Representation by Kathryn Maitland
- Date submitted
- 16 February 2023
- Submitted by
- Members of the public/businesses
I object as strongly as I know how to this project. Solar is the least efficient of all renewable energy sources. On average it can only deliver 11% of its stated output. On-shore wind is 3 times more efficient, off-shore even more efficient. That's why its best placed on rooftops. A solar factory just north of this proposed solar project, (close to Osbournby, Sleaford), recently completed - has been told it needs to be SWITCHED OFF in July and August - because there is no storage capacity in the grid system for the energy generated in those months. So, to clarify, that is agricultural land ruined and crops not grown, to try and harvest sunshine instead, but not in July and august?!?! when a traditional harvest of food (the replacement for which we would now need to import, at carbon cost), has taken place for centuries? This all seems so spectacularly ill thought out it literally beggars belief - will the farms around here spend time switched off when the sun actually shines because there is too much energy generated during the day? Are we giving up farm land for this? Solar is very inefficient with respect to land use. On average the government says 5 acres are used for every 1MW of output. If the government’s net zero target for solar of 70GW is to be met by 2035, the solar needed would broadly cover the county of Bedfordshire. The country is already losing 99,000 acres of rural land a year to industrial and other uses. Dr John Constable, Net Zero Watch’s director of energy, said: “Farmland is already a renewable energy producer, making food from sunlight. Sacrificing that national asset to produce low quality electrical energy from solar photovoltaic panels is foolish in itself and will have deep and troubling long-term implications for British food security.” Think of the knock on effect of reducing the number of people locally who are involved in farming. Where will future farmers and farm workers come from if you remove a way of life from an area? Skills are forgotten if they are not utilised. Growing food is critically important and it feels as though this is unrecognised at the moment. Solar has a role to play in achieving a net zero result, but why on earth not put it in places that are of no other use? like roof tops? sure this will involve investment in connectivity, but surely the investment is worth it when compared to the loss of so much agricultural land and the long term implications of a loss of food security. If solar was actually efficient, the loss might make more sense, but given the 11% average achievement of stated output and the fact that solar factories are being routinely switched off when the sun shines because the energy cannot be efficiently stored (and batteries are themselves a whole other hideously unenvironmental subject) -Every step in the production of solar photovoltaic (PV) power systems requires a perpetual input of fossil fuels - for smelting metals from ore, for process heat and power, international transport, and deployment. Silicon smelters, polysilicon refineries, and crystal growers around the world all depend on uninterrupted, 24/7 power that comes mostly from coal. Is solar energy really the best solution for reaching our net zero targets if all these factors are taken into account in the carbon calculation? Solar panels will only last 25-30 years, what is the carbon impact when they have to be replaced from scratch again? I cannot help but think our grandchildren will judge us, and rightly find us wanting. Will they not say - what on earth were you thinking? how did you in your wildest dreams think this knee jerk response, anything to get a tick in the box reaction, was a good idea? This is way too important and irreversible a decision. Inefficient and hideously carbon unfriendly solar panels in exchange for land that is part of one of the most agriculturally productive areas of the country?