£50M SOLARFLARE UP
Controversial plans for a 100,000 panel energy farm based in Loch Fergus is met with outrage
Two leading Professors at Oxford University have voiced safety concerns over plans to build a £50m solar farm in the Ayrshire countryside.
The Post can exclusively reveal how the two academics fear the possibility of lithium-ion fires, explosions and even clouds of toxic gas at the massive battery storage unit, planned for Loch Fergus, near Coylton.
Plans for the near 100,000-panel solar farm were first unveiled last year by renewable energy firm Locogen.
They identified agricultural land to the north of Loch Fergus, 3.3km east of Ayr and just under 1km west of Coylton, where they hope to build the solar farm on a 58.2 hectare site.
But the proposals, said to be worth £50m in terms of investment, sparked a wave of opposition. In the wake of the plans being unveiled a group called ‘No to Loch Fergus Solar Farm’ was formed.
One of the figureheads, James Knox, a custodian of the nearby Martnaham Loch, a designated SSSI (Site of Special Scientific Interest) claimed the proposals would wreck the local eco-system and become a danger to wildlife.
He’s enlisted the help of professor Peter Dobson OBE, professor Emeritus at The Queen’s College and Department of Engineering Science, Oxford University and professor Peter Edwards FRS, Emeritus Statutory Professor of Inorganic Chemistry, and Fellow of St Catherine’s College, Oxford University, to help fight the proposals.
In a submission to the Scottish Government’s Energy Consent Unit (ECU) Mr Knox claims there’s a “real and present danger” to the ecology of Martnaham Loch, posed by the “threat of toxic fires and explosions” at the solar farm’s proposed battery storage unit (BESS), where Locogen plans to install on the brow of a steeply sloping field.
In his report Mr Knox states: “Despite the development of large-scale solar farms being in its infancy, there is growing evidence, nationally and internationally, of the dangers of lithium-ion fires, known as ‘thermal runway events,’ whereby the over-heating of a single battery cell activates contagious fire/explosions in the storage containers, leading to huge clouds of toxic gas and metal oxide fumes.
“Locogen’s planned 40MW storage unit on the brow of the steeply sloping field and ancient woodland is eight times the size of a battery storage unit which exploded on a site in Liverpool in September 2020, rocking the neighbourhood and producing vast quantities of contaminated ‘fire water.’”
Locogen, though, have stated that their proposed fire suppression system for the site would be “triggered automatically” in the “very unlikely event” of a battery fire in one of the modules and that the system would “comprise appropriately designed extinguishing gas,” and, because it is a “waterless fire protection system,” there would be “no risk to soils or ground water,” as a result of this operation.
Locogen also go on to say that the extinguishant would be discharged into the fire risk area and would suppress any fire “immediately.”
But the two Oxford academics have major concerns.
Professor Peter Dobson OBE, said: “Their statement has to be challenged in the strongest possible terms, especially ‘The fire suppression system would comprise appropriately designed extinguishing gas’. They have to specify what this gas is and give a risk assessment for its use, along with the details of its regular inspection and replacement.
“The fumes from a lithium
battery fire are very hazardous and toxic, so it is essential to contain these effectively.”
And Professor Peter Edwards FRS, said: “As anyone can see from pictures of BESS fires, when these start, it’s going to be extremely difficult to get sufficient gas quicklyto counter/smother/ isolate from O2/ the fire.
“I’ve seen fires rapidly ‘exiting’ the containers and my points are based on my own experiences working with lithium and its fire hazards over many decades. These safety issues are deeply concerning.”
The controversial proposals are expected to be discussed by South Ayrshire Council’s Regulatory (Planning) Panel on Thursday, March 28.
However, South Ayrshire Council is NOT the “determining authority” for the proposal but instead a “statutory consultee” in the process. The final decision rests with the Scottish Government.
The Post can further reveal that the Regulatory Panel has been recommended to offer “no objection” to the scheme.
But Mr Knox, who is a custodian and riparian owner of Martnaham Loch SSSI, warned: “Given the catastrophic threat to SSSI Martnaham Loch from water-borne toxic fires and explosions at Loch Fergus solar farm, and to the 3,000 residents of neighbouring Coylton from wind-borne toxic plumes, the South Ayrshire Council Regulatory Panel have a long-term duty of care to their constituents to reject this proposal outright and in so doing trigger a public enquiry which can fully interrogate all the risks associated with this application.
“Otherwise this industrial scale solar farm, which will have a 40-year life span, will pose an enduring and ever-present danger to Ayrshire residents and eco-systems alike.”
Spokesperson at Locogen, Stuart Hamilton, said: “We acknowledge the Planning Department at South Ayrshire Council has recommended ‘no objection’ to our plans for a solar and battery storage project at Loch Fergus, and eagerly await the decision at the upcoming Planning Committee.
“If approved by Scottish Ministers, our project will introduce a renewable energy scheme in line with both
Scotland’s and South Ayrshire’s climate and energy objectives, offering a sustainable energy source to reduce carbon emissions and address climate change impacts.
“In addition, our scheme will sustainably enhance biodiversity on the farm and surrounding area with wildflower meadows, wildlife corridors, bird boxes, bee banks, and new hedgerow planting.
“We remain committed to contribute £500 per MW, totalling £22,500 annually, towards community benefits to Coylton and the surrounding area. We are looking forward to continuing discussions with local stakeholders to determine the best allocation of these funds should the project be subsequently consented.”