Solar Farm

Water John

The Thorium Salt reactor which is very safe and doesn't produce very long term radioactive material will be the type to look forward to.
It is also has variable output, quickly adjustable and thus will dovetail very well with wind and solar.

robcass78

Water John wrote: »

Martin, will do over the weekend.

Would value the same too; have 25 acres x 2.

I've come across Power Capital.

I'm more interested in financing the project and doing PPA or revenue share; much more money.

Our energy is 90% imported. From UK. And the recent Brexit doesn't guarantee supply, with potential duty now to be added (14%); a reason why UK farmers went with solar/helped by government.

In some countries, cost is now 4c, with grid @ 15c, so gaining the 11c. Gov subsidies necessary to build the scale but now self-sufficient; there is a reason why solar is 80% of all new energy projects globally...$300bn invested last year. Just not Ireland; we're 2nd worst in EU.

robcass78

Birdnuts wrote: »

Pretty much - and its a trend that can be seen across Europe


And this includes the power generates for their Electrovehicle car's, saving 3-4k a year per household on petrol/diesel and further 2k on home energy?

Danzy

The money would buy a lot of therapy and counselling.

Danzy

Mooooo wrote: »

The major cost of renewables is the in efficiency which is brought to the supply as the power plants are still going to be needed in reserve, and paid for, for the still dull cloudy days and peak demands. The closest countries to us in Europe have nuclear power, the step for us to go that way shouldn't be as big as it is given the fact they are so close obviously the Sellafield site being the main one any perceived accident risk is there already.

Problem with Nuclear is the cost in building and dealing with the byproduct, there is a reason why private companies don't touch it with a barge pole and it is largely reliant on State intervention.


I have no problem with Nuclear, it has a place in the mix but while the electricity produced is cheap the tax payer gets an almighty beating in the building, day to day costs, insurance, and clean up costs.

Water John

Thorium reactor is quite different. Very little reactive byproduct. One built in the 60's in USA but line not continued because it did not suit the military.
Being looked at again. Much lower capital cost as it doesn't need the safety dome shield. Smaller units can be built too.

Mooooo

The issue also tho is in both Germany and california where large amounts of solar and wind have been put in, the actual amount of clean energy produced, which nuclear is considered, has actually reduced because of the discontinuation of some nuclear facilities. The renewables have not been able to replace the lost output. Also nuclear reactors can supply electricity something 97% of the time whereas solar and wind is totally up and down. I know it's not straight forward but If countries are serious about getting off of fossil fuels it has to be considered.
Watch a ted talk the other day and there.was a survey done about the most favoured forms of generation and the bottom in 3 least favoured in coal, nuclear and oil. People would prefer to use oil over nuclear

Chuchote

Have a Californian friend who has solar panels for electricity, and likes to watch her meter running backwards for a bit of entertainment.

Water John

Nuclear has a very specific frame in peoples minds, a la Carnsore of the 1970's of which I would be one with.
Thorium is different and can be varied in output very rapidly making it an ideal dovetail generator source with wind and solar.
Its unfair for people to simply blame wind and solar for their intermittency. We are part of the way along the road of low/zero carbon emissions and storage is also a developing technology.

Danzy

Water John wrote: »

Nuclear has a very specific frame in peoples minds, a la Carnsore of the 1970's of which I would be one with.
Thorium is different and can be varied in output very rapidly making it an ideal dovetail generator source with wind and solar.
Its unfair for people to simply blame wind and solar for their intermittency. We are part of the way along the road of low/zero carbon emissions and storage is also a developing technology.

I would have no problem with a Thorium reactor but any Nuclear option currently on the table is a white elephant.

Water John

Agreed.

99nsr125

What about the heavy water reactors.
Everybody always seems to forget about them

Iloverain

Hi. Had a solar farm developer approach me a few months ago to rent the farm for the 25 Years I think it was. At the time I wasn’t interested as it would have affected my tax allowances as I had only received the farm 3 years ago. Does anyone know if the recent changes in the budget would mean that I could rent it to them tax free??

Water John

Not very clear. Was this for wind or solar?
It won't be designated non agricultural anyway, is my understanding and tax free income lease applies to solar. Not sure but think the leasing co will also require a Herd No.
You need to look for specialist advice, not your general Solr or accountant

alps

Water John wrote: »

Not very clear. Was this for wind or solar?
It won't be designated non agricultural anyway, is my understanding and tax free income lease applies to solar. Not sure but think the leasing co will also require a Herd No.
You need to look for specialist advice, not your general Solr or accountant

The lease will be non agricultural, and will not attract tax free income..(do you want to drive dawg completely mad)..

It will be treated as unearned income.

Would love to hear any factual advise otherwise..

Iloverain

Water John wrote: »

Not very clear. Was this for wind or solar?
It won't be designated non agricultural anyway, is my understanding and tax free income lease applies to solar. Not sure but think the leasing co will also require a Herd No.
You need to look for specialist advice, not your general Solr or accountant

Sorry ment to say solar. Yea I plan on going to a solicitor alright just wanted to have an idea before I went

Iloverain

alps wrote: »

The lease will be non agricultural, and will not attract tax free income..(do you want to drive dawg completely mad)..

It will be treated as unearned income.

Would love to hear any factual advise otherwise..

I seen this on the Farmers journal but not sure if that means I’d be ok to rent it before the first 5 Years of having the farm is up.

www.farmersjournal.ie/amp/budget-2018-solar-panels-to-qualify-as-an-agricultural-activity-314978

4068ac1elhodqr

This is how you do solar/wind farms:



I.e. create an artificial island for it, somewhere out of the way, and roll the extension lead out.
Irish territory is 90% below the waterline, most of it is very windy/tidal/sunny. Plenty of space.

alps

Iloverain wrote: »

I seen this on the Farmers journal but not sure if that means I’d be ok to rent it before the first 5 Years of having the farm is up.

www.farmersjournal.ie/amp/budget-2018-solar-panels-to-qualify-as-an-agricultural-activity-314978

Only for Capital Acquisitions and Capital Gains Tax....its not a change to the income tax treatment.

Iloverain

alps wrote: »

Only for Capital Acquisitions and Capital Gains Tax....its not a change to the income tax treatment.

But if it qualifies as an agricultural activity surely the tax free rent for long term lease should apply? That would be my reading of it anyway😅😅

Water John

The original run was, that the Solar cos were taking long term leases that were, tax free income, (sorry Gawd, you should have stayed here). Obviously, the Solar cos had taken legal/financial advice on the tax free income allowed on long term land leases.
Then Revenue declared that, no, these leases would not qualify. Primary activity, is not agricultural. But is that not reversed again in the Budget?
I read what you have said on this, Alps.


Anyone getting involved in these, really need professional advice. Not your general, local solr or accountant. This is specialised stuff and needs to be got right. You pay for it but its the best investment, you'll make.

alps

Iloverain wrote: »

But if it qualifies as an agricultural activity surely the tax free rent for long term lease should apply? That would be my reading of it anyway����

It's not an agricultural activity...Water John, would you mind DM me if you know of someone getting this tax break...have a vested interest..

Water John

Well, nobody has moved to lease yet, as no solar farms are being constructed, yet. All I know is that solar cos offered this as part of the package on earlier options, prior to clarification by Revenue. Around €1k/acre/year tax free.

Reality may be different. Govn't failed to act in front of the curve. A lot of Grid applications, only a percentage will be constructed. Solar cos will cherrypick the cheapest and easiest to build options and let others lapse possibly.
All, just my opinion.

robcass78

I've a large farming accountant friend who's ensuring it's treated as tax-free. Further, we're going to invest some excess cash into a structure that shall be "tax optimised."

alps

robcass78 wrote: »

I've a large farming accountant friend who's ensuring it's treated as tax-free. Further, we're going to invest some excess cash into a structure that shall be "tax optimised."

Be careful....

Bullocks

robcass78 wrote: »

I've a large farming accountant friend who's ensuring it's treated as tax-free. Further, we're going to invest some excess cash into a structure that shall be "tax optimised."

How large is he ? 200 acres or 20 stone ?

Water John

I would agree with Alps. This stuff needs specialist advice not your everyday accountant or Solicitor. Talk to one of the major Solr Cos that has a Renewable Energy Unit. Money well spent.

robcass78

Bullocks wrote: »

How large is he ? 200 acres or 20 stone ?

Both; 20 stone, 250 acres. Don't hold it against him

The numbers on solar are starting to look even stronger as the larger global solar co's are now looking at Ireland given the micro-grid announcement and the push from Leo to avoid the 700m fine for missing targets. Solar co's selling direct means 75 euro/m2 rather than working through Irish distributors, who are charging 180 -200 euro /m2 (making 125 euro /m2 profit ) as the distributors know they'll be bypassed so are pushing the boat out now.

It's a pity IFA weren't smarter; farmers making 18-22 euro per m2 income for owning it, on 4,000 m2 an acre is 80,000 an acre. On a yield of 5%, that means an acre is valued at 1.6m if it ever were sold.

A 25 acre application is 2m in income, with the financing provided by the solar companies (obviously Irish banks wouldn't want farmers to be wealthy, so they've no interest, nor IFA in saying "there's money in renewables; you won't need us anymore once you're families wealthy!")

Rob

alps

robcass78 wrote: »

Both; 20 stone, 250 acres. Don't hold it against him

The numbers on solar are starting to look even stronger as the larger global solar co's are now looking at Ireland given the micro-grid announcement and the push from Leo to avoid the 700m fine for missing targets. Solar co's selling direct means 75 euro/m2 rather than working through Irish distributors, who are charging 180 -200 euro /m2 (making 125 euro /m2 profit ) as the distributors know they'll be bypassed so are pushing the boat out now.

It's a pity IFA weren't smarter; farmers making 18-22 euro per m2 income for owning it, on 4,000 m2 an acre is 80,000 an acre. On a yield of 5%, that means an acre is valued at 1.6m if it ever were sold.

A 25 acre application is 2m in income, with the financing provided by the solar companies (obviously Irish banks wouldn't want farmers to be wealthy, so they've no interest, nor IFA in saying "there's money in renewables; you won't need us anymore once you're families wealthy!")

Rob

Rob,

Any chance you'd have a simple translation for the above? Got a little lost in me in afraid...

robcass78

alps wrote: »

Rob,

Any chance you'd have a simple translation for the above? Got a little lost in me in afraid...

Sorry.

Ask me a question (or questions) and I'll give you simple answers.