Whoever invented the term 'Solar Farm' is misrepresenting the facts. It is not a farm of any sort but an industrial power production plant
Once it is built, like any other industrial development the land will never be returned to its original quality
At the moment virtually all solar panels are made using cadmium. This is toxic to humans so mining and manufacture can cause health risks. Although it is possible to recycle old panels to reclaim cadmium and other components - it is an expensive process. Recycling facilities do not have the capacity for the rising volume and this has led to concerns about landfill being used to save money.
Recent research has involved 'thin-film' panels which are more efficient, cheaper to make and involve no harmful components. Only a small number are being produced now but it is a growing market and the planet needs a cleaner solution to avoid leaving problems for future generations to clean up.
Two similar-looking metrics—kW and kWh—are measurements of a battery's power and capacity, respectively. A kilowatt is the amount of power that a battery can deliver at any one time, while a kilowatt-hour is the total amount of energy that the battery can store.
The same applies for larger amounts such as Megawatt (MW)
The solar farm's position, the climate in the area, and how much dust and dirt are present will all impact how frequently the area needs to be cleaned. Typically, 1-2 times a year are needed for cleaning solar fields.
Individual solar panels can be cleaned in several ways, including manually, automatically, and with special cleaning agents. While automated cleaning usually uses water jets or brushes to clean the panels, manual cleaning may entail using a soft brush or squeegee to remove debris.
Solar plant farms can last up to 40 years, even at decreased efficiency, and have an average lifespan of about 25 years.
ARKA Energy
Developers and now politicians are using the term NIMBY to dismiss he concerns of those who live near developments, but who is the real NIMBY here?
Solar panels are made elsewhere. The polluting mines used for raw materials happens elsewhere. The foreign factories where they are made are not covered by our health and safety rules. The toxic waste products are washed away in someone else's rivers and land. The worst of the carbon footprint is not in the UK.
All of this is quietly ignored by the developers and politicians as it won't directly effect them. It isn't happening here. It is not on their doorstep. It doesn't pollute our rivers or soil and it isn't adding to our greenhouse gas emissions.
So who is the real NIMBY here?
There are many other proposed solar farms in the area - Cawston, Oulton, Aylesham and Scottow, for example - in various stages of the planning process. Each one adds its own cumulative impact on the local environment during the building, useful life, and decommissioning phases. The experience of energy companies shows that neighbouring solar farms will improve the chances of further development being accepted. This part of Norfolk might soon be seen as a got-to area for such developments.
This is a planning document in which a developer asks the Planning Authority to give an opinion on whether or not any large project would require an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) prior to asking for planning permission.
If this project had been any larger then it would have had to have an EIA under the environment protection laws. This can take some time and cost the developer money as it will involve independent experts considering the environmental impact and reporting back to the Planning Authority.
As the project size is borderline the developer can ask for an opinion. In this case the request included a long report by SLR Consulting which considers the environmental impact and concludes that there is no need. This can be read on the Planning portal.
The report minimises the possible hazards of the massive Lithium-ion battery storage (BESS) and ignores the additional traffic the scheme would involve. On this basis the report does not seem to be complete, is definitely not fully independent, and therefore the conclusion may not be reliable and an EIA would be required
This was organised by a sole-trader from South Devon who invited a limited number of people on the boundary of the development. Few people in Reepham heard about it. It was held at short notice and gave people two weeks to respond.
The Town Council was also given a presentation and Albanwise Synergy (AS) have a web site available.
At the consultation it was stated that the 2 Acre battery park was needed to store energy for later release and that the technology to be used had not yet been decided.
One week after the consultation AS sent a 'Screening Opinion' request to the Broadland Planning Dept.
Copyright © 2025 Pettywell Solar - All rights reserved