Guest essay by Paul Driessen
Foreword:
Wilkinson Solar wants to catch the solar wave, and make bundles of money sending electricity to the grid whenever it’s generated, even if it’s not needed at the time. The company’s proposed 288,120 solar panels would blanket 600 acres of now scenic farmland next to a school near the North Carolina coast. The project carries lessons for the rest of America – and all locales considering solar.
Locals are not happy. The electricity would be exported out of the area, which has been hit by Category 3 and 4 hurricanes and multiple tropical storms over the years. Another big one would likely send glass shards flying all over. Meanwhile, the Tar Heel state averages just 213 sunny days per year and 9 hours of bright sun per day; that translates into electricity just 20% of the year – unpredictably, unreliably, less affordably. Carbon dioxide reduction benefits? None. These and other issues must get a full hearing, before regulators issue any approvals.
Croplands, habitats, taxes, family budgets, safety sacrificed to enrich politically connected few?
Wilkinson Solar has filed papers requesting permits for a 74-megawatt solar electricity facility about 35 miles east of Greenville, NC. If approved, 288,120 solar panels would blanket 600 acres (0.94 square miles) of now scenic, serene farmland next door to the Terra Ceia Christian School near Morehead City.

The company wants to catch the solar wave, and make a lot of money under “net metering” policies that require payment for electricity added to the grid, whenever it is generated and regardless of whether the electricity is needed at the time. Electricity generated from these new panels would not be sold in the local area; it would be exported to Virginia, Raleigh-Durham and other locations.
Solar power installations doubled in 2016 over 2015, media outlets reported in February. There are now 1.3 million solar installations across the United States, with a cumulative capacity of over 40 gigawatts. That’s enough capacity to power 6,560,000 US households, they say. Of course, there are caveats.
There was intense effort to install as much new photovoltaic as possible in 2016 – driven by a fear that federal tax credits would not be renewed. Solar actually rose from 0.96% of US generation in 2015 only to 1.37% in 2016. 65% of electricity generation is still fossil fuels, 20% is nuclear, 6.5% hydroelectric, 2.0% biomass and geothermal, and 5.6% wind (which is as unreliable as solar).
The reliability factor is critical. The capacity to power 6,560,000 households does not equal actual power generation. It is what panels can generate if the sun shines at high enough intensity 24/7/365. It can be a lot of the time in areas that are bright, dry and sunny most of the year – to very little in other regions.
Those and related issues must guide decisions on whether the Wilkinson facility makes energy, engineering, economic and environmental sense for this North Carolina community, the Tar Heel State – or other locales facing similar decisions. Solar may be advantageous for politicians, corporations, renewable energy activists and their allies. But that should not override other considerations.
A 600-MW capacity coal, gas or nuclear plant operates 90-95% of the time. Its actual output will thus be 540 to 570 megawatts – from 300 acres (or less): 1.8 to 1.9 MW per acre, reliably and affordably.
Wilkinson would theoretically generate 74 MW from twice as much land. That’s 0.12 MW per acre – or 8.1 acres per MW. However, North Carolina averages only 213 sunny days per year, and perhaps 9 hours of good, electricity-generating sun per day.
Instead of 90-95% efficiency, Wilkinson would bring only 20% efficiency. The 288,120 panels would produce electricity only about 20% of the year. That is unpredictable, unreliable, less affordable energy.
The real output would be around 0.03 MW per acre or 33 acres per MW! Wilkinson’s claimed ability to generate enough electricity for 12,500 households shrinks to 2,750 homes, when the sun shines.
Wilkinson and farmers turned occasional power producers would still reap large sums of cash, via net metering and feed-in tariff policies. But crop and wildlife habitat lands would be converted to massive solar arrays, while neighbors would get a blighted landscape and no monetary or other benefits.
As Solar Mania and Solar Sprawl spread, electricity consumers would see their rates climb: from the 9 cents per kilowatt-hour average they now pay in North Carolina and Virginia, ever closer to the 16 to 18 cents per kWh that residents pay in “green energy” states like Connecticut, New York and California. Families, hospitals, schools, businesses, farms and factories would face increasingly tougher times paying their electric bills. Poor and minority families would be hit hardest.
Then there’s the survivability issue. Since 1879, North Carolina has been hit by twelve Category 3 hurricanes, one Category 4 (Hazel in 1954) and multiple tropical storms. Imagine the shards of flying glass that would be torn from solar panels and sent flying in all directions when the next ’cane inevitably hits. What that would do to people, animals and property is not pretty to contemplate. Torrential rains brought by these storms would send flood waters roaring through the installation, wreaking further havoc.
Solar proponents always tout energy, employment and climate stabilization benefits – which don’t exist.
Every megawatt of solar power must be backed up by coal or natural gas generators. Otherwise we have electricity when it happens to be available, instead of when we need it. Otherwise our offices, hospitals, assembly lines, televisions and internet go on and off constantly. No one can work or live that way.
The backup power plants must be running on standby (spinning reserve) all the time – then must ramp up to full power every time the sun stops shining. That slashes their efficiency, and sends their fuel costs and emissions skyrocketing. Any supposed energy, sustainability and climate benefits disappear.
Moreover, it is highly unlikely that any solar array can ever generate enough electricity over its entire life span to equal the energy that went into making, installing and servicing the panels. Mining the raw materials, turning them into metals and other panel components, hauling and installing the panels – all require enormous amounts of motor fuels, coking coal and electricity. The balance sheet is in the red.
Add in what it takes to build, fuel and operate the backup power plants, and solar is bankrupt.
Solar power does create jobs. In fact, U.S. Department of Energy data reveal that producing the same amount of electricity requires one coal worker or two natural gas workers – but 12 wind industry employees or 79 solar workers. That is hardly the ticket to a productive economy.
Even worse, Spanish and other studies have found that, for every renewable energy job created, two to four jobs are lost in other sectors that are forced to pay more and more for less reliable electricity.
Price and reliability are crucial in our digital age, with electricity the key to modern living standards, health, safety, and almost everything we make, eat and do. Solar electricity makes prices rise and reliability decline; its repeated electrical surges and slumps damage grid stability.
Some say using fossil fuels – which provide 82% of the energy that makes modern civilization possible – causes dangerous manmade climate change. But Hurricane Harvey just ended the nearly 12-year record absence of a Category 3-5 hurricane striking the United States. Average planetary temperatures are back to the same level we’ve seen for almost 20 years, following the end of the 2015-16 El Niño.
Those and other inconvenient realities completely contradict decades of alarmist climate predictions. And as just noted, overall fossil fuel use and carbon dioxide emissions increase as solar power proliferates.
All this underscores why we must build more pipelines from areas that have become major natural gas production regions, thanks to hydraulic fracturing. Whether a gas-fired power plant serves as a primary electricity generator, or as backup for wind and solar, new pipelines are essential. They determine whether families, hospitals and businesses have affordable electricity when they need it.
Unfortunately, an array of governors, mayors, legislators, regulators and activist pressure groups are blocking pipeline projects from the Dakotas to New York and beyond, even as they promote more wind and solar. Pipelines and electricity are the backbone of our economy, civilization, jobs and living standards. Cut or paralyze that backbone, and our society will cease to function.
Hearing officials must give local residents and energy experts opportunities to explain these issues and voice their concerns about energy, land use, job, economic, environmental, hurricane and other impacts from solar installations like Wilkinson. Anything less is a dereliction of duty that benefits a few players – at the expense of everyone else. That must no longer happen.
Paul Driessen is senior policy analyst for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow (www.CFACT.org), and author of Eco-Imperialism: Green power – Black death and other books on the environment.
What a sweet deal that is, you get to use the electric company’s distribution system for free in effect stealing their customer list, don’t have to pay the insurance on that grid, and when lightning strikes cause a power outage, the your newly purloined customers don’t call you, they call the electric company for service.
Well said.
I love the way the artists rendering left out the inverters and HV switchgear that would still be required.
How many acres for the battery pack?
I’m not sure about the precise location of the solar project, but there have been several recent major flooding incidents that have inundated the Greenville, NC and Washington, NC areas. Obviously, the high winds of a hurricane/residual tropical storm event would be a major concern; but the more common standing water could have interesting impacts on the solar panels and electricity grid of the facility–not to mention the connection to the main grid.
Without subsidies, these projects are economically impossible; but the Utilities Commission and Duke/Progress reap lots of green credibility and government cash.
With a get out of environmental disruption (e.g. blight factor) free card, low density, high margin gray (“green”) solutions offer a progressive incentive for corporations and investors.
WUWT has introduced me to two concepts that should be tied together and explained to every politician on the planet:
1. The concept that an energy source, to be a productive source, must produce a significant multiple of the energy expended in its production. I don’t have a link to the article, but as I recall oil and gas return around seven times (7X) the energy expended. Solar, again as I recall, barely reached one time (1X).
2. The story, probably apocryphal, that, in a socialist European country, the money earned from a local mine was nearly exactly sufficient to keep all the miners fully employed at the mine, i.e., a return of 1X. (Again, I don’t have a link to what I believe was a comment to an article recently.)
Tell the story first, make sure the politician gets the point (A return of 1X is idiotic policy) and then move to discussing solar, wind, oil, gas, nuclear, hydro, etc.
And in this North Carolina project, 1X might be optimistic.
Solar farms are not dangerous, ground mounted systems are mounted into concrete. Panels have gone through hail storms with minimal damage if any. They can adapt to areas prone to high winds as well. The Dutch, French and Germans have coastal installations and no issues…if there is concern move it further inland or use wind turbines!
As for Net Metering, utilities return unused energy credits at 2-3 cents per kilowatt not at the rate per kilowatt charged.
Let’s face it I’d rather have debris from solar panels which wouldn’t be less likely than oil spills, natural gas explosions or coal dust pollution!
Fossil fuels are finite…wind, solar and hydroelectric power are infinite!
rare earth metals are… rare.
Not when they are priced by the pound and major producers go out of business because of low prices. Just ask the poor suckers that held Molycorp shares when it went over the cliff.
Oil is a natural product and as such it is bio degradable.
I have a lot of experience with oil spill clean ups, and these are mostly a waste of time, and little more than a PR exercise. Left alone, mother nature would sort it out, but of course it might take a few years.
You did not address the side effects of fracking. Fracking can cause earthquakes and ground water disruptions. Solar may be best in smaller stallations on houses, barns, and offices to reduce to net zero the buildings electrical needs This would allow large generators to budget also
Weather forcasting is a must. This would cut heat blackouts from a/c use. Enough on a barn could service a group of buildings, house, henhouse, barn etc. Buildings are already there. The new black panels look attractive on roofs. We are doing the sourh side of our new garage roof.
This is just pure conjecture on which there is no hard evidence.
That 600 MW coal plant on 300 acres or less? It will generate exactly zero MWh without fuel. The strip mine supporting it will permanently consume 35 acres every single year – if said mine is in Wyoming. If it’s in Virginia, it will consume 1,200 acres. Annually.
that’s a good point
it’s not an issue of scenic cornfields.
it’s not about what somebody does with his own property.
it’s not about co2 or what anybody wants to do with his own dime.
it also shows exactly why the only winning argument is this:
‘keep your mitts off my wallet cuz MINE!’
So I have been thinking about some great ways to make money. Out of curiosity, let’s say I were to found a company to create a solar power plant. Would I get any credits to buy the land? Or build the solar array?
Are there grants? Or maybe state and local tax breaks?
Because if there are I could use this to get my hands on a lot of land, which would be the real asset, not the solar plant. At the government’s expense. Then I get to sell the sporadically produced power to the local power company and show the land as an asset on the books.
“Oh, mister Bureaucrat, I need a LOT of land to make this solar array viable.” Oh yeah baby.
“Oh, mister Bureaucrat, look at the good I am doing, don’t I deserve a grant.” Oh yeah baby.
“Oh, mister local official, if you will just approve my plans to get a lot of land for cheap, I will contribute to your re-election fund.” OH, YEAH.
And now you know why AGW is a god send for some people. Some. People.
And here I was told by the greenunists that we shouldn’t do anything to our farmland but grow food on it…
No actually, you aren’t supposed to do anything unless they tell you it is ok to do it. As a matter of fact, you should go ahead and turn over all the land to a committee so they can come up with a proper use for it.
From each according to their ability, from each according to their need.
And, quite frankly their ability is much greater than yours.
Just ask them.
Well, turning all the land over to non-farmers hasn’t worked out so well in Zimbabwe, but that’s probably just a statistical glitch.
AndrewC 9:24 am – From each according their ability; TO each according to their need.
AC 9/1 9:24am From each according to their ability: TO each according to their need.
I don’t know where you got that idea.
German farmers are keeping their farms financially afloat but putting up wind farms owned by the local community….
UK’s farming organisation the NFU endorses putting up solar panels on poorer quality grazing land.
any argument of substance Forrest?
Apologised for maliciously lying about Dr. Crockford with the express intention of trashing her credibility yet, you nasty little creature?
To those who would take away my ability to burn element 6 I say element 82 for you.
And yet the ice is melting both in antarctica and the arctic. Maybe we can expand farming in Greenland as more dirt becomes
visible 😉
Lots of misinformation and fear mongering here. The author clearly has little to no knowledge of solar.
Just off the first paragraph, there could never be “shards of glass flying around” for 2 reasons. These installations are designed to withstand hurricane force winds. AND the glass is tempered, so if it were to break, it would be into harmless pellets.
Yes, solar is where these posts go off the rails, at least with utility scale solar from the sector leaders.
Actually, although I enjoy posting sarcastically I know that “I” personally do not fear monger. That is the professional skillset that AGW is based upon, so I don’t like it myself.
Frankly, the connection between hurricanes and solar arrays is pointless, although I do have to question the intelligence of the idea due to location. Is it cheap land? Oh wait, are they going to lease the land? Who is the land-owner?
But getting beyond that, I do know a little bit about solar and most of the other non carbon burning forms of power generation. Did you see the recent articles about the only rare-earth mine in American and how the government has looked at nationalizing it. Have you wondered why?
Do you know the primary difference between solar and wind power generation and fossil fuel power generation? No, CO2, is not the answer. Look up what rare-earth elements are used for.
Oh, and have you ever done a study on the difference between fossil fuel power and solar and wind power from a financial engineering standpoint? What is the break-even without government grants and credits? Please do not refer me to an article written by a journalist who has not even taken a class in Calculus, much less Financial Engineering.
Forrest, yes these post go off the rails. Why? Because, solar and wind is NOT efficient. Nor do they provide baseline power. And batteries need rare earth elements.
What a shill. 20% efficiency of clean sunlight is better that 100% energy extracted from coal.
Wow. I hope you meant that ironically. Because if not, it was ironic.
The only place worth for solar panels are house’s roofs and 7-8 meters over the Highways and Railroads.
This way no extra soil is consumed.
Solar panels are also currently found over railways, on reservoirs (reduces evaporation), over irrigation canals, in an old open cast uranium mine, on a former soviet training area in Germany too polluted to return to agriculture (and possibly soon in the Chernobyl zone), on the concrete of old airfields…
They can easily be placed over parking lots (where they provide shade).
…and of course are regularly grazed or used for bees/as a nature reserve for plants/insects.
No extra soil is ‘consumed’ by any large solar installation.
“No extra soil is ‘consumed’ by any large solar installation.”
Another flat out lie.
Poorly researched article. It misses the point in that poorly planned solar generation does not make current electric generation better. A well planned electric distribution system will allow solar to be developed in sun efficient areas. Although future generations will be paying for this, they will also be reaping the enormous benefits.
It strikes me that solar could be best used to generate electricity for applications that increase their power consumption during sunny periods. Thus, for example, solar panels on roofs of buildings, used to power air conditioning inside the buildings: power when and where it’s needed.
…and when the market values it
It would still be significantly less costly to power the AC with non-“renewable” power.
Bottom of the thread. No Griff cost analysis. What — a — surprise.
#(:))
Bingo!
http://www.reddog1944.com/RAST_97th%20BG%20414th%20BS_files/image039.jpg
Follow the money.
I’m not seeing a rainbow, Mr. Gardener. You were blessed with a special sight of a lovely thing to give you joy today, perhaps? (shrug) 🙂
Off topic, further:
Mr. Gardener,
I have been thinking of you and wanting to extend my deep sympathy at the death of your countrywoman at the hands of a U.S. police officer in Minnesota this summer. After your concerns about guns in the U.S., this must have been especially appalling. I who am used to the situation in the U.S. was dismayed and disgusted ….. and angry. Everyone makes mistakes, including police officers, but, this looks like recklessness, to me, thus, it is inexcusable.
I am sorry that charges have not yet been filed (and of course, the officer is innocent of malfeasance until proven guilty, but, imo, he needs to be tried for this act). Apparently, it is normal for such an investigation to take 3 – 4 months (Source: http://www.seattletimes.com/nation-world/charging-decision-expected-in-police-shooting-by-years-end/ ). That sounds TERRIBLY long to wait, given the circumstances, but, things like this do typically take months, not weeks.
If the officer is not prosecuted for this, it will be wrong. And I hope that her family will hire a lawyer (hopefully, one will do it on a contingent fee basis) to bring a civil action against Officer Noor/his employer (there should be “malpractice” type insurance to go after, even if he is essentially “judgment proof”).
Again. VERY, VERY SORRY at what happened.
With sympathy and many prayers,
Your American friend,
Janice
Thank you for your response, Mr. Gardener, and for the gracious words.
And, yes, indeed, why do some promotion-designers think that annoying people will make them buy their product? I have said from time to time, “And because you have annoyed me so much, I will never buy from you!!!!!”
test
Another take on renewable reliability:
http://www.ucsusa.org/clean-energy/increase-renewable-energy/fact-renewable-energy-is-reliable#.WanesciGOUk
A better appraoch would be to turn the area into a forest. The effort in planting tree seeds is far less then is required to provide a solar energy facility in terms of CO2 added to the atmosphere. Trees operate using solar energy and take CO2 right out of the air and make use of it to create wood. Native trees should be able to grow from seed with no further human effort.
There are thousands of acres of tobacco in eastern N. Carolina, largely in small plots of about an acre or so. It’s a crucial cash crop for the small-holders – very labor intensive, hard work in hot Sun, highest mortality rates in the nation, especially cardio-vascular.
Don’t know how much cash one could receive by replacing a tobacco patch with PV panels, but if net metering could make it compare to the amount tobacco brings in, it would sure be an easier, healthier way to make a living. And what’s not to like about reducing tobacco production?
I have found a UK planning application for a solar farm which states that the land will be returned to agricultural use after 25 years. Clearly ‘saving the planet’ is not a permanent strategy – just a wheeze. By the way Griff should be aware that combining livestock with solar panels is just a PR thing. If you actually farm you will know that it cannot really work to any great extent – the grass will not grow very well underneath them. Look carefully on the internet and you can find the more established solar farms where the grass has died under the panels. I’m sure you can put a few sheep in amongst them but not as many as if the whole field was pasture. As for the wild flowers – I would like to see the evidence of species diversity after 10 years.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/28/world/arctic-polar-row-norway-rowers.html
Another ship of fools, of sort. The relevance is that their solar power gave out because of days of cloudy weather.
Though do note they were able to get to nearly 80 degrees north in ice free sea in a rowing boat before getting stranded on the way back.
That journey would not have been possible in the last century
This article was posted as an example of the failure of solar power to deliver a mission critical service. This thread was about solar power, But, speaking of ships of fools. They just gave up, too.
http://www.euronews.com/2017/08/31/arctic-mission-one-of-history-s-most-extreme-and-urgent-voyages
Meanwhile, serious people are driving their boats around Houston saving lives. The contrast could not be more extreme.
“That journey would not have been possible in the last century”
?w=720
Oh really?
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/03/16/you-ask-i-provide-november-2nd-1922-arctic-ocean-getting-warm-seals-vanish-and-icebergs-melt/
“That journey would not have been possible in the last century”
Making stuff up again…