Skip to content

UK’s Biggest Solar Farm Poses Grave Risk To Public Health

March 20, 2020

By Paul Homewood

h/t Philip Bratby



Britain’s largest solar farm is currently wending its way through the planning system.

Not only will it be the biggest at 350MW and 890 acres, but crucially it will include battery storage of 700 MWh. And it is the prospect of this that is frightening local residents, as this open letter from the local doctor explains:

Newton Place Surgery on the Health Issues arising from Cleve Hill

Open letter to The Rt Hon Alok Sharma MP, Secretary of State for Business Energy and Industrial Society, 1 Victoria Street, London SW1H OET A signed paper copy has been sent

Proposal to build a 350MW Solar Power Station with 700MWh Battery Energy Storage System at Cleve Hill, Graveney, Kent

Dear Secretary of State

I am the Senior Partner in the largest GP practice in Faversham, Kent . We serve a population of 18,500 patients, and a large part of the population of the village of Graveney is on our list. I am writing on behalf of the practice to urge you to decide against the above proposal on the grounds of the dangers to health, and indeed life, associated with the proposed Battery Energy Storage System (BESS).

When I first joined the practice, 29 years ago, one of my patients was a veteran of the first world war, who was still suffering the effects of chlorine gas: I think this proposal needs to be considered as having the potential to inflict a gas attack even worse than that which he experienced.

You will be aware from the report of the NSIP Examination that the proposed Lithium-ion BESS will be the largest in the world by a factor of five. Moreover, the installation will be within one mile of the village of Graveney and its primary school, and less than two miles from the historic market town of Faversham with its population of 19,000.

Lithium-ion Batteries

It is well established that Li-ion batteries are prone to runaway fires which can lead to explosions. Indeed, such fires at much smaller installations in the USA has led regulators to question the use of such batteries and pause further developments, especially close to habitation. The larger the BESS, the greater is the risk of a runaway fire. In the event of a fire Li-ion batteries emit a cloud of highly toxic Hydrogen Fluoride which can spread at dangerously high levels over distances of 1-2 miles, enveloping the town of Faversham and nearby coastal communities. These effects were modelled in detail in evidence to the Cleve Hill Examination.

Toxicity of Hydrogen Fluoride

Hydrogen fluoride goes easily and quickly through the skin and into the tissues in the body. There it damages the cells and causes them to not work properly. The gas, even at low levels, can irritate the eyes, nose, and respiratory tract. Breathing in hydrogen fluoride at high levels can cause death from an irregular heartbeat or from fluid build-up in the lungs. At lower levels breathing hydrogen fluoride can damage lung tissue and cause swelling and fluid accumulation in the lungs (pulmonary oedema). Eye exposure to hydrogen fluoride may cause prolonged or permanent visual defects, blindness, or total destruction of the eye. People who do survive after being severely injured by breathing in hydrogen fluoride may suffer lingering chronic lung disease.

I am extremely concerned that the potential hazards associated with such a large BESS pose an unacceptable risk of death or long term illness to the population which is served by Newton Place Medical Practice.

I, therefore, urge you to decide against this proposal.

Yours Sincerely, Dr Alastair Gould
Senior Partner
Newton Place Surgery


I cannot comment on the technical aspects, but I very much doubt any other industrial project would be allowed to get away with this sort of endangerment of public health.

  1. johnbillscott permalink
    March 20, 2020 5:39 pm

    I guess that as long as it is outside the London Bubble its ok to put the lives of ordinary people, who merely cyphers, at risk. Battery energy is prone to failure and safer methods should be sought.

  2. Coeur de Lion permalink
    March 20, 2020 5:48 pm

    We are too far north and too cloudy for solar panels to be viable without subsidy.

    • Adam Gallon permalink
      March 20, 2020 7:32 pm

      It’s the battery that garners the subsidy here, the solar panels are just one way of charging it. Watch the pea under the thimble!

      • Ian Magness permalink
        March 20, 2020 7:44 pm

        Please forgive me if I am being thick but if the output of a power generator is xMW but the battery array can store 2xMWH, does that mean that the power created over a very limited number of hours per day can only be stored then released for 2 further hours? This would surely mean that the whole energy “factory” would only be able to operate materially for a few hours a day on average, often even 6 or less.
        If my kindergarten mathematics is correct, what on Earth is the fuss about? It cannot possibly make economic sense to build and run the farm and battery array, even before taking environmental considerations into account. Unless, of course, a source of infinite funds is found….

      • March 20, 2020 9:55 pm

        That’s spot on Ian.

        The battery can only store 2hrs worth of solar output

      • Stuart Brown permalink
        March 20, 2020 7:54 pm

        Ian – you have missed that the entire output of the solar farm is going to charge the batteries for 2 hours at max output, therefore nothing to the grid. That might shift the output to a more profitable time of day, but delivers no more hours to the grid!

      • Phillip Bratby permalink
        March 20, 2020 8:11 pm

        Ian: It makes economic sense because there are various, highly lucrative subsidy schemes that these otherwise useless facilities can participate in. The result is an ever more fragile electricity supply accompanied by ever rising electricity prices to consumers.

  3. NeilC permalink
    March 20, 2020 5:48 pm

    With an average of just 4.3 hours sunshine hours per day over the last 21 years (Gatwick Airport), Faversham won’t be far off that figure. It is madness to think it will add much to electricity generation especially as most of the sunshine is during summer month when there is less need.

    There is also the problem of frequency of the grid, this will just make things even worse.

    • Adam Gallon permalink
      March 20, 2020 7:33 pm

      See my comment above.

    • tom0mason permalink
      March 21, 2020 4:31 pm

      “There is also the problem of frequency of the grid, this will just make things even worse.”
      No problem at all!
      Using ‘Real Green Thinking’*, you just aggressively but finely regulate the customer load to keep pace with the generation and that will stabilize it.

      *’Real Green Thinking’ is a method hallucinating expensive methods of fixing non-problems by exploiting the originality of the irrational.
      Note — ‘Real Green Thinking’ is believed to be where Douglas Adams got many of his best pseudoscience jokes, for instance the ‘Infinite Improbability Drive’ that powered spaceship ‘Heart of Gold’.

      • Ariane permalink
        March 22, 2020 11:00 am

        Real Green Thinking is about how those plebs should live in caves while we attend luxurious conferences and complain on laptops about those plebs.

  4. Tonyb permalink
    March 20, 2020 6:37 pm

    Oh for heavens sake you naysayers, it’s green, therefore it’s fine.

    • Stuart Brown permalink
      March 20, 2020 7:49 pm

      I’m with you, Tony. Damhead Creek CCGT is only a few miles away through the Isle of Sheppey and the Elmley nature reserve. Instead of a battery, the obvious answer is to build a CO2 pipeline from one to the other through that lot. The solar power can then be used to pump the CO2 under the North Sea somewhere, or better still turned into methane (near the sea for water, electrolysis, Sabatier process) to be pumped back to Damhead Creek! Thus solving any problems with grid stability too.

      This is green energy so no engineering, efficiency, economic or indeed common sense need apply.

  5. Joe Public permalink
    March 20, 2020 7:15 pm

    “350MW and … crucially it will include battery storage of 700 MWh”

    Knowing nothing else about the project, my bet is that the *primary* duty of that battery is not storage, but grid stabilisation / frequency control.

    The public perceives ‘storage’ as beneficial; however it’s an admission of issues with instability (caused primarily by highly intermittent wind) to ‘sell’ the project as for grid stabilisation / frequency control.

    “National Grid awards £328m contracts to manage stability of electricity grid”

    • March 21, 2020 11:37 am

      Interesting that the supply of inertia is supposed to save consumers £100 million over six years. Interesting definition of “save” anyway, since this ought to be benchmarked against the old grid that never had inertia problems.

  6. Phillip Bratby permalink
    March 20, 2020 7:26 pm

    Thanks for posting this Paul. I would be very interested if there is somebody out there who could comment on the gases given off in Li-ion battery fires.

    Here in Devon the largest solar farm proposal we have so far is 50MWe, covering about 160acres of beautiful farmland. Similarly any battery storage proposals are on a much smaller scale than 700MWh. It is very difficult to get these proposals refused as most of the decision makers (planning officers, planning committees and planning inspectors) fall for the “green, clean, sustainable energy” propaganda which they believe will solve the climate emergency.

  7. Phillip Bratby permalink
    March 20, 2020 7:26 pm

    Thanks for posting this Paul. I would be very interested if there is somebody out there who could comment on the gases given off in Li-ion battery fires.

    Here in Devon the largest solar farm proposal we have so far is 50MWe, covering about 160acres of beautiful farmland. Similarly any battery storage proposals are on a much smaller scale than 700MWh. It is very difficult to get these proposals refused as most of the decision makers (planning officers, planning committees and planning inspectors) fall for the “green, clean, sustainable energy” propaganda which they believe will solve the climate emergency.

    • Phillip Bratby permalink
      March 20, 2020 7:27 pm

      Sorry about the duplicate entry. Strange things happen.

    • Roy Banks permalink
      March 21, 2020 5:24 pm

      When burning these batteries emit the gas Hydrogen Fluoride in significant amounts as the battery electrolyte decomposes.

      If you use water to extinguish the fire, the rate at which the Hydrogen Fluoride is emitted actually increases.

      FYI, HF is a much stronger acid than Hydrochloric or Sulphuric acid. It is one of the strongest, most dangerous acids available. You won’t find it in the school chemistry lab.

      It is used in the oil refinery business in a process called an HF Alkylation Unit. Most Oil Refineries such as the Stanlow Refinery at Ellesmere Port include an HF Alkyation Unit.

      Once you have introduced HF into the HF Alkylation plant then it can only be accessed or maintained by personnel clad in full personnel protection suit & equipment including separate air supply.

      No one mentions that when they are telling us we should buy a BEV or Hybrid electric car (or even when we have our smartphones close by.)

      When you do have one and it sets on fire….Run away quickly!!

      • March 22, 2020 10:59 am

        HF dissolves silica but leaves carbon untouched; however lab technicians preparing palynological samples have died after spilling it on their hands
        Howard Dewhirst

      • March 22, 2020 10:59 am

        HF dissolves silica but leaves carbon untouched; however lab technicians preparing palynological samples have died after spilling it on their hands

  8. Alastair Dodwell permalink
    March 20, 2020 7:49 pm

    The only fires are in old Samsung handsets. That’s just poor engineering. Take a look at the Tesla power farm in Australia. 100MW pack.

    • March 20, 2020 9:57 pm

      That’s not what Dr Gould claims.

      We are not talking about mobile phones here

      I suggest you prove your assertions first

    • MrGrimNasty permalink
      March 20, 2020 10:35 pm

      The Andover Ocado warehouse blaze was an inextinguishable battery fire (1000 battery powered robots).

      “Investigators said it was caused by an electrical fault in a battery charging unit…”

      Exacerbated by other issues, but once the batteries started to combust in the general blaze (they go up like phosphor bombs in a chain reaction) there was no stopping it.

      And of course battery car fires do happen.

    • David O'Neill permalink
      March 21, 2020 10:53 pm

      I’m sorry but I don’t accept this at all. Drogenbos had just a few MWh of capacity and the emergency services ended up telling people to stay in and shut off their air cons.. Surprise, Arizona was just 2 MWh and blew off the steel doors and shutters, as well as the fire fighters helmets and masks. The BESS system in Australia has not been installed long enough, and like most being installed in the UK and Ireland are only being used for short squirts to try and maintain frequency. To fully charge and discharge continuously will wreck their polymer separators. When this happens a state of thermal runaway is reached. For best efficiency these things are placed in containers close to each other and a substation. I put it to you that if this happens to a 700 MWh array, the following quantity ranges may be present in the ensuing gas cloud:
      Hydrogen Fluoride 24.5 to 157.5 metric tonnes.
      Phosphoryl Flouride 10.5 to 15.4 metric tonnes.
      I have not tried to work it out but I believe the amounts of Carbon monoxide are even greater, and the amounts of cyanide are less. If you look hard enough, you’ll find there were 23 BESS system explosions in South Korea. A collaboration of government and industry carried out an investigation, mostly blaming bad installation engineering. Since the recommendations were adopted, a further five exploded.

    • Ben Vorlich permalink
      March 23, 2020 3:59 pm

      Didn’t Sony Laptops get recalled to have batteries replaced because of fires.

  9. MrGrimNasty permalink
    March 20, 2020 8:09 pm

    The panels themselves are pretty nasty:

    “The toxic chemicals in solar panels include cadmium telluride, copper indium selenide, cadmium gallium (di)selenide, copper indium gallium (di)selenide, hexafluoroethane, lead, and polyvinyl fluoride.”

    Fine whilst they are intact, but if damaged by weather or vandalism they can leach into the soil – and who will be responsible for the clearance of all that toxic waste at the end of its life – surely there should be an upfront indemnity as a planning condition, so that there is no issue if the company goes under, or tries to do a runner at the end of life?

    • Phillip Bratby permalink
      March 20, 2020 8:17 pm

      We’ve been saying for years that all these renewable energy schemes should only be built if the owner has deposited a bond which will pay up front to cover the costs of removing and disposing of all the equipment at end of life (which is short). All too often these schemes are sold on to shadow companies based overseas, which will eventually go bust or do a runner. Like all these “renewable” schemes, the decision makers do not have a clue about what is involved and the scam artists behind them.

    • Russ Wood permalink
      March 21, 2020 1:33 pm

      There’s a law in South Africa that all mines (at least those started in the last 20-30 years) have to have a ‘restoration’ fund to clean up at the end of the mine’s life. These funds are supposedly untouchable. However, during the “President Zuma and the Guptas” era, a Gupta subsidiary bought a coal mine, with much fiddles as to just HOW they got it. The rehabilitation fund for the mine was moved offshore – where it disappeared!
      I hate to think of what’s going to happen all over the world when the ‘bird choppers’ end of life is reached!

  10. MrGrimNasty permalink
    March 20, 2020 8:14 pm

    “..large amounts of hydrogen fluoride (HF) may be generated, ranging between 20 and 200 mg/Wh of nominal battery energy capacity. In addition, 15–22 mg/Wh of another potentially toxic gas, phosphoryl fluoride (POF3), was measured in some of the fire tests.”

  11. MrGrimNasty permalink
    March 20, 2020 8:23 pm

    I posted this one a while back, it’s just wanton desecration of the environment.

    “In its application for planning permission, a spokesman for Paris-based Voltalia said:
    ‘The renewable-led energy scheme would not have an adverse effect on the landscape character or residential amenity.'” – Most people would consider that a blatant lie.

    • john cooknell permalink
      March 20, 2020 9:04 pm

      Every planning application I have read for anything says “scheme would not have an adverse effect on the landscape character or residential amenity.” such is the nature of the planning system.

      In fact when you read those words, it confirms exactly the opposite.

      If you want to know the truth about any planning application, read the objections!

  12. john cooknell permalink
    March 20, 2020 8:57 pm

    The batteries will not work reliably, its a chemical process making the electricity, not mechanical power in – electric power out.

    You will have to split / share the load between different chemical process streams, this can be very challenging to control, so many variables to consider.

    The batteries will give off heat when discharging, full load is very challenging, chemical process efficiency is much affected by temperature, too cold no good, too hot no good,

    Making batteries work on this scale requires witchcraft.

  13. Nigel Sherratt permalink
    March 20, 2020 10:26 pm

    The whole gruesome tale is set out on this website. The BESS is what makes the project viable for the developers by gaming the spot market set up to handle grid instability to which this huge solar plant contributes mightily. They are permitted to charge the battery from the grid not just from the solar panels. (I live at the top of Faversham Creek in Flood Lane)

    • Ray Sanders permalink
      March 20, 2020 11:35 pm

      Hi Nigel, as I understand it the battery will in reality charge from the grid almost all of the time as the solar output will always attract a fixed supply price so there is no point in storing it.. The battery will operate on daily arbitrage (buying cheap or even negatively priced electricity from the grid to sell at peak time rates) and indeed make most of its revenue from intervention charges for frequency management services. Dinorwig PSH reportedl makes over 75% of its revenue from FM interventions so clearly there is bigger money from that option.
      Speaking ad a “local” like you (from Dark Hill now living South Canterbury) I do wonder what reception a similar sized project to cover the area with poly tunnels to provide food would receive.

      • Nigel Sherratt permalink
        March 21, 2020 1:01 pm

        Ray, yes it’s at heart a scam, the panels’ contribution to the root cause of the scam adds insult to injury.

        1000 acres of polytunnels would cause quite a lot of pearl-clutching but in this case, the great and the good are mostly now opposed. The Green Party supported it at first (and their candidate called me a lunatic for preferring modular nuclear) but they’ve changed their tune.

        Polythene, of course, transparent to IR but that’s another story although a useful fun fact to perplex the greens (how do poly tunnels work then?).

        I’m a DFL but every day give thanks for the chain of accidents that brought me to Flood Lane (14+ years ago although I’ve owned my little house longer).

  14. March 21, 2020 12:38 am

    I’m glad that Musk’s $50 million battery in South Australia got a mention, when it was needed too cover a shut down of a conventional 600 MW coal fired power station, the battery did well, supplying a peak 8.5 MW for around 4 minutes before going flat. I understand the planned 100MW UK battery can ‘power 30,000 homes for 2 hours’ or all UK wind power for one minute; how many batteries will be needed to keep Britain’s 24 million houses in power?
    And don’t forget – solar as a chemical reaction, cannot be switched off; if the sun shines it makes electricity and in the event of a fire, it might have to be left to burn.

  15. Robert Jones permalink
    March 21, 2020 10:15 am

    I once worked for a company that was required to provide an Uninterruptible Power Supply in support of a training contract placed by a Government agency. The UPS comprised banks of lead-acid batteries, which didn’t last forever and needed to be replaced quite often. Battery storage and back-up still looks to be a questionable feature.

  16. Chaswarnertoo permalink
    March 21, 2020 10:49 am

    FFS! You can’t fix stupid.

  17. ray sanders permalink
    March 21, 2020 11:08 am

    This issue has been widely reported in the locality and analysed by experts in the field.
    If this was a proposed site for a Small Modular Nuclear reactor there would not doubt be trillions or words in the media, endless protests by rent-a-mob, and approximately zero chance of it going ahead. Ironically a nuclear power plant would be much, much safer and supply reliable electricity.

  18. March 21, 2020 12:38 pm

    If I remember my A’ Level Chemistry correctly Hydrogen Fluoride when in contact with water, (which is any part of the human body, becomes Hydrofluoric Acid). This is by far the strongest acid of the chemically related mineral acids the others comprising Hydrochloric, Sulphuric and Nitric. Hydrofluoric acid is so strong it attacks glass! Planning permission must be stopped!

  19. Ariane permalink
    March 21, 2020 12:41 pm

    In February, there was a serious fire (took 5 hours to put out) at the Liberton Primary School in Edinburgh. Cause was the solar panels. It’ll take 2 years to repair the damage. Most new housing in Edinburgh has solar panels, and there is a lot of house-building going on.

    • Nigel Sherratt permalink
      March 21, 2020 1:05 pm

      Yes, Ariane, solar panels are known as ‘smoke emitting diodes’ in the consulting engineering trade

      • March 21, 2020 3:59 pm

        I also understand that since they can hide a multitude of roofing sins,lenders are not unlikely to offer mortgages on properties with solar panels obscuring tiles/slates/felt.

  20. dennisambler permalink
    March 21, 2020 2:17 pm

    Wind power backup and storage batteries explode into flames and send a toxic cloud over the city of Brussels Wind Watch Marc Deroover
    12 November 2017
    “A wind power storage battery has exploded into flames at a power station located near the city of Brussels. The fire resulted in a cloud of toxic fumes that flew over the city and forced thousands of people to stay at home.

    The battery was part of the first real live testing of power batteries being used to store wind power in Belgium. After less than one month, the test miserably failed with the battery being destroyed by fire and residents hiding in their houses to escape the polluted cloud.”

  21. sonofametman permalink
    March 22, 2020 8:59 am

    This paper
    suggests that a 700 MWh battery fire could release 14-140kg of HF. That’s nasty.
    I spent 4 years in labs doing geochemical analyses of silicates. We used a mix of Hydrofluoric and Nitric acids to disslove the minerals in custom machined PTFE vessels, as nothing else would survive. All work in fume cupboards, gloves and goggles, and assiduous washing afterwards even if confident of no spilllage.
    Aside from it’s effects on eyes nose etc., Hydrfluoric acid can damage bones, and a key problem is the way it damages nerves so you don’t feel pain.
    I’d rather live next to a nuclear plant. Better safety systems.

    • David O'Neill permalink
      March 22, 2020 11:43 am

      Some time ago, I looked at that web site. I believe this is the bit you referred to: “If extrapolated for large battery packs the amounts would be 2–20 kg for a 100 kWh battery system, e.g. an electric vehicle and 20–200 kg for a 1000 kWh battery system, e.g. a small stationary energy” . As far as I know, 1000 KWh is equal to 1 MWh. I think you need to shift your decimal point. If you introduce the term “Metric Tonnes”, it might get a bit too scary for this site.

      • sonofametman permalink
        March 23, 2020 8:45 am

        Correct, I had a units failure. so that would be 14 – 140 metric tonnes of HF released in the event of a fire. Run away, fast.
        Once upon a time when me and my schoolmates were in the naval cadets, we were taught how to put out fires. The conventional fire safety wisdom in the ‘normal’ world was ring the bell and run away. In the Royal Navy it was more ‘put that fire out, there’s a ship to save’. I used that training as an undergrad, when a colleague managed to start a chemistry lab fire, and I was chuffed to be able to put my naval training to good use and deal with it.
        If it was a Li-ion battery fire, I’d just run away and watch from up-wind.
        Now imagine a green wet-dream ship powered by Li-ion batteries. A battery fire on board would be an emergency you probably couldn’t deal with.

      • David O'Neill permalink
        March 23, 2020 10:52 am

        Funny you should mention ships.

        I wonder how the casualties faired?
        Weren’t the passengers lucky?

    • Stuart Brown permalink
      March 22, 2020 4:03 pm

      “I’d rather live next to a nuclear plant”

      So would I. In fact I grew up only 4 miles from one as my father was involved in the commissioning and running of the Trawsfynydd Magnox ‘atomfa’. He spent most of his career inside Magnox stations, and died of an infection at the age of 88 a couple of years ago.

      Traws cost £103m in the 1960s and took 6 years to build. During its life of only 26 years the two reactors produced over 70TWh of electricity. £103m in 1960 is worth £1,987m today, (which is sobering in itself). It had an electrical output of 470MW and an overall capacity factor of nearly 80% taken over its entire life.

      Cleve Hill is anticipated to cost £450m for 350MW, but solar PV in the UK has a capacity factor of only 10%. If it lasts for 26 years it will produce just under 8TWh. If all the energy goes in and out of the battery, knock 15% or 20% off that.

      So, a quarter of the cost of Traws for 1/10 of the energy. Good deal!


  22. John permalink
    March 22, 2020 2:37 pm

    I dont recall there ever bring an industrial sized battery fire of that type that claimed even 1 life

  23. Ray Sanders permalink
    March 23, 2020 12:45 pm

    I notice today that the Guardian’s queen of energy incompetence – silly Jilly Ambrose – has cleaned up on the word clean in her very clean article about clean energy storage and how such clean energy storage is being cleaned out of Europe.

    it seems to have escaped silly Jilly’s notice that there have been 21 battery fires in South Korea alone as well as the recent (not so) “Surprise” event in the US. Presumably we are all to believe that Hydrogen Flouride gas is remarkably “clean” and healthy for our lungs. And of course she just had to work COVID 19 into the article. Pathetic really, I really do wonder how these incompetent people hold down a job……… even at the Guardian.,

  24. David O'Neill permalink
    March 23, 2020 1:04 pm

    On the issue of BESS systems and their safety, may I recommend the following two sites:

    There is an embedded video in one of them that relates to the gas cloud characteristics after a sudden relaeas of HF. There is also an interesting quote that reads as follows:

    After reviewing the reports and pertinent Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDS) about the 2019 battery fire at the APS McMicken Energy Storage Facility in Surprise and the 2012 battery fire at the APS Elden Substation facility in Flagstaff, what has become apparent is that utility scale lithium ion batteries using the chemistries in those types of lithium ion batteries are not prudent and create unacceptable risks, particularly those with chemistries that include compounds that can release hydrogen fluoride in the event of a fire and/or explosion.

    — Arizona Corporation Commissioner Sandra D. Kennedy, August 2, 2019

  25. Nigel Sherratt permalink
    March 24, 2020 10:50 am

    The Great Explosion of 1916 at the Explosives Loading Company at Uplees near Faversham (the worst disaster in the history of the UK explosives industry) was caused by 15 tons of TNT and 150 tons of Ammonium Nitrate. That broke windows in Southend and killed 109 men and boys (workers and firefighters). It was a Sunday so there were mercifully no female victims. That was equivalent to 78 tons TNT (assuming AN=0.42xTNT). An explosion at Cleve Hill could be 5.3 times larger based on APS’s assessment (assuming it didn’t set off SS Richard Montgomery too). I imagine that would be heard even at BEIS.

  26. saparonia permalink
    March 27, 2020 11:36 am

    It’s pure and simple greed and bloodymindedness. The sun is in decline anyway, fhs open the pits.

    • Ariane permalink
      March 27, 2020 4:44 pm

      Yes!! Open the pits!

  27. Spurwing Plover permalink
    March 27, 2020 3:23 pm

    So will the Eco-Freaks do anything to stop this? Will those idiots from Greenpeace occupy the area with a their camps will they try and block the construction? where are those useful idiots when their needed the same useful idiots who oppose frack/drilling the Keep it in the Ground jerks with that stupid finger pinting at the ground Not Interested no media to show up

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: