by Adam Gallaher

The state of New York could meet its goal of building 46 gigawatts of large-scale solar by midcentury, but not without making difficult choices in how land is usedacross the state.

That’s the overall finding of an analysis several colleagues and I have made in that state. It’s an issue that other states, and the U.S. as a whole, are facing as they seek to shift electricity generation from fossil fuels to renewable sources, such as wind and solar.

The question of land use arises because power plants that burn coal and natural gas can produce large amounts of electricity from relatively small areas of land – but solar requires more space to generate the same amount of electricity.

That means deciding which land to build on, and why.

It’s often convenient to build solar projects in pastures and hay fields, for instance. But the dairy industry and agriculture more generally are key components in New York state’s economy, and building in agricultural areas would leave less land for those important industries. However, protecting farmland could lead solar developers to consider using existing forests. Yet forests not only soak up carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, helping reduce the effects of fossil-fuel emissions that are changing the global climate, but also support biodiversity by providing important habitat for wildlife. Basically, deciding to prioritize one type of land use means shifting that amount of development pressure to land now being used for other purposes.

As a geographer, I study these trade-offs and their inherent tensions to better understand how to determine the best way to use a particular piece of land to reduce carbon emissions. One of the primary obstacles to building more large-scale solar is the drawn-out debate over where to put it. Typical decision-making factors include farmland loss, wildlife habitat, rural landscapes and who ultimately uses the energy. The results will determine who benefits from the expansion of renewable energy and who bears the ecological and social costs.

A changing energy landscape

Solar energy is the fastest-growing source of electricity in the U.S., with nearly 397 gigawatts waiting to come on line as of 2025. Of that, 70 gigawatts of generating capacity is expected to come on line in 2026 and 2027 – on top of the nearly 148 gigawatts operating at the end of 2025.

This represents progress toward reducing carbon emissions but also requires vast tracts of repurposed land. For example, a 100-megawatt solar project could require approximately 417 acres of land, roughly the same area as 316 American football fields, based on a conservative power density of 0.24 megawatts per acre. Therefore, the 70 gigawatts of solar energy expected to come on line in the next two years will require just over 320,000 acres of land, or about 242,424 football fields, about 53% of which is expected to displace farmland. Additionally, those projects are expected to replace roughly 22,000 acres of forest and just under 10,000 acres of wetlands.

Dual-use alternatives

Energy, agriculture and conservation don’t have to be mutually exclusive uses of land. Instead, land can be managed more efficiently by integrating multiple uses, commonly referred to as colocation.

Grazing livestock or growing crops underneath or between rows of raised solar panels, known as agrivoltaics, is one way to keep land available for agriculture while also generating electricity.

Another approach, known as ecovoltaics, involves designing solar projects to equally support renewable energy and ecosystem services, such as providing habitat for pollinators or reducing evaporation in stressed arid ecosystems.

Another emerging alternative involves solar panels that are constructed to float on water rather than being mounted on land.

These approaches won’t work everywhere, but they demonstrate that, with careful thought, more renewable energy doesn’t have to hurt the environment. Specific project proposals, evaluations by local planning boards and input from the public can consider more than the costs and electricity generated from new projects. They can also take into account how plants and animals will be affected and the degree to which the land use really must change to accommodate the addition of solar panels.

As New York, and the U.S. as a whole, seeks to achieve renewable energy goals to help fight climate change, I believe discussions will be more productive if they expand beyond just how much generating capacity can be built, but where and how it is constructed.

Adam Gallaher is Assistant Professor of Geography and Environmental Studies at Central Michigan University.

This article is shared from The Conversation through a Creative Commons license.

1 hour ago, Elmira Telegram said:

Dual-use alternatives

Energy, agriculture and conservation don’t have to be mutually exclusive uses of land. Instead, land can be managed more efficiently by integrating multiple uses, commonly referred to as colocation.

Grazing livestock or growing crops underneath or between rows of raised solar panels, known as agrivoltaics, is one way to keep land available for agriculture while also generating electricity.

Another approach, known as ecovoltaics, involves designing solar projects to equally support renewable energy and ecosystem services, such as providing habitat for pollinators or reducing evaporation in stressed arid ecosystems.

I don't understand why all the dual-use scenarios are theories about ways that solar can "share" land use with farmland and undeveloped fields.

Parking lots and roofs of large commercial and municipal facilities makes much more sense.

I don't think that calling it by cool, super-sophisticated, science-y names that are confusing to spell (like photovoltaics and its buzz-wordy cousins...agrivoltaics or ecovoltaics ) somehow nullifies the science behind photosynthesis (that other cool, super-sophisticated, science-y name for the process we all learned by fifth grade).

The "photo" in both photovoltaics and photosynthesis means that the both processes require light. And the efficiency/effectiveness of each is directly correlated to the amount of exposure to sunlight.

If my solar panels are shaded by trees......we all know that the "photovoltaic" production is reduced, while the trees are enjoying the full benefits of "photosynthesis". Conversely, if blueberry bushes are shaded by solar panels.....the the "photovoltaic" production is full capacity in full sun, while the reduced "photosynthesis" in the blueberries results in slower growth and lower yield through the season.

im not keen to see solar farms go up in land that is forested, actively cultivated, etc. i agree, parking structures,lots, and paved areas with overhead structures should be 1st option. then NYS has plenty of brownfield sites where people arent going to be living and too contaminated for businesses, so stuff THEM with solar panels too. Forested areas should be 100% off limits. land for grazing im assuming the panels could be modified to allow animals to graze amongst them.

the bothersome part is the farm coalitions and others ranting about how such projects are taking away farm land...well in many cases the land has not been farmed in years or generations, and the rate the FED/State are making farming more difficult and less profitable as it is, id say they should either change how they are lobbying or STFU and let the land owners generate income however they can

either way, we must get serious about shifting away from fossil fuels, aside from the pollution aspect, there is also the affordability issue. Companies will generally use the cheaper source of energy first( renewables) then as demand outstrips the ability to provide, they then kick in the fossil fuel supplied energy which is more expensive and the power is then charged at the higher rate

I agree 100% that it's ultimately the landowners' decision on how to use their land. I also worry that it's easy for "green developers" to prey on and misrepresent benefits to individual property owners who often don't have attorneys on retainer to interpret the changing laws, loopholes and unseen drawbacks at state/federal levels.

They remind me of the sleazeballs that push Time Share contracts that later prove to be rip-offs. Before the moratoriums, there are/were plenty of local landowners who entered into fracking leases that never produced the promised revenue and came with difficulties that hadn't been thoroughly explained. I have similar concerns about the "community" solar farms.

9 hours ago, ADAM said:

Companies will generally use the cheaper source of energy first( renewables) then as demand outstrips the ability to provide, they then kick in the fossil fuel supplied energy which is more expensive and the power is then charged at the higher rate

I'm not sure by companies if you mean large scale commercial/industrial consumers or power production companies? For either case.....renewables are only a "cheaper source of energy" due to taxpayer subsidies.

For power production, solar farms are cheaper to purchase power from than fossil fuels because the solar farm developers (who collect huge green tax subsidies from the government) have persuaded landowners to accept leases that pay infinitesimal fractions of the revenue the developers get from selling that power at a discount to NYSEG, but a big profit for them.

For large scale commercial/industrial consumers?

When their usage drives up demand, overburdens the grid and requires infrastructure investment to support their growth.....they lobby to force residential consumers to subsidize their energy rates. (Source):

Since we are signed on with the group that put two solar arrays here in our town, I have to be careful what I say or else I come off as a hypocrite.

That said, as @ADAM mentioned, there has to be enough brownfield and other sites available in this state that we don't need to tear down forests or use good farming land.

Although, as @MsKreed said, it is ultimately up to the landowner to use that land as they see fit. I was there when the Farm Bureau made the argument against the arrays in our town, saying that it was good, fertile farmland. The landowner, however, was adamant that she or her family had no intention of using the land for farming anymore.

I definitely see both sides of the argument. And there's got to be ways that those who operate the solar arrayc can find ways to benefit the environment. Planting native wildflowers and other plants beneficial to pollinators, for example.

As I said, I fully support the landowners’ right to decide on land usage. And there are certainly usage/options that are more environmentally friendly than others. 

But informed consent isn’t always easy to come by for the "little guys" who aren't the ones drafting the contracts and legal language.

I would be cautious of all the “fine print” and potentially exploitive policies of the developers (similar to some folks I knew who ended up feeling ‘cheated’ by gas well leases a few decades ago). 

The developers are typically prepared to game the system to their best advantage. And often stand to gain huge upfront grants and tax credits and large profits from energy sales with lease payments that are much less than they could/should be. 

Another consideration is how the land usage to some amount of commercial lease use may affect agricultural property tax exemptions and assessments for years to come.