Utility-Scale Solar in the Southwest Ohio: Benefits Versus Externalities in Terms of Land Use

Christopher James Welter

Antioch College

Yellow Springs, OH

ENVS 339: Ecological Agriculture

Spring 2019

1

Abstract:

Trade-offs between Land Use pressures and renewable energy must be considered in the

21st century. Using Utility Scale Solar Energy in Southwest Ohio as an example, I attempt to

analyze the various inputs, outputs, benefits, and ecological and economic considerations for five

distinct land uses [Conventional USSE, Ecological USSE, Conventional Agriculture, Organic

Agriculture, and Prairie Ecosystem] for a 2,000 acre plot of cropland that is in the process of

being converted to a solar farm. The results suggest that an Ecological USSE would minimize

ecological considerations and maximize energy generation, but a prairie and organic agriculture

land use also have their benefits.

*The author of this paper is employed as an intern by Tecumseh Land Trust [TLT] A nationally

accredited non-profit organization whose mission statement reads: “Protecting local farmland,

water, and natural areas forever.” TLT, as an organization, has publicly opposed the Kingswood

utility scale solar operation.

Introduction:

The increasing demand for food, affordable housing, water, and energy creates significant

land use pressures (Hernandez et al. 2015). Furthermore, the pressing need to mitigate climate

change, maintain energy security, and augment the sustainability of human activities requires a

transition away from fossil fuels to renewable energy (Field CB et al. 2014). These dynamics can

sometimes conflict in the context of Utility Scale Solar Energy [USSE], thereby resulting in

complex sets of environmental trade-offs or, alternatively, the opportunity for co-beneficiary

solutions. For example, up to 500 Gigawatts [GW] of USSE may be required to meet United

States-wide reduction of 80% of 1990 greenhouse gas emissions by 2050. This level of energy

production would require approximately 3.5 million acres of land, due to the diffuse nature or

solar energy, or, through another lens, the approximate area of the state of Connecticut (Mai T et

2

al. 2012). Therefore despite increasing land use pressure in the United States, and consequently

the emergence of land scarcity, vast area requirements for energy needs do exist. Conversely, the

transition to renewables via USSE can also be co-beneficiary: co-locating shade resistant

pollinator plantings within a USSE operation can improve the food production of nearby

agricultural operations, for example (Siegner et al. 2018).

Among the renewable energy systems, solar energy has some of the greatest climate

change mitigation potential due to its relatively low life-cycle fossil fuel emissions. Natural gas

as an energy system, for example, has 43 times the cumulative life-cycle emissions [measured in

carbon density per kilowatt hour: g CO2-eq·kW·h−1] compared to solar energy (Hernandez et al.

2015).

Unsurprisingly, energy development trends reflect this reality, as cumulative installations

of photovoltaic [PV] solar energy technologies, including residential, commercial, and USSE

installations, have more than doubled in the United States since 2013 (Waltson et al. 2016).

Moreover, In 2016, the USSE sector installed more new capacity than the residential and

commercial sectors combined, and is expected to maintain this growth through this year, driven

in part by the December 2015 four-year extension of the 30% federal investment tax credit

incentive program (Bolinger & Steel 2016). At the moment, The USSE development expected

land footprint is 3 million acres by 2030 (Macknick et al, 2013). Finally, USSE production costs

are decreasing with prices in the United States’ Midwest region falling to as low as $1.90 /Watt

per acre in 2016 (Bolinger & Steel 2016).

- Context:

Lendlease, LLC, a multinational construction, property and infrastructure company

headquartered in Barangaroo, Sydney, Australia, has acquired leases on approximately 2,000

acres [see figure 1 below] in Miami, Cedarville, and Xenia townships southeast of Yellow

3

Springs, and adjacent to Glen Helen Nature Preserve, to build the Kingswood utility scale solar

farm (Bachman 2019). The project will be a Photovoltaic (PV) installation, which converts

sunlight into electric current (Moore O'Leary et al. 2017). Utility Scale Solar operations, as

opposed to residential or commercial solar, generate energy to the larger grid, not merely to

locations near the panels.

Figure 1: Current as of May 2019. Properties highlighted in pink are under solar lease with Lendlease, LLC. Blue properties remain

conventional agriculture operations (Bachman 2019).

According to the National Resources Conservation Service [NRCS] Web Soil Survey

resource these properties are zoned for agriculture and conduct conventional operations growing

corn and/or soybeans in rotation. Additionally, the agricultural land parcels on these properties

contain either prime or locally important farmland (Soil Survey Staff 2019). A group of local,

4

concerned citizens have organized in opposition to the solar farm citing concerns about the

impact on wildlife, water runoff, area climate, the loss of prime farmland with high-quality soil

from production, and about the loss of greenspace more generally (Bachman 2019). In contrast,

environmentalist groups such as the Sierra Club and Mothers Out Front have voiced support for

the Utility Scale Solar project hoping the project bodes well for the transition to more renewable

energy in Ohio (Skidmore 2019).

Lendlease, LLC has yet to enter the fray. Although, they will, eventually, submit an

application to the Ohio Siting Board for approval (Wilson 2019).

In addition, Tecumseh Land Trust, a local non-profit committed to the conservation of

greenspace in Clark and Greene counties, received over 1.4 million dollars in United States

Department of Agriculture [USDA] Regional Conservation Partnership Project [RCPP] funding

to incentivize conventional farmers in the Jacoby Creek Watershed, which includes the solar

lease area to enact best agricultural conservation practices on their land (USDA 2019).

- Purpose:

Herein I explore the environmental trade-offs, and potential opportunities for

co-beneficiary outcomes, for five distinctive land use options for the 2,000 acres soon to be

converted to a USSE in southwest Ohio. I do so by utilizing a table that lists and compares the

inputs, outputs, benefits, ecological considerations, and economic considerations for a

“Conventional” USSE Operation [i.e. Kingswood Solar Farm], “Ecological” USSE Operation

[i.e. a hypothetical Solar Farm utilising best ecological practices], Conventional Agricultural

Operation [i.e. consistent with the operations currently used on the soon to be leased properties],

Organic Agricultural Operation [i.e. a hypothetical agricultural operation on the soon to be

leased properties if the landowners utilized the RCPP funding and instilled best conservation

5

practices], and a Prairie [i.e. a hypothetical scenario where the soon to be leased properties were

converted to prairie for the ecological benefits]. Peer-reviewed sources are cited within the table.

Items that are bolded and italicized are considered to be common assumptions made about each

division of land use

Literature Review: (Table located on pages 9 and 10)

- Conventional USSE:

The chemical inputs of a Conventional USSE are, in general, limited to herbicides intended

to maintain turfgrass and prevent shading of the solar panels from weeds. However, during the

construction phase, fencing and impervious surfaces, such as gravel roads for transportation, will

be constructed (Hernandez et al. 2015). Greenhouse gases are an output from Conventional

USSE, when constructed on cropland or pastureland, due to its transformation of the land.

Specifically, it turns agricultural land from a carbon sink to a carbon source (Hernandez et al.

2015). That is, the land can no longer sequester carbon and, alternatively, due to soil erosion and

disturbance emits carbon. The transition from carbon sink to carbon source can also alter

biogeochemical cycles in the area around the panels (Moore O'Leary et al. 2017). In the context

of global warming and climate change, these phenomena are not ideal. Moreover, it is impossible

to construct and operate a solar farm without fossil fuels from various vehicles (Siegner et al.

2018). Nonetheless, the energy generated from Conventional USSE is renewable and “green.”

Conventional USSE also has the potential to generate local employment for the region

during the construction and operations phase. Additionally, the life-cycle emissions of

Conventional USSE are significantly lower than other energy sources [see Introduction for

natural gas comparison] (Hernandez et al. 2015).

There are quite a few ecological considerations for Conventional USSE. Habitat

Fragmentation and disruption of wildlife connectivity and gene flow is prevalent when USSE is

6

constructed near natural areas with ample fauna (Moore O'Leary et al. 2017). Furthermore,

Avian Mortality has been estimated in preliminary studies to equal up to 100,000 birds annually.

Although, this mortality rate pales in comparison to other anthropogenic causes (Walston et al.

2016). There is also the concept of an Insect “Ecological Trap” that has emerged. Species are

drawn to the panels due to the similarity to its a glimmering stream or other body of water and, in

turn, perish when they do meet the surface (Horváth et al. 2010). Finally, economically, there is a

large land requirement due to the diffuse nature of solar energy production (Moore O'Leary et al.

2017; Hernandez et al. 2014A). However, in the current economic climate, USSE generation in

the Midwest region is the cheapest in terms of geographic areas in the United States (Bolinger &

Steel 2016).

- Ecological USSE

The hypothetical Ecological USSE would opt for pollinator plants in lieu of herbicides

but would still need to utilize impervious surfaces and fencing for safety and ongoing monitoring

(Siegner et al. 2018). Thus, issues with Habitat Fragmentation and disruption in connectivity and

gene flow still exist in an Ecological USSE setting along with Avian mortality and the

Ecological Insect Trap. However, Ecological USSE can avoid some of the carbon sequestration

issues that come with Conventional USSE due to the presence of ample biomass from the

pollinator plantings. Furthermore, by using native pollinators and using sheep grazing, fossil fuel

intensive mowing events either decrease or disappear completely therefore minimizing

Ecological USSE’s greenhouse gases. Of course, greenhouse gases would still be necessary

during the construction phase. Finally, the large land requirement still exists for an Ecological

USSE.

- Conventional Agriculture Operations [CAO]

7

Of the five potential land uses, the literature suggests conventional agriculture to be the

most damaging. Contamination of water bodies and spread of diseases due to agrochemical uses

can have adverse effects on human health (Rasul et al. 2004). Furthermore, due to the

convenience and increased yields that come with agrochemical application, localized knowledge

of the land and its ecology have diminished for farmers in favor of a more codified knowledge

base coming from chemical companies (Morgan and Murdoch 2000). Yields are undoubtedly

high in conventional agriculture operations. jobs are generated, and food prices remain

artificially low, however, the public also pays via tax money to agricultural subsidies and for the

environmental clean-up from chemical applications (Morgan and Murdoch 2000).

- Organic Agriculture Operations [OAO]

OAO are much less reliant on the agrochemical industry for their inputs, however, the

financial returns and annual yields do suffer as a result. The Ecological concerns of OAO are

virtually non-existent as they are, after all, regulated and designed to minimize those very

concerns. In lieu of harmful, agrochemical applications, OAO must use Organic fertilizers,

pesticides, and insecticides as their inputs (Rigby and Cáceres 2001). Or, alternatively, cover

crops may be used to increase nutrient levels in the soil. OAO generate food and can regenerate

soil while recapturing localized ecological knowledge for farmers (Rasul et al. 2004; Morgan and

Murdoch 2000). Localized knowledge is the idea that prior to the advent of the agrochemical

industry following WWII Additionally, often, the replacement of agrochemicals as herbicide

leads to the necessity for more labor to remove weeds. Thus, it can be argued that OAO has the

potential for more employment [and less dangerous employment at that] than CAO.

- Prairie Ecosystem:

8

The prairie ecosystem is the most “passive” of the five options in terms of human

intervention and have the most ecological benefits. Amid climate change weather events, prairie

ecosystems can help fight off invasive plants by providing a location for native plants to

outcompete (Piper et al. 2007). Furthermore, generally, restoring native habitat can result in the

return of valuable pollinator insects [such as butterflies] to areas that have been affected by

agricultural and residential development. Finally, prairies can provide valuable water filtration

and nutrient removal, especially if sited nearby agricultural operations (Zhou et al. 2014).

- Table:

Conventional USSE Ecological USSE Conventional

Agriculture

Operation

[CAO]input

Organic Agriculture

Operation [OAO]

Prairie

Inputs - Turfgrass

(Hernandez et al.

2015)

- Herbicides

(Hernandez et al. 2015)

- Impervious

surface: gravel

roads

(Hernandez et al.

2015) - Fencing

(Hernandez et al.

2015) - Panels

- Pollinator/Shade

Resistant Plants

(Siegner et al.

2018)

- Sheep grazing

(Siegner et al.

2018)

- Panels

- Chemical

fertilizers

(Rasul et al.

2004)

- Pesticides

(Rasul et al.

2004)

- Insecticides

(Rasul et al.

2004)

- GMO’s (Ponti et al. 2012)

- Organic

fertilizers,

pesticides, and

insecticides

(Rigby and Cáceres 2001)

- Cover Crops

(Rigby and Cáceres 2001)

- N/A

9

Outputs - Greenhouse

Gases

(Hernandez et al.

2015) - Fossil fuels

during

operation and

construction

phases (Siegner

et al. 2018) - Green Energy

- Green Energy

- Fossil fuels,

particularly

during the

construction

phase (Siegner et

al. 2018)

- Food - Food - Ecosystem

Services

Benefits - Low life cycle

emissions

(Hernandez et al.

2015) - Employment

- Maintains

“Carbon Sink”

status (Marco et

al. 2014) - Less mowings

(Siegner et al.

2018)

- Higher crop

yields (Rasul

et al. 2004)

- Employment

- Low

agrochemical

inputs (Rasul et

al. 2004) - Regenerative to

soil (Rasul et al.

2004) - Localised

Farmer

Knowledge

(Morgan and

Murdoch 2000)

- Soil has higher

water holding

capacity

(Gomiero et al.

2011)

- Employment

- Restoring

Native Habitat

and

Connectivity

(Ries et al.

2002)

- Increase in

species

richness and

abundance for

pollinators

(Ries et al.

2002) - Lower

Instances of

Invasive

Species (Piper

et al. 2007) - Water

filtration and

nutrient

removal (Zhou

et al. 2014)

Ecological

Considerations

- Soil Erosion

(Siegner et al.

2018) - Loss of Carbon

Sequestration

(De Marco et al. 2014).

- Habitat

Fragmentation

(Moore O'Leary

et al. 2017)

- Disruption of

wildlife

connectivity

and gene flow

(Moore O'Leary

et al. 2017)

- Alteration of

biogeochemical

processes

(Moore O'Leary et al. 2017)

- Direct mortality

to plants and

animals (Moore

O'Leary et al.

2017) - Insect

“Ecological

Trap” (Horváth et al. 2010)

- Avian Mortality

- Habitat

Fragmentation

(Moore O'Leary et al. 2017)

- Disruption of

wildlife

connectivity and

gene flow (Moore

O'Leary et al. 2017)

- Insect

“Ecological

Trap” (Horváth

et al. 2010)

- Avian Mortality (Walston et al.

2016)

- Environment

al damage:

contaminatio

n of water

bodies (Rasul

et al. 2004) - Spread of

diseases

(Rasul et al. 2004)

- Adverse

effects on

human and

animal health

(Rasul et al. 2004)

- Localised

Knowledge

Diminished

(Morgan and

Murdoch 2000)

- N/A - N/A

10

(Walston et al. 2016)

- 2-4 Mowings

per year

(Siegner et al.

2018)

Economic

Considerations

- Large land

requirement

(Moore O'Leary

et al. 2017;

Hernandez et al. 2014)

- Low price

(Dollars in

Watts per acre:

Wac) in

Midwest region (Bolinger &

Steel 2016)

- Large land

requirement

(Moore O'Leary et

al. 2017;

Hernandez et al. 2014)

- What is the

economic

incentive for an

Ecological

USSE? (Siegner et al. 2018)

- Higher

financial

return than

OAO (Rasul

et al. 2004) - Cost to public

of removing

pesticides

from water

(Morgan and

Murdoch 2000)

- Larger land

requirement

than CAO (Ponti

et al. 2012)

- Yield limiting

factors (nutrient

limitations, pests

and diseases)

play a larger role

(Ponti et al. 2012)

- More labor costs

(Morgan and

Murdoch 2000)

- More stringent

regulation (Rigby

and Cáceres 2001)

- Very Limited

Employment

Table 1: Land Use Comparison

Discussion:

In some ways, the idea of an Ecological USSE, and especially a Conventional USSE, on

cropland or pastureland will always fall short of the minimal ecological impact. Multiple studies

suggest (Hernandez et al. 2014; Hernandez et al. 2015; Moore O'Leary et al. 2017; Hoffacker et

al. 2017; Stoms et al. 2013; Macknick et al. 2013) that when Solar energy can be integrated into

the built environment (e.g. residential and commercial rooftop installations), ecological concerns

can be minimized. Furthermore, it can also be installed on previously disturbed lands thus

enhancing the value of neglected areas. Thus, the most ecological location for USSE operations

is on the built surface.

While the table and literature suggests that CAO are the most ecologically damaging land

use, within the context of Kingswood Solar Farm in southwest Ohio, due to the possibility of

RCPP funds having the ability to convert the land from CAO to OAO and USSE land use siting

best practices stating that USSE operations are best suited for the built environment, it may be

11

possible that, in the long term, CAO is ecologically preferable to Conventional USSE in the

parcels relevant to this study. However, it is also clear that the most ecological land use is a

prairie even if it does not provide an immediate economic boost in favor of long-term

environmental services.

However, if USSE operations must be on formerly agricultural land, the potential for co-

location maximizes the benefits of USSE operations. For example, in a study conducted by

Siegner et al. 2018 through the Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies, it was

determined that considerations such as pollinator plantings and sheep grazing can minimize

ecological impacts of USSE operations such as mowing and greenhouse emissions. Additionally,

the increase of pollinators from the plantings improves yields on nearby agricultural operations.

In fact, the State of Minnesota started a voluntary incentive program in 2016 to encourage solar

developers to enact pollinator plantings on their properties (Siegner et al. 2018).

Ultimately, it is difficult to compare the ecological considerations from each land use in

order to determine which is “best” for a given environment. Perhaps, a better framework, that

warrants additional study, is how the values and economic needs of each location should come

into play when considering land use questions.

12

1. Bachman, Megan. “Group Organizing against Area Industrial Solar Farm.” Yellow

Springs News, 8 May 2019, ysnews.com/news/2019/05/group-organizing-against-area-

industrial-solar-farm.

2. Bolinger, Mark, et al. “Utility-Scale Solar 2016: An Empirical Analysis of Project Cost,

Performance, and Pricing Trends in the United States.” 2017, doi:10.2172/1393641.

3. Field CB, et al.Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. (2014) Climate Change

2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Part A: Global and Sectoral Aspects.

Contribution of Working Group II to the Fifth Assessment Report of the

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, ed Field CB, et al. (Cambridge Univ Press,

Cambridge, UK)

4. Gomiero, Tiziano, et al. “Environmental Impact of Different Agricultural Management

Practices: Conventional vs. Organic Agriculture.” Critical Reviews in Plant Sciences, vol.

30, no. 1-2, 2011, pp. 95–124., doi:10.1080/07352689.2011.554355.

13

5. A. Hernandez, R.r., et al. “Environmental Impacts of Utility-Scale Solar Energy.”

Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, vol. 29, 2014, pp. 766–779.,

doi:10.1016/j.rser.2013.08.041.

6. Hernandez, Rebecca R., et al. “Solar Energy Development Impacts on Land Cover

Change and Protected Areas.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, vol.

112, no. 44, 2015, pp. 13579–13584., doi:10.1073/pnas.1517656112.

7. Hoffacker, Madison K., et al. “Land-Sparing Opportunities for Solar Energy

Development in Agricultural Landscapes: A Case Study of the Great Central Valley, CA,

United States.” Environmental Science & Technology, vol. 51, no. 24, 2017, pp. 14472–

14482., doi:10.1021/acs.est.7b05110.

8. Horváth, Gábor, et al. “Reducing the Maladaptive Attractiveness of Solar Panels to

Polarotactic Insects.” Conservation Biology, vol. 24, no. 6, 2010, pp. 1644–1653.,

doi:10.1111/j.1523-1739.2010.01518.x.

9. Macknick, Jordan, et al. “Overview of Opportunities for Co-Location of Solar Energy

Technologies and Vegetation.” National Renewable Energy Laboratory , 2013,

doi:10.2172/1115798.

10. Mai T et al. (2012) Exploration of high-penetration renewable electricity futures. Vol. 1

of Renewable Electricity Futures Study, eds Hand MM et al. (National Renewable

Energy Laboratory, Golden, CO).

11. Marco, Antonella De, et al. “The Contribution of Utility-Scale Solar Energy to the Global

Climate Regulation and Its Effects on Local Ecosystem Services.” Global Ecology and

Conservation, vol. 2, 2014, pp. 324–337., doi:10.1016/j.gecco.2014.10.010.

12. Moore-O'leary, Kara A, et al. “Sustainability of Utility-Scale Solar Energy - Critical

Ecological Concepts.” Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, vol. 15, no. 7, 2017,

pp. 385–394., doi:10.1002/fee.1517.

13. Morgan, Kevin, and Jonathan Murdoch. “Organic vs. Conventional Agriculture:

Knowledge, Power and Innovation in the Food Chain.” Geoforum, vol. 31, no. 2, 2000,

pp. 159–173., doi:10.1016/s0016-7185(99)00029-9.

14

14. Piper, Jon K., et al. “Effects of Species Richness on Resident and Target Species

Components in a Prairie Restoration.” Restoration Ecology, vol. 15, no. 2, 2007, pp. 189–

198., doi:10.1111/j.1526-100x.2007.00203.x.

15. Ponti, Tomek De, et al. “The Crop Yield Gap between Organic and Conventional

Agriculture.” Agricultural Systems, vol. 108, 2012, pp. 1–9.,

doi:10.1016/j.agsy.2011.12.004.

16. Rasul, Golam, and Gopal B. Thapa. “Sustainability of Ecological and Conventional

Agricultural Systems in Bangladesh: an Assessment Based on Environmental, Economic

and Social Perspectives.” Agricultural Systems, vol. 79, no. 3, 2004, pp. 327–351.,

doi:10.1016/s0308-521x(03)00090-8.

17. Ries, Leslie, et al. “Conservation Value of Roadside Prairie Restoration to Butterfly

Communities.” Conservation Biology, vol. 15, no. 2, 2001, pp. 401–411.,

doi:10.1046/j.1523-1739.2001.015002401.x.

18. Rigby, D., and D. Cáceres. “Organic Farming and the Sustainability of Agricultural

Systems.” Agricultural Systems, vol. 68, no. 1, 2001, pp. 21–40., doi:10.1016/s0308-

521x(00)00060-3.

19. Siegner, Katie, et al. “Maximizing Land Use Benefits from Utility-Scale Solar

Development.” Energy Economics & Policy Analysis, Yale School of Forestry &

Environmental Studies, Fall 2018.

20. Skidmore, Laura. “Renewable Energy Now.” Yellow Springs News, vol. 140, no. 20, 16

May 2019, pp. 8–9.

15

21. Soil Survey Staff, Natural Resources Conservation Service, United States Department of

Agriculture. Web Soil Survey. Available online at the following link:

https://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/. Accessed [06/19/2019]

22. Stoms, David M., et al. “Siting Solar Energy Development to Minimize Biological

Impacts.” Renewable Energy, vol. 57, 2013, pp. 289–298.,

doi:10.1016/j.renene.2013.01.055.

23. United States, USDA Regional Conservation Partnership Program: Fiscal Year 2018

Projects by State, p. 26.

24. Walston, Leroy J., et al. “A Preliminary Assessment of Avian Mortality at Utility-Scale

Solar Energy Facilities in the United States.” Renewable Energy, vol. 92, 2016, pp. 405–

414., doi:10.1016/j.renene.2016.02.041.

25. Wilson, Richard. “Greene Landowners Concerned over Potential Solar Farm.” Dayton

Daily News, 10 May 2019, www.daytondailynews.com/news/local/greene-landowners-

concerned-over-potential-solar-farm/FefwCFqQcpdWuaaj4R120O/.

26. Zhou, X., et al. “Nutrient Removal by Prairie Filter Strips in Agricultural Landscapes.”

Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, vol. 69, no. 1, 2014, pp. 54–64.,

doi:10.2489/jswc.69.1.54.