Protecting the environment through smart solar choices

Author: Tree Hugger (Page 1 of 12)

Solar projects fail to meet pledges

Missing vegetative cover
Missing vegetative cover (photo credit: Mecklenburg Sun)

Mecklenburg County solar projects are failing to meet their pre-construction pledges, according to the planning commission. Deficiencies include solar panels tilted in the wrong direction, inadequate vegetation buffers to shield the projects from view, and projects that do not generate the promised amount of electricity.

solar panels tilted in wrong direction
Solar panels tilted in wrong direction (photo credit: Mecklenburg Sun)

During their meeting, commissioners raised concerns about the developers’ failure to address these lingering issues, and one commissioner raised the possibility of asking Dominion to decommission a project if deficiencies are not addressed.

This follows the planning commission’s rejection of a large utility-scale solar project near Boydton.

Read the full article here:

Mecklenburg planners mull solar reforms after calling out deficiencies, by Susan Kate, Mecklenburg Sun

Deficiencies with local solar projects dominated the discussion at last week’s meeting of the Mecklenburg County Planning Commission, leading members to call for a review of the county’s solar permitting policies.

Although the commission took no action at the Jan. 23 meeting, planning board members questioned whether solar developers have lived up to their commitments with the operation of Mecklenburg’s two completed solar generation facilities, the Grasshopper and Bluestone solar projects near Chase City.

Mecklenburg County Zoning Administrator Robert Hendrick noted the role that solar facilities are said to have played in preventing rolling blackouts around the country during December’s severe winter weather. Also adding that he continues to receive inquiries from companies looking to develop new projects in the area.

In Mecklenburg, he added, there is reason to believe that existing solar facilities are not generating electricity at levels touted by their developers. That, plus an evident lack of adequate vegetative buffer to shield the Grasshopper project from public view as promised, prompted some commission members to ask if anything could be done to rectify the situation.

Hendricks shared photos of solar panels at the Bluestone facility on Spanish Grove Road. Photos taken around 10:20 a.m. should show all panels facing in a single direction tilted toward the sun, according to Hendrick. Instead, some panels are positioned horizontally, while others slant away from the sun. Even the panels aimed toward the sun are not all angled to the same degree, he said.

The panels are on a single axle tracking system that follows the trajectory of the sun as it moves from east to west during the day, maximizing the generation of electricity. It is obvious from the photos that is not happening, Hendrick explained.

“I am told it is a glitch in the software,” he said.

That comment drew a retort from planning commission member David Brankley, the Board of Supervisors’ representative on the panel. “That [lack of tracking] has been an issue for about a year,” he said.

(Click here to continue reading this article.)

Problems with solar projects detailed

Speakers at a Patrick County meeting detailed the many problems with utility-scale solar projects in Virginia. These include visual pollution (thousands of panels surrounded by barbed wire fences) and rainwater runoff that pollutes streams with excess sediment.

Thousands of panels at a rural solar project

Other speakers pointed to the difficulty of learning more about the solar developers themselves, since many use post office box addresses, and the difficulty in filing Freedom of Information Act requests.

In Patrick County, solar developer Energix “has yet to divulge its private contract for decommissioning solar panels and proposes the subtraction of resale value to defray a realistic decommission bond,” according to Jim Best, a member of the Virginia Coalition for Human Rights (VCHR).

Read the full article in The Enterprise here:

Board approves revenue sharing for solar projects, hears stark warning if allowing projects (by Taylor Boyd, 18 Jan 2023, The Enterprise)

The Patrick County Board of Supervisors approved an ordinance for revenue sharing of solar energy projects and energy storage systems, after several speakers, including one from Pittsylvania County, spoke against solar projects and encouraged caution in allowing the creation of so-called solar ‘farms’ in the county.

Mary Beth Clement traveled from Pittsylvania County to address the board at its January 9 meeting.

“I come to you this evening with words of great caution concerning the much-hyped solar farms and solar facilities,” Clement said, noting that Patrick County is the most beautiful rural county she’s ever seen with its mountains, valleys, creeks, ponds, and acres of pastures and wide-open spaces.

Over the last few years, Pittsylvania County has become a hub of solar facility activity with about 20 solar projects approved that, when complete, will occupy more than 10,000 acres.

“I, like many voting residents, didn’t pay too much attention when the first project came up (…) (continue reading here)

Culpeper planners again reject Maroon Solar project

The Culpeper County planning commission has again rejected the proposed utility-scale Maroon Solar project, first denied in 2021. The project developers had reduced its size from 1,792 acres (970 acres of panels) to 1,879 acres (671 acres of panels).

In their discussions, planning commissioners raised significant concerns over the 149-MW project’s size and negative impacts to the community, as well as its impact on the environment, on stormwater management, and on erosion and sedimentation issues.

The project falls in the Chesapeake Bay watershed area, which continues to suffer from excess sedimentation from poor stormwater and erosion controls, according to the 2022 State of the Bay report. The proposal documentation filed by project developer Strata Solar acknowledges that the project area includes potential suitable habitat for several threatened and endangered species (see p 12) but noted that project employees had not observed threatened species such as the northern long-eared bat during their site visits. Strata Solar also estimates decommissioning costs at $9M, though their consultant notes that there is little hard data available to back this figure up. (See Culpeper County government website for the 11 Jan 2023 planning commission minutes and documents.)

Read more here:

Planning commission denies solar project recommendation (Culpeper Times, 12 Jan 2023)

In a double unanimous vote on Jan. 11, the Culpeper County Planning Commission denied a new conditional use permit application submitted by a previously denied solar project set for Stevensburg. (…) (Click here to read the full article.)

« Older posts