Essay by Eric Worrall
Farmers whose pastures are covered with solar panels have claimed an increase in wool production. But perhaps nobody has explained to farmers that if anything goes wrong their pastures could be contaminated with toxic heavy metals leached out of the solar panels, as the panels are eroded by the wind and rain.
Solar farm trial shows improved fleece on merino sheep grazed under panels
ABC Rural / By Hannah Jose and Olivia Calver
Sheep grazing under solar panels at farms in NSW’s Central West have produced better wool and more of it in the four years since the projects began, according to growers.
Key points:
- Sheep grazing on solar farm trials shows an increase in wool quantity and quality
- There are calls for more research on the co-location of agriculture and renewable energy
- A NSW government review of agriculture and renewable energy has received 100 submissions
Local graziers have labelled the set-up a “complete win-win”, with the sheep helping to keep grass and weeds down so as not to obscure the panels.
In turn, the panels provided shade for the sheep and grass, and helped prevent the soil from drying out.
Wool broker Graeme Ostini, who has been grazing merino wethers at a solar farm near Parkes in a trial with the Parkes Show Society, said he had seen the benefits of running the animals under panels.
He said his sheep were slightly lighter stocked than the average in the district but were cutting an “amazing” amount of wool.
…
This claimed extra wool production, even if true, might come at a significant cost. According to a 2020 study, solar panels can leach dangerous heavy metal toxins, which could potentially contaminate the wool and meat produced by any sheep grazing under the panels.
Metal dissolution from end-of-life solar photovoltaics in real landfill leachate versus synthetic solutions: One-year study
July 2020
Waste Management 114:351-361
DOI:10.1016/j.wasman.2020.07.004
Project: End-of-life Solar Photovoltaics
Preeti Nain
Indian Institute of Technology DelhiArun Kumar
Indian Institute of Technology DelhiTo investigate the after end-of-life (EoL) concerns of solar panels, four commercially available photovoltaics of 15 15cm2 size in broken and unbroken conditions were exposed to three synthetic solutions of pH 4, 7, 10 and one real municipal solid waste (MSW) landfill leachate for one-year. Encapsulant degradation and release, probability of metals exceeding their surface water limit, and change in pollution index of leachate after dumping of solar panels were investigated. Rainwater stimulating solution was found to be predominant for metal leaching from silicon-based photovoltaics, with Ag, Pb and Cr being released to 683.26 mg/L (26.9%), 23.37 mg/L (17.6%), and 14.96 mg/L (13.05%) respectively. Copper indium gallium (de) selenide (CIGS) photovoltaic was found to be least vulnerable in various conditions with negligible release of In, Mo, Se and Ga with value ranging between 0.2 and 1 mg/L (0.30%-0.74%). In contrast, minimal metals were released to MSW leachate compared to other leaching solutions for all photovoltaics. Positive correlation was observed between encapsulant release and metal dissolution with a maximum encapsulant release in silicon-based photovoltaics in rainwater conditions. Probability of exceedance of leached metals to their respective surface water limits for Al (multi and mono crystalline-silicon (c-Si)), Ag (amorphous photovoltaic) and In (CIGS) has shown the maximum exceedance of 92.31%. The regression analysis indicated that conditions of the modules and pH of the leaching solution play significant roles in the leaching of metals. The increase in leachate contamination potential after one-year of photovoltaics dumping was found to be 12.02%, 10.90%, 15.26%, 54.19% for amorphous, CIGS, mono and multi c-Si photovoltaics, respectively. Overall, the maximum metal release observed in the present study is 30% of the initial amount under the most stressful conditions, which suggests that short-term leaching studies with millimeter sized sample pieces do not represent the realistic dumping scenarios. Keywords: End-of-life, solar panel, photovoltaic, metal, leaching
Read more: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/342671383_Metal_dissolution_from_end-of-life_solar_photovoltaics_in_real_landfill_leachate_versus_synthetic_solutions_One-year_study
To be fair, other studies have claimed the risk is negligible;
Potential for leaching of heavy metals and metalloids from crystalline silicon photovoltaic systems
May 2019
Seth A. Robinson
University of FloridaGeorge A Meindl
Binghamton UniversityPhotovoltaics (PV) are a rapidly growing technology as global energy sectors shift towards “greener” solutions. Despite the clean energy benefits of solar power, photovoltaic panels and their structural support systems (e.g., cement) often contain several potentially toxic elements used in their construction. Determining whether these elements have the potential to leach into surrounding environments should be a research priority, as panels are already being implemented on a large scale. In this study, we analyzed soil taken from beneath photovoltaic modules to determine if they are being enriched by metals (lead, cadmium, lithium, strontium, nickel, barium, zinc, and copper) and metalloids (selenium) present in panel systems. The soil samples were collected from directly beneath c-Si photovoltaic modules and adjacent fields. Samples were analyzed by inductively coupled plasma optical emission spectrometry (ICP-OES). Selenium, strontium, lithium, nickel, and barium levels measured in soil samples increased significantly in samples closer to PV systems. There were no significant differences in lead or cadmium levels near vs. far from the PV systems. Despite concentration differences for some elements near vs. far from the panel systems, no elements were, on average, present in concentrations that would pose a risk to nearby ecosystems. PV systems thus remain a cleaner alternative to traditional energy sources, such as coal, especially during the operation of these energy production systems.
Read more: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/339029474_Potential_for_leaching_of_heavy_metals_and_metalloids_from_crystalline_silicon_photovoltaic_systems
Pb (lead) and some Cr (Chromium) salts are highly toxic persistent environmental poisons. I think we all know about lead, but Chromium can also be a nasty toxin, depending on the oxidation state. Chromium (VI) salts are toxic and carcinogenic.
Maintenance could be a bigger issue than farmers realise. Simply bulldozing broken panels into the ground is not an option – according to the first study I quoted broken panels could leach up to 30% of their content of heavy metal toxins if they are buried. Even if farmers think they have a fixed price contract with the solar company, if the solar company goes bust the farmers could be left holding the baby, footing the bill for an expensive cleanup operation.
And you can bet if a farmer attempts to make an insurance claim because of contamination, every panel in their installation will receive a meticulous examination. Any unnoticed cracks and the insurance company would attempt to wriggle out of the claim, citing poor maintenance.
Frankly if I was a farmer I’d be looking at safer ways to improve profitability, than covering my land with solar panels which contain toxic heavy metals which could potentially leach into the pasture, regardless of how many assurances I had received about the alleged safety of such installations.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
How many Uyghur slaves making solar panel components went into the making of this study?
My first job in Australia was on a Sheep Station, Banongill near Skipton.
The owner a Major Fai bun told me that he planted a lot of trees so the sheep could keep cool during the hot Summer.
It’s the shade factor.
Michael VK5ELL
There is no grass for them to eat, so this is a mystery.
The literature on the human response to ingested lead Pb has been through a process of quasi-scientific exaggeration of threat. Just as scientists on the global warming spectrum exaggerate temperature threats (and sometimes exaggerate temperatures themselves) so it is with Pb toxicity.
If commentators are going to write about lead as a danger, the usual call for references to high quality research by neutral authors seems like a prudent move.
Of course, Pb at high concentrations in the body has caused many deaths. Far less evidence, if any, exists for harm from trace quantities like those reported above in soils below old solar panels. Geoff S
traces would be all thats in paint but the “gurus” swear babies sucking wood cribs and stuff using old lead paint were forever harmed…
I think the main point to be taken from this article is that the construction of solar farms in the natural environment does not necessarilly exclude other profiable uses of that land. Therefore, the designers of solar farms should always take into consideration the potential, additional uses of such land, and design the solar farm in a way that best suits those additional uses.
Finally.
You are the only one that makes sense about this article about the solar farms and sheep.
The article is not about “scientists” with their computer models.
It is an article about FARMERS observing what is happening and simply reporting it.
They are saying they will continue to OBSERVE.
Yes, this is what FARMERS do. They OBSERVE. Thank you to them.
Thankyou. I’m glad at least someone in this thread agrees and can see the rationality of my arguement.
theyre looking ie observing…and making a statement which is…less than correct
as pointed out less stock =more fodder and yes shade prob did help a bit, but its been a very good couple of yrs due to la nina here
The grass on my lawn grows best when there is partial shade. I live in Baltimore Maryland USA. I presume that the intense heat and UV from the sun does damage the grass somewhat.
The heat from the direct sun also probably causes more evaporation from the soil. I have two problems with my lawn in Ohio. The shadiest spots tend to develop moss, at the expense of the grass, and the sunniest spots turn brown from lack of water.
Yes I get the same in Western Pennsylvania.
At this time the grass is growing very well in partial shade or sun. The entire neighbor area is green, green, green.
When summer is good with rain both shade and sunny will stay green, but slower growth.
If little rain in the summer, sunny area with be brown, shade will stay green but not fast growing. Over 50 years of observation!
I live in West Deliverance where it rains every day for months on end. The grass grows gangbusters everywhere. Last week I thought somebody stole my pickup truck, but then I mowed the lawn and there it was!
I’m rather disappointed that certain AGW skeptics on this site sometimes behave like ‘Deniers’ with regard to other issues. It should be obvious that different species of plants, in general, vary considerably in their ability to thrive under significant areas of shade, and this applies to different species of grass.
A quick search on the internet has revealed that ‘Saphire Soft Leaf Buffalo Grass’ does very well in 70% shade cover. Most of the related articles on the internet, regarding best grass for shade, are about lawn use, but buffalo grass in general is a good grass for grazing of sheep and cattle.
“Independent research has found that Sapphire Soft Leaf Buffalo, in 70% shade cover, maintains quality and growth and outperforms other Buffalo varieties such as Shademaster, Sir Walter, Kings Pride and Matilda.”
https://www.myhometurf.com.au/lawn-tips/sapphire-soft-leaf-buffalo/
Nothing to do with the last long drought years and poor paddock feeding conditions, dust, etc and now the greening since heavy rainfall and floods in 2020 and again now in 2022?
The Law of Unintended Consequences has been as unbroken as the Law of Gravity.
Scaremongering… alarmism.
I thought skeptics were against alarmism?
and do note this clearly shows continued agricultural use of ground within solar farms…
You might be happy with the assurance that the heavy metal pollution stored on the farm won’t leak into the field and contaminated my food supply, but I’d prefer it wasn’t stored there in the first place.
and wont it be fun rounding the buggers up around panels?
the dogs will NOT be happy
Pointing out real problems is not alarmism.
The article is claiming that they are able to grow sheep on the same land.
The claims are subject to debate, as the comments above have shown.
What is it about you warmistas and your inability to question anything that your handlers tell you to believe?
It’s a shame sheep are banned in the new green world order, due to methane emissions.
hmm no sheep no warm clothing and no gas oil etc means no polycrap clothes either, we cant have cotton cos thats water intensive.
if the newgreen rev gets its way we will be buck naked
cheaper n easier n safer to provide some shadecloth shelters for the sheep
the leachings a real concern for HOME users whos panels are old/unused and still ON roofs (and beforehand) as a huge amount of aussies use the rainwater for drinking, gardens etc
be damned useful if someone did some testing on THAT contamination
and those that dont use the rainwater still flush it into stormwater ie creeks etc cop it.
Really!?
How… absurd!
Exactly what do solar panels contribute to sheep grazing?
Nothing in their report identifies exactly why sheep grow more and better wool just grazing under solar panels. Making their claim, more alarmist magical thinking.
One gets the idea that these sheep owners are spreading tall tales for unspecified reason(s). Perhaps to obscure the deadly metals these sheep owners have spread throughout the lands?
All the better for Big Solar to fleece those being forced to pay for it.
Electrocuted sheep have no production. Covering 65-75% of the field with solar panels = 65-75% less production. Sheep will try to take things with them in sooicide pacts.
You really don’t want sheep under your solar panels. They generate a fire hazard.