The main concern seems to be aesthetics. Folks don't want a view with solar panels in it. Yet the proposed sights are in areas very few people will see. As well, the planned landscaping surrounding these areas, once matured, will fairly well prevent viewing the structures from anywhere but the air above them. It will present a much better view than the old cars and junk strewn in so many unkempt properties in our area.
Another concern is that those opposed fear their adjacent properties will depreciate in value. Yet they can't seem to give any examples of this in real numbers or percentages. Solar sites are required to be at quite a distance (150 feet or nearly the width of a football field) from adjoining properties and roadways, fenced and landscaped outside the fence and maintained by the solar company and do not encroach on neighboring lands. Some say the panels will leak contaminants into the soil and water. There's very little proof of this from solar farms, especially when the newer, safer, more technologically advanced panels are used. Those opposed speak of contaminants found in discarded electronic equipment such as computers, cell phones, and other devices tossed in landfills and not recycled. Solar panels are easily recycled, and this recycling has become an industry in itself.
The "loss of farmland" and food generated from it is another concern. But the proposed sites will feature dual (solar-agricultural) land use, with flocks of sheep grazing under and around the panels to maintain the vegetation. These fields currently produce field corn and soybeans we don't cook for our dinners. The term used for this is agrivoltaics and has been proven highly successful.
In addition, the proposed project will pump many times more money into the county through a PILOT (payment in lieu of taxes) than would ever happen if taxed as farmland while taking up very little of the land, which will be returned to the owners for farming or whatever else the owner decides when the 40-year lease is up. For many years, landowners have left ground to lie fallow, conserving it for future use. This does not destroy the land in any way. The contracts (leases) require the solar companies to remove the installations at their expense at the end of the leases and not that of the owners and is secured via bond. The claim that it somehow gives China a foothold in Knox County is simply ridiculous. China is neither the owner nor leaser of the land. Like it or not, these same people who are against anything to do with China have purchased many of their personal items manufactured there and must realize China is one of our trading partners and significant in our nation's economy.
To date, the best panels are manufactured in China and Germany, but American companies have more than caught up to that technology in recent years, and these companies are springing up all over our nation. One is currently being built and staffed as close to us as Pataskala, Ohio.
Then there are those who doubt the efficiency of solar in Ohio. These same folks need only to look at our neighboring states and Canada to know solar energy has become quite an efficient supplement to the generation of electric power needed to support the growth of industry and businesses as well as residences. As technology advances, so too will the efficiency. There will be employees of Frasier working the fields to ensure both safety and proficiency. To those whose claims are that the life expectancy of the panels will only be about 15-20 years, I point to the advances made since solar was first introduced and say I'm sure Frasier will keep up-to-date equipment in those fields producing as much energy as they can market. Frasier isn't in business to lose production nor profit.
The politicization of the project stems mainly from Republican opposition to anything remotely akin to "The Green New Deal." Yet these same folks have no problem with fracking our earth's substructure, destroying our hills with strip mines and fouling our air and water tables. They also do not believe the pesticides and herbicides currently put on the fields leach into our water or harm our wildlife, though recent studies show that up to 40% of these chemical applications can leach into our streams and water tables. Their opposition is so strong they've ousted a very well-qualified and proven commissioner for ones that have near zero qualifications and performance in governmental matters.
It seems another objection is to the noise level of solar fields. There is a bit of a "hum" to the transmitters, but negligible, particularly with the vegetation planted around the installations. We don't hear these same complaints from neighboring grain driers or the County airport centered in these planned installations, which are at much higher decibels.
Knox County is going to grow exponentially with Amazon, Illuminate USA, Intel and other industries at our doorstep. We'll need the extra power as well as the funding to build industry, homes and businesses, larger schools and infrastructure here if we are to keep pace with the growth. We need to do so with planning for clean, less expensive modern means while retaining our rural feel. It can be done. But turning our backs to future growth and development will cause our county to be bypassed and die out as other counties in Ohio have done in their past and now struggling to keep their children, businesses, industries and jobs from leaving their areas for a better, more prosperous living elsewhere.
I urge everyone to read the following, which was submitted and accepted by OHIO POWER SITING BOARD:
dis.puc.state.oh.us/ViewImage.aspx?CMID=A1001001A24C20B31150C03030
