A green advocacy group, ZERO – Associação Sistema Terrestre Sustentável, has voiced strong opposition to the proposed Beira Photovoltaic Plant. Their critical review came as the public comment period for the project closed on October 9.
Even though ZERO champions the push for green power and knows we need renewable energy fast, they draw a line. They believe new energy projects must avoid sensitive natural spaces. This means using degraded sites, industrial areas, or even rooftops first. Their vision is for smaller, local power sources that respect the environment.
The group also points out flaws in how projects get approved today. They call the current licensing system “case-by-case,” meaning it lacks a bigger, smart plan. ZERO warns that switching to green energy shouldn’t mean wiping out precious nature. It shouldn’t take over good farmland or spoil the look of the countryside.
Why ZERO Says No to This Solar Project
The group has several specific worries about the Beira plant:
- The proposed project is huge. It plans for a 266-megawatt solar plant. This would cover 525 hectares of land. An extra 150 hectares would be affected by the power line corridor.
- The site chosen has important ecological value. It was even suggested to become part of the Natura 2000 network. This includes the Tejo Internacional, Erges e Ponsul Special Protection Zone (SPZ).
- Approving this plant could set a dangerous example. It might threaten not only this specific protection zone. It could also derail national efforts to protect nature.
- ZERO claims the way the site was picked was flawed. They say planners simply looked for cheap land near existing power lines. They ignored the rich ecosystem and the natural beauty of the area.
- Many long-term problems from the project were downplayed. They were called “minor” impacts. Yet, these issues affect vital natural spaces. They also put threatened species at risk, like the little bustard and the Iberian imperial eagle.
- Building new infrastructure, like the massive high-voltage power lines, poses a big threat. Birds face losing their homes and colliding with the wires.
- The environmental study itself admits these combined impacts are bad. It says they are permanent and will cause major damage. Yet, somehow, the report still labels them as “insignificant.” ZERO finds this confusing.
- ZERO argues the plan breaks the “Precautionary Principle.” This is because the harm would be lasting. It would destroy critical natural homes. It also puts species already struggling at high risk.
For all these reasons, ZERO stands firm against the Beira plant. They are pushing for the APA to issue an unfavorable environmental impact statement, effectively blocking the project.