Sat, 18th July Cardiff 17°
Nation.Cymru wordmark
Advertisement

Feature

How Greenwashed was My Valley? Part 2: What’s in it for Cymru?

By Mark Mansfield
A solar farm. Photo by schropferoval from Pixabay

Neil Anderson

This second article discusses some of the political and economic drivers behind the Glyn Taff Solar Farm and other such projects, and their implications for Cymru (You can read part one here).

Economic Perspectives

One might think that there would be benefits to Cymru from the investment proposed at the Glyn Taff Solar Farm, on top of the relatively trivial amounts offered by Nadara for ‘community benefit’ and the small-scale local employment. After all, the Farm would produce significant energy and revenue – but not for Cymru!

The Farm will take our sunshine and create electricity, but because Cymru already produces far more electricity than we consume, that energy will flow along pylon and cable routes (probably expanded as part of the overall masterplan) to England and perhaps, via the Interconnectors, beyond.

That surplus production, effectively duplication, now well is excess of any foreseeable needs for Cymru, including ‘resilience’, represents an inefficient allocation of resources (and unnecessary damage to our environment).

Now we understand climate change a bit better (but still doing very little about it), it has become apparent that economic growth is a two-edged sword. It certainly works for shareholders, but, as in Glyn Taff case, not for us.

[mid-content-banner]

Ffos-y-Fran

As in the extraction of coal, the Ffos-y-Fran pollution disaster-in-waiting and the precarious coal heaps elsewhere, the free water we export from the Elan Valley, and many other examples of exploitation Cymru has suffered, this is simply more colonialism in action, in plain sight! Glyn Taff is an insult. Cofiwch Dryweryn!

Being realistic, our economy, our country and our people are hardly ever considerations in London. Kept on life support, Cymru has depended on the grace and favour of successive miserabilist governments. Their policies are designed to extract and deplete our resource base at minimal cost (the much-criticised Barnett Formula). The unionist parties - Tory, Labour and especially Reform - are determined to suppress any aspirations for independence or even self-reliance. Should we not be grateful?

[lower-mid-content-banner]

‘Planning for Growth’

I deplore the energy fetish being pursued by the UK and Welsh Governments. Yes, there is a need to decarbonise our economies. However, any rush to re-industrialise Cymru would be a mistake that we would come to regret, but one that Reform seems intent upon.

Governmental support for developing large-scale enterprises, which drive an out-of-scale approach to energy generation and transmission (but not to employment), appears as merely another ploy to avoid and delay confronting issues of redistribution that will become more salient as our resource base continues to be depleted.

The large energy plants ordinarily envisaged are inevitably managed and owned by remote businesses, and are not susceptible to local concerns. That governments tend to endorse them simply confirms the formers remoteness from the people they were purportedly elected to serve.

As is typical in government, Trydan Gwyrdd Cymru thinks big – their three wind farms announced so far are up to 162MW (Nation.Cymru 11 July 2025). Though the profits generated will be invested in Welsh communities and public services, such large schemes tend to undermine local enterprise and their often more appropriate response to local needs. With a more balanced approach, Trydan Gwyrdd Cymru could also empower local communities, part-fund, provide economies of scale for procurement, develop micro-grids and reduce transmission distances.

While wind turbines require large open areas, preferably not in-yer-face, the optimal location for solar panels is on the roof of the building where the energy is utilised! Homes, offices, factories and warehouses should be retrofitted before we despoil our natural environment.

New building plots and buildings should be oriented to maximise solar capture (passive and active) with the technology designed in.

The dominant energy paradigm of ‘more is better’ ignores the Second Law of Thermodynamics and the need to reduce energy use (~ heat). Heat is a serious pollutant, surely not easily forgotten in this year’s heat waves.

Reducing energy use can be best, but is not only, achieved by reducing gross generation. Perhaps governments and corporate interests think there is more money to be made from cleaning up the mess than in avoiding it? Good luck with that!

Energy and Employment

The government talks about ‘energy for jobs’. Well, consider a typical datacentre, consuming vast amounts of energy but employing very few people, perhaps 15. At that cost per job (millions?), how much employment will there be offered in a high-tech, high-energy economy?

Consider too, R S Thomas’s poem, Cynddylan on a Tractor. The farm worker regrets the loss of his physical connection with the land, if not the hard graft.

Today, the present writer and many, many others in front of our computers and peripherals, are usually far removed from the outdoor environment, and have too little time to spend in it.

After the investment in mechanisation, automation, computerisation, robotisation and AI, the technologies now deployed in manufacturing are highly productive and the return on capital substantial.

Why would one invest in people when their jobs may disappear in the next round of progress, turned over by the plough of cost savings?

Given that Cymru has experienced the depletion of its coal, tin and other resources, one must question policies, and Welsh Labour Government acquiescence to them, that seek to extend that extractivism and exploitation to other assets.

While there have been benefits to the economy of England (water, holiday homes, now energy), few seem to have flowed back into Cymru to our people.

The disbenefits have become very clear – a housing shortage in part caused by so many unoccupied second homes owned elsewhere, a perennial lack of financial liquidity, a loss of high-value employment and consequential out-migration, a low standard of living for many, cost increases engendered by often foreign (including English) businesses, alienation of our land and disenfranchisement of our people by Westminster-centric policies. And hungry children.

Unforgiveable.

Having witnessed planning conditions established for approved public and private projects being weak, weakened or ‘forgotten’ over time, members of the public may have low expectations of this or any project adhering to them. There are good reasons for the major loss of public confidence in the planning process…

Neither does the public appear to have confidence in the UK Government’s growth agenda. As so often in the past, the strong suspicion is that the benefits will be reserved for shareholders and rentiers, many foreign (including English). The evidence is that they do not ‘trickledown’ locally and do not offer stable employment (Bosch, Hoover, Tata). This disillusionment may prejudice otherwise worthwhile proposals that have clear and unequivocal benefits to the community. And, of course, some need to be resisted strenuously because they don’t. But all need to be understood.

Little employment will be generated by the Nadara proposal. The high-paid jobs will be located abroad. Nadara’s parent company, Renantis, is headquartered in Italy. Profits will be distributed to the most taxation-advantageous locations. The electricity generated will be transmitted across our borders. After a few years, it is likely that the solar farm will be sold to venture capitalists and local benefits decreased further to ensure profitability.

Initial construction is unlikely to require many local workers, while maintenance may employ a few in semi-skilled jobs. Clearly, Cymru will gain little.

Of similar concern is the alienation, for the medium-term at least, of a large area of Welsh land in an environmentally sensitive area. The optimal and sustainable use of the Welsh uplands would probably be a mix of afforestation, grazing for rare breeds, rewilding, water harvesting, micro-hydro, aquaculture and recreation with some solar capture. Reservoirs, also valuable for firefighting, should be covered (by solar panels!) to reduce evaporation as well as contributing to their cost and maintenance.

This more advantageous utilisation of the land would reduce runoff, provide shade, increase water quality and protect local people, housing and infrastructure while contributing towards the amelioration of the climate and future timber supplies.

These activities over similar sites throughout Cymru would employ hundreds in unskilled, semi-skilled and skilled jobs, with options for skills development and career progression while contributing towards the sustainability of the Welsh economy.

I contend that the solar farm proposal is a distinctly sub-optimal and an unfortunate exclusionary land use for this site. I suspect that readers would agree that there is a significant opportunity cost in not utilising this land directly for the benefit of Cymru and our society.

Finally, the reliance on the private sector misunderstands the role it plays in an economy.

Energy and Politics

The only viable long-term future for an independent Cymru (and many other countries) implies a small-scale, low-energy approach, a wood and hemp economy, which would be much more amenable to community control and ownership. I warmly applaud Ynni Cymunedol Cymru/Community Energy Wales and similar organisations that promote the community ownership of energy and food production projects.

The debate between these two differences in scale has yet to be had in Cymru. The large-scale government approach represents a wholly extractive view of our environment, while the second respects it and the people who live here.

People cleaning hydro screens at Ynni Ogwen hydroelectricity plant in Bethesda, picture: Nick Pipe. Right: a community-owned turbine set up by Community Energy Pembrokeshire, picture: Community Energy Wales

While the current unsustainable economic growth mentality prevails at government level, without public endorsement, it is pre-ordained that objections from local residents will be ignored.

Whither democracy? Again. Big Government and Big Energy defeat a proud people. Again.

Developments that propose jobs, especially well-paid and sustainable jobs that offer a secure future, gain a high degree of support from the public. However, as many of the promised jobs and other benefits have often not materialised in the past, our communities have become disbelieving and cynical.

It is likely that foreign control of our land and resources will be subjected to much more critical scrutiny in the future, especially post-independence. I hope we do not have to wait long…

The widespread belief that clean and abundant energy is the panacea for social ills is due to a political fallacy, according to which equity and energy consumption can be indefinitely correlated… (Illich Energy and Equity 1973).

For the price of a cup of coffee a month you can help us create an independent, not-for-profit, national news service for the people of Wales, by the people of Wales.

Get more trusted Welsh news

Choose Nation.Cymru as a preferred source in Google News to see more of our journalism.

Choose Nation.Cymru as a preferred source in Google News

17 comments

Amir

There is no place on any land where anything green grows for a solar farm. It is simply for maximum quick profit. Go place them on large buildings, encourage them on homes like city councils are helping with, car parks snd brownfield sites. Going green and damaging green just don't seem to go together.

Reply
Rob

The rooftop and car parks thing just doesn't scale, I'm afraid. You only have to compare, for example, the size of the solar park north of Queensferry with the much smaller Toyota brownfield array nearby and the comparatively tiny Asda car park further south. That's without the complexity of having to connect hundreds of smaller schemes up tot he transmission system.

Reply
Amir

There are plenty of roof tops to cover. First cover them, then review the need for more panels. Homes and businesses are already connected to the grid. UK must maintain its farming capacity maximum and not be reliant on imports. This was very obvious when the Ukraine started. Any land where grass can grow can support crops. If the developers wish to install the more expensive system where crops can be grown underneath, then that needs to made clear in the planning application. So far, it is huge concrete foundations and small struts so useless for large scale crop farming to continue.

Reply
Matthew

Spot on. No advocate of solar worth their salt is ever going to think we shouldn't use rooftops or car parks but you're talking about lots of little projects vs one big one. When you have a climate crisis it's not the time to engage in policy perfectionism.

Reply

In reply to Matthew

Amir

Solar panels were always designed to go on roof tops. Solar capture is great in the summer, not so useful in the winter months. The Climate crisis is solved by bringing in multiple renewable methods. The climate crisis should not be solved by creating a food crisis and having to import food from abroad. Mainly because importing from abroad burns fossil fuels and you have so passionately mentioned, we are in a climate crisis. Sourcing locally is key to reducing emissions. How are we going to so that if you and Rob have covered most of our agricultural land?

Reply
Jonathan Dean

By 2030, when the aim is that only 5% of GB electricity comes from gas, Wales will not be a major exporter of electricity without new generation However, each solar farm can choose who it sells to, so Llanwern solar, for example, sells its entire output to Anglia Water

Reply
Frank

We have a Senedd that should ensure Cymru get a fair deal but it appears they are not up to it. Outside developers just walk all over them. An easy touch. Come to Cymru and fill your pockets boys, it's all for free. There is also a very good chance that the Senedd will also give you millions of pounds in grants for you to rob us blind.

Reply
Amir

The grass doesn't die. Its just the fields are no longer as useful. There are hybrid solutions, but they are more expensive and these companies coming to Wales always choose the cheaper option. Miliband means well. No need to call him names. Bamsey however, feel free.

Reply
Adrian

You're right Amir it doesn't die but it may as well for the amount of growth you get. I notice through that you, like Miliband - don't want to talk about the CO2 issue.

Reply
Amir

Carbon capture in industry is much needed and is happening in Wales. What is your position on it as you are so concerned about carbon dioxide?

Reply

In reply to Amir

David J

Carbon capture directly from the air is as much a fantasy as fusion power. Even if it worked and was economical (cost is $1000 per ton CO2), you would need massive numbers of CC plants to make a dent in the total CO2 emissions. It might also be harmful, in that people may think it is OK to pollute, because we can clean it up afterwards. Capturing CO2 at the factory chimney is much more successful, but even this is not done as much as it should be.

Reply

In reply to David J

Amir

That is why I typed "carbon capture in industry" because that it where carbon capture is needed now. In industry.

Reply
Amir

Tiny grass, even large fields of them, hardly mop up the carbon dioxide. Established forests with mature trees are very efficient and effective at natural carbon capture. That is why I hate it when older trees are chopped down for development.

Reply
David J

So the grass dies but then it doesn't? Yeahbutnobutyeahbutno! Are you a Reform voter by any chance?

Reply
Tucker

Come on Ady Wady. You can't claim in one post that climate change is a myth. Then claim you care about grass absorbing Carbon Dioxide and dying back. You seem to be rather confused.

Reply
David J

You can position solar panels in such a way that grass continues to grow under them, basically you mount them higher up. If you insist on keeping sheep, they can happily graze a solar farm, in fact the panels provide welcome shade for the animals in an increasingly hot climate. You could grow vegetables under them also.

Reply
David J

This article mixes and confuses two issues; the scientific and the economic/social. Scientifically, quoting the second law of thermodynamics is a bit silly. This law says that entropy can not decrease, it either stays the same or increases. Entropy is basically energy turning to heat, but solar panels or wind turbines merely change the energy coming from the sun (i.e. heat) into a different form (electricity) before it changes back to heat when the electricity is used. The role of renewables in this process is miniscule. The article, when talking about energy consumption, appears to state that we can reduce our energy needs. We cannot do this; we need a lot more electricity to power the change to electric vehicles, to power our homes when we stop using gas, and to supply the thousands of new homes we need to build. Blaming new data centres is naive to say the least. Of course I agree that solar panels should go on roofs first; why we haven't had planning laws on this for at least twenty years is a mystery to me (actually not, it's all to do with large builders lobbying and bribing politicians). Which leads to the economic/social: of course the development and profits from this technology should be controlled by the local communities,as it already is in some places, eg Westmill Wind Farm in Oxfordshire.. Interference from Westminster is obviously harmful - we would have had a tidal barrage at Swansea by now, if the tories had not pulled the plug, and we would have had many more solar panels on roofs if they had not slashed the feed-in tariff and scuppered that industry (which by the way employed many people). As for reducing our energy production, how is an independent Cymru going to survive without selling excess energy to England and elswhere? The writers seem to advocate for some kind of imaginary pastoral vision, in which the peasantry learn to survive on rationed electricity. It is therefore appropriate that they end with a quotation from Ivan Illich, he who wanted to "deschool" society by removing state schools and replacing them with "networks of informal and voluntary relationships". What could possibly go wrong with that? He also blamed modern medicine for human illness and thought that we should just suck up what life throws at us. So if you want to live in a society of ignoramuses with a life expectancy of 40 or so,all happily harvesting crops by hand, yeah let's do that!

Reply

Leave a reply

Replying to Matthew Cancel

Spot on. No advocate of solar worth their salt is ever going to think we shouldn't use rooftops or car parks but you're talking about lots of little projects vs one big one. When you have a climate crisis it's not the time to engage in poli...

Comments are reviewed before they appear.