Hadley needs to rethink its embrace of agrivoltaics, or so-called dual-use solar, on farmland. We’re on our way to seeing hundreds of acres of prime farmland swallowed up by experimental technology and perhaps a permanent loss of food-producing soil. Developers and green advocates paint a sunny picture of agrivoltaics, with productive farming taking place under a canopy of energy-producing panels. In reality, most of our local crops will not do well under sun-blocking panels in higher heat and greater humidity. Farming is a scale enterprise and trying to till land while avoiding hundreds of embedded posts makes no sense from a production standpoint. Data from UMass and elsewhere underscores that while agrivoltaics works for developers economically, it’s never going to be viable for industrial-scale farming.
And then, there’s the future. What is our prime farmland going to look like after 20 or 30 years of being shrouded by photovoltaic panels? Will the treated posts eventually leach chemicals into the soil? Will the water table itself be altered? Will the panels actually be removed when the time comes? No one knows. This is experimental technology and there are no long-term studies. All we have is common sense whispering in our ears.
Further, agrivoltaics is among the most expensive types of solar and will certainly increase energy bills, making Massachusetts even less affordable as young families and retirees flock for the exits.
Years ago, Hadley’s Planning Board decided to allow large-scale solar projects like these. The state, still in pursuit of an already-failed net-zero fantasy, makes it next to impossible to prevent them. But we need to try. We need to work with farmers to come up with better alternatives. We need to have the discussion. We can’t afford to be cavalier with our farmland or our future.
Tony Fyden
Hadley
