Skip to content

Solar farms should be supported

Dear Editor, The concerns expressing a need for protection against solar farm fallout in a recent article points to the need for some perspective on the issue.

Dear Editor,

The concerns expressing a need for protection against solar farm fallout in a recent article points to the need for some perspective on the issue. There is of course a need for consistent permitting policy but before comparing solar farms to abandoned oil and gas wells, it’s important to consider a few characteristics of photovoltaic panels.

They produce no emissions, noise or odour, they can’t leak toxic chemicals into the water table, they use no water (unlike coal fired plants and gas fracking which uses a lot) they don’t emit gases which can kill you in seconds. Being easily visible, they don’t kill birds or bats. The little maintenance required uses no heavy equipment, they produce a commodity requiring no road transport typically using existing distribution lines. They can’t melt down and release radioactive elements. They don’t flood productive valley bottoms, they can’t trigger seismic events nor are they subject to catastrophic dam failure. Glare is not a major issue since PV panels are designed to absorb rather than reflect sunlight. PV output peaks during air conditioning driven summer peak demands helping stabilize the grid. Solar PV can be sited on marginal, sloped or brownfield sites poorly suited for other uses or existing rooftops.

The suggestion that Ontario is littered with abandoned solar farms and PV is an unproven technology is news to anyone who follows the industry. Hawaii already supplies 20 per cent of its grid with solar (storage will facilitate more) and Ontario based publicly traded companies with diversified renewable assets including utility scale solar are doing well, paying steady dividends with appreciating share value. It should come as no surprise that misinformation would be advanced to discourage adoption of a technology which threatens a comfortable monopoly for an essential service.

Taken to the ridiculous, the North Carolina city of Woodland has put a moratorium on solar farms over concerns that they might cause cancer or even suck the energy out of the sun, compromising crop growth.

The industry has been proactive on recycling with suppliers such as Canadian Solar participating in PV Cycle, set up specifically to recycle panels and other electronic equipment, not that there has been a lot to recycle so far. The failure rate in PV panels is very low with some installations now over 25 years old (the typical warranty period) are still producing.

The total volume of failed panels from Enmax’s rooftop PV installation program since 2007 does not fill a single pallet, and some of these are reusable for low voltage off grid applications.

The concern over losing tax revenue that we never had before is a little odd and the question could be raised over whether solar farms should be taxed any more than other farm pursuits. All agriculture uses solar energy in a direct or indirect way to produce sustainable products that society needs and other than the value of the land, the buildings and equipment are exempt from taxation; barns, fences, combines and tractors not taxed. How exactly does a solar farm differ from a large greenhouse installation other than the amount of water and chemical used and continuous road trips inherent to the latter? Electricity has become as basic a need to our society as food.

We can take the lead as was done in Devon, encouraging commercial solar parks, where owners can benefit from stable utility rates or we can erect barriers not faced by other sectors of the economy and let others benefit from the limited solar capacity that will be built in Alberta.

Emile Rocher,

High River




Comments

push icon
Be the first to read breaking stories. Enable push notifications on your device. Disable anytime.
No thanks