With commercial solar panel projects moving towards Albemarle County we should look to Fluvanna and Louisa county as examples of how these projects can have a negative impact on the environment and community wellbeing. In Louisa county, it has been observed that these large solar panel installations lead to erosion and sediment concerns. Virginia is expected to see an increase of precipitate caused by climate change which would only worse these erosion concerns under large solar panels. With solar panels having a lifespan of only 20-30 years how would the county go about restoring this eroded land back to its original state? What happens to these panels after they are no longer functioning?
Developing greenfields would pose huge environmental impacts on an already functioning space for wildlife, carbon sequestration and human wellbeing. I would recommend the county focus on placing solar panels on underutilized developed spaces such as grey and brownfields.
Hello,
I support the county’s interest in renewable energy through solar farms, but urge caution and foresight in their implementation. With so much other development causing reduction of natural spaces, utility scale solar on greenfields poses additional risk to biodiversity, climate resilience, and public resources. Please incentivize installation on already disturbed land, such as parking lots or on underutilized urban and industrial spaces. Not only is it more efficient land use and energy delivery, but it improves the site for humans without degrading natural spaces.
When a natural space must be used, please take the opportunity to advance county goals like those outlined in the Biodiversity Action Plan: require generous stream and visual buffers, implement policies supporting pollinators (like requiring only native plantings and implementing invasive plant management plans), maintain/expand wildlife corridors, and encourage public access and education on the site.
Thank you!
Dear Board,
I am 100% in support of the climate action plan, but believe that utility-scale solar should aim to be a land use improvement rather than a degradation of the land. Cutting down forest to address climate change is not the right approach. Greenfields, which are often well-functioning ecosystems and important territories for non-human species, should be protected as much as possible. Instead, the county should focus on underutelized urban lands like grey- and brownfields. This could be done through financial encourgament like tax breaks etc. If greenfields need to be developed, we should aim for best practice projects as they will serve as future precedents: increase buffers to be real view shed shields and ecosystems, require pollinator smart program implementations and other means to improve eco systems, widen wild life corridors, avoid industrial character, and allow for public access and educational programs. We have a great opportunity and should aim for best practice.
With commercial solar panel projects moving towards Albemarle County we should look to Fluvanna and Louisa county as examples of how these projects can have a negative impact on the environment and community wellbeing. In Louisa county, it has been observed that these large solar panel installations lead to erosion and sediment concerns. Virginia is expected to see an increase of precipitate caused by climate change which would only worse these erosion concerns under large solar panels. With solar panels having a lifespan of only 20-30 years how would the county go about restoring this eroded land back to its original state? What happens to these panels after they are no longer functioning?
Developing greenfields would pose huge environmental impacts on an already functioning space for wildlife, carbon sequestration and human wellbeing. I would recommend the county focus on placing solar panels on underutilized developed spaces such as grey and brownfields.
Hello,
I support the county’s interest in renewable energy through solar farms, but urge caution and foresight in their implementation. With so much other development causing reduction of natural spaces, utility scale solar on greenfields poses additional risk to biodiversity, climate resilience, and public resources. Please incentivize installation on already disturbed land, such as parking lots or on underutilized urban and industrial spaces. Not only is it more efficient land use and energy delivery, but it improves the site for humans without degrading natural spaces.
When a natural space must be used, please take the opportunity to advance county goals like those outlined in the Biodiversity Action Plan: require generous stream and visual buffers, implement policies supporting pollinators (like requiring only native plantings and implementing invasive plant management plans), maintain/expand wildlife corridors, and encourage public access and education on the site.
Thank you!
Dear Board,
I am 100% in support of the climate action plan, but believe that utility-scale solar should aim to be a land use improvement rather than a degradation of the land. Cutting down forest to address climate change is not the right approach. Greenfields, which are often well-functioning ecosystems and important territories for non-human species, should be protected as much as possible. Instead, the county should focus on underutelized urban lands like grey- and brownfields. This could be done through financial encourgament like tax breaks etc. If greenfields need to be developed, we should aim for best practice projects as they will serve as future precedents: increase buffers to be real view shed shields and ecosystems, require pollinator smart program implementations and other means to improve eco systems, widen wild life corridors, avoid industrial character, and allow for public access and educational programs. We have a great opportunity and should aim for best practice.