As the Sermon on the Mount goes, the sun rises on the good and the bad. That was certainly the case May 4th as many local residents got a chance to shed light on the pros and cons of solar power.
Clean Grid Alliance, a non-profit organization advocating for the adoption of renewable energy such as solar and wind in the American Midwest, held a public presentation that Thursday evening on the benefits of solar energy. The event was billed as such, but also served as a somewhat rare public forum on the merits of solar power at a time when such projects are rapidly gaining speed in southern Indiana.
Those with concerns about the impending construction of a solar project near Grandview, and the potential for a new one in the Richland area, had few other places to directly remonstrate. However, none of the representatives present were involved in local projects, leaving speakers unable to address many specific complaints and rather focus on more general points of contention percolating in the public consciousness.
While the event did allow detractors to air some central points in a way they may not have been able to in a public setting thus far, things did get more than a little heated at times. The bulk of the event was, after all, reserved for presentations on the benefits of solar power. A question and answer session raised a number of concerns that could not be answered without direct involvement in negotiation and installation, making such frustrations understandable on either side.
That said, CGA representatives did offer a thorough overview of the state of the solar industry and its purported benefits. Featured speaker Peter Sinclair noted the significant rate of adoption of solar power around the world in recent years, as global investment and competition for new energy resources continues to grow.
He cited data from the Energy Information Administration showing that the cost of photovoltaic solar panels has plummeted by about 90% from the 10-year period between 2009 and 2019. Sinclair clarified that these costs factored out various subsidies received by solar and competing energy sources, often making it the cheapest option available.
Sinclair also pointed out that solar was already competitive with natural gas in terms of cost for new generation even before the Russian invasion of Ukraine caused prices to temporarily spike. He argued that, as natural gas and other fossil fuels are traded globally, the United States’ abundant reserves will still be vulnerable to high demand in places like Europe. This would, in turn, drive up domestic costs barring significant federal intervention into the energy markets in the form of export restrictions.
Sinclair also argued that nuclear power, an energy resource that has seen significant interest as an alternative to fossil fuels, comes with its own challenges.
He pointed out that the Vogtle Reactor in Georgia, the newest in the nation, was 17 years in the making and much costlier than solar. Sinclair also noted small modular reactors, of the kind championed by Bill Gates, are also behind schedule in terms of development, and would also rely on foreign fuel sources.
Sinclair also showed a number of video testimonies from various professionals on various points of contention. One such interview featured Patricia McGarr, a real estate appraiser. She reported that of 26 studies across 15 states, she found no negative impact from solar projects on neighboring property values.
Other points featured knock-on economic benefits of the growing global adoption of solar power. These include recent on-shoring of solar panel manufacturing, giving the United States a stronger stake in the global market. Sinclair also touted the growing recycling industry likely to emerge once recently installed panels reach the end of their operational lives over the next two to three decades.
Questions and Answers
Audience questions were driven, at least initially, by those submitted in writing before the event began. However, this gradually gave way as multiple audience members began to chime in with their own input. One major point of contention was the sheer scale of land utilized for commercial-scale solar farms, and how that impacts small communities and neighboring properties.
The Grandview Solar project, for example, prevents the Town of Grandview from expanding outwards in the direction of the proposed array for at least a few decades, barring early retirement of the project. Others pointed out that their property could be essentially encircled by the proposed solar farm as neighboring properties agree to host panels. Still others argued that acreage should be reserved for the production of food.
Sinclair said leasing land offers farmers a way to leave fields fallow for decades while still drawing income from it, allowing the soil to regain nutrients through various native grasses. He added these sites could also host livestock or pollinator bees alongside solar panels, though such activities are not present in any Spencer County project sites at this time.
Sinclair also argued that solar projects help keep agricultural land from being encroached upon by urban and suburban sprawl, preventing farmland from being irrevocably lost. He asserted that it would be easier to return a solar farm to agricultural use than new housing, warehouses, or other commercial uses.
Some in the audience remonstrated on the point of solar farms preserving farmland, noting that much top soil had been removed during the construction of the Troy Solar project. That project also does not host any cover crops that could be used to help recharge soil and prevent erosion.
After a great deal of back and forth and rising frustration, Sinclair noted that ultimately decisions regulating how solar farms are operated in Spencer County are up to local governments.
“Different communities are going to have different visions,” he said.
Another question centered on the potential for solar panels to leak dangerous elements into the local environment. An informational handout from the Richard G. Lugar Center for Renewable Energy notes that solar cells do contain metals and toxic compounds, but that industrial incineration temperatures beyond the natural events are required to release them.
Sinclair said there have been no reports of major contamination in this way. He likened the matter to personal cell phones, which also contain materials that would be toxic if somehow released.
However, some in the audience pointed out that solar panels occasionally catch fire, and could potentially spread toxic materials in that way. They argued that this danger is not adequately researched at this time.
In any case, solar panel fires come with unique dangers to firefighters. As they can continue to generate power even when disconnected from the grid so long as sunlight is present. As a result, new fire equipment is being developed to specifically deal with such incidents, including materials to spray on panels to prevent them from generating power.
Anyone holding out hope for a synthesis of the theses and antitheses proposed that evening probably came away disappointed. However, the CGA event did put offer a chance to explore solar power’s benefits as well as the issues inherent in the global energy transition.
Proponents may look to solar power as an efficient power source that can help farmers earn money from their property and retain agricultural potential in the meantime. Opponents got a chance to highlight potential dangers from the rapid adoption of the technology, including how rural fire departments may not be equipped to deal with fires where solar panels are present.
In any case, Spencer County is certainly plugged in to the conversations that will determine the future of energy around the globe.
Photo and story by Don Steen
