Thanet council has refused permission for a 22MW Battery Energy Storage System (BESS) and infrastructure on agricultural land at Sacketts Farm in Broadstairs.
The application from Greenfield, one of Europe’s largest owners and operators of renewable energy assets, proposed:
- To install 22 batteries, these would be situated within shipping containers arranged pairs. The batteries would measure 3m high, 1.8m wide and 8m long.
- A substation measuring 4m high, 10m long and 3.5m wide located southwest of the batteries.
- Six DC combiner boxes measuring 1.5m high, 1m wide and 1m long
- Six power conversion system units measuring 3.5m high, 3m wide and 3m long
- Three BESS Transformers measuring 3.5m high, 2.5m wide and 5.4m long
- Noise attenuation fencing with roofs around these units.
- A fire water tank measuring 2.2m high, 3.6m wide and 10m long,
- Fire water pump house measuring 3m high, 2.4m wide and 6m long
- Storage container measuring 3m high, 2.4m wide and 6m long
Greenfield’s application says: “BESS is an efficient way to store energy for domestic, commercial and infrastructure projects. It is the solution for providing a steady flow of electricity at all times.
“Renewable energies are currently unstable without the support of BESS in place. This proposal will have the capacity to store up to 22MW of clean, renewable energy generated by sources such as solar, and in turn, reinforce the local grid network.”
The aim was for the battery system to be in place for up to 40 years, at the end of which it would be decommissioned the land would revert to agricultural use.
However, the site lays within a Green Wedge area as well as on grade 1 farmland.
Thirteen objections were received, including from Broadstairs and St Peter’s Town Council who said it went against the Local Plan and CPRE Kent which raised numerous concerns including the use of Green Wedge, Loss of Best and Most Versatile Agricultural Land (BMV) and ecological impact.
The submission says: “CPRE Kent recognises the need to adapt the electricity transmission network as part of the move to more sustainable generation methods, this should be with schemes that minimise landscape impacts, secure real nature recovery opportunities and enjoy the support of local communities. Schemes that fail to meet these expectations should be refused as the need for energy does not justify damaging developments.”
The Broadstairs Society also objected, highlighting the concerns contained in the CPRE submission.
Kent County Council biodiversity raised concerns over a lack of information concerning breeding birds and habitat and Kent Fire and Rescue Service also required further information, highlighting a lack of a Fire Management Plan (FMP) and Emergency Response Plan (ERP) and “little to no separation between the proposed BESS containers.”
Council officers concluded: “This proposal would result in significant harm to the green wedge from coalescence, encroachment and loss of openness.
“This area is limited in scale but plays a significant role in providing open space within the district and visual breaks in the built development.
“There would in addition be substantial harm to the distinct landscape qualities of the countryside through the introduction of built development in this stark and isolated location, failing to conserve the rural and unspoilt character of the green wedge.
“The proposal would provide very significant benefits, including the need for the BESS in terms of climate change, energy security, energy affordability, the availability of a grid connection, together with more limited socio-economic benefits and biodiversity net gain.
“The benefits of the development proposed are generic benefits of any battery storage development, and do not propose any site specific benefits other than BNG, such as infrastructure improvements, to justify a development in this particular location.
“Other connection points to the National Grid are present within the district, however the applicant has not identified these connection points or outlined why these are not available.
“It is therefore considered that the need for the development to be located within the green wedge has not been fully established and the development is not essential to be located within the green wedge.
“The application has also failed to demonstrate that there would not be severe harm to biodiversity in the area, particularly breeding and wintering birds that may use the site, or how the public safety risks of the development would be suitably managed for its lifetime.
“It is therefore considered that whilst great weight is given to the very special circumstances that have been identified through the provision of battery energy storage, the need for the development in this location has not been fully established.
“The lack of fully justifying the location, the significant harm visual harm and failure to demonstrate that there would not be severe harm to biodiversity or public safety is therefore considered to outweigh the benefits of the development.”
Battery storage is just another facet of the “green farce”, the 22mw sounds impressive as it’ll get people to make comparisons to generation capacity of windfarms , where as it should really be stated as overall energy stored , which in this case translates to 22,000 kwh or very very roughly would allow each home in thanet boil a litre of water in a kettle 10 times. So not really that much. Probably even less as generally to get the best from batteries they’ll be charged to around 80% and discharged to 20% so reduces the actual energy available to 6 litres of boiled water per thanet household.
Not forgetting the losses incurred in the storage process, though admittedly these are relatively low , but over 40 years add up.
Plus not only do we have to pay for the power to be generated, but also now be stored, so when it is released into the grid it’s inordinately expensive. More costs , infrastructure, environmental damage in order to make the green dream actually function.
All rather like the log burning power station at Richborough that has considerable quantities of wood delivered by lorry from Wales.
Total collect of misinformation and garbage, I don’t know where you get this information, but you must have the slowest kettle in Thanet. The electricity is being generated so it makes sense to store it, not throw it away.
It was taken from a utility companies website and assumed 80% thermal efficiency, and raising temp from 20-100 degrees, figures for battery use came from a similar google result. But I’m happy to be corrected.
In terms of energy provision to thanet households to boil water you are correct.
Specific heat capacity of water means to boil 1kg of water ( volume being variable with temp but of no meaningful effect in this instance) 4,200 j per degree celcius.
So to raise 1kg of water from 20 to 100 degrees is 336,000 joules
1kwh hour is equivalent to 3,600,000j
So 1kwh will boil 10.71 litres from 20-100 degrees ( in perfect conditions)
@ 80% efficiency this is 8.56 litres
Population of thanet in 2021 census was 140,600 which at average housing density is 59,576 households.
So even at a full 22mw each home would get 0.39 kwh or could boil 3.2 litres of water.
However if the facility uses current technology lithium ion batteries this will have a 10% efficiency loss in a cycle so 2.56 litres.
But it’s generally accepted that such batteries have the best efficiency and life if used between 80 and 20 % capacity ,so the facility will have a normal deliverable capacity of 60%
So we end up with 1.56 litres of boiled water.
A figure much more understandable than the headline .
As for being a climate change denier , i’m no such thing, rather i don’t beleive in anthropogenic climate change , in my view its the greatest con since religion and is nothing more than a form of population control based on faith in those who lead us.
Please feel free to put me right as you feel fit, but at least do so with some explanation.
In the absence of which you are merely offering unsubstantiated opinion.
Science is not a type of religion.
See my post further down this thread, explaining the effects and consequences of burning fossil fuels.
Science is not a “belief”. It’s conclusions drawn from careful observations of phenomina, analysis of results, and the synthesis of an explanation of those observations and results.
The theory put forward is scrutinised by other scientists, at other academic institutions, probably in other countries.
Only if it stands the rigour of peer review is it accepted. But that doesn’t set it in stone. Science is always challenging and questioning. New data comes to light, more thoughtful interpretation of the data is made, different conclusions might be reached.
People claim that those who “deny” anthropogenic climate change are de-platformed. This is not so. But for a theory to be accepted by the scientific community, it must be rigorous. And (so far) there is plenty of rigorously tested evidence that recent climate change is man made, and none that it isn’t.
What is the “green farce”?
It’s a big rip-off that the gullible and the brian-washed are falling for.
So you’ll be in favour of it then?
‘Brian’-washed?
Yep, Professor Sir Brian Hoskins.
I think it’s the only forwards for UK green energy – Battery storage is a great idea rather than just send it to the National Grid.
“Peace makes plenty”.What is the “green farce”?
I replied but it seems to have gone into moderation.
The best power is that which is supplied on demand and used as required, the cost of battery storage just increases production costs which should be added to the so called cheap green energy price.
The largest such site in Europe , Pilliswood in Yorkshire has cost 75 million to build, is a 196mwh facility that could notionally power 300,000 homes for 2 hours.
The investors are going to want a considerable return on their money. Which will just increase the cost of the energy. But we’ll still have gas generators sitting idle being paid just in case they are needed.
The consumer is being fleeced left right and centre by this fiasco. Just wait until the true cost of electric motoring hits home, eventual “fuel duty “ or road pricing, cost of charging mid journey, depreciation on electric vehicles, the pollution and ecological damamge we conveniently “offshore” to make ourselves feel good.
All the money being squandered would be much better put into insulating homes and businesses. There’s all the scare stories about gas boilers being banned, hardly likely given the billions we are spending upgrading the gas grid and the amount it’s costing in disruption on top.
The best energy is the energy you don’t need.
Ah yes the green farce! I do love it when climate change deniers misuse science in a vain bid to justify fossil fuel production.
So battery farm in Yorkshire costs £75m and only provides power for 2 hours for 300,000 notional consumers.
Doesn’t sound good does it? Except it will be probably be used at night when demand is low,and then shortly afterwards wind, solar, and more importantly tidal will cut in.The UK has a substantial part of Europe’s tidal power and a new plant in the Shetlands is proving it’s viability.
If we want to talk big money, let’s look at Hinckley point C.Already late and costing £31bn, with a probability of rising to £35bn if it is not completed until 2031,heading on for 20 years since it started. What’s more this does not include the cost of decommissioning and waste management which is substantial.
Wind farms, solar farms and battery units can be decommissioned much more cheaply.
As for gas, the pipes will require renewal and repair until we stop using it,some years hence.
Remember we pay the volatile world prices for gas, where as home produced green energy has more price stability, and has the benefit of not relying on authoritarian and unbalanced regimes to supply the energy, so maybe peace makes plenty you might want to take things in the round and not quote selectively.
Of course if we build decent houses that use much less energy and retrofit some of the draughty old housing stock we have to hand, it might be better than handing cash to the energy companies in the form of the winter fuel payments.
“Climate change deniers” or “Man-made “Climate change deniers”? There’s a big difference.
There is absolutely no doubt whatsoever that Climate Change is happening, and is man-made.
It is easy to explain why this is so. I’ve done it here several times.
But if the thesis is that climate change is happening byt is “natural” that begs the question: what “natural” processes are driving this change?
Correct.Changing our ways is not always easy, but it was not that long ago when the economy ran without the benefit of cars or gas heating.An all electric economy using energy efficient appliances in energy efficient homes is the way forward even in Birchington.
The same processes that changed the earths climate over the millions of years before the industrial revolution, the most obvious examples of such changes are the ice ages.
The idea of studying climate change over the course of the last 300 odd years in the history of a planet existing billions with evidence of very variable climates and temperatures over that time, is just utterly ridiculous.
It’s like saying i have a pulse rate of 0 because i measured it between beats, true in purely numerical terms but patently wrong.
Just as we had those that pointed to a thanet coastline reverting to that of roman times as a result of global warming, but ignoring the fact that if it were not for the sea defences and natural silting of the waterways we’d still have that coast line.
Climatilogists study climate over hundreds of millions of years.
That’s how they know that something odd has been happening over the past 300 years.
Don’t you think that the World’s scientists would have had a thing or two to say if your notion was correct?
There have been those that don’t agree, but they are soon shut down and sidetracked in favour of those who see a better career in supporting the man made climate theory.
But past 300 years everything is conjecture and theory based on very vague data that only shows general trends and gives no indication over what might or might not have happened in any 300 year period a million years ago.
However , you choose to believe , i don’t, neither of us will ever know who was nearer to the truth or have any effect on policy as individuals.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/exxon-knew-about-climate-change-almost-40-years-ago/ Peter, stop being a useful idiot for fossil fuel companies and lobbyists.
As you’ll know the decommissioning costs are wrapped up in the strike price agreed for the energy it produces.
At 3260 mw it out supplies the yorkshire battery by a factor of 16 continuosly, and that’s at full charge and discharge, at 60% it would outperform 25 fold, no idea of the time charge or discharge, but if we say for sake of argument it’s 4 hours, we end up at 50 fold improved performance and although it would respond slowly can be ramped up and down to match demand ( though best used as baseload)
So 75mx 50 gives 3.75 billion for something that works notionally half the time at best and doesn’t produce a watt of energy, so really we should add on more for those costs.
The timescales you mention and costs have substantial foundations in the UK’s decision to sell off it’s ( previously world leading) nuclear technology, things may well ( we’ll never know) be now very different had we followed the path the french took.
The best cost estimate to build a wind turbine in the uk that i can find is 3.13 million for a 3.5 mw unit onshore and 5 million per mwh offshore , average of 3 million per mw, you’ll need 3600 of these ( 50/50 onshore offshore) to equal Hinckley at 90% capacity , which as yet no wind farm has managed ( 50% of installed capacity being seen as good performance ) and so you’d need 2000 turbines. Giving on those figures 21 billion ish but we still need battery storage and back up capacity on top.
Very likely.
But there then is a probability that our children and grandchildren will grow up in a benign climate. If we carry on as we are, they most certainly won’t.
I don’t care. I don’t have kids.
I don’t “believe” anything. The case for anthropogenic Climate Change is science lead, based on observations and conclusions which are peer reviewed before being published in academic journals.
There is no evidence that the counter-argument is “shut down”. A quick search in Google will reveal any number of individuals who have propositions counter to those put forward by the IPCC. But you won’t find those ideas being published in learned journals, simply because those ideas don’t stand up to scientific scrutiny.
The science behind the last 300 years of global warming is simple.
Fossil fuels are (mostly) hydrogen (H) and Carbon (C). That’s why they’re often referred to as Hydrocarbons..
When these are burned in air, in a boiler, a gas turbine or sn IC engine, the products of combustion are (mostly) H²O and CO²
Both these gasses are “greenhouse” gasses. The Water vapour condenses (it rains) in a matter of days or a week or two. The Carbon Dioxide will stay in the atmosphere for 10,000 or 100,000s of years.
Since the Industrial Revolution (about 300 years ago) we have been burning more and more fossil fuels.
The inescapable conclusion, not “conjecture” or “theory”, is that at the very least, human activity is causing global warming, and in the absence of any other mechanisms, that “very least” is just about 100%
The multiple times failed airfield with every aspect of it’s pollution and harm, is OK however. Fools, full of hypocrisy and corruption not least incompetence.