Representation by Andrew MacKenzie
- Date submitted
- 14 March 2022
- Submitted by
- Members of the public/businesses
I disagree with the application; I do not believe the scheme would be net carbon zero or environmentally friendly. It will also be of little to no benefit to the local community. 1.1 I personally would be affected by this scheme, the countryside which currently surrounds my village would become fields of solar panels and containers filled with batteries. I cannot say for sure, but I am confident it would devalue my property, and if it was allowed to proceed would cause disruption to my life and the lives of my family and neighbors for many years. 1.2 The hundreds of daily lorry movements that would occur during the construction will be environmentally damaging, and cause chaos in the small villages that will be affected by the scheme. 1.3 Many of the local footpaths and possibly smaller roads would be closed during construction and due to their location, some of the footpaths may not be restored as they cut through areas where the solar panels are located. 2.1 I feel the scheme is effectively a green washing of an energy storage facility, as the battery storage capacity far exceeds the potential output of the solar panels, I suspect that the massive battery storage will be used to take power from the grid at times when it is not required (cheaper) and sold back at times of high demand to make huge profits for the owners of the scheme. 2.2 If the government requires massive battery storage facilities to meet future energy needs, they could be constructed on the large amount of brownfield land as identified below or included within the perimeter of the generating facility. 2.3 This scheme may help the government meet its net zero goal, but in truth, all it does is move where the impact is felt. In most cases to countries that are less inclined to be concerned with the environmental and social impacts that the mining of the natural resources required, and the manufacture of the solar panels and batteries creates. 3.1 The use of productive agricultural land for this scheme when in Suffolk and Cambridgeshire combined there is at least 1029.61 hectares of brownfield land, simply does not make sense (I could not find numbers for north Cambridgeshire). This area does not utilise any industrial roof space which I feel is key for the solar component of the governments net zero goal. 4.1 The scheme does not appear to have any provisions in place to return the land to agricultural use, or dispose/recycle the solar panels and battery storage at the end of the scheme. The site would likely become a collection of large brown field sites, probably left abandoned to become a scar on the landscape. 4.2 Assuming the panels and batteries lasted the entire length of the scheme (see next point), using current technologies the recycling of solar panels and the associated batteries is not economically feasible meaning it would all just get buried in the ground somewhere. 4.3 I also believe that given current battery technology the battery storage would require replacement several times over the projected life span of the scheme, I would guess that this has not been factored into any estimates as to the environmental impact of the scheme. I am basing this on personal experience of Li-ion battery usage in phones/laptops etc. and that these deteriorate considerably over their life span, and this is generally only 3-5 years – not the forty years that this scheme would be operational. 4.4 Additionally over the time span of the scheme, I would hope that solar panels and battery technology will develop to have better efficiency, higher charge densities etc, and at some point, it would become viable for the panels and batteries to be replaced with the new technology further adding to the environmental impact of the scheme. 5.1 The scheme would not provide any positive long term economic effects for the local community; any short-term effects would be small if even noticeable. If constructed the number of employees required to operate the site would be negligible. In summary I do not believe this scheme meets the ethos of the governments net zero goal, in terms of transitioning to a green and sustainable future, helping businesses and consumers to move to clean energy, and supporting hundreds of thousands of well-paid jobs.