01475-24 Energy and Climate Intelligence Unit v The Daily Telegraph

Summary of Complaint

1. The Energy and Climate Intelligence Unit complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that The Daily Telegraph breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in an article headlined “Solar farms are taking us back to the dark ages”, published on 3 April 2024.

2. The article – which appeared on page 14, in the ‘Comment’ section – set out the writer’s views on solar farms. It said that:

“huge solar farms are an environmental as well as economic mistake. The whole point of farmland is that it is already a solar farm, and a green one at that. It turns sunlight into food energy for people, insects, voles and birds. […] Ah, say solar-energy fans, but you can have both: you can graze sheep under the solar panels or allow weeds to flourish. This is nonsense: the whole point of solar panels is that they catch the sunlight – the clue is in the name – which plants would otherwise use to grow. On a normal summer’s day, perhaps 10 per cent of the sunlight might get missed by the solar panels and caught by the plants’ solar panels (ie leaves) instead. It’s a zero-sum game.”

3. The article also said, “[a]ccording to an estimate by the writer Robert Bryce, solar power needs around 200 times as much land as gas per unit of energy.” It then said, “[a]ccording to one study, it is not even clear that the energy generated by a typical solar farm in Europe north of the Alps is greater than what went into building it, let alone replacing it every 15 years.”

4. The article then stated:

“To match UK electricity demand through solar on a June afternoon could mean covering 5-10 per cent of the entire country with solar farms, but they would be useless at night and in winter. British solar output peaks at precisely the times we least need it: in the middle of the day in the middle of summer. It contributes the square root of sod all in December, and in spring and autumn it stops generating just when demand starts to peak in the evening.

The more solar power we add to the grid, the bigger the evening ramp-up demand for gas. It is expensive to keep so much back-up ready. Batteries are unlikely to help much. If we relied on solar power, it would take many billions of pounds to install enough batteries to tide us over a single night, let alone a winter.

Then there is the demand for materials. There is probably not enough silicon, silver or copper being mined and smelted in the world to build a solar farm big enough to supply Britain.”

5. The article also appeared online in substantially the same format.

6. The complainant said that the article included several inaccuracies, in breach of Clause 1. First, it said that it was not “nonsense” to say that sheep could be grazed under solar panels. It referred to a study, published in 2023 in the Applied Animal Behaviour Science journal, which it said found multiple benefits for sheep grazing on land on which solar panels had been installed: the sheep with access to land with solar panels grazed more than their counterparts on free land; the solar panels likely protected sheep from adverse weather; and the shade provided by solar panels increased soil moisture, which in turn made the grass easier to digest and richer in protein. It also said that a Welsh farmer, when interviewed by a Farming Magazine, had said that an arrangement which allowed his sheep to graze on land which also housed solar panels was working well.

7. The complainant also said that, contrary to the article’s implication, a study published by Nature Magazine in 2023 had found "multiple additive and synergistic benefits" for plants growing in the shade of solar panels.

8. The complainant also said that the reference to an “estimate by the writer Robert Bryce” – on the relative amounts of land needed to produce energy via solar and gas – was inaccurate, as it did not appear that the estimate was publicly accessible and it was out of line with other studies. It referred to Our World in Data, which in 2022 had found that “ground-mounted solar panels' land use is less than 20 times higher than gas plants' on average”, while a study published by PLOS One – also in 2022 – had found “land use intensity of natural gas plants and ground-mounted solar farms is similar, when the entire area within the perimeter of a gas plant is considered”. It said that the writer’s estimate had been presented as the sole authority on the matter, when this was not the case.

9. The complainant then said that it was not clear what study was being referenced by the article in relation to the claim that “it is not even clear that the energy generated by a typical solar farm in Europe north of the Alps is greater than what went into building it, let alone replacing it every 15 years.” At any rate, it said that the International Energy Agency (IEA) had refuted this point, as it had said that "solar panels only need to operate for 4-8 months to offset their manufacturing emissions". It also said that the US Department of Energy had debunked this claim, as it had said that "based on models and real data, the idea that [solar] PV cannot pay back its energy investment is simply a myth". Further, the complainant said that it was not the case that a solar farm would need to be replaced every 15 years; the IEA had stated that the average lifespan for a solar panel was around 25-30 years.

10. The complainant also said that the following portions of the article were inaccurate: "To match UK electricity demand from solar on a June afternoon could mean covering 5-10 per cent of the entire country with solar farms"; "If we relied on solar power, it would take many billions of pounds to install enough batteries to tide us over a single night, let alone a winter"; and “There is probably not enough silicon, silver or copper being mined and smelted in the world to build a solar farm big enough to supply Britain". It said that these portions of the article were misleading as there were no plans for the UK’s electricity demand to be met solely by solar energy sources. It said that its own estimates had found that, to meet the UK’s 2035 target for solar installations, solar panels would have to be installed on only 0.5-0.7% of British farmland. It further said that the article’s suggestion that there was a shortage of raw materials for the manufacture of solar panels was unfounded; the Energy Transitions Commission had said in 2023 that there was "no fundamental shortage of any of the raw materials to support a global transition to a net-zero economy: geological resources exceed the total projected cumulative demand from 2022-50 for all key materials, whether arising from the energy transition or other sectors".

11. The complainant then said that it was inaccurate to state that solar energy “contributes the square root of sod all in December” as the National Grid had said: "Even in winter, solar panel technology is still effective; at one point in February 2022, solar was providing more than 20% of the UK's electricity."

12. The publication did not accept a breach of the Code. It said that the subject matter of the article – the feasibility of solar power in meeting the UK’s energy needs – was a matter of strong debate. The fact that the article took a position on this matter of debate which the complainant and others disagreed with, or analysed data to reach a different conclusion to the one which the complainant might have reached, was not – it said – a basis for a complaint under the Editors’ Code.

13. Turning to the specific inaccuracies alleged by the complainant, it said that the writer’s assertion that claims made by “solar-energy fans” were “nonsense” was clearly a statement of opinion – while the complainant may disagree with the view that such claims were nonsense, this did not mean that the article was inaccurate on this point. It further noted that the study provided by the complainant to support its position – that grazing on land occupied by solar panels was beneficial for sheep – had been conducted in the “arid land” of California, rather than in the UK. It said the main point being made was that, generally in the UK, almost no direct light falls between solar panels in winter and relatively little in the summer. Further, it said that a photon of light could not be used by both a solar panel and a plant.

14. The publication then said that the estimate from Robert Bryce had been accurately reported, and whether or not the complainant disagreed with the estimate was not relevant to the Editors’ Code. It provided a link to Mr Bryce’s blog where the estimate appeared as a graph measuring the areal power density – in Watts per meter squared (W/m²) – of different energy sources. In the graph, solar had a value of 10 W/m² while shale gas had a value of 1900 W/m².

15. The publication provided a copy of the study which it said was the basis for the claim: “it is not even clear that the energy generated by a typical solar farm in Europe north of the Alps is greater than what went into building it, let alone replacing it every 15 years.” The paper, which had been published in Energy Policy in 2017, had found that "presently available PV systems in regions of moderate isolation like Switzerland and countries north of the Swiss Alps act as net energy sink".

16. Regarding whether it was accurate to refer to the need to replace a solar farm “every 15 years”, the publication said that this reference was to the assumed timescale for the replacement of solar panels, rather than their assumed lifespan – which was not the same thing. However, it said that the complainant’s own sources for an assumed lifespan said that 25 years was an “optimistic” figure. It also said that the lifespan of individual solar panels was not the only factor to consider when taking into account whether a panel should be replaced; for instance, advances in technology and the degradation of existing solar panels would mean that, to remain effective, solar panel farm owners would need to upgrade farms before the end of their projected lifespan. In such circumstances, it considered that a timescale of 15 years for replacement was a reasonable estimate, and the fact that another individual might make a different estimate did not render the article inaccurate.

17. The publication then said that the references to what would be needed to meet the entirety of the UK’s energy demand with power from solar power were clearly references to a hypothetical scenario. It said the article did not claim that it was a UK government target for all energy demands to be met by solar energy, or that this was a scenario envisaged or forecast by the National Grid.

18. The publication also said that stating solar power “contributes the square root of sod all in December” was simply a colourful way of saying it contributed “not very much” during December. It said that it was accepted that solar power does not produce much energy in the UK in December; in December, the sun is above the horizon for a limited amount of time, at a very low angle, and usually hidden by clouds. For example, it said that London would receive around 0.5 kwh/m2 of solar power per day in December, compared with around 5kwh/m2 in July. It also noted that the study provided by the complainant referred to February, not December.

19. The complainant said that IPSO had previously found that opinion pieces which included unsubstantiated claims had breached the terms of the Editors’ Code. Therefore, it did not accept that, simply because the writer was entitled to share their opinion, the article could not possibly breach the Editors’ Code. It also said that the hypothetical scenario to which the writer referred in the article was “completely unfeasible”, and that the article omitted to mention this.

Relevant Clause Provisions

Clause 1 (Accuracy)

i) The Press must take care not to publish inaccurate, misleading or distorted information or images, including headlines not supported by the text.

ii) A significant inaccuracy, misleading statement or distortion must be corrected, promptly and with due prominence, and — where appropriate — an apology published. In cases involving IPSO, due prominence should be as required by the regulator.

iii) A fair opportunity to reply to significant inaccuracies should be given, when reasonably called for.

iv) The Press, while free to editorialise and campaign, must distinguish clearly between comment, conjecture and fact.

Findings of the Committee

20. The Committee noted that the article under complaint – clearly distinguished as an opinion piece exploring the writer’s views of the effectiveness of solar power in the UK – commented on a matter of ongoing debate. This did not, in and of itself, mean that the article could not possibly raise a breach of Clause 1, given newspapers are also obligated to take care over the accuracy of any claims of fact within such articles, and correct significantly inaccurate, misleading, and distorted information which appears in them. However, it was important to place the alleged inaccuracies in their proper context when assessing whether the Code had been breached.

21. The position of the writer, as outlined in the article, was that it was “nonsense” to claim that sheep could graze under solar panels. The complainant disputed this, and had provided a study which indicated that sheep in California had been able to effectively forage in such areas, as well as a comment from a Welsh farmer who felt that this practice had worked well. However, the Committee considered that this claim was clearly distinguished as the writer’s assessment of arguments in favour of grazing sheep on land occupied by solar panels – that they were “nonsense” – and the basis for this assessment was made clear: plants, which sheep eat, need sunlight, and the presence of solar panels on land would limit the sunlight available to plants. While the complainant disagreed with this assessment, in light of its own research, the newspaper was entitled to report the writer’s subjective assessment, and doing so did not breach the terms of Clause 1.

22. The “estimate by the writer Robert Bryce”, which had found that “solar power needs around 200 times as much land as gas per unit of energy”, made clear the source of the information – a single writer named within the article – and that this was an “estimate”. While the complainant disagreed with this estimate, and had put forward its own preferred estimates, this did not mean that referencing Mr Bryce’s estimate represented inaccurate information. This was also the case with regard to the study which had found that “it is not even clear that the energy generated by a typical solar farm in Europe north of the Alps is greater than what went into building”; while the complainant disputed this study’s findings, the selection of material for publication – including which studies to reference in support of an argument – is a matter of editorial discretion. Concerns that one study or estimate has been reported on without reference to another does not, in and of itself, breach the terms of the Editors’ Code, provided the information is accurately reported. There was no breach of Clause 1 on either of these points.

23. The publication had been able to demonstrate that it had taken into account a range of factors when considering when a solar farm might need to be replaced – for instance, technological advancements and the degradation of existing solar panels. Therefore, the Committee considered that due care had been taken over the accuracy of the article’s implication that solar farms would need to be replaced every 15 years. In any event, the Committee did not consider that this was significantly inaccurate in the context of the article as a whole, where the point being made was that, in northern Europe, a study had found that it was possible that solar farms would not offset the carbon emissions made during the manufacturing process, and this remained the case whether they were replaced after 15 or 25 years.

24. The complainant had expressed concern that the article had referenced a hypothetical scenario – the UK meeting the entirety of its energy demand by using solar energy – without making clear that neither the UK government nor the National Grid had such a target. The article did not state that there was such a target, and newspapers have the right to choose which pieces of information they publish, as long as this does not lead to a breach of the Code. Where the article did not claim that any such target existed, there was no breach of Clause 1.

25. It did not appear to be in dispute that solar energy production is significantly less effective in December, and contributes a relatively small proportion of power during this month. In such circumstances, the Committee considered that due care had been taken over the accuracy of the claim that solar energy “contributes the square root of sod all in December”– given the publication had been able to provide figures to support its position on request and the hyperbolic nature of the statement – and that this was not significantly inaccurate.

Conclusions

26. The complaint was not upheld.

Remedial action required

27. N/A

Date complaint received: 04/04/2024

Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 13/08/2024