I am attending a town board meeting this evening that will discuss the future of solar farms in the area. Here is why I will not stand by as we lose farmland to solar empires.
Thanks for taking a stand. Solar panels are destroying farms and nature. Green progressives refuse to acknowledge reality to worship their false god of ESG sustainability.
Alexandra - Tremendous research, appreciate facts not fiction! Before and after photos of the ugly solar might help the undecided. The main argument on the other side is financial gain, the main argument on our side is a healthy life. Seems so simple.
Thank you for bringing this important issue to light for your community both in NY and for your followers around the world. Your research, passion and voice is appreciated by many and we hope this comes through at the meeting and has a ripple affect in attitudes for saving farmland there and around the country. This is a imperative stance needed for the habitat, agriculture needs and for our future. Wishing you the best of luck tonight and may your voice echo beyond your community.
I just want to add that I recently ordered Milkweed seeds conducive to my area because of your recent message about the Monarch butterflies. Your voice is making a difference. Don't ever give up!
Thank you for investing the effort to research and write this. When I read your first post about your farmer neighbor, I thought, "I wonder if she appreciates the magnitude of the climate crisis."
Now it's clear that you do, and you have a nuanced, well-informed, systemic perspective. I had wondered about many of the issues you cover, including how solar farms keep the ground clear below. I suspected poisoning, which you confirm.
I agree that paved and other built environments make better solar farm sites. Often, the panel arrays can double as shade structures. (Many VA hospitals installed these over 10 years ago and patients and staff compete to park under them, especially in the summer.) How many shuttered mall parking lots are there? Also, what about solar topped farm buildings? I'm not sure that would make much of dent in the overall need to replace greenhouse gas generating fuels.
In the USA, solar farm operators and solar generation equipment manufacturers (like other companies) are not required to design parts or policies for truly sustainable, cradle-to-cradle component lifecycle management. They are not required to account for the full costs of their products' and operations' impacts. They are allowed to 'outsource' lifecycle costs to 'the commons' — the environment and humans who depend on healthy ecosystems. Non-systemic, short-term, (misguided) investor-focused thinking, laws, and policies seek to maximiize corporation shareholder profits by dumping the true costs on others. In capatilistic terms, I see this as a particularly pernicious form of asset stripping, where the 'assets' include the alternative present and future values land can generate for owners, people in general, and the environment (aka our collective wellbeing now and in the future).
I hope you get a fair hearing at the town meeting. If not, if won't be for lack of preparation.
As you say, Alexandra,there are a lot of layers to this topic of solar farms. Let me recommend a recent Substack post by Alex Hallatt, regarding his experience with grazing sheep on a solar farm in Great Britain.
Sheep eat and make manure, which fertilizes the fields resulting in a huge increase in diversity in both insects and birds. The problem isn’t the panels; it’s the wholesale application of chemicals to control “weeds.”
His story is very convincing. If I were you I would buy the farm next to the solar farm and offer to graze it for weed control. I also might add goats, then sheep, but that might be an unnecessary complication.
Posting from Tallahassee, FL, but we just moved here a few years ago after living 35 years in the Syracuse NY farmland area. Come look at the MASSIVE solar farms spanning both sides of I-10 between Tallahassee and Lake City, FL. Yes, they provide a lot of power for our state, but any farm adjacent to these behemoths will take a huge hit on property value. As if I-10 itself didn't do enough to affect that.
Thank you for speaking out! Please encourage people to watch a documentary about what happened in Australia as they worked toward "Net Zero" and destroyed good farmland and nature reserves: How Renewables Harm Our Farms & Cost the Earth. Michael Moore showed a lot of the lies behind renewable energy in Planet of the Humans in 2020. He was vilified for doing so.
This is excellent info. My husband and I have had solar panels on our roof for 20 years in Florida. It saves alot in energy costs. The beauty part of solar on your own roof (you could put it on your barn roof)is that the owner gets the solar power directly from the panels into the house. The power does not go through a secondary provider. Once the unit is hooked up you get the power added to your house. If there is excess power it goes up to the transformer and into the neighbor's house.
We get a small credit for the excess power once a year. All of those large solar fields generate electricity which is sold to the local provider and then sold to the user. The promoters of the large fields make you think that by supporting large solar fields you are helping the environment, when as you have shown, you are only hurting the environment. Solar panels should be placed on houses, buildings, parking lots, and garages etc. That is the way to help your energy costs as well as the environment. I have not noted any negative effects from our roof panels. We support a huge population of purple martins, as well as osprey and green herons. Our lake is full of fish and I raise butterflies for our local butterfly house and there is no harm to them from the rooftop solar. These panels have been through 3 hurricanes( Ian a Cat 5) and no negative effects.
• Yes, some farmland is being leased for solar, especially in areas where farming is economically marginal. However, 1.25 million acres out of over 890 million acres of U.S. farmland is ~0.14% — still very small.
• Projections like 10 million acres in a few years are speculative and not backed by current permitting or land control data.
2. Farmland ownership turnover
• It’s true that much farmland will change hands in the next 20 years. USDA projects ~370 million acres, not $24 trillion worth (that figure may exaggerate current land values).
3. Pollinator importance
• Concern for pollinators is legitimate. Some solar farms may use herbicides for vegetation control, but many solar developers now plant pollinator-friendly ground cover specifically to support bees and butterflies (some states like MN and IL even incentivize this).
4. Hail and storm vulnerability
• Yes, hail can damage panels. The Houston hailstorm in 2024 did cause significant loss. However, claims about lead and cadmium leaching apply only to older, nonstandard, or damaged panels, not the silicon-based panels used in almost all U.S. utility-scale projects today.
5. Recycling economics
• It’s true that current panel recycling is not profitable without subsidies. But that’s improving as newer recycling processes emerge and PV modules age into retirement (most are not yet 25 years old).
⸻
⚠️ Partially Accurate but Misleading or Lacking Context
These are statements that oversimplify or lack nuance:
1. “Solar farms are dead zones for pollinators”
• Not inherently. It depends on the seed mix, mowing schedule, and land management. Native species can thrive under panels if planned intentionally.
2. “1 lb of pesticide per acre”
• There’s no universal rate like this; many solar projects use little or no chemical herbicide, especially when planted with low-maintenance groundcover. Claiming this is standard is misleading.
3. “Solar panels are not recyclable”
• They are recyclable, but current infrastructure is limited and still developing. The claim that they are unrecyclable is false — the economics are the barrier, not the science.
4. “Panels leach toxic materials after hailstorms”
• This would apply only to thin-film or cadmium telluride panels, which are rare in utility-scale farms in the U.S. Crystalline silicon panels (the standard) contain no lead or cadmium that can leach from cracked glass.
5. “Solar reduces rural property values”
• Studies are mixed. Some show no significant change, and others a modest impact. The Florida study is often cited, but it’s not broadly representative. Many rural counties have found no measurable drop in property values, especially when buffers and screening are used.
⸻
❌ Factually Incorrect or Speculative Claims
These undermine the credibility of the argument:
1. “Solar panels are made with lead and cadmium”
• False for most modern panels. Nearly all U.S. utility-scale solar uses crystalline silicon, which does not contain lead or cadmium.
2. “Cleaning up hail damage takes hundreds of years”
• No scientific basis. Panel glass may shatter, but environmental remediation is not centuries-long. Most soil cleanups (where needed) are addressed through excavation or containment.
3. “Artificial turf is laid under solar panels”
• Almost never true for utility-scale projects — it would be prohibitively expensive and counterproductive. Native vegetation or gravel is far more common.
4. “Panel glare tricks dragonflies into laying eggs”
• This refers to a known phenomenon called polarized light pollution, but it’s mostly associated with large reflective surfaces like car hoods or buildings, not solar panels with anti-reflective coatings.
I'd just like to agree wholeheartedly with this comment. It is not necessary to suggest that solar farms are worse than they actually are. In this case they do take up land that could be used for farming, but they Can be used to graze smaller livestock and/or pollinator habitat at the same time, which makes up for that some. At the same time, it is absolutely fair to argue that solar panels should be put on places that are not being used currently, like over parking lots and residential homes, even though it is more difficult.
Thanks for taking a stand. Solar panels are destroying farms and nature. Green progressives refuse to acknowledge reality to worship their false god of ESG sustainability.
Alexandra - Tremendous research, appreciate facts not fiction! Before and after photos of the ugly solar might help the undecided. The main argument on the other side is financial gain, the main argument on our side is a healthy life. Seems so simple.
True... maybe I need a stock photo subscription lol.
Thank you for bringing this important issue to light for your community both in NY and for your followers around the world. Your research, passion and voice is appreciated by many and we hope this comes through at the meeting and has a ripple affect in attitudes for saving farmland there and around the country. This is a imperative stance needed for the habitat, agriculture needs and for our future. Wishing you the best of luck tonight and may your voice echo beyond your community.
Thank you so much!
I just want to add that I recently ordered Milkweed seeds conducive to my area because of your recent message about the Monarch butterflies. Your voice is making a difference. Don't ever give up!
Wow that is amazing - god bless 🥺🥺
Thank you for investing the effort to research and write this. When I read your first post about your farmer neighbor, I thought, "I wonder if she appreciates the magnitude of the climate crisis."
Now it's clear that you do, and you have a nuanced, well-informed, systemic perspective. I had wondered about many of the issues you cover, including how solar farms keep the ground clear below. I suspected poisoning, which you confirm.
I agree that paved and other built environments make better solar farm sites. Often, the panel arrays can double as shade structures. (Many VA hospitals installed these over 10 years ago and patients and staff compete to park under them, especially in the summer.) How many shuttered mall parking lots are there? Also, what about solar topped farm buildings? I'm not sure that would make much of dent in the overall need to replace greenhouse gas generating fuels.
In the USA, solar farm operators and solar generation equipment manufacturers (like other companies) are not required to design parts or policies for truly sustainable, cradle-to-cradle component lifecycle management. They are not required to account for the full costs of their products' and operations' impacts. They are allowed to 'outsource' lifecycle costs to 'the commons' — the environment and humans who depend on healthy ecosystems. Non-systemic, short-term, (misguided) investor-focused thinking, laws, and policies seek to maximiize corporation shareholder profits by dumping the true costs on others. In capatilistic terms, I see this as a particularly pernicious form of asset stripping, where the 'assets' include the alternative present and future values land can generate for owners, people in general, and the environment (aka our collective wellbeing now and in the future).
I hope you get a fair hearing at the town meeting. If not, if won't be for lack of preparation.
As you say, Alexandra,there are a lot of layers to this topic of solar farms. Let me recommend a recent Substack post by Alex Hallatt, regarding his experience with grazing sheep on a solar farm in Great Britain.
Sheep eat and make manure, which fertilizes the fields resulting in a huge increase in diversity in both insects and birds. The problem isn’t the panels; it’s the wholesale application of chemicals to control “weeds.”
His story is very convincing. If I were you I would buy the farm next to the solar farm and offer to graze it for weed control. I also might add goats, then sheep, but that might be an unnecessary complication.
Go get 'em tiger.
Thank you for speaking on this and taking real action. I had no idea companies were using farmland for solar farms, this is so short-sighted!
Drive thru the once bucolic state of Vermont and you'll get an eyeful.
Good luck Alex. You’re up against a lot , esp that Governor. Keep up the good fight You will wow them.
Thank you Barb!
Wishing you all of the strength tonight, knowing that your thousands of followers are behind you!
The term ‘solar farm’ is enraging, dystopian and symbolic of the life we are leading as humans today.
Amen!
Posting from Tallahassee, FL, but we just moved here a few years ago after living 35 years in the Syracuse NY farmland area. Come look at the MASSIVE solar farms spanning both sides of I-10 between Tallahassee and Lake City, FL. Yes, they provide a lot of power for our state, but any farm adjacent to these behemoths will take a huge hit on property value. As if I-10 itself didn't do enough to affect that.
GREAT PIECE!
Thank you! Florida definitely has huge problems with over-development and land grabs. As does New York State!
Thank you for speaking out! Please encourage people to watch a documentary about what happened in Australia as they worked toward "Net Zero" and destroyed good farmland and nature reserves: How Renewables Harm Our Farms & Cost the Earth. Michael Moore showed a lot of the lies behind renewable energy in Planet of the Humans in 2020. He was vilified for doing so.
This is excellent info. My husband and I have had solar panels on our roof for 20 years in Florida. It saves alot in energy costs. The beauty part of solar on your own roof (you could put it on your barn roof)is that the owner gets the solar power directly from the panels into the house. The power does not go through a secondary provider. Once the unit is hooked up you get the power added to your house. If there is excess power it goes up to the transformer and into the neighbor's house.
We get a small credit for the excess power once a year. All of those large solar fields generate electricity which is sold to the local provider and then sold to the user. The promoters of the large fields make you think that by supporting large solar fields you are helping the environment, when as you have shown, you are only hurting the environment. Solar panels should be placed on houses, buildings, parking lots, and garages etc. That is the way to help your energy costs as well as the environment. I have not noted any negative effects from our roof panels. We support a huge population of purple martins, as well as osprey and green herons. Our lake is full of fish and I raise butterflies for our local butterfly house and there is no harm to them from the rooftop solar. These panels have been through 3 hurricanes( Ian a Cat 5) and no negative effects.
Yes! You can have it all! Flourishing plants, wildlife, beautiful scenery, and solar power generated from the roof!
Good Luck!!! May the Force of Nature be with you🌪️
Thank you! Thinking of you!🌿
These reflect real concerns or trends:
1. Farmland conversion is increasing
• Yes, some farmland is being leased for solar, especially in areas where farming is economically marginal. However, 1.25 million acres out of over 890 million acres of U.S. farmland is ~0.14% — still very small.
• Projections like 10 million acres in a few years are speculative and not backed by current permitting or land control data.
2. Farmland ownership turnover
• It’s true that much farmland will change hands in the next 20 years. USDA projects ~370 million acres, not $24 trillion worth (that figure may exaggerate current land values).
3. Pollinator importance
• Concern for pollinators is legitimate. Some solar farms may use herbicides for vegetation control, but many solar developers now plant pollinator-friendly ground cover specifically to support bees and butterflies (some states like MN and IL even incentivize this).
4. Hail and storm vulnerability
• Yes, hail can damage panels. The Houston hailstorm in 2024 did cause significant loss. However, claims about lead and cadmium leaching apply only to older, nonstandard, or damaged panels, not the silicon-based panels used in almost all U.S. utility-scale projects today.
5. Recycling economics
• It’s true that current panel recycling is not profitable without subsidies. But that’s improving as newer recycling processes emerge and PV modules age into retirement (most are not yet 25 years old).
⸻
⚠️ Partially Accurate but Misleading or Lacking Context
These are statements that oversimplify or lack nuance:
1. “Solar farms are dead zones for pollinators”
• Not inherently. It depends on the seed mix, mowing schedule, and land management. Native species can thrive under panels if planned intentionally.
2. “1 lb of pesticide per acre”
• There’s no universal rate like this; many solar projects use little or no chemical herbicide, especially when planted with low-maintenance groundcover. Claiming this is standard is misleading.
3. “Solar panels are not recyclable”
• They are recyclable, but current infrastructure is limited and still developing. The claim that they are unrecyclable is false — the economics are the barrier, not the science.
4. “Panels leach toxic materials after hailstorms”
• This would apply only to thin-film or cadmium telluride panels, which are rare in utility-scale farms in the U.S. Crystalline silicon panels (the standard) contain no lead or cadmium that can leach from cracked glass.
5. “Solar reduces rural property values”
• Studies are mixed. Some show no significant change, and others a modest impact. The Florida study is often cited, but it’s not broadly representative. Many rural counties have found no measurable drop in property values, especially when buffers and screening are used.
⸻
❌ Factually Incorrect or Speculative Claims
These undermine the credibility of the argument:
1. “Solar panels are made with lead and cadmium”
• False for most modern panels. Nearly all U.S. utility-scale solar uses crystalline silicon, which does not contain lead or cadmium.
2. “Cleaning up hail damage takes hundreds of years”
• No scientific basis. Panel glass may shatter, but environmental remediation is not centuries-long. Most soil cleanups (where needed) are addressed through excavation or containment.
3. “Artificial turf is laid under solar panels”
• Almost never true for utility-scale projects — it would be prohibitively expensive and counterproductive. Native vegetation or gravel is far more common.
4. “Panel glare tricks dragonflies into laying eggs”
• This refers to a known phenomenon called polarized light pollution, but it’s mostly associated with large reflective surfaces like car hoods or buildings, not solar panels with anti-reflective coatings.
I'd just like to agree wholeheartedly with this comment. It is not necessary to suggest that solar farms are worse than they actually are. In this case they do take up land that could be used for farming, but they Can be used to graze smaller livestock and/or pollinator habitat at the same time, which makes up for that some. At the same time, it is absolutely fair to argue that solar panels should be put on places that are not being used currently, like over parking lots and residential homes, even though it is more difficult.
Thanks for fighting this fight. As always you are spot on.