The Tauhei Solar Farm, backed by UK-based Harmony Energy Limited and New Zealand company Clarus will span 182 hectares—a footprint larger than many rural towns. While touted as a step toward “decarbonization,” critics argue it is yet another example of expensive, inefficient green energy that fails to deliver on its lofty promises.
Supporters claim the farm will generate 280 gigawatt hours of electricity per year, enough to power 35,000 homes, with all energy being sold to Meridian Energy. Developers also tout co-benefits, such as allowing sheep grazing between solar panel rows and the creation of wetlands to support biodiversity. However, sceptics question whether these perceived advantages outweigh the long-term downsides.
Despite the supposed “green” credentials of solar energy, large-scale projects like Tauhei are not without consequences. Environmentalists and rural advocates have raised concerns about:
Despite the supposed “green” credentials of solar energy, large-scale projects like Tauhei are not without consequences. Environmentalists and rural advocates have raised concerns about:
- Land Use and Habitat Disruption: While the developers claim the site is screened from view and maintains grazing potential, 182 hectares of farmland will be covered in solar panels, fundamentally altering the local ecosystem. Critics point out that such projects reduce available land for food production, particularly at a time of rising global food insecurity.
- Efficiency and Reliability Issues: Solar power is inherently intermittent, producing no energy at night and reduced energy on cloudy days. This means that despite its scale, it is unclear at this stage whether Tauhei’s output will require backup from fossil fuels or hydroelectric reserves.
- Waste and Lifecycle Impact: Solar panels have a limited lifespan—typically around 25-30 years—raising questions about waste disposal and the long-term sustainability of the industry. Many solar farms worldwide struggle with managing expired panels, which contain toxic materials that are difficult to recycle.
Daily Telegraph New Zealand (DTNZ) is an independent news website, first published in October 2021. - where this article was sourced.
11 comments:
Just part of the carbon con.
Should never be built.
New Zealand has turned into a large mental institution where we kiwi citizens are being held captive by insane politicians that are prepared to wreck our economy in the name of net zero insanity.
On prime farmland. Wind the clock on a few years and...
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2025/02/01/ivanpah-solar-plant-the-flaming-failure-thats-finally-being-put-out-of-our-misery/
Hopefully for the proponents no maori was ever born, died, lived, ate, was eaten, carved, pondered or fornicated on the shadowed land, and certainly not buried there.
As maori purport to own the rain water, radio spectrum, coastal sea miles out etc, I guess there will be protracted WT claims. Hopefully the recent appointees will moderate.
Of course the 35,000 houses will require back up electricity from base load generators . The solar farm developers should be required to fund the required back up generators infrastructure OR fund the shortfall when solar is unavailable. NOT government and taxpayer .
I wonder who funded this solar farm. I hope it was not the taxpayer.
More anti-renewable rubbish. Solar panels are recyclable as are batteries. If the developers so choose, they could build the solar farm as an agri-solar farm where panels are raised a little higher for grazing animals. There is some shielding (about 15%) and minor reduction in productivity but on the flip side, animals have shelter and the farmer a second income. International best practice is to add battery storage with solar - almost all US projects now do this as it extends the generation capacity into the evening, stabilises grid frequency and voltage, and increases the income from the solar farm. Also batteries are now 96% recyclable.
That's why we have hydro. Use the solar and wind generation as much as possible when conditions are right, saving the hydro capacity for when they're not.
I may be wrong, but I understand solar panels used in NZ are of Chinese manufacture? If so, our solar panels are probably made using coal-fired electricity generation. Some environment-saving hypocrisy seems to be present.
Sorry Anon Tesla Owner, but you are the one talking rubbish. Yes I assume the taxpayer is funding it, and will be left holding the baby when it all'goes to custard (like the Black Rock debacle.) I agree with Basil, that the developers should pay for any extra power that is needed when the sun doesn't shine. It may make them re=evaluate their 'investment'
Yes, fossil fuels are used at all junctures of the highly damaging production process, for a product that works less often than your long-time dole bludger, & after 25 yrs requires disposal highly harmful to the environment.
On top of which, the World Bank rates NZ at 180 of 210 countries for solar effectiveness.
Simply stupidity.
Post a Comment