Representation by James Allan
- Date submitted
- 2 March 2023
- Submitted by
- Members of the public/businesses
Whilst renewable energy is necessary to provide a good mixed portfolio of energy sources to reduce use of fossil fuels, there are balances and trade offs to be considered. Solar energy is a very inefficient method of generating electricity as the headline capacity figures are always misleading at best and completely false at worst as solar typically in the Uk produces approximately 11% of the headline claimed capacity. Solar power is produced when it’s least required and battery technology currently has a limit of up to two hours storage. At a national planning level for the grid the authorities use a figure of 2% reliability for solar generation. Solar panels also use up vast quantities of land to produce. In Lincolnshire, the bread basket of the UK this project and three others of a similar size will take more than 10,000 acres of good quality arable land out of food production. The food security versus energy security must be considered when currently the reminders of war in Europe show us how important the production of food is. Even before the Ukraine conflict we imported more than 50% of our food. That cannot be sustainable. The categorisation of land for farming purposes should also be looked at as farmers can validate that land quality is not best described by the DEFRA classification as yields vary from year to year and the band of 3a and 3b , the cut off for current ruling on permission to place solar projects , does not sufficiently well designate the absolute quality of the land which also varies from field to field and even within fields. The impact of one of these proposed projects will be massive on the local area at circa 2,500 acres will be the largest site in Europe and there are three others planned equally large in the next few years. The concentration of these projects in a very small area (all four projects are the size of the city of Lincoln around the town of Gainsborough affecting up to 30 small villages) and will impact on the day to day lives of residents during and after the developments. We moved to live in the country surrounded by fields and animals not sitting in the middle of an industrial complex. Very little employment will be generated by these projects and the majority of the infrastructure will be manufacture overseas (China) using rare earth metals and concrete with massive fossil fuel footprints, and shipped here by sea using fossil fuels. Alternative sites for solar should be considered, warehouse roofs, car parks, brownfield sites etc etc. There will be a loss of amenity for residents with the character of the area totally transformed to an industrial complex, and no amount of shielding will hide millions of up to 4.5m high solar panels and up to 13.5m battery installations. Solar is inefficient, environmentally damaging, impacts negatively on food securty and will ruin the amenity of the countryside for millions. I object to the industrialisation of the countryside. The main reasons are that solar energy is highly inefficient and the headline figures quoted by the developers are misleading at best. On average solar delivers ,in the UK, around 11% of the headline figures quoted by the developers, and produces all its energy at the times when it’s least needed, and battery technology is not available to deliver the energy when it’s required. Also, at a time where food security is at the forefront of people’s minds the use of prime Lincolnshire arable land for solar is a poor use of that resource. We already import in excess of 50% of our food, and that needs to change. The amenity of the countryside will be lost to the people who chose to come and live there and no amount of shielding will hide the 4.5m high panels or the 13.5m battery packs. There should also be a review of the nett impact on the environment of manufacturing shipping and installing the developments. The panels which are most likely to be manufactured in China utilise rare materials, cheap labour, colossal transport costs, and huge volumes of concrete and metal. The disposal of the materials and sites also needs to be considered. There is also the impact of the scale of the proposed developments. There are currently three others under consideration, as well as this one. Each of them on their own would be the largest in Europe. All four together would be similar to the largest development in the World. This cannot be proportionate. If we need solar energy as part of our balance it should be built on existing brownfield sites, warehouse roofs, and other non productive locations. Our energy balance needs renewables, but wind power has proven itself to be a sound source of energy and that should be prioritised over solar. However , it is clear that solar will not and cannot be more than a bit part in our plans. Nuclear must underpin our energy security for the future, but we need energy policicies that manage the use of oil and gas to help in the transition to a cleaner future energy balance.