivalent of trying to run a marathon in flip-flops: awkward, inefficient, and doomed to fail. North Yorkshire’s proposals in East Cowton and Malton are prime examples of how this green fantasy is set to damage agriculture, local economies, and the very communities it aims to protect.
Instead, the UK should focus on practical, sustainable energy solutions that align with our reality, not the sunny delusions of a political class chasing ideological targets.
References
Department for Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy (BEIS). UK Renewable Energy Statistics. UK Government, 2023. Accessed via https://gov.uk.
Met Office. UK Climate: Monthly Sunshine Averages. 2023. Accessed via https://metoffice.gov.uk.
National Farmers’ Union (NFU). “Impacts of Solar Farms on Agricultural Land.” NFU Policy Brief, 2022. Available at https://nfuonline.com.
Natural England. “Environmental Impacts of Solar Farms on Soil and Wildlife.” Research Report, 2023. Accessed via https://gov.uk/natural-england.
Solar Power Europe. Efficiency Variability of Solar Panels Under Cloud Cover Conditions. 2022. Available at https://solarpowereurope.org.
National Grid. “Solar Power and Its Contribution to the UK Energy Mix.” National Grid Journal, 2023. Accessed via https://nationalgrid.com.
Annual Local Authority Road Maintenance (ALARM) Survey. 2023 Survey Findings on UK Infrastructure Needs. Retrieved from https://asphaltuk.org.
Bloomberg New Energy Finance (BNEF). Comparative Cost Analysis of Renewable Energy Sources, 2023. Available at https://bloomberg.com.
UK Parliament. “Case Studies in Renewable Energy Efficiency: Hinkley Point C and Solar Farms.” Parliamentary Research Briefings, 2023. Accessed via https://parliament.uk.
German Federal Ministry for Economic Affairs and Energy. “Germany’s Renewable Energy Strategy and Challenges.” Renewable Energy Transition Report, 2022. Accessed via https://bmwi.de.
California Energy Commission. “Overview of California’s Renewable Energy Portfolio.” California Renewable Energy Report, 2023. Available at https://energy.ca.gov.
Reform UK. Policy Statement on Net Zero and Sustainable Energy Solutions. 2023. Accessed via https://reformparty.uk.
About the Author: Matthew Cooke
One Comment
Leave A Comment
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Using arable farmland for solar farms in a country which receives more rain than sunshine is insanity. Surely using rivers to power hydroelectric units would be wiser. Perhaps insisting that all NEW build houses have solar panels fitted as standard would also be wiser. The insanity of sacrificing farmland for this eco zealotry needs to be stopped. The IHT rules almost look like a plan to force farmers to give up their land in return for a government grant for solar panels. Perhaps I’m cynical but the optics are NOT good and having Bill Gates and the Blackrock CEO in Downing Street prior to the budget makes it look even worse.