Now viewing: Commentary

Editorial

Renewable Energy seems to be the best alternative to fossil fuels. At first glance it looks like this solar farm development should be welcomed.

However, the public enquiry raised a few questions. It was rushed, ill-informed, and the majority of people who could be impacted were not made aware of the consultation meeting. Some important details were obscured and this led to taking a closer look.

Current solar technology requires the mining and processing of toxic chemicals, and it has been reported that slave labour may be involved. There have been reports that some factories dispose of very toxic by-products directly into rivers, and nearby land. There is a huge variance in approach towards health and safety of the factory workers and this must make us feel uncomfortable. The carbon footprint of a solar farm is high when we include the mining, production and recycling. Should we continue to support this market?

The technology will soon be replaced by much safer materials (thin-film) which will dramatically improve cost, efficiency, safety and cost of recycling. Why commit to use old, unsafe, inefficient technology for the next 40 years? 

Despite claims by the developer, farmers say that there is no way the land could be returned to its current quality in 40 years time. It does look far more likely to be treated as 'brownfield' as it has been developed. It will be lost to farming and the environment forever.  Is our best quality farmland really the only suitable option?

The developer argues that there is no need for an independent view to assess the impact on the local environment. The planning authority has disagreed and want to see an EIA.

Perhaps the biggest concern is the massive lithium-ion battery park so near to a built-up area. It may improve the developer's profit-margin, by selling power at a higher rate, but is it safe for nearby residents? Is it even necessary?

Once a solar farm has been approved by planning, other nearby applications will follow. This is happening countrywide and Albanwise has demonstrated this is East Riding. Should Norfolk farmland be destroyed on this scale?

Taking all this into account, it seems that supporting solar farms may not be the right thing to do. 

What about the long-term impact of the Pettywell Solar Farm?

RE-DEVELOPMENT

After 40yrs under the panels and the decommissioning process the land will no longer be BMV but more like brownfield. This will make applications for development much easier and if this is for housing rather than industrial then Reepham would effectively double in size

REPETITION

Once one solar farm has been established it become more likely that others will appear nearby. This is already happening in East Riding where a similar solar farm has been followed by another 40MW solar farm nearby - both by Albanwise Synergy

RECYCLING

At the moment there are very few recycling sites for solar panels and they are geared for domestic panel many of which are nearing end-of-life. Older technology lasts for 15-20 years so as efficiency drops, or there are broken panels, the replacement rate will increase dramatically. When it comes to solar farms recycling will be expensive and will involve some toxic materials. There are already concerns about how many solar panels will end up in landfill or just exported

REDUNDANCY

If the government's plans to increase offshore wind farms meets it targets then there will be no need for solar farms to cover usable farmland. All the farmland which has already been damaged will have been wasted in vain