Whilst there is much positive media coverage regarding Green energy and government “net zero” targets, there is little about the darker side of solar.

“Solar panels are exposed to the elements, making them vulnerable to natural hazards like snow, wind, hail and lightning.  These harsh conditions don’t just have the potential to damage the solar panels, incurring costs within themselves, but can also cause arc faults and faulty wiring which increases the risk of fire.  Strong winds can also cause micro-cracking to the panels, letting in dust and debris and making them less effective at absorbing light and storing energy.  Due to the materials of today’s panels and frequent weather damage, they are lasting much less than expected, at around 20 years compared to the expected 40-50 years” [https://www.towergateinsurance.co.uk/insight/the-dark-side-of-solar-panels].

Such weather damage was shown during Storm Darragh in Anglesey (6th December 2024): such destruction could not be uncommon across the Suffolk landscape, particularly against a background of greater incidence and ferocity of storms in the UK.  The highest wind-speed recorded during Darragh was 79mph [Metoffice].  During the great storm of 1987, hurricane-force winds of 122mph were recorded in Suffolk, and more recently recordings of 80mph were reported in Aldeburgh during Storm Eunice [EADT, 18/02/22].  The Letheringham site is notoriously windy, particularly at the top section towards Sandy Lane.

Currently agricultural technical failures can be viewed as a welcome social interruption!  It is not uncommon to see the Ernest Doe van, tractor side, as both technician and driver relish the repair challenge!  During which of course, there will be a “good olde” Suffolk yarn told – this is the way of country life – endemic to our rural communities.  What a stark contrast it will be if this is replaced with the repair (catastrophe!) challenges of a Solar Farm?!

The alleged recoverability of the land and returning to agriculture is alarming, given not only the risk of Fire and Storm damage, but also the risks of contamination and pollution.  There is a view that as panels/equipment deteriorate, materials, such as plastic (silicone), metals, glass and hazardous waste from batteries (e.g. lead-acid, cadmium, etc) could make the soil economically unrecoverable; leading to wildlife/biodiversity impacts and sites being declared “brown field”. 


“Topsoil is removed and cleaning materials can contaminate the soil.  There is the possibility of toxic chemicals leaching out from the panels.  Lithium-ion battery storage represents a huge fire risk” [The problem with Solar Farms, Factors that should be considered in determining applications, page 9].

The above contamination components should be seriously considered in conjunction with the sloping land and geology of the site, that being of sand and gravel.  Both elements of which exacerbate water run-off (see Flooding).  There is grave concern that there could be a pollution risk as a result of surface water discharge, as the geology potentially provides a pathway into the underlying watercourse.  This culminating in the River Deben and beyond, particularly when floods occur. Would this have an impact on wildlife/biodiversity, the food chain and drinking water...?

Finally, has the full environmental lifecycle, from manufacture to disposal of solar panels, and associated infrastructure (e.g. batteries), been fully assessed?  The government debate on 15/05/25 suggests not: "In principle, solar energy is green, but the reality is murkier.  The journey of a solar panel, from raw materials to installation, is far from carbon neutral" [Dr Caroline Johnson, MP].  This becomes even more of a concern, if their productive life is actually reduced to around 20 years instead of the suggested 40, thus making it difficult for Solar Farms to reach their energy/profit producing potential.