Solar Development Continues to Erode VA Farmland

by Barbara HollingsworthFirst published by the Thomas Jefferson Institute for Public Policy.

Virginia lost about 2,000 acres of productive farmland per week in 2021, according to data released in February by the U.S. Department of Agriculture. There are many reasons why farmers sell off their land, including development pressures, lack of interest by younger members of farming families, and the difficulties of turning a profit in the face of ever-changing market and weather conditions.

But there is now a new threat to Virginia’s agricultural base, which has a $70 billion economic impact on the commonwealth annually, according to the Virginia Farm Bureau.

In 2015, there were no utility-sized solar “farms” in Virginia. Now there are 44, with more on the drawing boards.

That’s because in­­ 2020, the Virginia General Assembly passed, and then-Gov. Ralph Northam signed, the Virginia Clean Economy Act, which requires the two largest electric utilities in the state, Dominion Energy and Appalachian Power, to become “carbon free” by 2045 and 2050 respectively. The law sparked a flurry of multi-million-dollar investments in solar installations throughout the commonwealth.

But has this rapid rush to install solar panels on thousands of acres of Virginia countryside been wise, given the fact that Virginia’s population is growing and solar facilities require a huge amount of rural land that could be used for agriculture? Due to a variety of factors including drought, military incursions overseas, and supply chain failures, even President Joe Biden has said that the United States is now facing a potential food shortage.

Only three states had more solar energy installations than Virginia in 2021, according to Bill Shobe, energy economist at the University of Virginia. But it’s still a fraction of the total electricity used by Virginians.

According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, as of January 2022, natural gas accounted for nearly half (48%) of all utility-scale electricity generation in Virginia, followed by nuclear (33%), coal (10%) and renewables (8%) – of which solar accounted for only 4%. So, the real-life effects of a massive switch to solar energy have yet to be felt by most Virginians living in urban and suburban areas.

But rural Virginians are already seeing the effects of allowing industrial-size solar “farms” to replace real farms.

Not surprisingly, the vast majority of these new solar installations are being built in rural communities, particularly in Southside and Central Virginia where land is more plentiful than money and local public officials often struggle to pay the bills.

According to the Virginia Solar Initiative, a statewide survey released in April by the University of Virginia’s Weldon Cooper Center and the Virginia Department of Energy, 51 local governmental authorities have been approached for permission to erect large-scale solar installations in their jurisdictions, and 44 have already approved such applications.

The latest was the Charlotte County Board of Supervisors’ approval in July of a conditional use permit to allow a gigantic 877-megawatt solar installation to be erected on 21,000 acres, which will be one of the largest such facilities east of the Mississippi River. Dominion Energy, which plans on purchasing the solar farm from Reston-based Randolph Solar after it is built, sweetened the deal by promising the county that it would accelerate its $1 million payment for a previously-approved solar project.

A 1,330-acre solar “farm” got the green light in King William County, as did a smaller 268-acre solar facility approved by the Henry County Board of Zoning Appeals.

Rural officials are being courted by solar developers, many from out of state, who offer financial incentives if they vote for special use permits to allow these industrial facilities to be built on land zoned for agriculture. In fact, one of the Virginia Solar Initiative survey participants wrote that local leaders “are keenly aware that solar energy production is highly land-consumptive and that solar energy providers want the lower cost farmland with no development improvements” – in other words, land that is already producing food or could quickly be converted to crop production.

“Once the facility is built, it’s paying into the tax base without making any substantial demands on local services,” Shobe told Virginia Public Radio. “For localities rich in land resources, this can be a very substantial contribution.”

But when local officials focus on the short-term financial benefits without thinking about the future ramifications of allowing these industrial power plants on land that is supposed to be reserved for agriculture, they may be trading one form of environmental degradation for another.

For example, Dr. Rattan Lal, Distinguished Professor of Soil Science at Ohio State University, points out that soil sequesters more than three times the amount of carbon locked in all the plants and animals on Earth. Yet construction and maintenance of industrial-size solar facilities prevents the natural process of soil replenishment from occurring.

And as the Essex County Conservation Alliance points out, “farmland lost is farmland lost forever.”

So, ironically, the legislature’s requirement that the largest utilities in Virginia become “carbon free” in less than 25 years means that there will be a lot more carbon-sequestering farmland lost in the commonwealth.

How much? Solar farms require as much as six to eight acres to produce just one megawatt of electricity. Up to 104,000 acres of forest/farmland would have to be sheathed in solar panels made of glass and highly toxic metals like lead and cadmium telluride to produce about 13,000 megawatts of electricity. And that’s only when the sun shines.

Soil degradation is not the only problem. Denuded landscape is more prone to erosion, meaning that nutrients are more likely to be washed into the watershed and wind up in the Chesapeake Bay, which the commonwealth is already spending millions of dollars to prevent. In March, the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality announced that starting in 2025, solar panels would be considered “unconnected impervious areas when performing post-development water quality calculations” of storm water runoff, which will likely increase the cost of these installations.

Earlier this year, Gov. Glenn Youngkin signed  House Bill 206, which says that if the DEQ finds a potential “significant adverse impact on wildlife, historic resources, prime agricultural soils, or forest lands,” the solar facility in question would be required to submit a mitigation plan for public comment. The bill states that disturbing more than 10 acres of prime agricultural land, 50 acres of contiguous forest, and registered forest land automatically requires a mitigation plan.

These mitigation efforts will raise the price of solar-generated power for Virginia consumers even though the cost of the solar panels themselves, most of which are now made in China, has come down in recent years.

Michael Shellenberger, author of “Apocalypse Never,” told the Thomas Jefferson Institute’s Virginia Energy Consumer Conference last October that solar panels are cheaper now due to multi-billion-dollar subsidies by the Chinese government, which uses dirty coal and forced labor to produce them. He also noted that “there is no plan” to deal with the huge amount of hazardous waste from obsolete solar panels once they have reached the end of their 15-to-25-year life span.

That means that some solar farms erected in Virginia in 2021 will start becoming hazardous waste sites in 2036, even before the Virginia Clean Economy Act’s “carbon free” mandates kick in.

“Once you deal with the cost of the waste, electricity from solar ends up being four times higher than they had anticipated,” Shellenberger, TIME Magazine’s 2008 “Hero of the Environment”, pointed out. “I changed my mind about renewables when I understood that they require significantly more land,” he added. “Princeton University just confirmed about 300 times more land on average to generate the same amount of electricity from a wind farm or a solar farm as from a natural gas or nuclear plant.”

Thanks to the General Assembly, Virginia is on track to lose a massive amount of food-growing and carbon-sequestering farmland for an inefficient and intermittent technology that could quadruple electricity prices and create thousands of acres of toxic waste.

Local officials who are thinking about approving special use permits to allow more industrial-sized solar facilities to be built on agricultural land in their jurisdictions owe it to their constituents to tally up all of the potential future costs – especially the loss of irreplaceable farmland – as well as the benefits before signing off on this supposedly “free” form of energy production.

Barbara Hollingsworth is a Visiting Fellow with the Thomas Jefferson Institute and a former editorial page editor with the Fredericksburg Free Lance-Star. 


Share this article



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)


Comments

44 responses to “Solar Development Continues to Erode VA Farmland”

  1. John Harvie Avatar
    John Harvie

    Gotta put them batteries somewhere too.

    1. Nancy Naive Avatar
      Nancy Naive

      Give ’em to babies to play with.

  2. I agree that the waste-disposal costs should be factored into the economics of solar power. We don’t want to end up with another coal-ash disposal crisis on our hands 20 years from now.

    But I’m not sure I buy the argument that the loss of farmland is something greatly to be lamented. We’re losing farmland even without solar farms. Crop farming in Virginia just isn’t a terribly profitable activity. Midwestern farms enjoy immense competitive advantages. At least solar creates a revenue stream that landowners otherwise would not enjoy, and localities get an income stream they would not otherwise have. If farming were more profitable than leasing out land to solar developers, farmers would farm. If they’re leasing out the land, it’s because that’s the best return on investment of their land, labor and capital.

    1. Nancy Naive Avatar
      Nancy Naive

      There are analyses that factor as many such costs as possible, and they are working on recycling.

      But really, at this time in the life cycle of solar, there’s not that much available to recycle. The lifespan of panels is 20 years. Some of the earliest fields are just now coming into replacement. Moreover, that 20 year lifespan is when the panel goes below 90% of rated output, not when it goes dead, so personal use, like my boat’s panels, may not be decommissioned for 30 years or more.

      1. James C. Sherlock Avatar
        James C. Sherlock

        I am not familiar with the recycling technology to which you refer. The detritus is going to be monumental.

        1. Nancy Naive Avatar
          Nancy Naive

          I wasn’t aware I referred to any specific recycling technology just then, but they are currently recycling what they can, and saving what they cannot at this time. But there are two competing methods for recovering the metals from the substrates, which I posted the last time there was this hair-on-fire panels are waste discussion. Nevertheless, an article on a plant
          https://cronkitenews.azpbs.org/2022/03/22/recycling-solar-panels-complicated-yuma-company-we-recycle-solar/

          And a bit more mentioning a couple of leaching methods…
          https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acscentsci.2c00214

          It’s a thing we people do. We create the waste, AND THEN develop a plan to recycle, AND THEN hope like Hell it works…
          https://carrierdisposaleis.com/Portals/carrierdisposaleis/files/Green_Book_U.S._NAVAL_NUCLEAR_POWERED_SHIP_INACTIVATION_DISPOSAL_AND_RECYCLING_2019.pdf

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

          Compared to coal, oil and natural gas end of lifecycle “detritus” it will be a walk in the park.

          1. James C. Sherlock Avatar
            James C. Sherlock

            Got it. Walk in the park.

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

            Comparatively, it is. No question. Coal, oil and gas production, processing, storage, distribution, and use end of lifecycle wastes are literally everywhere. (Aside: Did you know that the Watergate Hotel and Kennedy Center are literally built directly on an old waste dump from a historic coal gasification plant? And yes, the waste is still there and has high RCRA hazardous waste lead concentrations along with other metals throughout. This is far from uncommon.) This waste is not degrading appreciably. It not only include the metals associated with PV cells and at much higher concentrations but also many much more toxic substances…. PCBs, dioxins, PAHs, NORM… now add to that new emerging contaminants like PFAS. They have wrecked whole ecosystems (often with something normally relatively harmless like salt or acids) and drinking water aquifers through their abandoned mines, production fields, pipelines, landfills and wells… many will simply never recover. I will take the PV recycling challenge any day of the week… any day… as I said, a walk in the park…

        3. LarrytheG Avatar
          LarrytheG

          how about THIS “recycling” technology…..

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/27ae45893a311f6fd7e66160f6808470bebbbd65721d407c69c1e525fb82c523.jpg

          You guys have an amazing ability to ignore open pit mining, coal ash, nuclear storage, etc, etc

          then to focus on one other method of generating electricity.

          Do you have any balance and objectivity at all in your views?

    2. LarrytheG Avatar
      LarrytheG

      I can’t believe my EARS!

  3. I love the new found concern for whales in offshore wind farms and farm land sold rightfully by its owner for solar farms.

    “Virginia lost about 2,000 acres of productive farmland per week in 2021”

    How much of that was lost to solar farms versus housing developments or other uses? (Plus that sourced reference says nothing about lost farmland.)

    “Denuded landscape is more prone to erosion, meaning that nutrients are more likely to be washed into the watershed and wind up in Chesapeake Bay, which the commonwealth is already spending millions of dollars to prevent.”

    Isn’t farmland already denuded?

    1. Stephen Haner Avatar
      Stephen Haner

      No, it has something growing on it…thus not denuded. Hey, landowners have choices and using the land to grow electrons is a valid choice, if they have a buyer (usually they don’t do it themselves) and comply with the land use regs. It is an economic market decision. We grow huge amount of food on shrinking amounts of land. Now, fertilizers are one reason for that and the same clueless crowd is also coming hard to shut down fertilizers and pesticides (see The Netherlands and Sri Lanka). I personally am more worried about the forest land cleared for panels, given trees actually do sequester carbon. 🙂

    2. Stephen Haner Avatar
      Stephen Haner

      No, it has something growing on it…thus not denuded. Hey, landowners have choices and using the land to grow electrons is a valid choice, if they have a buyer (usually they don’t do it themselves) and comply with the land use regs. It is an economic market decision. We grow huge amount of food on shrinking amounts of land. Now, fertilizers are one reason for that and the same clueless crowd is also coming hard to shut down fertilizers and pesticides (see The Netherlands and Sri Lanka). I personally am more worried about the forest land cleared for panels, given trees actually do sequester carbon. 🙂

      1. That was my point: farmland is effectively denuded land (plus with loose soil) relative to a forest.

        1. LarrytheG Avatar
          LarrytheG

          Anyone who honestly wants to understand the issue – take a trip on any rural highway and not how much land is really not being farmed.

          We built solar on 5000 acres in Spotsylvania. It’s not even a dent in the remaining land that is vacant and not being farmed.

          It’s a bogus issue.

        2. James C. Sherlock Avatar
          James C. Sherlock

          Only when it sits fallow.

          1. Nancy Naive Avatar
            Nancy Naive

            Take a walk in a cornfield.

          2. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            I’d point out that this is quite a bit of vacant/fallow land right now and even if solar is built on farmed lawn, there is a ton of un-farmed land available to replace it. Totally bogus issue.

      2. Nancy Naive Avatar
        Nancy Naive

        The Netherlands is unique with fertilizer and pesticides. We can dump them in the Bay. They are the dumping ground.

        Sri Lanka? Well, tea is a very sensitive plant and a huge product there. Personally, I like Lipton’s. Ortho’s tea tastes bad, really, really bad.

      3. LarrytheG Avatar
        LarrytheG

        Folks who own land with trees, are allowed to harvest them. That’s where the 5000 acres of solar were built in Spotsylvania.

      4. Matt Adams Avatar
        Matt Adams

        “I personally am more worried about the forest land cleared for panels, given trees actually do sequester carbon. :)”

        How dare you be concerned with breathing sir, how dare you. s/

        Plus if we get rid of all the farmland, where is the ethanol and moonshine going to come from!

        1. Bubba1855 Avatar
          Bubba1855

          worried about moonshine??? come to South Carolina…ha, ha…one good thing about getting rid of the farmland, there will no place for the feral pigs to go except your backyard garden…

  4. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
    Dick Hall-Sizemore

    This is so ironical–a conservative organization decrying landowners being able to lease out their land to whom they want.

    This article raises many unanswered questions and makes unsubstantiated assertions. First, how much of the farmland that has been leased to solar companies actually was being used to produce food? In Southside, a lot of that vacant land was previously used to raise tobacco, which is no longer the cash crop it once was.

    Second, how does “maintenance of industrial-size solar facilities prevent the natural process of soil replenishment from occurring”? Third, solar farms do not necessarily have to be “denuded”. (It does not look denuded in the picture accompanying the article.) As for all the hazardous waste that will be generated in the future, the author seems to have forgotten about those gigantic coal ash deposits that Dominion created and we ratepayers have to pay for.

    This article is below the quality one has come to expect from TJIPP.

  5. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
    Dick Hall-Sizemore

    This is so ironical–a conservative organization decrying landowners being able to lease out their land to whom they want.

    This article raises many unanswered questions and makes unsubstantiated assertions. First, how much of the farmland that has been leased to solar companies actually was being used to produce food? In Southside, a lot of that vacant land was previously used to raise tobacco, which is no longer the cash crop it once was.

    Second, how does “maintenance of industrial-size solar facilities prevent the natural process of soil replenishment from occurring”? Third, solar farms do not necessarily have to be “denuded”. (It does not look denuded in the picture accompanying the article.) As for all the hazardous waste that will be generated in the future, the author seems to have forgotten about those gigantic coal ash deposits that Dominion created and we ratepayers have to pay for.

    This article is below the quality one has come to expect from TJIPP.

    1. Nancy Naive Avatar
      Nancy Naive

      The “Libertarian” part of Conservatism is a convenience.

    2. Matt Adams Avatar
      Matt Adams

      “This article is below the quality one has come to expect from TJIPP.”

      Humm I seem to recall you lecturing on attacking others, maybe you should take your own advice, Dick.

    3. James McCarthy Avatar
      James McCarthy

      Reads like a term paper.

  6. LarrytheG Avatar
    LarrytheG

    Conservatives used to be known for advocating for property right and the ability of the property owner to use their land.

    To point out some other “industrial” land uses in Virginia

    concentrated animal feeding operations – that generate large amounts of poop that, if not done, right, get into waterways
    https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/01d61fb42245c63538e0dfdffcadb48ded408c04285c1bd327fe0adcea8d097e.jpg

    Biosolid applications – the spreading of human poop on farm fields – again, if not done right……..

    https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/fe613f13618c889c4ffa925d1bf5c319b4a8ef367f8f56f82a428e81775ac02c.jpg

    Finally, landfills in Virginia – toxic waste if not done right.

    https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/8990d668565ee8b6c6d47a1dc1a7794b0f458956a5fe958b7cbef9e4421bec66.jpg

    solar is pretty benign in comparison.

    I would expect TJ to be somewhat balanced and objective otherwise they became a conservative version of WaPo.

  7. James C. Sherlock Avatar
    James C. Sherlock

    Grid quality?

  8. James C. Sherlock Avatar
    James C. Sherlock

    21000 acres is 33 square miles. Perhaps a nature trail can be located there. Should be pretty.

    And hot even in the winter. https://www.theblaze.com/news/solar-farms-global-warming-consequences-study

    Tourists will come from all over.

    Seriously, what are we doing?

    1. Nancy Naive Avatar
      Nancy Naive

      Specular.

  9. LarrytheG Avatar
    LarrytheG

    Conservatives used to be known for advocating for property rights and the ability of the property owner to use their land to earn a living, pay bills, ,care for their families and be able to pay taxes rather than needing entitlements.

    Good solid Conservative principles.

    To point out some other “industrial” land uses in Virginia

    concentrated animal feeding operations – that generate large amounts of poop that, if not done, right, get into waterways
    https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/01d61fb42245c63538e0dfdffcadb48ded408c04285c1bd327fe0adcea8d097e.jpg

    Biosolid applications – the spreading of human poop on farm fields – again, if not done right……..

    https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/fe613f13618c889c4ffa925d1bf5c319b4a8ef367f8f56f82a428e81775ac02c.jpg

    Finally, landfills in Virginia – toxic waste if not done right.

    https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/8990d668565ee8b6c6d47a1dc1a7794b0f458956a5fe958b7cbef9e4421bec66.jpg

    solar is pretty benign in comparison and if we can do these other land uses responsibly then why demonize solar which can be also?

    I would expect TJ to be somewhat balanced and objective otherwise they’ll become the equivalent a conservative version of WaPo.

    1. Nancy Naive Avatar
      Nancy Naive

      “We are social creatures to the inmost centre of our being. The notion that one can begin anything at all from scratch, free from the past, or unindebted to others, could not conceivably be more wrong.”–Karl Popper, philosopher and professor (28 Jul 1902-1994)

      Or, “You didn’t build that,” for short.

  10. Eric the half a troll Avatar
    Eric the half a troll

    JAB, the ads are making it very difficult to interact with your site, FYI.

    1. Nancy Naive Avatar
      Nancy Naive

      Go through Disqus. Click the BR in the “following” list. You still have to read the story on the BR site, but if you wish to comment or read comments use Disqus link.

      1. LarrytheG Avatar
        LarrytheG

        You can use the Brave browser also.

    2. I scaled back the ads significantly with the goal of improving the reader experience. Tell me what you’re seeing.

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

        Pop-ups (some across the whole screen) like ever 30 seconds or so are the worst. They seem to come and go though. Were really bad this morning.

  11. Nancy Naive Avatar
    Nancy Naive

    Placing abundant vegetation under panels leads to an increase in ground shade and humidity, which, in turn, leads to cooler photovoltaic cells and higher energy yields. One recent study found that panels with vegetation beneath them generated 10 percent more energy than those that had been placed over gravel. Feb 23, 2022

    https://www.nrdc.org/stories/made-shade-promise-farming-solar-panels

    https://assets.nrdc.org/sites/default/files/styles/full_content–retina/public/media-uploads/ap_21293272011112_2400.jpg?itok=ZHxOBhxV

    Agrivoltaics, also referred to as “dual-use solar,” is already well known in a number of European and Asian countries, most notably Japan, where nearly 2,000 agrivoltaic installations currently generate more than 200 megawatts of electricity—enough to power more than 32,000 homes—and provide cover for more than 120 kinds of crops. In this densely populated country where agricultural land is relatively scarce, dual-use solar is expanding rapidly as farmers, clean energy advocates, and officials learn more about its benefits.

Leave a Reply