Archive
SOLAR ARRAY AFFRAY
14/12/2023
That we need all the renewable energy we can generate in order to halt climate breakdown and urgently reduce global warming is not in question. The science behind this is clear. What is not clear, though, is the significant damage solar photovoltaic arrays on rural land cause to nature.
There is a rash of solar farm planning applications at present and they are causing huge public outcry and headaches for Local Planning Authorities. Anyone weighing the evidence knows we must urgently, extremely urgently in fact, replace fossil fuels with renewable energy (something which could have been put more forcefully into action at this week’s COP28 but wasn’t) but hectares of thousands of solar panels do not do that. Why? Because the purveyors of these solar power station installations in the fields do not take into account the carbon sequestration function the greenspace land already has[1] or the great cost of their existential damage to natural capital and ecosystem services.
The “solar farm” purveyors are deceiving us: they should be using roofs, car parks and unvegetated urban and suburban spaces for photovoltaic cells where the energy is needed most and environmental damage virtually non-existent. Indeed, by combining solar arrays with green roofs, walls and plantings, there would be ecological, Green Infrastructure and aesthetic gains. There are thousands of hectares of these unvegetated substrata available in the UK. The respected countryside charity CPRE, for example, commissioned research from the UCL Energy Institute https://bit.ly/UCLI and found that over half the solar panels needed to hit national net zero targets could be fitted on rooftops and in car parks. They say “Installing solar panels on existing buildings and car parks would enjoy near-universal public support and help minimise objections to large solar farms in the countryside …” The research also reveals that “… the potential of brownfield sites to generate renewable energy is dramatically underused.[2]
[1] Gregg, R., Elias, J. Alonso, I., Crosher, I., Muto, P. & Morecroft, M. (2021 2nd Edn.). Carbon storage and sequestration by habitat: a review of the evidence. Natural England Research Report NERR094. See in particular section 3.4, page 80 et seq. https://bit.ly/Cstorehab.
Nature is not “free”, although its worth to us and everything else living on Earth is habitually ignored. Human activities and impacts on nature, biodiversity, natural capital and ecosystem services have costs and benefits but are seldom neutral. In my experience, large solar array projects on rural greenspace typically ignore the costs to nature of putting the photovoltaic cells and associated inverters, cabling, battery storage and other infrastructure over significant areas of greenspace. This is especially relevant when faced with the constant arguments of those marketing the arrays that it is too expensive to put them on roofs everywhere and unvegetated spaces like car parks in urban and peri-urban areas. It isn’t if you take the cost of the adverse impacts on natural capital and ecosystem services into account. Apart from the fact that they cause a heat island effect and that bats, for example, avoid them and so don’t forage where they used to, crops don’t grow under them and livestock avoids them (don’t believe what solar installers say about sheep), wild plants and their pollinators, hydrology, soil mycology and genetic resources are all adversely affected. The regulating services of ecosystems such as carbon sequestration noted above, climate moderation, maintaining good air quality, water purification, flood attenuation, decomposition/nutrient recycling, predator-prey relationships, disease control, seed dispersal, and micro- and macro-habitat provision are all negatively impacted. Then there are unwanted effects on cultural services such as human enjoyment and benefits in the countryside of photography and painting, research, education and heritage as well as aesthetic and symbolic benefits and the general enjoyment of nature.
I admit that the accounting of nature’s value in money terms is a very complex task involving economic, ecological, landscape impact and aesthetic considerations. However, there are accounting methods and frameworks being developed to assess and incorporate the value of nature and natural resources into what would be fairer, more secure and more robust planning decisions if applied (as they certainly should be and increasingly will be in my view).
A good source of information on all this, and which I highly recommend, can be found at https://www.solarcampaignalliance.info/.
Betts Ecology do not permit large solar arrays on the greenspace we control but we encourage everyone to install solar panels on their houses, garages and other buildings and unvegetated substrata wherever they possibly can.
© Betts Ecology
