Common Solar Energy Misconceptions: Separating Fact from Fiction

Virginia stands at a critical juncture in its energy future. The Virginia Clean Energy Act mandates that the state’s largest utilities transition to 100% renewable energy generation – Dominion Energy by 2045 and Appalachian Power by 2050. This ambitious goal reflects Virginia’s commitment to addressing climate change while fostering a renewable energy economy.

However, local opposition to solar developments, often fueled by misinformation, threatens to slow this transition. A comprehensive report published in April of 2024 by Columbia Law School’s Sabin Center for Climate Change Law, “Rebutting 33 False Claims About Solar, Wind, and Electric Vehicles,” systematically addresses common misconceptions about renewable energy that often stem from coordinated efforts of disinformation. Drawing from this research, let’s examine some of the most prevalent concerns about solar development and what the evidence actually shows.

GreeneHulocker’s Land Use team can attest to the fact that all of this “disinformation,” plus other claimed “facts,” are asserted by solar opponents in local hearings across Virginia.

Health and Safety Concerns

The Columbia report identifies several common health and safety concerns that frequently arise in community discussions about solar projects. Two of the most prevalent worries involve electromagnetic fields (EMF) and toxic materials. However, as the report documents through multiple research studies, neither concern is supported by evidence.

On EMF exposure, the Sabin Center’s analysis cites studies showing that electromagnetic fields generated at solar farms are similar in strength to common household appliances and are harmless to humans. The report notes that when standing just nine feet from a residential solar inverter, or 150 feet from a utility-scale inverter, exposure drops to levels lower than typical background radiation. For context, using an electric can opener typically generates more EMF exposure than standing next to solar equipment.

Regarding toxic materials, while the report acknowledges that solar panels contain some materials like lead, it cites research showing these components are safely encased in tempered glass and other materials that prevent leaching. The report references findings from the Massachusetts Department of Energy Resources concluding that there is “little, if any, risk of chemical releases to the environment during normal use.” Even in the unlikely event of damage to panels, studies cited in the report found that any potential releases would not pose environmental concerns.

Environmental Impacts 

Another set of claims analyzed in the Sabin Center report relates to environmental impacts. Some argue that solar panels create unsustainable waste, harm biodiversity, and even worsen climate change – particularly when forest clearing is involved. The report’s examination of scientific evidence helps clarify these issues.

On waste management, while acknowledging that end-of-life disposal of solar panels presents challenges, the report demonstrates that the scale of this issue has been overstated. It cites studies projecting that 35 years of cumulative solar panel waste (2016-2050) will be dwarfed by waste from fossil fuel energy generation. Coal ash waste alone, the report notes, is projected to be 300-800 times larger in mass than solar panel waste. The analysis also highlights advancing recycling technologies, with some companies already achieving 90% recovery rates for panel materials.

Regarding biodiversity, the report presents evidence that well-designed solar projects can actually enhance local ecosystems. It cites studies showing that solar farms, when properly managed, can create beneficial habitats for pollinators and other wildlife. The shade under panels, the research shows, can offer critical habitat for various species and help prevent soil moisture loss. The report outlines how developers can further enhance biodiversity by examining native species’ patterns before construction and implementing habitat restoration measures afterward.

On climate impact, the Sabin Center’s analysis presents clear mathematical evidence: solar panels in the United States typically offset their carbon footprint within three years of operation. Even when forest clearing is necessary, the report demonstrates that an acre of solar panels usually offsets significantly more carbon dioxide than an acre of planted trees can sequester. Specifically, when displacing natural gas generation, an acre of solar panels can save between 175 to 198 metric tons of carbon dioxide annually, compared to the 0.857 metric tons sequestered by an acre of forest.

Economic Considerations 

The report next addresses local economic concerns, which often center on property values, agricultural productivity, and jobs. Here too, the evidence examined by the Sabin Center helps clarify the real impacts.

On property values, the report cites comprehensive studies examining millions of home transactions that found minimal impact. The most extensive study analyzed, which looked at over 1.8 million home transactions near 1,500 utility-scale solar projects, found that homes within 0.5 miles of solar farms experienced only a minor 1.5% price reduction compared to properties 2-4 miles away, with no impact beyond one mile.

Agricultural concerns, particularly relevant to Virginia’s rural communities, receive special attention in the report. The analysis shows that solar development typically uses only a small percentage of land – citing studies indicating that about 98% of land between panels remains available for agriculture or other purposes. The report highlights the emerging practice of “agrivoltaics” – combining solar energy with agriculture – as showing particular promise. This approach allows farmers to generate energy income while continuing to grow crops or graze livestock beneath panels, often with improved yields due to the beneficial shade and moisture retention provided by the panels.

Technical Reliability and Grid Integration 

The final set of claims addressed in the Sabin Center report relates to technical reliability. Critics often claim that solar panels don’t work effectively in cloudy or cold weather, that they require 100% fossil fuel backup, and that we lack sufficient resources to build them at scale.

The report demonstrates that these concerns, while understandable, don’t align with operational experience. While acknowledging that cloudy weather may reduce power generation by up to 45%, the analysis shows that substantial energy can still be generated under these conditions. Moreover, the report notes that cold temperatures actually increase solar panel efficiency by increasing voltage. It cites Department of Energy findings that solar panels perform effectively across varied weather conditions, contributing reliable power to the grid throughout the year.

On grid reliability, the report explains how concerns are addressed through careful system planning. While solar energy alone is intermittent, when combined with storage, wind power, and other grid resources, it forms part of a reliable electricity system. The report cites California’s experience as evidence – the state has increased its solar generation to nearly 20% of its electricity mix while maintaining grid reliability at or above national averages.

Regarding resource availability, the report cites studies examining 75 emissions-reduction scenarios that concluded global reserves of critical materials are adequate to meet future demand for solar infrastructure. The analysis also points to increasing recycling capabilities and technological innovations that are reducing material requirements over time.

Conclusion

As Virginia works toward its clean energy mandates, the Sabin Center report provides valuable evidence-based responses to common concerns about solar energy. While solar developments do require careful planning and community engagement, the report’s comprehensive analysis shows that common concerns about health, environmental, and economic impacts are often overstated or misunderstood.