Solar Power In East Lothian Fails Even By The Low Standards of The Great Green Grift Itself - So How Should We Critique It?

Two long and meticulously written and researched posts dropped into my email inbox this morning, right next to one another, totally unconnected, and each about very separate issues. I read them both, out of interest and immediately realised that on one level they are in fact intimately connected, each very relevant to the other. This happens to me quite a lot. I get stuff served up on a platter, just ready for the eating. Somebody else does all the hard graft of preparing a meal and then I come along and consume the product of their labour and, with belly full, get to comment on just how tasty it was! Which is good, because I’m fundamentally lazy and would much rather get instant gratification by being inspired by the hard work of others than have to do all that hard work myself! The two ‘others’ in this case are Professor Gordon Hughes and Dr. Toby Rogers. First, Gordon’s post:

A solar feeding frenzy

It is meticulously researched, extremely well written and lucid and it completely demolishes the rational and economic argument for solar power in Scotland - or even the north of England for that matter - by presenting an array of facts and figures which are incontestable. Here’s a taster, but please do read the entire article, as it’s a masterpiece of infallible number crunching logic:

My wife is the literary critic and poet in our family. Still, even I – a mere number cruncher – can identify with the feelings expressed by Lord Tennyson when dealing with the absurdities that are prompted by a social lie (Net Zero) backed up by enormous quantities of gold.

The context for these thoughts is that since writing my post on the economics of solar power I have been contacted by several groups who face the prospect of large solar developments that are intrusive, badly designed and often make little economics sense. I will draw on a specific example – Springfield Solar Farm, which is being developed by a large solar operator called Voltalia. Its site is near to Innerwick in East Lothian. The project includes up to 165 MWp of peak solar capacity and a battery storage facility of up to 150 MW.[1]

My initial reaction to the proposal was to ask whether the developer was daft. While East Lothian is known as having a mild climate (by Scottish standards), the site latitude is nearly 56°N with all that means for solar radiation and the angle of the sun during much of the year. This can be checked by using the PVWatts calculator - the best non-commercial solar resource calculator that is maintained by the US National Renewable Energy Laboratory.

Then Professor Hughes takes us through the actual numbers which, contrary to the presumed ambition of industry promoters of the social lie (Net Zero) grabbing some of the ‘enormous quantities of gold’ on offer as renewables subsidies, actually demonstrates that the proposal makes no economic sense whatsoever, even on its own terms. It’s dead on arrival, and should just be buried at the drawing board stage.

For Innerwick, PVWatts reports a net yield of 691 kWh per kWp of peak capacity per year for a tilt of 25 degrees after allowing for inverter and other system losses. As a comparison, the equivalent net yield for a site near Swanage, Dorset on the south coast of England is 970 kWh per year, i.e. 40% higher than the yield in East Lothian.

Gordon derives this graph from his figures, which shows land rent as a function of solar yield in £ per kWp vs. UK latitude (typo on graph legend). As you can see, there is a point at which the land rent goes negative (which basically means it makes no economic sense to build a solar installation at that location):

Gordon explains the situation thus:

This brings me on to the Alice in Wonderland world of solar economics in the UK. In recent CfD auctions the strike prices for solar projects (all at 2024 prices) have gone from £64 per MWh for AR4 to £66 per MWh for AR5 to £70 per MWh for AR6. At £70 per MWh a new solar project will only cover a real pre-tax cost of capital of 0% if we assume that average capex and opex costs are one-half of what the evidence from company accounts examined in my solar study suggest are reasonable.[4]

In this fictional world a solar farm with a net yield of 926 kWh per kWp – the average net yield for plants located at 51°N – can afford a total locational payment of about £16,000 per MWp. This amount would have to cover rent, business rates and TNUoS charges. Solar plants benefit from a general exemption from business rates for plant and machinery used for renewable energy generation and storage, but business rates are still payable on land rents and infrastructure assets such as roads and buildings.[5] The standard rating formula in England since 2023 is to set a rateable value of £8,250 per MWp. For large solar farm the effective tax rate is 54.6% in 2024-25, which translates to an annual bill of about £4,500 per MWp for business rates.

The figure above translates the net yields in the previous figure to land rents per kWp. In all cases I have assumed that the TNUoS charge is £9.10 per kWp and business rates are £4.5 per kWp. There is large variation in the land rents that can be afforded at different grid squares for any specific latitude, but there are no grid squares for which a positive land rent can be afforded if the latitude exceeds 53°N, i.e. north of Stoke-on-Trent, Derby and Nottingham.

Few landowners would be willing to accept a land rent that is significantly less than £2.0 per kWp because of the length of the commitment required – up to 40 years. On this basis, potential locations for developing solar farms are concentrated in three areas: (a) East Anglia and South-East – longitudes east of the Greenwich meridian and latitudes from 51°N to 53°N; (b) the South-West and South Wales – longitudes west of 3°W; and (c) the South of England – latitudes south of 51°N.

These areas account for less than 10% of the land area of Great Britain and include a large portion of the richest communities in the UK. Many of these communities attach a high value to preserving the landscape and other features of their local areas. In addition, agricultural values tend to be high, setting a higher base for the land rents that must be paid. Thus, it is hardly surprising that there are often strong objections to the development of solar farms as well as relatively high costs of both construction and operation.

This means that the whole of Scotland and most of northern England is out of bounds for large scale solar developers if economic reality, basic physics, meteorology and geography are to be taken into account. Solar developments in these areas fail on their own terms - there is nothing or very little to be gained financially, even allowing for generous renewables CfD subsidies, by placing installations in these locations. So why the hell are we seeing these planning proposals, which are so worrying for locals? Professor Hughes ventures the following suggestions:

Even on assumptions that are either extremely optimistic (based on actual evidence rather than fantasy forecasts) or inconsistent with current economic conditions, developing solar plants in locations north of 53°N makes no sense. Maybe developers believe that future offtake prices will be considerably higher than current CfD prices. Alternatively, there may be some other secret sauce that means such projects might be viable. That might be an expectation that the current government will be so desperate to meet its Net Zero targets that it will abandon any semblance of fiscal discipline to ensure that new projects have the incentives to go ahead. Of course, such a belief bodes ill for those who will have to pick up the bills!

Hence, my reference to a solar feeding frenzy in the title of this piece. There is a rush to get planning consent for ever larger solar projects. These projects will almost certainly never be financially or economically viable. The goal for solar investors seems to be to create a portfolio of speculative options, a few of which might just be worth exercising in future if market or CfD prices increase substantially.

The Great Green Grift of solar power in Scotland and the north of England is actually the Great Green batshit crazy deluded hopium-smoking love-in! There’s just no other way to describe it. Or is there?

Now, it gets interesting, because if you critique something, as Gordon does, by subjecting it to a test of its own internal conditions, by investigating whether or not it stands up to scrutiny on its own terms, this, I have discovered thanks to Dr. Toby Rogers, is what is known as ‘immanent critique’:

The limits of Immanent Critique

Toby refers to immanent critique in the context of the (primarily) medical freedom movement in the US and MAHA. Which has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with solar power in Scotland - or so you might think. But Synchronicity works in mysterious ways and I’d like to demonstrate how Toby’s article is intimately connected to Gordon’s and how, taken together, they enlighten us further as to the realities of this crazy world we live in.

First there’s the obvious realisation that ‘immanent critique’ is in fact an accurate way to describe what Gordon does when he subjects solar power in Scotland to a rational, numerical, scientific, economic analysis. Toby went to Grok for the answer and redeems himself slightly for doing so (but is not sufficiently contrite in my opinion!):

The explanation of immanent critique from Grok is so magnificent, I’m just going to quote it at length (even though it pains my soul to use this tool):

Immanent critique is a method of analysis where one evaluates a system, ideology, or set of ideas using its own internal standards, assumptions, or principles — rather than applying external criteria. The goal is to reveal contradictions, inconsistencies, or unfulfilled promises within the system itself, exposing its limitations or flaws from the inside out.

For example, if you were critiquing capitalism using immanent critique, you wouldn’t judge it based on, say, moral ideals from socialism, Christianity, or Stoic philosophy. Instead, you’d look at capitalism’s own stated goals — like efficiency, freedom, or prosperity — and show how it fails to meet those goals on its own terms (e.g., how free markets lead to monopolies that undermine free markets).

The term “immanent” comes from the idea of staying within the thing being examined, as opposed to “transcendent” critique, which brings in outside perspectives. It’s a way to challenge something by holding up a mirror to itself.

That’s exactly what Gordon does with solar power development projects in Scotland; he holds a mirror up to them and finds that their own reflection is hideously, absurdly distorted, like some fairground mirror. And now this is how Toby describes MAHA folks’ immanent critique of conventional medicine and public health:

Specifically, (using the language of immanent critique) the MAHA insiders seem to believe that they can inhabit the logic of allopathic medicine and public health and show that the vaccine program was never actually based on proper double blind randomized controlled trials (the gold standard of evidence for those professions) and that the vaccine program has produced more harm than good for society. (Or something like that — in the replies please post your own immanent critique of allopathic medicine if you wish.)

AND — the argument goes — IF they are successful at convincing the scientific mainstream to stop rigging studies and faking data, the change will be much more enduring and widespread than if we had attempted to overthrow the entire system all at once.

As I said above, changing hearts and minds is difficult. If one wants to change hearts and minds, immanent critique is probably one of the best ways to do it.

Then Toby goes on to outline the limitations of immanent critique and two specific situations where it might fail to achieve its objective:

Thus far I’ve tried to make the best possible case for immanent critique. As the title of this essay suggests, however, I’m actually here to argue against the use of immanent critique for our purposes in the medical freedom movement.

It seems to me that there are at least two circumstances where immanent critique is the wrong approach to social change — 1.) when dealing with fascism; and 2.) when what you really need is a massive paradigm shift in science. And unfortunately we’re dealing with medical/scientific fascism, so we’re afflicted with both of these exceptions to the general rule.

This really struck me because much as I hugely admire Gordon Hughes’ approach to criticising solar energy in Scotland, I do not believe that the zealots in charge of planning and in charge of UK energy policy will be paying much attention. Why? Because what we have with Net Zero is not actual evidence-based sane policy making, it is energy fascism pimping on the back of ecofascism which in turn pimps upon the back of what has essentially become the pseudoscience of anthropogenic global warming aka ‘climate change’ aka ‘climate breakdown’. Toby’s 1.) and 2.) both apply. So we might therefore expect immanent critique to have limited impact. Toby explains why:

I suppose, theoretically, immanent critique should work as well in dismantling fascism as it did with slavery. But fascism moves so quickly and comprehensively to shut down debate that immanent critique does not have time do its work (of changing hearts and minds). It’s notable that the expansion of the vaccine program was accompanied by the largest propaganda and censorship operation in American history.

Immanent critique seems to function best when the transcendent values of freedom, liberty, and/or love are already previously embedded in the system. With fascism I feel like order, hierarchy, and control are ends in themselves even if they were initially proposed as a means of reducing crime and chaos or increasing efficiency.

So too with the scientific community — theoretically, immanent critique should have a reasonable chance of success. In the scientific community internal consistency is a stated goal and it has accessible and explicit standards that one could harness to point out where actual practice falls short.

But the current culture of science and medicine is built to resist change:

• The training follows a military hierarchy and is often abusive (long hours, lack of sleep) to the point of brainwashing.

• New entrants in the profession are usually deeply indebted and financially dependent on those above them in the department.

• Science and medicine are closed systems that do not accept critiques from outside their membership and certainly not from the public at large.

• The actually existing scientific community is characterized by large egos, lack of self-awareness, rent-seeking behavior, and political fiefdoms even though many of these people believe that they are neutral observers following the data.

• Whistleblowers cost their superiors money so feedback and reporting mechanisms are discouraged or blocked.

There is no ‘science’ more resistant to change than the Settled Science of Global Warming. It has been going strong for more than 40 years now and has successfully excluded/censored any dissent from within the ranks of academia and has labelled literally anyone who questions the Climate Consensus dogma as ‘deniers’, in direct comparison to Holocaust deniers. But finally, the edifice is starting to crumble. Real science and data which challenge the pseudoscientific tenets of the ‘climate crisis’ are starting to make a comeback and are getting noticed, at the same time as a shift in social awareness is happening which is producing real results.

I refer specifically to the recent excoriating judgment of former ‘climate hero’ Michael ‘Hockey Stick’ Mann and his legal team, who stand accused of acting “in bad faith when they presented erroneous evidence and made false representations to the jury and the Court regarding damages stemming from loss of grant funding.” Punitive damages of $1m previously awarded against Mark Steyn for defamation of Mann have also been reduced to $5000. Mann is an icon of the fraudulent Settled Science of Global Warming and hence this judgement, a long time coming after 13 years of mental torment and financial stress for Steyn, is a real blow to consensus climate science. As also is the election of Donald Trump for a second term. The winds of change are blowing but are they blowing hard enough to derail energy fascism and unseat the Masters of Climate Science from their thrones here in the UK? Probably not - yet. Because what we really need is a revolution, not just immanent critique. Toby nails it:

IV. Revolutionary critique

One alternative to immanent critique is revolutionary critique.

A revolutionary critique is an analysis or evaluation of a system, structure, or ideology that seeks to fundamentally challenge and overturn it, rather than merely reform or adjust it. It typically comes from a perspective that views the existing order — whether political, social, economic, or cultural — as deeply flawed, oppressive, or unsustainable, requiring radical transformation to address root causes of injustice or inefficiency.

I don’t want to save allopathic medicine from itself. The existing model of ‘vaccinate, cut, burn, and poison’ is never going to work because it’s based on a fundamental misunderstanding of what the body and the natural world are and how they function. At best allopathic medicine is stuck in an 18th century Newtonian understanding of the world that has since been surpassed in every scientific field except medicine and public health.

I want a revolution in how we think about health that will reveal the barbarity and savagery of our current era. I’m not here to restore trust in science and medicine — I want to smash the institutions that are engaged in iatrogenocide so that something new and better can take their place.

Toby’s talking about medicine and public health. Perhaps we also need a revolution in how we think about energy and a revolution in establishment science which will smash the corrupt scientific institutions which have hitherto been at the forefront of pushing consensus climate science for over four decades. They are probably incapable of internal reform; they need to be dismantled completely.

And the same goes for politics: Reform is a busted flush. We need Revolution. I suggest a ‘That Lot’ grass roots political movement!