Like It or Not, Solar Farms May Be On Their Way

by Kerry Dougherty 

I know it’s winter and Virginia is not looking her best. But if you have nothing else to do this weekend, may I suggest you take a drive into the rural corners of the commonwealth and soak up the bucolic scenery.

Check out those cotton fields along Route 58 west toward Danville, even though most of the cotton has been harvested. Check out the farmland of the Middle Peninsula and the Northern Neck. Then head out toward Lexington and north to the orchards of the Shenandoah Valley. Don’t forget to take a drive up the Eastern Shore past the thousands of acres that in summer give us potatoes, tomatoes and corn. Lastly, zip out to Pungo where the fields will be full of strawberries in a few months

While you’re driving, take a gander at the beautiful old growth forests that blanket much of the Old Dominion.

In fact, take a good, long look. Drink it in. Vow to never forget the beauty that was once Virginia.

Because next time you pass through these areas you may see nothing but the glare of solar panels. The wildlife that once inhabited the land? The birds that nested in the trees? The produce that flourished in the fields? Gone.

If Democrats in Richmond have their way, that is.

As has become glaringly obvious in recent years, Virginia’s Democrat Party has taken a hard left turn. It’s now infested with climate crazies. They’re not happy that rural counties are desperately trying to preserve their agricultural heritage – and Virginia’s breadbasket – by limiting how much land greedy solar companies can gobble up with their fat tax incentives and government grants.

To speed things along, there are two bad bills making their way through the General Assembly that would allow the companies to bypass recalcitrant local authorities and go straight to the State Corporation Commission for approval to essentially pave over thousands of acres of farmland and forests and cover them with solar panels.

There’s HB636, the brainchild of Del. Richard “Rip” Sullivan of Fairfax and in the Senate, Creigh Deeds is carrying SB567. Both bills allow solar companies to head to the SCC if they don’t win approval quickly from local government or if they are denied outright.

The Smithfield Times has an excellent piece on these bills, and a quote from a member of Surry’s Board of Supervisors that neatly encapsulates everything that’s wrong with this approach.

Amy Drewry, who in November was elected to represent Surry’s Dendron District on the Board of Supervisors, said she too opposes Sullivan’s bill.  “Taking the decision-making abilities away from local government completely disregards each rural community’s special history, nature and geology,” said Drewry, who likened the bill to a form of eminent domain. She’s calling upon legislators and solar developers to instead make their projects more palatable to rural localities by offering above-market cash incentives to affected residents or place solar panels in dilapidated urban areas rather than on farmland.  “It is a draconian solution to a problem that could be creatively dealt with in other ways,” she said.

These ham-handed bills are part of a breathless push by Dems to comply with the overly ambitious 2020 Virginia Clean Economy Act they passed during the radical period known as the Northam administration. That law requires that roughly 2/3 of Virginia’s electricity come from wind or solar farms by 2035.

These measures are meeting stiff opposition not just by boards of supervisors, but by the Virginia Association of Counties, which wants to stop this authoritarian move by Richmond to “usurp local authority to determine how such facilities fit within local landscapes.”

Rather than sacrifice Virginia’s farmland and forests to comply with this delusional energy bill, the General Assembly ought to repeal the 2020 law, defeat both of the new bills and return the power to decide the future of land use to the people of Virginia who actually live and pay taxes in those localities.

Republished with permission from Kerry: Unemployed and Unedited.


Share this article



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)


Comments

37 responses to “Like It or Not, Solar Farms May Be On Their Way”

  1. DJRippert Avatar

    Kerry’s points were so good she made them twice. The article needs some editing.

  2. Eric the half a troll Avatar
    Eric the half a troll

    “While you’re driving, take a gander at the beautiful old growth forests that blanket much of the Old Dominion”

    There are very few old growth forests in Virginia and what is here is largely already protected from any development.

    1. No land is ‘protected’ as local & state govt can change such ‘guarantees’ at any time….

      who needs this anymore anyway, when we have to charge our EVs
      https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/e16a16dbb541d5e7dbeb4459e03a98166af5794b1b2249c6063996c20577874b.jpg

      What’s the solar farm acreage needed to create the same amount of electrical power that a nuclear plant creates?

      1. Nancy Naive Avatar
        Nancy Naive

        Do Cedar Waxwings glow in the dark?

        (Saw damned near 50 of them in a small tree in the woods of the Yorktown Battlefield one day. Oh, that’s protected land. And didn’t Disney want to build someplace around Manassas?)

      2. DJRippert Avatar

        Amount of land required?

        Here is a discussion from 2015 regarding the amount of land required for the United States. I don’t have time to revise the calculation for Virginia but it could be done.

        https://blogs.ucl.ac.uk/energy/2015/05/21/fact-checking-elon-musks-blue-square-how-much-solar-to-power-the-us/

      3. Eric the half a troll Avatar
        Eric the half a troll

        Much of old growth forest is federally protected. State and local have no say. Of course, traditionally Conservatives support lumbering our national forests so this outrage seems out of character.

        1. This conservative does not support commercial timbering of old-growth forests. This conservatives favors management of these forests.

          However, management involves a certain amount of cutting and removing of older, dying or dead trees to reduce risk of fires, allow younger trees to flourish, and to promote biological diversity. When these operations must be performed, I see no reason why any usable timber from those cuttings should go to waste.

        2. This conservative does not support commercial timbering of old-growth forests. This conservative favors management of these forests.

          However, management involves a certain amount of cutting and removing of older, dying or dead trees to reduce risk of fires, allow younger trees to flourish, and to promote biological diversity. When these operations must be performed, I see no reason why any usable timber from those cuttings should go to waste.

          1. Eric the half a troll Avatar
            Eric the half a troll

            The argument goes back to public rights to federal lands and is more prevalent in the Pacific northwest. For instance:

            https://oregonwild.org/about/press/over-100-kayaktivists-and-community-members-protest-old-growth-logging

            But you are correct both in the need to manage forests correctly and pointing out my over-generalization.

    2. You are correct. And none of them are particularly close to the area of Virginia inhabited by Ms. Dougherty.

  3. DJRippert Avatar

    NIMBY’s here, NIMBY’s there, NIMBY’s, NIMBYs everywhere.

    On a similar note, Fairfax County approves an absolutely gigantic development project where there is no way the roads can handle the traffic but the residents wring their hands over this new mini-city having a casino.

    The development project – Approved by the county in 2019, The View at Tysons would transform the Route 7 and Tyco Road intersection with over 3 million square feet of mixed-use development, including the D.C. area’s tallest office tower and a performing arts center.

    The casino – https://www.ffxnow.com/2024/01/18/new-fairfax-county-casino-push-targets-abandoned-tysons-auto-dealership/

    Will the solar panels increase the tax base of the localities that house them?

    If so, this is good legislation.

    Virginia’s rural communities want free broadband, money for their schools, etc. If those solar panels mean that the rural communities need a little bit less of other people’s money – build the solar farms.

    1. Stephen Haner Avatar
      Stephen Haner

      No, if zoning is by right, the localities won’t be able to extort the massive proffers they have used to fatten their treasuries (by shifting the cost to all electricity consumers.) Big bribes are common and would go away. Despite that, these are still very bad bills.

      1. DJRippert Avatar

        Zoning (by definition) is never by right, is it? If the land you buy is zoned R-20 each home must have 20,000 sq ft of lot. That’s your right. If you want R-10, you have to get the land rezoned.

        If you can build anything you want on the land, it’s not really zoned at all.

        Anyway – why are these bad bills?

        Why should the government tell a farmer that he or she can use their land to grow turnips but not for solar panels?

        1. Eric the half a troll Avatar
          Eric the half a troll

          I believe that it would be better to require the local governments to make this use by-right but also require the development of local performance standards to protect agricultural land, natural resources, etc. Developers have those standards for other by-right uses. The solar developers just want similar certainty.

  4. energyNOW_Fan Avatar
    energyNOW_Fan

    Dang, I was hoodwinked. Jim Webb, when he was Senator, promised me it was all going to be switchgrass for cellulosic ethanol. I had been a critic (I was overruled) of the Energy Policy Act of 2005.

    For the record, cellulosic ethanol never happened, as I knew as a chem engr with R&D experience. Corn ethanol became the fall-back.

    1. DJRippert Avatar

      Yeah, those gigantic switchgrass plantations are everywhere now.

      1. energyNOW_Fan Avatar
        energyNOW_Fan

        Actually now everyone is growing seed oils for California biodiesel mandates, so that is something that could be done. I am out-of date though, perhaps that train left the station (perhaps demand is now met, not sure).

      2. Nancy Naive Avatar
        Nancy Naive

        Brazil? I seem to recall we pay them some kind of a World Trade Federation fine for something.

      3. Nancy Naive Avatar
        Nancy Naive

        Brazil? And don’t we pay them a World Trade Federation (don’t abbreviate) fine every year for something?

        1. energyNOW_Fan Avatar
          energyNOW_Fan

          Brazil is suagr cane?

          1. Nancy Naive Avatar
            Nancy Naive

            I thought they did some sort of grass based alcohol.

            As for other Brazilian crops, cane, rice, cotton, just about everything except rainforests.

          2. I thought they did some sort of grass based alcohol.

            A tragic waste of perfectly good grass, man…

          3. Nancy Naive Avatar
            Nancy Naive

            But ironic, no?

    2. Nancy Naive Avatar
      Nancy Naive

      Besides, what says “Affluent Society” more than burning food?

  5. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
    Dick Hall-Sizemore

    How the worm turns! Years ago, conservatives did not have any problem when developers went to the General Assembly and the courts to get limitations put on the ability of local governing bodies to use their zoning power to help preserve farmland. Now they are upset that Democrats want to go to the state level (SCC) to overrule local governments that restrict the number of acres put into solar farms. In one case they were OK with local government power being limited by the state. In the recent case, they don’t want the state to limit local governments.

    As for all those acres being “gobbled” up for solar farms, no one forced the landowners to sell or rent their acres to the solar panel companies. (It is not eminent domain.) From what I have seen, those solar panels have been placed on land that was largely idle. What happened to the conservatives’ belief in the rights of property owners?

    1. This conservative has always believed in property rights and still does. Regarding solar farms specifically, I am neutral – I don’t care whether they get built or not. With that said, I’d much rather have one of them next door to me than a gravel quarry or a wind farm. My only caveat is that each and every solar farm be held to the same environmental protection and storm water management standards as any other industrial operation.

      Of course, if I owned enough property that I had solar project developers courting me, I would insist on a long-term lease rather than agreeing to a fee-simple sale. I’d include a “clean-up” provision in the lease to cover proper disposal of equipment in the event the company decides to close down their operation.

      That way, when the original solar panels reach the end of their life cycle and “Solar-R-Us, Inc.” decides to shut the site down rather than replace the panels, I or my heirs will get the land back.

    1. …and the shade provided by the solar panels reduced irrigation-water use by 15%, and reduced water consumption by a whopping 157 percent.

      This is the only flaw I saw in the article. It is not possible to reduce one’s water consumption by 157%. The maximum possible reduction in consumption of anything is 100%.

    2. …and the shade provided by the solar panels reduced irrigation-water use by 15%, and reduced water consumption by a whopping 157 percent.

      This is the only flaw I saw in the article. It is not possible to reduce one’s water consumption by 157%. The maximum possible reduction in consumption of anything is 100%.

      1. Nancy Naive Avatar
        Nancy Naive

        The second reference probably should have been 15.7

        The spousal unit discovered this year that her citrus trees need shade! Which maybe explains why they do better indoors in the winter than on the deck in the summers. She’s been frying the poor little guys.

        1. You may be correct, but what is “whopping” about 15.7% compared to 15%?

          If 15.7% is “whopping”, shouldn’t 15% at least be “impressive” if not “amazing”?

          😎

      2. how_it_works Avatar
        how_it_works

        Maybe the panels are making water?

    3. By the way, I want to be clear that I enjoyed the article, and I agree that “Agrivoltaic” projects can be a win-win-win for farmers, solar energy developers, and neighboring property owners.

  6. Turbocohen Avatar
    Turbocohen

    Force Democrats to ONLY use solar and wind, no nuke or gas. Force Republicans to ONLY use Nuke and gas. Problem solved, for Republicans..

  7. James Kiser Avatar
    James Kiser

    Wait till you get the reflection off those panels or have to listen to a windmill 24 hours a day. Fishersville and Augusta Co turned a rezoning and the solar company has already indicated they are going to court to force the county to give them what they want. (Interesting that solar panels are less than 20% efficiency.) Well at least goat farmers will be happy.

    1. Wait till you get the reflection off those panels…

      It can be quite intense. Many solar arrays are constructed with buffer areas around them which contain trees or other visual barriers that drastically cut down on reflective glare. Of course, if the solar farm is in a valley and you’re on top of the adjacent mountain, there still may be some annoying glare from down below.

      I think solar project developers should be required to include reasonable measures to reduce/eliminate this problem in their projects.

      Windmills? They are audibly intrusive in ways which are very hard to counteract.

    2. Wait till you get the reflection off those panels…

      It can be quite intense. Many solar arrays are constructed with buffer areas around them which contain trees or other visual barriers that drastically cut down on reflective glare. Of course, if the solar farm is in a valley and you’re on top of the adjacent mountain, there still may be some annoying glare from down below.

      I think solar project developers should be required to include reasonable measures to reduce/eliminate this problem in their projects.

      Windmills? They are audibly intrusive in ways which are very hard to counteract.

Leave a Reply