News Solar energy

These are 5 disadvantages of solar farms

June 21, 2018 - Anne Jan Doorn - 18 comments

The agricultural land that is used for solar panels is a thorny issue. Agricultural organizations and governments are often not happy with it, because this land should be the last ground on which solar panels should be installed. At least, so it is argued.

On Tuesday 19 June, Minister Eric Wiebes (Economic Affairs and Climate) also addressed the above subject in a letter to the House of Representatives. But what are the disadvantages of solar farms?

1. Disproportionately high amounts are paid per hectare
The farmers sometimes receive up to €8.000 per hectare per year for making their land available. Amounts of $4.000 to $6.000 per hectare per year would be more normal. The high amounts are mainly paid for favorable locations; an example of this is a location where the connection to the electricity network is good. However, these prices are not in proportion to the yields normally obtained per hectare.

It's a matter of supply and demand

In the letter to parliament However, Minister Wiebes states that farmers with solar farms are not overcompensated. According to the minister, it is a question of supply and demand and it makes sense if the fees are higher if the location is more favorable.

2. Unfair competition using taxpayers' money
The high amounts paid for solar farms are partly paid for by government subsidies. If these amounts increase, the costs for the energy transition will also increase. The subsidies are a tricky issue anyway, because the farmers receive the promised sums of money for the longer term. However, there may also come a time when the subsidies will be sharply reversed.

That is the case in China. There, the policy on solar parks was reversed, because their growth was out of control. The substantial subsidies that were given are now being reduced or not given at all. It remains to be seen whether the promised amounts can be realized when the subsidies in the Netherlands are reduced.

3. They can cause environmental and soil pollution
From one German research it turns out that solar panels (due to rain) can leach toxic and heavy metals into the ground; examples of these are copper, cadmium, lead and tin. This could cause soil contamination, which is certainly not desirable on agricultural land. The strange thing is that European rules apply to this, but that solar panels are exempt from this. The aforementioned research is about solar panels cut into pieces and therefore does not necessarily say anything about complete panels. Nevertheless, it is mentioned that damage to solar panels can cause this leaching. The sealing of panels must also remain intact and the recycling must be done correctly. Most Dutch solar panel suppliers are responsible for this, but that is a different story for foreign suppliers.

4. Electricity network cannot handle new requests
In the north of the country in particular, it is a problem that the electricity grid does not have sufficient capacity to accommodate new applications. For example, the Financieele Dagblad reported that grid operator Liander in Friesland receives so many requests (for the connection of new solar parks) that only 10% of them can be honoured.

More direction from the government is needed to solve the problem, says Liander. However, it appears from the letter to parliament from Minister Wiebes that he wants to wait until the new climate agreement with government guidance.

The plan is just unstoppable

5. It drives up the price of land
Land is sought after and scarce at the same time. If a lot of land is also taken up by solar farms, the supply will decrease and the land price rise† However, various brokers in the north of the country do not immediately notice the effect of this. Hans Peters, chairman of VBO Makelaar, does say that you will notice it sooner or later. "The energy targets must be achieved, so it cannot be stopped that more and more land is being used for these purposes."

Minister Wiebes also sees the risk of a rising land price. He is especially afraid of the consequences this will have for young farmers. Wiebes therefore wants unambiguous frameworks to guide the interests of project developers and farmers.

With caution
So there are several dangers lurking. There are of course more disadvantages to mention, such as the disfigurement of the landscape. The recommendation from the ministry, which states that other buildings must first be filled with solar panels, before the agricultural land is used, is therefore not surprising. It is also wise not to act too quickly, because once the solar panels are in place, you will not get them away so quickly.

Do you have a tip, suggestion or comment regarding this article? Let us know

Anne-Jan Doorn

Anne Jan Doorn is an arable expert at Boerenbusiness. He writes about the various arable farming markets and also focuses on the land and energy market.
Comments
18 comments
Jan Veltkamp June 21, 2018
This is a response to this article:
[url=http://www.boerenbusiness.nl/grond/artikelen/10878982/dit-zijn-5-nadelen-van-zonneakkers][/url]
If maize is grown on a field for bio-energy, then that is a waste of food. If there are solar panels on the same field, then all is well. While this is also at the expense of the food supply
Gijs June 21, 2018
people are talking about good cultivated land for food.
they just forget to pay a reasonable price for it. or the big grutter grab too much margin. as long as the wheat is not 25 euros, you grow at a loss, and all other crops are linked to it, directly or indirectly.
West Brabant June 21, 2018
Arguments 2 and 3, I would worry about that as a farmer, the other arguments are not your problem. You really won't get that high compensation for long if the fickle government changes the policy again. There are plenty of plans for solar parks, but I don't think many will be realised, subsidy pots are so empty. The efficiency is also very low compared to a windmill.
Jan June 21, 2018
Farmers need to think a little more commercially. There is far too much farmland in use. In recent years, far too many products have yielded far too little. The less land in use, the better the financial returns. This is also urgently needed, because in the case of transfer from generation to generation, only a fraction of the market value is paid.
Subscriber
freebooter June 21, 2018
Now copper, cadmium and lead are getting into the ground!?!
And if they are on a roof, the rainwater enters the ditch for drinking water, irrigation or runs straight into the rivers.!?! THAT'S POSSIBLE. What a piece of shit, officials bullshit.
Einstein June 21, 2018
I advocate a ditch ban around solar parks!
peer June 21, 2018
flax and hemp are also not food for humans and or animals are not allowed either
if you are good for solar energy then fill the country with it
Subscriber
info June 21, 2018
Why should we not place the solar parks in nature reserves , there are plenty of open spaces available . These areas are often owned by large land owners such as Natuurmonumenten and Gelderslandschap and or private individuals and so on, they already receive an awful lot of money every year in subsidies for which they do nothing. They should be required to make a percentage of their surface area available to solar collectors, and they can place them where no one ever sees them except from the air. In this way we do not lose agricultural land, we already lose 8000 ha per year. to urban and road construction and the like. It must end with that land hoarding, a farmer needs land for his survival.
shoemakers1 June 21, 2018
on average, the natural grounds are too far away from the grid to supply the electricity to make this profitable, assume if it was interesting that they did not need us farmers, but you can also simply convert the natural grounds into agriculture, if it hasn't been ruined by digging and such
Subscriber
info June 21, 2018
To the south of and against Groningen there is already a large area of ​​more than a few hundred natural land, there the stream can go to the city, between Harderwijk and ZWOLLE, around the Veluwe you can use the stream to all the fairly small places that are there. . Brabant has several places where heath against cities is therefore no problem. I think it's just trying to give the farmer as little leeway as possible and Ned. a country without making animals and land, we do get our food from the factory or abroad.
Piet June 21, 2018
Rather socially responsible kill the food producer.
am online June 22, 2018
As long as there are empty roofs off the ground, or everyone is prepared to pay 100 euros for a kilo of potatoes because there is not enough ground. And where there is a shortage, the price rises. Watching TV on the country's solar power with hunger in your stomach, that's progress! You have to be highly trained not to see that.
Skirt June 22, 2018
Non-discussion. Just fill those plots of agricultural land, do you want to earn money or not? If consumers spend more money on food, who cares? Will they ever realize that a farmer also has meaning?
Drent June 22, 2018
I think so too, doing what you can earn the most money with, I don't have to take care of others anyway, they don't take care of me either by paying me a better price.
Jim van de Heuvel June 22, 2018
The quoted German research on poisons is misinterpreted / completely distorted. The German article warns against the dangers of inadequate recycling or dumping of solar panels, which could result in heavy metals ending up in the groundwater. Pure mood making.
Charlie June 22, 2018
info wrote:
Why should we not place the solar parks in nature reserves , there are plenty of open spaces available . These areas are often owned by large land owners such as Natuurmonumenten and Gelderslandschap and or private individuals and so on, they already receive an awful lot of money every year in subsidies for which they do nothing. They should be required to make a percentage of their surface area available to solar collectors, and they can place them where no one ever sees them except from the air. In this way we do not lose agricultural land, we already lose 8000 ha per year. to urban and road construction and the like. It must end with that land hoarding, a farmer needs land for his survival.


Nonsense. With the current amount of land, too much is being produced to be able to live decently.

The fees for sunbathing are fine, so what's the problem anyway?

From what I understand, 40.000 hectares of solar panels will be needed in the long term to achieve the energy objectives. Just say 2% of our agricultural area, or the equivalent of just five years of extracting agricultural land for nature...
Subscriber
joost June 26, 2018
info wrote:
Why should we not place the solar parks in nature reserves , there are plenty of open spaces available . These areas are often owned by large land owners such as Natuurmonumenten and Gelderslandschap and or private individuals and so on, they already receive an awful lot of money every year in subsidies for which they do nothing. They should be required to make a percentage of their surface area available to solar collectors, and they can place them where no one ever sees them except from the air. In this way we do not lose agricultural land, we already lose 8000 ha per year. to urban and road construction and the like. It must end with that land hoarding, a farmer needs land for his survival.
tseard licorice 2 July 2018
What I do not understand is that energy and climate objectives are not linked to biodiversity objectives (meadow birds, flora and fauna, nest protection, etc.), also financially (ie a proportional compensation for both E&K and biodiversity). You can build soil life, cultivation and the like under those solar parks, right? Or am I just so stupid.
Hans 2 July 2018
If I can catch 6 to 8000 euros per ha, I will, just like almost all my colleagues.
In addition, I see a few small problems looming.
- This amount can only be coughed up with an unbelievable amount of SDE subsidy.
So the whole land market ie. is therefore disrupted by subsidies.
read your own tax money.
- Solar panels only produce electricity during the day, a lot in the summer and little in the winter.
So all solar power capacity must also be available from a power station once again.
A windmill turns day and night, summer and winter.
Costs a lot but seems much more efficient to me.
There is also something else that really bothers me in this discussion:
Every hectare of grassland in our country stores an average of 20.000 kg of CO2, which they no longer do under the solar fields.
In the meantime, I am beginning to seriously doubt the mental capabilities of the taxpayers' money and clean up wasteful government in our country.
A little common sense in The Hague would not be out of place!
You can no longer respond.

View and compare prices and rates yourself

Call our customer service +0320 - 269 528

or mail to supportboerenbusiness. Nl

do you want to follow us?

Receive our free Newsletter

Current market information in your inbox every day

Login/Register