A £10 million “solar farm” is on a list of high tech projects being considered by Warrington Borough Council.
No site has yet been identified and there would have to be consultation with nearby residents before the project could go ahead.
But the facility would save an estimated £375,000 annually and cut emissions of greenhouse gases by some 2,040 tonnes.
It would help the council achieve its aim of reducing the size of its carbon footprint by 40 per cent by 2015.
A schools solar project would cost another £4,000,000 to produce annual savings of £145,728 and cut emissions by 793 tonnes.
The council would have to borrow money to fund these major capital schemes.
Town Hall chiefs are being asked to approve a five year carbon management plan that would save the borough council £10 million and enable the target of a 40 per cent cut in emissions to be achieved.
The programme would gather pace this year, building on two years in which Warrington – which realised the need to reduce emissions several years ago – cut its carbon footprint by a total of 1,398 tonnes and achieved annual savings totalling £243,190.
The aim in the coming year would to cut CO2 emissions by 4,828 tonnes and make annual savings of £945,879.
In 2012-13, the target would be to cut emissions by 7,804 tonnes and save £1,484,885 while the following year the target would be 10,370 tonnes and £1,903,248.
In 2014-15, the aim would be 11,250 tonnes and £2,044,169.
The main areas for focus would be schools and street lighting which together make up 60 per cent of the authority’s emissions.
Cllr Mike Biggin, (pictured) executive member for climate change, in a report to next week’s meeting of the executive board, says the council’s incentives to cut emissions are financial, environmental and political and social.
The difference between taking action to achieve the target and doing nothing would be more than £10 million and there were also clear environmental benefits.
But there would also be damage to the council’s reputation.
“Warrington wishes to lead the way in reducing reliance on carbon based energy, showing how communities and businesses can follow its example,” he says.
£10 million solar farm plan
1414 Comments
Share.
About Author
Gary Skentelbery
Experienced journalist for more than 40 years. Managing Director of magazine publishing group with three in-house titles and on-line daily newspaper for Warrington. Experienced writer, photographer, PR consultant and media expert having written for local, regional and national newspapers. Specialties: PR, media, social networking, photographer, networking, advertising, sales, media crisis management. Chair of Warrington Healthwatch Director Warrington Chamber of Commerce Patron Tim Parry Johnathan Ball Foundation for Peace. Trustee Warrington Disability Partnership. Former Chairman of Warrington Town FC.
14 Comments
I see it is overcast again this morning!
Life expectancy and maintenance don’t get a mention. How many years before it is in profit? or will it need replacing before then?
Silver Surfer – I see you are your normal self focus on the negative – I bet you enjoy being a hoover of misery!!!
Those are the first things that I thought too. Many many years before before any actual savings are made from the firgures in the report but I think the main emphasis is on reducing emissions (which is a good thing) rather than saving money. Problem I have with it is that with all the cuts everywhere else is now the time to be thinking about borrowing and spending £10 million on on something that will give no return financially or benefit anyone directly ?
Exactly Dizzy! and that’s the kind of reasoning which will get this project shelved in favour of the ‘more viable’ option…..the waste recycling plant that no-one wants on their doorstep! 🙂
The sums are quite simple and indicate thirty years before it starts to show any return. But as Silver Surfer rightly points out no figures are given regarding the maintainance costs and if that turns out to be anything like Warringtons famous windmill then it won’t make any money at all.
Not a popular thing to be considdering when we’re all being told to cut back.
Pay my way.
Not negative, just asking the same questions that I would want to know if it was my personal money.
I take it that as long as you think it is a good idea, it doesn’t matter whether it gives a return on the investment before falling apart and replacing it with another.
Too much money gets wasted on “good” ideas by councils and Governments.
At this moment in time, WBC has enough debt without adding to it.
On the numbers quoted, both projects will take around 30 years just to pay back the initial capital expenditure – that’s without any provision for running costs, maintenance, or interest charges on the money the council says would have to be borrowed to build them.
Given that current solar panels are quoted as having a service life of around 25 to 30 years this can only ever be a great big black hole for the council to pour more of our money into.
Why the hell do we have “an executive board member for climate change”??? What allowances does that position bring. Pay my way, your inane ass licking to the loib dem and tory alliance is becoming tiresome….. 30 years to get back the initial investment without taking into account any additional costs is just stupid economics and is pandering to the climate change scaremongers who are no doubt investing heavily in shares of wind farms, solar panels and tidal schemes………
This is a waste of money and these self serving, legacy hungry councillors need to be slapped down a peg or two and told to stop being so bloody stupid. I don’t pay business rates, council tax and heaven knows what else to have my hard earned money wasted by the bloody idiots inb the town hall on ideas that any normal person can see is ridiculous………………………..Let councillor biggins come to my business premises – along the potholed roads; and let him explain why it is such a good idea…. or will he do the usual patronising crap and think he doesn’t need to be accountable to us mere voters?
Solar PV schemes typically repay within 10 to 11 years within the north of the UK (about 8 years in Cornwall!).
Looking at the figures quoted I’d guess they are the net saving after repaying the cost of borrowing for installation….. So actually this looks like a fantastic deal that is not only reducing CO2 emissions but also has the potential to make a real cash saving for the council every year.
If only more Council’s were this creative in their approach to dealing with the future!
In profit from year one…. If you have the cash putting a solar panel on your roof is one of the best investments you can make…..
Where else can you get a 8% – 10% return on your investment at the moment?
See the following website which explains in more detail. http://www.solarenergyquotes.co.uk/SolarEnergy.aspx?gclid=CJ-IvaH1xKcCFdFX4QodMVXiDA
You don’t happen to manufacture solar panels by any chance do you?
If our council say it’s going to take thirty years to break even then you can be pretty sure that it’s going to take much longer than that (if ever) so excuse me if I apear to cast doubt on your figures.
This is WBC we’re talking about! They’ll spend a fortune in council officers time arguing about the minute details of the scheme, then buy the wrong sort of panels, get overcharged on the installation, site them facing the wrong way, plant tall trees all round them “to preserve the visual amenity”, and appoint a manager plus assistant on at least £40K each to make up figures to tell everyone how much money they’re saving!