Is Utility-Scale Solar Stealing Our Food? Think Again. – Breakthrough Institute

Over the last two decades, solar and wind power generation has soared

Utility-scale solar energy (USSE) production increased nearly 30% in the first half of 2024 compared to the previous year. While many communities, especially in rural areas, agree on wanting cheaper energy, the rapid expansion of renewable power has also ushered in a growing concern over rural land use. Opposition campaigns have successfully thwarted or delayed solar buildout in their own backyards in the name of protecting valuable U.S. farmland. But, conflicts between agricultural land and solar development prove to be rooted more in perception than reality.

Land Use and Solar Development

While solar is made out to be the bad guy, there are other, arguably larger, forces taking U.S. farmland out of production. The leading cause of farmland loss in the U.S. is urban sprawl. This type of agricultural land conversion (e.g. to residential, commercial or industrial land uses) is typically irreversible. In contrast, agricultural land leased to solar developers can, in most cases, return to agricultural production when the lease is up.

Projected Increase in Solar Development

Thanks to the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act’s expanded incentives for clean energy generation and the falling cost of photovoltaics, among other factors, solar development is expected to continue to increase in the coming years. Stifling this progress in the name of protecting U.S. farmland, especially land used to grow crops for biofuels rather than food, is a misguided endeavor. USSE expansion is projected to have a miniscule impact on U.S. farmland and agricultural production, while generating net climate benefits by replacing fossil fuels.

Protecting U.S. farmland: noble or misguided endeavor?

Globally, the land footprint of the energy system is minimal, accounting for just 0.4% of ice-free land. In contrast, almost 50% of the world’s habitable land is dedicated to agriculture. The global shift to energy sources that can help us meet decarbonization goals are projected to expand the energy system’s land footprint. At the same time, land use for agriculture is also predicted to rise to meet growing food, feed, and fuel demand.

Farmland Loss and Agricultural Output

While global land use for agriculture has yet to peak, farmland acreage in the U.S. has declined about 2% over the last 5 years. Despite this decline, total agricultural output over this 5 year time horizon has continued to increase, thanks to improvements in management practices, technologies, and economies of scale. Continued investments in R&D are expected to sustain these trends, allowing the U.S. to produce more on less land and with fewer inputs.

Opposition to Solar Development on Agricultural Land

Nevertheless, the perceived tension between solar development and loss of farmland has received attention in local jurisdictions, state legislatures, and Congress. Researchers found that as of 2021, there were at least 800 local zoning restrictions related to solar development. At least 22 counties in nine states have set limits on the number of agricultural acres that can be used for solar power to impede its buildout.

Right-sizing land need estimates for solar expansion

According to USDA, solar sites had a total rural land footprint of 336,090 acres in 2020. For comparison, this is less than 0.04% of the country’s 897 million acres of farmland. Using USDA’s estimate that 70% of the acres in today’s solar sites were previously farmland, this would account for less than 1.18% of the 20 million acres of U.S. farmland lost since 2017.

Potential Land Alternatives for Solar Development

The projected land requirement for solar buildout could be met with other land alternatives. In locations where farmland prices are prohibitive for development, marginal lands that are generally underused, difficult to cultivate, or have lower economic value might be attractive to solar developers. Marginal lands have few or no competing uses, including abandoned, idle, contaminated, or disturbed lands. Compared to other renewable energy technologies, solar technologies have been found to have the highest potential for electricity generation on these lands. Solar development alone on marginal lands was estimated to have the potential to produce more electricity than the U.S. consumed in 2022.

Impacts of agricultural land conversion on net emissions and food prices

Based on current projections, proposed solar development poses minimal risk to agricultural production when it comes to land conversion. When new USSE installations do in fact displace agricultural production, the type of agricultural production displaced (e.g. cropland used to grow feedstocks for biofuels vs. crops for food or feed) will dictate whether the land conversion results in net climate benefits. Crop type, global market conditions, and other factors will influence whether displaced food production will increase food prices.

Conversion of Biofuel Cropland to Solar

Nearly 52 million acres of U.S. cropland (5.8% of total U.S. farmland) are used to grow corn and soy crops for biofuels like ethanol, displacing a disproportionately tiny fraction of the nation’s petroleum use. This agricultural land is already being used for energy production and could therefore be converted to produce solar energy with net climate benefits. One acre of solar panels can produce roughly 100 times more energy per acre than corn-based ethanol.

Net Emissions and Food Prices

Converting cropland used for growing food or feed to USSE could raise emissions due to indirect land use change. However, these indirect emissions are minimal and will be more than offset by the emissions savings from solar installations. In the U.S., eliminating corn and soy rotations in Iowa were found to result in about 22 metric tons of CO2 equivalent per hectare per year in emissions. For comparison, one acre of solar panels in the U.S. is estimated to save up to 198 metric tons of CO2 per year. These findings indicate that, despite some land use change emissions, we can expect overall net emission reductions when solar displaces agricultural production.

Conclusions

The perceived conflict between solar development and agricultural production is largely overblown when it comes to the number of acres at stake. Despite this, counties across Virginia, Ohio, and other states have set limits on the number of acres that can be covered in solar panels or banned renewable energy projects altogether. Meanwhile states, like Florida and Massachusetts, are leaning into the economic opportunities associated with scaling solar generation capacity. Both have passed laws to keep local governments from restricting solar energy buildout on farmland.

Policies and Research

Local, state, and federal policymakers should consider economic incentives to encourage solar development on marginal lands or in ways that minimize the land use change consequences stemming from displaced agricultural productivity. These policies should apply not just to solar projects, but also to other renewable energy projects in rural areas, as well as projects to develop urban and highly developed or low-density residential areas.

Policymakers should also consider policies that disincentivize USSE buildout on agricultural land that will lead to net negative climate impacts as a result of displaced agricultural production. Disincentives should aim to incorporate the projected climate impacts of displaced agricultural production. Whether this kind of policy will effectively optimize net carbon emission reductions resulting from new USSE installations on existing agricultural land will depend on how “prime farmland” is defined. Under USDA’s current definition, cropland that is used to grow biofuel feedstocks, for example, might be highly productive and qualify as “prime”. Policies or zoning regulations that protect farmland for continued biofuel production rather than allowing for conversion to USSE—which would in turn result in net climate benefits, pose no threat to food production, and generate economic benefits for the landowner—will do nothing more than obstruct a future powered by cheap, clean energy.

To inform new incentives, policymakers should prioritize investments in research to quantify the land use change impacts of solar development on different types of agricultural land in the U.S. and evaluate the potential for solar development on non-agricultural land. Region-specific analyses that integrate land-use with other criteria, such as greenhouse gas emissions, provide necessary research to optimize the direct and indirect impacts of new solar development. Any policies to encourage land-sharing efforts, such as the co-location of crops and solar panels, should be backed by research on the feasibility and profitability of such systems. Research to improve technological advancements in agriculture and solar energy will be crucial for enhancing efficiency and thus reducing the land footprint of both.

Meanwhile, given the nominal threat projected solar development presents to land in agricultural production in the first place, U.S. farmers and landowners today should assess solar lease opportunities without concern that converting agricultural land for solar development will jeopardize the U.S. food supply.

SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

1. Which SDGs are addressed or connected to the issues highlighted in the article?

• SDG 7: Affordable and Clean Energy
• SDG 11: Sustainable Cities and Communities
• SDG 13: Climate Action
• SDG 15: Life on Land

2. What specific targets under those SDGs can be identified based on the article’s content?

• SDG 7.2: Increase substantially the share of renewable energy in the global energy mix
• SDG 11.3: Enhance inclusive and sustainable urbanization and capacity for participatory, integrated and sustainable human settlement planning and management
• SDG 13.2: Integrate climate change measures into national policies, strategies and planning
• SDG 15.3: By 2030, combat desertification, restore degraded land and soil, including land affected by desertification, drought and floods, and strive to achieve a land degradation-neutral world

3. Are there any indicators mentioned or implied in the article that can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets?

• Indicator 7.2.1: Renewable energy share in the total final energy consumption
• Indicator 11.3.1: Ratio of land consumption rate to population growth rate
• Indicator 13.2.1: Number of countries that have integrated mitigation, adaptation, impact reduction and early warning into primary, secondary and tertiary curricula
• Indicator 15.3.1: Proportion of land that is degraded over total land area

Table: SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

Source: thebreakthrough.org