Spotsylvania Mega Solar Project: Helping or Hurting?
Highlighting issues within the University of Richmond and sPower's mega solar plant in Spotsylvania County, Virginia
Introduction
The University of Richmond’s Spider Solar plan created a partnership between the university and a solar company by the name of sPower to construct a massive 20 megawatt solar array, consisting of 47,000 solar panels, 50 miles away from the university’s campus in Spotsylvania County, which is pictured to the right. According to the University of Richmond Office of Sustainability website, the 47,000 panels are “expected to produce 41,000 megawatt hours of solar energy, neutralizing 19,720 metric tons of carbon annually, equivalent to the annual electricity use of 4,909 homes” (University of Richmond, Office of Sustainability). Rob Andrejewski, Director of Sustainability at the university claims that, "This visionary project represents an evolution in energy management and greenhouse gas reduction at the University of Richmond...It has environmental, social, and financial benefits and demonstrates our deep commitment to stewardship." And while the addition of solar power to the university's sustainability efforts is a step in the right direction, there are major concerns regarding the safety and environmental aspects of the Spotsylvania power plant.
Major Concerns
The solar power plant in Spotsylvania County is a 500 MW utility scale solar power plant that sPower intends to build on 6,350 acres, as pictured above. As this is a massive project, in fact the largest solar project east of the Rocky Mountains, it garnered lots of attention, and subsequent concern from the residents of Spotsylvania County. According to the Environmental Justice Atlas, "the proposed location, Spotsylvania County (SSC) where 130,000 persons are residing, is mainly famous for its civil war history and agriculture" (EJATLAS). Because the land here was so widely known and there was a desire to protect it, there was massive amounts of research done by people in the community, and many concerns were brought to the surface. A group of concerned citizens labeled as The Concerned Citizens of Fawn Lake and Spotsylvania County played a large role in the addressing the issues of the solar farm. They held protests in the community, and demanded solutions or addressing the problems and questions they posed. Some of the most prominent issues they drew attention to are: limited employment opportunities in relation to the scale of the project, erosion of nearby land and chemical runoff, misleading advertising to local communities and University of Richmond community regarding “offsetting”, and extreme water extraction that could harm the local aquifers.
Image 1: Spotsylvania solar farm acreage and map (left) compared to a much smaller solar farm in Chewsville, MD (right)
Image 2: Protests in Spotsylvania County against the solar farm
Employment
From an opportunity standpoint, this project has many issues, but one of the most prominent concerns is the issue of the amount of money being invested into it in comparison to the amount of jobs it will produce. This project is expensive, with around $1 billion being invested into it. But, this massive 6,350 acre solar plant will only create around 20-25 jobs total (Finley-Brook & Martin). Nationally, solar is known to be an easy and reliable way to create jobs in a mass scale. Nationwide, "94,549 workers spend some portion of their time on solar-related work, for a total of 344,532 workers who spend all or part of their time in solar" (The Solar Foundation). The link embedded below leads you to to The Solar Foundation's National Solar Job Census, which is an annual report on the amount of people employed in the national solar workforce. Compared to the national rate, the Spotsylvania County solar farm is drastically under the normal rate of job production.
Erosion, Chemical Runoff and Deforestation
In order to allow for space for the solar plant to be created, almost the entirety of the 6,350 acre space was fully logged and cleared, which in and of itself is a problem as this means they have over 6,000 acres of carbon-reducing trees, but also, this clear land will inevitably lead to erosion and runoff. The issue of the rate of deforestation that occurred in order to clear the land was one that garnered major public upset, as local residents have property that goes to the edge of the solar farm land, as shown in the photo on the right below. Fox News published an article where a resident blamer sPower for chopping down the forest until 62 feet away from his house (EJATLAS). While the deforestation stirred up much public dismay, this is not where the problems end. The logging and clearing was part of the plan to get the land flat for the installation of the solar panels, but this is complicated by the fact that several streams run through the property, and eventually flow into the Chesapeake Bay. As a result of this combination, flat land and running water, it is of the utmost importance that the selection and application of chemicals and fertilizers used during construction is heavily considered. These chemicals and agricultural runoff can and most likely would cause harm to the surrounding nature, such as harming the animals in the water or creating stagnant algae blooms in ponds or wetlands. An organization titled “Concerned Citizens of Fawn Lake and Spotsylvania County” put together a list of some of the major points of concern regarding the environmental and general safety of the project. They suggested that in order to combat this, the cleaning agents should be both non-toxic and biodegradable to avoid harming people, birds, fish, and any and all other nature.
Image 3: The land for the solar farm, after it being defrosted and cleared
Misleading Messages about "Offsetting"
Image 4: What is Carbon Offsetting?
A major issue with the implementation of the Spider Solar plan was the idea of "offsetting" that the university used heavily in the publicization of the plan. The idea of offsetting, in terms of solar, means that the energy produced through solar power, which is sustainable and does not use fossil fuels, can "offset" or balance out energy created through unsustainable sources. According to the University of Richmond's Solar website, "Over the course of a year, the system has the potential to offset 364,000 lbs. of carbon dioxide" (University of Richmond, Office of Sustainability). While this idea of offsetting has truth to it, it creates problems as well. These offsets could be used as an excuse for people or the university to halt their sustainability efforts. The University of Richmond, specifically, has a strikingly high level of energy use compared to the size of the student body, but because of misleading climate solutions such as offsetting with solar power, their practices can appear sustainable. Solar cannot be relied upon as the sole means of sustainability efforts, and needs to be paired with other efforts to reduce emissions first in order to be effective.
Map 1: Proposed layout and acreage of the Spotsylvania solar farm
Extreme Water Extraction
The creation of the plant in Spotsylvania County will require massive amounts of water which could have detrimental effects on the surrounding areas. According to "Concerned Citizens of Fawn Lake and Spotsylvania County", sPower will use "308 million gallons of water during 18 months of construction..this is a 10% increase in well water consumption in Spotsylvania." Furthermore, after the 308 million to build, an additional 8 million gallons will need to be used every year to sustain and upkeep and operate the facilities. Extracting this much water from an area that does not normally extract water at this rate could lower the groundwater levels and permanently damage the aquifers in the area. Citizens of Spotsylvania County have already run into problems with water supply before, as some rely on well water and have had issues during times of droughts. The increase in water extraction in this area would only intensify these issues and harm the surrounding communities more
Raymond Bryant and Michael Goodman explain in their 2004 piece, "Consuming narratives: the political ecology", that performative ecological practices have become more and more noticeable. They write that, "environmental conservation and social justice are frequently identified as morally beneficial objectives [that] only add to.. attraction" (Bryant and Goodman). The solar plan being put in place and endorsed by sPower and the University of Richmond does offer ecological benefits, but simultaneously has the potential to cause harm to the environment and surrounding areas and provides an opportunity for performative ecological practices that will not truly create change. The university and sPower are using the attractiveness of renewable energy to justify some of their harmful business practices. In her 2019 article titled, "The Case for Climate Rage", author Amy Westervelt discusses this phenomenon. She describes this as an "industrial or corporate-friendly response to the crisis" (Westervelt), an idea that some refer to as greenwashing.
Greenwashing is a form of marketing spin in which "green" PR and "green" marketing are deceptively used to persuade the public that an organization's products, aims and policies are environmentally friendly, as further explained in the YouTube video embedded to the right.
Greenwashing and performative ecological practices hold a serious threat, as it can mislead people into acting unsustainably. If a company says that they're eco-friendly, you may want to buy their products, or in this case, believe that your energy is sustainable. If these environmental claims turn out to be false, then you've accidentally contributed to harming the environment by supporting the company.The Spotsylvania solar farm is exactly that, an industrial response to the crisis, and fuels performative ecological practices, which is incredibly dangerous for the current climate state.
Works Cited
EJOLT. (n.d.). Spotsylvania solar energy center (500 mw, pv)—Virginia, usa | ejatlas. Environmental Justice Atlas. Retrieved April 23, 2021, from https://ejatlas.org/conflict/spotsylvania-solar-energy-center-500-mw-pv-virginia-usa
Solar—Office for sustainability—University of richmond. (n.d.). Retrieved April 23, 2021, from https://sustainability.richmond.edu/campus/renewables/index.html
Westervelt, A. (2019, August 19). The case for climate rage. Popula. https://popula.com/2019/08/19/the-case-for-climate-rage/
Bryant, R. & Goodman, M. (November 28, 2003). Consuming narratives: the political ecology of ‘alternative’ consumption. Department of Geography, King’s College, University of London.
Finley-Brook, M & Martin, G. (April 3, 2021) Identifying Tradeoffs in the Spotsylvania Solar Mega-Project. University Renewable Energy Education Project (U-REEP)
The Solar Foundation's National Solar Jobs Census Ranks Illinois as a National Leader in Solar Job Creation. Professional Services Close-Up. (February 17, 2019 Sunday). https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection=news&id=urn:contentItem:5VFG-GY21-F06S-P4Y3-00000-00&context=1516831
The negative effects of corporate greenwashing. (n.d.). Sea Going Green. Retrieved May 3, 2021, from https://www.seagoinggreen.org/blog/the-negative-effects-of-corporate-greenwashing
