A new report by renewable energy specialist Professor Tony Day has raised significant concerns about the UK’s current reliance on large-scale solar power developments to meet future energy needs. The study uses the government’s own data to highlight a major seasonal mismatch between electricity generation from solar farms and national demand, calling into question whether the UK’s ambitious solar expansion plans can deliver the secure, affordable and sustainable energy system being promised.
What the government’s solar targets really mean
The government has set a target of installing 75GW of solar capacity by 2035, with a strong policy emphasis on developing vast grid-scale solar parks across agricultural land. However, even if this target is met, grid-scale solar would still only contribute around 13% of the UK’s electricity annually. With optimistic battery storage support, the contribution rises only slightly to just over 16%. The report suggests that these limited gains come at substantial cost to land use, biodiversity, and the wider energy system.
The problem of seasonal mismatch
A central finding of the study is the significant gap between solar output and the country’s shifting electricity needs throughout the year. Solar generation is highest in summer when demand is relatively low, and lowest in winter when people need electricity the most. This creates a “seasonal mismatch trap,” where solar fails to support demand at critical times. As electrification progresses through the adoption of electric vehicles and heat pumps, the gap widens further. To compensate for this mismatch, the UK would need to rely more heavily on flexible backup power sources and system-wide interventions that drive up costs.
Oversupply and the cost of wasted power
The report shows that increasing grid-scale solar capacity also increases the likelihood of over-generation during the summer months. When solar output exceeds national need, the system is forced to curtail generation. This not only wastes potential renewable electricity but also means that other renewables, such as offshore wind, may also be curtailed to maintain grid stability. The resulting pattern of curtailment, shifting grid constraints, and reliance on battery energy storage for arbitrage introduces additional costs that ultimately fall to consumers.
Impact on farmland and rural landscapes
One of the most serious concerns highlighted is the escalating land footprint associated with grid-scale solar. Solar power requires around 1,200 times more land per megawatt-hour of electricity generated than combined cycle gas turbines. Meeting current solar capacity targets could mean converting areas of farmland equivalent to the size of a county into industrial energy sites. The report warns that this shift risks displacing food production, altering rural landscapes, and concentrating economic control in the hands of developers rather than local communities.
Why capacity figures give a misleading picture
Current planning assessments are based on peak capacity rather than actual annual energy contribution, which gives a misleading impression of the value of grid-scale solar projects. The report suggests that this approach obscures the seasonal performance limitations of solar power and overlooks the cost implications for grid infrastructure and energy consumers. It also calls into question whether such developments meet the government’s stated policy goals of delivering secure, reliable, and affordable energy.
Rooftop and community solar offer better value
In contrast to grid-scale sites, rooftop and community-based solar installations offer better value by generating electricity closer to where it is used, reducing pressure on the grid at times of high cost and demand. These systems support local resilience and require no loss of agricultural land. Shifting policy emphasis toward these distributed models would deliver more meaningful benefits to both consumers and the environment.
A call for strategic rethinking
The report concludes with a call for a strategic re-evaluation of the UK’s solar policy. Rather than relying on headline capacity targets, future planning should take into account actual energy contribution, seasonal performance, land use impacts, and the cost of balancing the system. Without this shift, the UK risks locking itself into a solar model that delivers diminishing energy returns, rising system costs and irreversible impacts on agricultural landscapes.
If you have any questions or would like more information, please visit:
https://kingswayaction.org/contact
This is accurate and the lithium battery costs @£300M/GWh would be prohibitive. This policy is a blunder of high magnitude and it should be abandoned now. There are very high risks involved in batteries with no UK standards or regulations. Furthermore the large arrays of panels will heat the air above them in summer causing more global warming.
According the to the Global Solar Atlas, which assesses every country in the world’s solar PV potential, Britain comes 229 out of 230 countries analysed:
https://globalsolaratlas.info/map?c=11.523088,8.261719,3
Our governments (Tory, now Labour) are committing a Maginot-line scale blunder. It’s an era-defining folly.
At last common sense but how do we make the government drop their daft net zero scheme which will cause misery for thousands currently and for millions in the future
All important points previously mentioned. Largely overseas Private Equity investors are financing the developers who rely entirely on the current Government subsidies and Forward purchase agreements for power generated. Without that none of the NSIP scale solar developments on farmland would be viable. Then factor in the enormous cost to future generations of extinguishing productive farmland for ever and you are trading a rush to net zero – great with the right tech in the right places – for an accelerating food crisis. The islands of Uk are already worlds 3rd largest importer of food by value and the Govt wants to make us even more vulnerable. Where is the Department for Food Security ? Hiding in bunker certainly not doing their job on the battlefield. This is not going Green, it is going a putrid brown.