Archive
SOLAR FARM HARM
24/12/2021
Capturing and using renewable energy from the sun is an essential part of our battle to halt global warming and fight back against climate change. No argument about that but do we really have to plate thousands of hectares of the countryside with vast arrays of solar panels in the form of “solar farms”? Having looked at some of the recent schemes proposed, I have been horrified: agriculturally productive, and even worse, ecologically rich countryside, is being used for huge installations of these things.
We can argue perhaps about the aesthetics – some like the look of them and others (most I would say) feel they are out of place covering our green and pleasant land. My concern is that the ecological impact of solar farms is significantly greater than the solar companies would have us believe, and that planning applications underplay potential impacts on wildlife and biodiversity.
Every site is different of course, but there are some common themes. A frequent argument by the panel installers of projects using pastureland is that shading the ground will make the sub-panel insolation environment more like that in woodland and, by inference, not an adverse impact. However, open fields enjoy full sun exposure and a concomitant grassland ecosystem; even with the use of bifacial panels which let through more light, there is significantly reduced insolation, primary productivity is consequently lower and umbricolous vegetation is favoured over heliophiles. Shade-tolerant grasses will grow, but standing crop biomass will be lower; there will be a reduction in the number and extent of more floriferous meadow plant species, both spatially and temporally. Furthermore, reduced sub-panel precipitation will lead to a mosaic of areas of drought and swamping. Irrigation channelling may help to offset this but heavy rain or quickly melting snow tends towards localised flooding which requires attenuation that is seldom satisfactorily provided in the installations I have examined.
Lapwings, grey partridges, skylarks, curlews and other ground-nesting birds can be seriously adversely affected by solar farms installed on their grassland habitat. Unfortunately, solar farms do not always fully understand these birds’ ecological needs, which leads to their becoming much rarer on such sites, or abandoning the area altogether.
I conclude that invertebrate grassland herbivores, and particularly pollinators, are subsequently fewer and less diverse in the solar array habitat. Some say you can let weeds grow between the panels which supports pollinators, but many weeds soon become tall as they flower and create shade over the panels.
The two major larger taxa predatory upon grassland invertebrates in pasture, particularly that which is not intensively managed, are insectivorous birds and bats, for neither of which are fully comprehensive surveys always conducted. Reduction in foraging for these species is likely to be adversely affected, both by the botanical changes and the physical obstruction of the arrays. It is also the case that, in those projects of which I have some detailed knowledge, full botanical/phytosociological and entomological surveys over a sufficient time period to cover the seasons have not been conducted.
Another area where those proposing solar farms in open countryside tend to give fewer data than they should is in the predicted carbon account of the project. It is usual for the gross CO2 saving to be stated and the time it will take for the carbon cost of the installation to pay for itself in the value of renewable energy produced. However, the calculations tend to ignore some of the elements needed to give a full and accurate picture. The figures should include CO2 emissions from manufacture of the panels, substations and all electrical gear and cabling, delivery, installation, site preparation, power transmission losses, maintenance, servicing, repairs, decommissioning and final equipment disposal/recycling. The reduction of carbon capture by the fields over which the panels are installed should also be included in the calculation: it is often forgotten that grassland is a good carbon sink, which will be less efficient with reduced sunlight reaching the ground vegetation.
The installers also love to fence these sites. OK, so security is an issue, but inappropriate fencing makes the areas less permeable to a range of wildlife and disrupts migration and movement between habitats. Security lighting also disturbs the diurnal rhythm and ecology of many species.
No: local and central government must deliver their promises on renewable energy and make installations of solar cells easy and cost-effective with financial and administrative incentives so they are fitted on all new houses and in towns and urban areas where the energy is needed and without despoliation of countryside and green spaces.
Betts Ecology continues to watch this sector carefully and we will make it clear when we consider that solar farm vendors and installers do not present all the facts about a scheme in which we are involved, so that planning authorities can be more confident of making a fully informed and secure decision.
Text © Betts Ecology (ornithological illustrations public domain)
