This actually seems sensible to me. The value of the land's agricultural utility would be compromised with large-scale solar, when it could just as easily support wind generation without losing...
This actually seems sensible to me. The value of the land's agricultural utility would be compromised with large-scale solar, when it could just as easily support wind generation without losing the crops.
Tourism revenue is a big deal for the state as well, so even if there's vacant farmland, it's better to preserve it for aesthetic reasons.
It's not like there's a shortage of unfarmable, high-insolation land in the U.S., or even Oregon. Inland Oregon and Washington States have significant areas that are essentially high desert, arable only with heavy irrigation. Why not put solar farms there, and crops in the increasingly humid shade?
it seems like the concern is that doing that isn't viable at a commercial scale in most of oregon, and the places where it is are by and large covered by the areas that were just protected here. i...
It's not like there's a shortage of unfarmable, high-insolation land in the U.S., or even Oregon. Inland Oregon and Washington States have significant areas that are essentially high desert, arable only with heavy irrigation. Why not put solar farms there, and crops in the increasingly humid shade?
it seems like the concern is that doing that isn't viable at a commercial scale in most of oregon, and the places where it is are by and large covered by the areas that were just protected here. i imagine if they could just put a bunch of solar farms elsewhere, these new rules would be causing less of a stir than they actually are.
this is an interesting issue going on in oregon this week. oregon is protecting some of its prime farmland and soil from commercial solar development, which is an understandable thing, but in...
this is an interesting issue going on in oregon this week. oregon is protecting some of its prime farmland and soil from commercial solar development, which is an understandable thing, but in doing this it's seemingly going to make it very difficult for large-scale solar development to take place in oregon, since there are relatively few places to put such projects. this is especially an issue in the portland area, where such power is needed:
“The valley is prime farmland — the best soil in the world,” he said. “Burning that up for solar panels may not be the best decision.”
Without farmland protections, Nemarnik said, his vineyard would have been a housing development.
“We wouldn’t be on this property if it wasn’t for our land use laws,” he said.
Wine growers and other ag industry advocates say now the threat to farmland isn’t rows and rows of houses but rows and rows of solar panels. That’s why they’ve pushed for new rules prohibiting commercial solar development on 3.6 million acres of the state’s best farmland.
By putting restrictions on land with high-value soils designated prime, unique, and classes I and II, the rules put about 6% of the state off limits — not to rooftop solar but to larger projects that cover acres of land. Solar developers would have to apply for an exception to the rule before their projects could be considered.
[...]
Nicole Hughes, executive director of Renewable Northwest, said the rules deal a major blow to the solar industry because together with other constraints they leave few if any options for projects near Portland where the energy is needed most.
“It will effectively shut down solar development in the Willamette Valley,” she said. “There’s very few locations in the state you can actually put a solar farm.”
compromises do seem to exist here, so it's not a total wash for large-scale solar projects. i'm not sure if this will make up for the prime solar estate that's been knocked off the board by the other rules, though:
However, the new rules do include a compromise, Chambers said. They allow for 12-acre solar developments on lower quality, classes III and IV soils and for 20-acre developments that incorporate agricultural uses such as grazing or shade crops in between the panels. Even larger projects are allowed on farmland that isn’t zoned for exclusive farm use.
This actually seems sensible to me. The value of the land's agricultural utility would be compromised with large-scale solar, when it could just as easily support wind generation without losing the crops.
Tourism revenue is a big deal for the state as well, so even if there's vacant farmland, it's better to preserve it for aesthetic reasons.
It's not like there's a shortage of unfarmable, high-insolation land in the U.S., or even Oregon. Inland Oregon and Washington States have significant areas that are essentially high desert, arable only with heavy irrigation. Why not put solar farms there, and crops in the increasingly humid shade?
it seems like the concern is that doing that isn't viable at a commercial scale in most of oregon, and the places where it is are by and large covered by the areas that were just protected here. i imagine if they could just put a bunch of solar farms elsewhere, these new rules would be causing less of a stir than they actually are.
this is an interesting issue going on in oregon this week. oregon is protecting some of its prime farmland and soil from commercial solar development, which is an understandable thing, but in doing this it's seemingly going to make it very difficult for large-scale solar development to take place in oregon, since there are relatively few places to put such projects. this is especially an issue in the portland area, where such power is needed:
compromises do seem to exist here, so it's not a total wash for large-scale solar projects. i'm not sure if this will make up for the prime solar estate that's been knocked off the board by the other rules, though: