WHAT COULD HAPPEN?

 It is now generally accepted that solar plants destroy habitats and endanger wildlife. They are known to kill birds, disrupt food chains and threaten biodiversity across a wide range of species. The question of where industrial solar plants should be built is not about whether climate change is happening or not, or whether renewable energy is good or not. It’s about a holistic approach to protecting all aspects of our natural world, a debate that is often “environmentalist versus environmentalist.”

 There are growing concerns internationally that industrial-scale solar plants actually alter the micro-climate around the plant. One study has found this 'solar heat island effect' to result in heat increases of around 3 to 4 ° C. While unpleasant for people, such climate changes also affect agri- and viticulture viability and can affect soil health through the process of biological carbon cycling. These unintended consequences of industrial solar are still being discovered. 

It's not unusual to hear claims that solar plants boost local economies. But does it stack up? It's likely that in the short-term, the build of a plant would generate some construction jobs. After that, however, solar plants almost run themselves - this proposal would probably create only 2 full-time jobs, at most. And that impact must be set against the job losses from the land being taken out of agricultural or viticulture use, and the impact on the local economy from the decline in the Waipara Valley's tourism activity.

Photos of solar plants are usually aerial shots which don't show the scale of the infrastructure. In fact, the approx. 300,000 panels and structures are likely to be 4 to 5m high, on a site of around 200ha. No amount of screening will hide it. Instead, the developers say that with screening the plant "eventually" will be "largely hidden".  But if you live on higher ground or look over the Valley, it will always be visible. Promises of screening "eventually" aren't much comfort to older people, or young families who want their children to grow up surrounded by nature. Not everyone can wait for trees to grow 5m tall.

 Environmental concerns aren’t limited to the duration of a solar plant’s operations. The proposed plant would probably require around 300,000 panels with a relatively short lifespan of around 25 years. While recycling them is possible, it costs 10 to 30 times more to recycle the panels than to send them to landfill, resulting in a potentially vast amount of toxic waste. The scale of the problem is so worrying that it may fundamentally change the economics of solar power, as the industry “sinks under the weight of its own trash”. 

 Glint (flashes of bright light) and glare (continuous excessive brightness) are major issues for solar plants. Safety for motorists is a primary concern (the proposed site lying adjacent to SH7 for an almost 3km stretch), but impacts on individuals can also be severe, ranging from discomfort to disability. Developers insist that panels are designed to be as non-reflective as possible - but this is minimization, not elimination. The proposed plant would create both glint and glare; the only question is how much, or how little, it might be controlled. 

Even after the construction phase, there are a number of sources of noise on a solar plant. Motors tilt the panels during the day. Inverters (likely around 30 on this site) convert electricity from DC to AC. Panels need to be routinely cleaned to maintain optimum efficiency. And wind, not an uncommon occurrence in the Waipara Valley, can be accelerated and funneled by panel arrays.

North Canterbury's notoriously strong winds raise two concerns. First, the noise generated as winds are funneled and distorted by the panels and plant infrastructure. Second, the risk of damage to the panels, and consequent toxic leeching. Watch here an example of high wind damage to a solar plant.

 Solar panels contain toxic materials including lead, tin, cadmium, silicon, and copper - materials that are known to be harmful to health and to ecosystems. Developers rely on the fact that panels are ‘sealed’ so these materials are contained. But damage, from wind, hail, fire or flood can rupture the seals and allow toxins to leak into soil, water courses and the atmosphere.

We are investigating claims that the proposed site has been the source of discoveries of historic Māori taoka, including a Māori adze. Far North Solar Farm Ltd say they are already in discussion with iwi and Rūnanga . We hope to have a fuller update on the history of the proposed site soon.

Property values in the area are likely to fall. While there are no established solar plants in NZ that can be used for comparison, international studies show declines can be in the region of 30%.

Development of the plant would require a link to and work at the Waipara substation. While Far North Solar Farm Ltd insist the boundary of the substation would not change, the substation infrastructure could expand six-fold within its current boundary.