One farmer who was approached by a development company about long-term lease agreements for battery storage units has hit back at the proposed plans.

The farmer, from the Scottish Borders, said: “They initially sent a letter out to land-owners within a two or three-kilometre radius of the substation asking if they would be interested in leasing their land out to host a 'renewable project'. They said our land was in an ideal place and initially requested four acres of land to facilitate between 40 and 100MW of battery storage.

"They offered a £10,000 sign-on fee, with an additional £6000 to cover legal costs along with a long-term 40-year lease agreement paying £1500 for every megawatt of energy produced. I was initially drawn in by the vast sum of money offered and so within a short period of time they quickly upped the ask to lease 25 acres of land to install a massive 500MW storage Battery capacity plant."

He continued: "It all seemed too good to be true, as getting paid £1500 per MW x 500 (MW) would equate to a potential income of £750,000. If you then multiply that year on year for 40 years, it would result in getting paid tens of millions simply for leasing out 25 acres. When I asked the obvious question, why wouldn't they just purchase the land for a fraction of that cost, they replied, that it was not how they do things. Instantly, alarm bells started to ring!

“I wanted to know, if the Scottish Government were keen on these facilities, why were they not compulsory purchasing the land, or at the very least, building it into local planning requirements. There are loads of brownfield sites available away from homes which would be better suited. Why do they not just build the battery storage containers under the existing wind farms, as that is where the excess energy is being taken from?"

The farmer pointed out that there is a clear need for energy storage and he believes it could easily be done in such a positive way while not damaging food production, people's lives, property values, and the countryside.

“When I did further research into these battery plants, which basically resemble large shipping containers, it became apparent that there were many drawbacks, such as their concerning reputation for combusting into flames and creating massive uncontrollable fires, despite the fact fire suppressants are built into each container. These batteries get very hot and are very flammable and if they go up, fire response services are not equipped to cope with them", he explained.

"Fire services in England have already noted major concerns. If they try to douse them with water all the land beneath instantly becomes contaminated so often batteries are left to burn out releasing harmful toxic fumes into the air for many days. As my land is close to a number of residential houses and near the local village, I was not comfortable with this thought."

He also took into account the health risks and cancer-related issues of people who lived near electrical pylons and the fact that properties located near these battery storage units on average can see their homes devalued by as much as 34%.

"Green Power consultants said that a 500MW battery storage site was good for the climate/environment and could provide 150,000 homes with electricity (for a few hours). I said destroying prime arable land and covering it with concrete and rubble and then putting 150-200 large shipping containers full of potentially explosive batteries on it along with electrical transformers and a blast wall next to people's homes didn't sound like the best environmental or sensible move to me. They replied that they could landscape and plant trees around the site in a bid to hide it...which I find shocking!"

They have a short lifespan of just 7-8 years and the cost to construct such a site is estimated to exceed £20M and would take 1 -2 years to complete, resulting in dozens of HGV's driving through local villages on a daily basis.

"With technology moving so fast, what happens when these short-term battery solutions are no longer financially viable or if the development company decides to fold, who is left to clear up the site? The landowner or the taxpayer, or is the land just left as a chemical wasteland surrounding villages and homes for generations? If it costs £20 million to build now what will it cost in 10-40 years' time to clear up?

"It appears to me that while the Scottish government is keen to hit its climate targets, it could be guilty of failing to protect Scottish people and landscape. Protection Bonds should be put in place to ensure these sites are not left as derelict potentially contaminated lands for our children to deal with in the future."

He concluded that landowners will no doubt jump at the opportunity to make what, on the surface, appears to be such easy money but says they should do their research and not be drawn in

"If it sounds too good to be true there is a reason and I continue to find many reasons.

"Consider the long-term effects and cost it will have on your neighbours, and the community. Generations of farmers have spent their lives nourishing and protecting the land. Such projects would spell the end of farming on the land.

“I decided to walk away as the impact on the community, my family, home, and environment was too much of an ask. Of course, at my age, if I took the money, it would not be my problem in 40 years' time, but it is not the legacy I want to leave.”

The development company has been approached for comment.