Representation by Nicholas Bennett
- Date submitted
- 13 February 2022
- Submitted by
- Members of the public/businesses
I object to this project as it will render good farmland out of use for at least a couple of generations and, even after that, some areas may become only suited to commercial use representing a permanent loss of habitat for wildlife, food production and wellbeing for the local population. Any employment benefits for the local economy will be negligeable and of low value. Solar PV power generation does not represent an efficient use of productive agricultural land, especially in this country’s climate, and it will increase food miles and the distances required for vehicles to gather biomass and feed our local bio digester plant. Solar PV installations should be sited on land that is non-productive and on the roofs of large commercial buildings. Any carbon offset will be non-existent when compared to the whole life carbon cost of the project including Commissioning, manufacturing of Solar panels and battery storage, loss of productive land, food miles, and eventual (hopefully) decommissioning. It is hard to see how the decommissioning will be managed without a clear plan and a financial trust properly established to cover the expected costs. It seems this element of the project will be left for future generations to deal with as has been the case with many aspects of our lives. The apparent opaqueness regarding the battery storage technology to be installed is very concerning due to hazardous nature of the materials currently used in their manufacture and their tendency to catch fire and pollute the environment. Clearly any such occurrence will affect the surrounding communities detrimentally with respect to enforced evacuations and, potentially, their health. Current battery storage technologies offer minimal benefits for long term power grid load attenuation but do offer the possibility of high profits for providers that scavenge energy during low demand periods and sell back at inflated cost during periods of peak demand. I believe the solar PV element of this project is mainly to support this trade in power rather then to directly benefit the environment. The proposed screening of the solar arrays and battery storage plants will not be affective for many years but even this proposal misses the point as the natural beauty of this area is partly due to the wide-open areas with unobstructed views. The proposed fencing that will surround these installations will result in the area resembling a military base such as Mildenhall and Lakenheath. Whilst the importance of this country’s self-sufficiency is vitally important, energy and food production should not be seen as competing issues. We just have to be more targeted and imaginative in our solutions to combat the immediate and undeniable threat of anthropogenic climate change and tailor them to our strengths and environment. This proposal fails the last sentence on many levels and, therefore, represents a waste of energy, finances and resources when better solutions already exist. End.