My response to the UK Government via Proposed reforms to the National Planning Policy Framework and other changes to the planning system - Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government - Citizen Space
"My answer relates specifically to the section on Solar Planning.
- Solar farms sound like an answer to prayers, but things to think about at least from a lay-person’s perspective are as follows:-Is Solar all that it is cracked up to be?
Solar is thought to be one of the best ways to reduce reliance on fossil fuels; it is thought to give financial savings to home owners, and it is thought that it may increase the home’s value at sale; and most importantly it is believed by the masses to be good for the environment – but is this really true?
- Research conducted in various countries indicates that solar panels and solar farms may help to reduce greenhouse gases, but they come with their own environmental hazards many of which are obfuscated through lack of reporting or findings being ignored or hidden.
- The main areas of concern for the environmental impact of solar panels relates to the manufacturing process where the panels are created. Significant amounts of resources including fuel, water, transportation, and chemicals are used. Hazardous chemicals such as acetone, hydrogen fluoride, sulfuric acid, trichloroethane etc. are used to clean the semiconductor surfaces. When used in large scale solar farms these chemicals can pose a threat to the wildlife in the area.
- Further such hazardous chemicals may also leach into the ground e.g. farmland, when the solar panels are cracked or damaged in some other way, necessitating a massive clean-up of land before the e.g. farmland, can be used again for growing food or for crop rotation. This will be expensive for farmers when food security becomes an issue, as no one will want to eat produce that has been tainted with toxic chemicals with the then resulting health impacts and indirect impacts to the economy.
- The next area of concern relates to the positioning and placing of such industrial and large-scale solar farms. Research from other countries (the UK lags behind in contributing to the body of growing evidence about this) indicates that a safe distance to live, in a Residential area, from a solar farm is 3-kilometres. The reason for a need for a safety zone to place such sites away from residential areas, relates to health concerns linked with electromagnetic radiation, which although may be at low levels for the majority of the time, will be a constant 24/7 environmental hazard for people who experience electromagnetic radiation hypersensitivity and as we know from research there is no explanation yet as to who will be affected or why.
- It is important for Planning inspectors and Councils to be aware that Solar Farm proposals that say that they are about 3-kilometres from a town centre, have not considered all the residential areas dotted between that town centre and the proposed site. An example of this is where I live. A proposed solar farm has been threatened for the last two years. The plans indicate that it will be situated 3-kilometres from the main town near where I live, so on paper it looks as if it is compliant with the 3-kilometre safety zone. However, it does not consider all the villages and hamlets dotted in that 3-kilometre zone. The residents in the centre of the town will be safe from any negative effects of electromagnetic radiation, but not so for the residents who will be living within the 3-kilometre zone. There will be a constant bombardment of electromagnetic radiation, which even at a low level, can cause headaches, insomnia, skin rashes, tinnitus, cognitive decline, muscle weakness, memory issues, irritability, cramping etc. Although these appear to be low-level health complaints they can be debilitating and unnecessary if good planning measures had been put into place to protect the residents living within the 3-kilometre zone. Will the local health infrastructure be able to cope with the constant flow of patients all exhibiting similar symptoms and will employers be sympathetic when their employee takes multiple sick leave days owing to these low-grade symptoms? Indirectly the economy may suffer so it is important to consider where these solar farms are placed.
- Another consideration concerns that some solar farms ‘hum’ and others there are issues with bright lights around the site. Not only would this interfere with wildlife habitats it would interfere with the sleep patterns of humans. We know that the human body is an electric circuit. When the body is bombarded with other electric signals (e.g. electro-magnetic) it disrupts the natural communication of the body’s own circuitry. Insomnia, for example, has been linked with Dementia – will healthcare in the future have sufficient places to look after all the patients who may develop Dementia from living within a 3-kilometre zone around a solar farm? It sounds like both a nightmare and a research project for the future.
- There are arguments both for and against the placement of solar farms in residential areas where health impacts may occur. Governments around the world and companies that have invested heavily in solar farms argue that there is “No impact” and that it is “safe to live next to a solar farm” despite evidence to the contrary. It feels a bit like déjà vu if you compare this with the 1960s when the Tobacco companies knew that their products were carcinogenic, but still sold them to the unsuspecting public leading to numerous lives negatively affected by cancer). Solar panels are still too new a technology for us to have any clear understanding of how the constant bombardment of electromagnetic radiation will impact health and lives, but it is better to err on the side of caution and so I urge planners to consider placing solar farms well away from all residential areas, using the 3-kilometre rule as a minimum safety rule.
- It is known that the amount of electromagnetic radiation emitted from each solar panel varies depending on the number of panels in the solar farm, the strength of the sunlight etc. Unfortunately, a less known fact about solar panels is that they create extreme levels of ‘dirty’ electricity. This can adversely affect people with hypersensitivity to electromagnetic radiation. It needs to be considered at the beginning of projects rather than when there is an epidemic of people suffering with hypersensitivity, though many GPs may not make the connection that the low-grade symptoms that they are regularly seeing relates to hypersensitivity. Educating GPs and other healthcare professionals as well as the public, is an important factor if solar farms are placed in or near residential areas.
- There are some excellent examples of how solar farms are created away from residential areas including SITA, the waste & recycling company, that signed a deal with British Solar Renewables to redevelop some of its capped landfill sites into solar farms. This demonstrates strong land stewardship and understanding of using already unusable landfill sites rather than using arable farmland which could be use for growing food, and to tackle the crisis of food security, which is lurking just around the corner, as countries stop being so reliant on others to export food owing to increasing tariffs. In the same way that the Russia-Ukraine war has led to a change in how we source and consume energy and has focused minds on producing our own ‘green’ energy, so will food security become a problem in the coming decades. It would be good to think that successive Governments have this in mind when deciding where to plant solar farms particularly if they are seeking to give permission for sites on arable land which will make the land unusable for decades to come.
- Next, we need to turn our attention to again, a little known or little publicised fact that there is no (zero) way of to dispose of broken, cracked, damaged or ‘end of life’ solar panels. It is extraordinary that we have this technology that has been around for several years now, and yet we have no way of recycling or disposing of it, and all its chemicals, safely. A recent BBC report (4th June 2023) by Daniel Gordon, “Challenge to stop solar panels becoming a ‘waste mountain’” revealed the full horror of what has been produced, and yet there is still no constructive way of safely recycling or disposing of them. I urge you to think carefully and wisely as to whether creating a ‘new’ crisis with unsafe chemicals from solar panels is really a legacy that you want on your conscience or for future generations to manage.
- Daniel Gordon outlined how the “specialist infrastructure to scrap and recycle [solar panels] is lacking” and that by 2050 there is the potential for a “waste mountain” and a “looming environmental disaster” as there are no facilities yet capable of recycling the waste. How can this be?
- As with electric car batteries, the technology for recycling solar panels, does not exist yet, and apart from a company in Grenoble, France and a tentative project by the University of Leicester, it seems that once again the recycling can has been kicked down the road, as none of this waste can be managed or recycled. Each solar panel has a maximum life expectancy of 20 years, so I presume that as there is no technology available yet for managing the recycling of these panels, that a fingers crossed approach has been taken with the hope that by the time the next government has arrived, that some progress will have been made. In addition to creating GB Energy, a way for recycling all this redundant and damaged technology needs to be found too, so that the calamitous “waste mountain” does not become a reality.
- Another problem related to this is the fact that “there is not enough silver available to build the millions of solar panels which will be required in the transition from fossil fuels” (see Daniel Gordon’s article). Silver is required along with copper, lithium, iron and aluminium to create solar panels. According to reporter, Terence Corcoran, there is a growing opinion that “if fossil fuels are destructive, renewable alternatives maybe even more so”. Again, I ask how can this be? The simple answer that I am sure that you are already aware of, is that to obtain these minerals we must mine and dig the ocean floor, rainforests and tundra. This is the ‘hidden’ part of the ‘green’ equation and no wonder it is hidden from public gaze and scrutiny. I include this here, because it relates indirectly to the production and then placement of solar panels. We need to find a way to create our energy that is not destructive to either arable land, people’s health, or the environment which we are all trying to save.
- A small group of people is beginning to understand that there is not an unlimited amount of energy on this planet. As we are pushed more towards buying ‘green’ products, perhaps what is really needed is a fresh approach to the conundrum. At first it would most likely be unpopular and it would require a courageous government to be brave and suggest it, but the easiest way to save our planet is not to invest in solar farms or wind farms. The easiest is to convince people through education, that they just need to consume less electricity. Skilled marketing and education campaigns can achieve anything when targeted in the correct way. That safeguards energy for those who ultimately need it the most, keeps reserves high, and educates, leads and enforces responsibility, so that people understand their rights and responsibilities, as we are all in this together. If people feel better off financially, and use less electricity, this is a step in the right direction, and fewer solar & wind farms would be required.
- This consultation is about the siting of future solar farms. Please think carefully about whether this really is the future for the UK or whether it is just a political ploy that will, long-term, plague the health of the nation, cripple the economy, and destroy thousands of acres of arable, food growing land for generations to come.
- I urge you to instruct your planning inspectors and planning departments to construct solar farms at least 3-kilometres from all residential areas; place them on non-arable land (as food security will soon be the next crisis); look for good practice examples to follow like SITA; and consider the health impact on your citizens as well as the destruction of the ocean floor, the rain forests that are left, and the tundra. Is this really the best use of our collective, national resources? Me, I’d stop at the edge of this precipice and re-evaluate my plans (just a thought).
- Thank you for the opportunity that this consultation process has provided so that I may add my voice to your considerations."
Is this what you thought you were getting when you signed up to "Save the planet" by buying into the lies about the world's new "GREEN" economy?
It isn't what I was expecting.
