AgriSolar Ranch

10/11/2026

SOLAR IS TAKING OUR FARMLAND

10/09/2026

FACT CHECK: Are solar farms really using hundreds of thousands of gallons of water to wash their panels?

We’ve noticed a growing number of posts claiming that utility-scale solar facilities require constant washing, consume enormous quantities of water, and cost hundreds of thousands of dollars annually just to keep their panels clean.

As a company that works directly in utility-scale solar vegetation management, we figured this would be a good opportunity to separate some facts from fiction.

CLAIM #1: Solar panels have to be washed regularly to produce electricity.

FACT: False as a blanket statement.

Solar panels can accumulate dust, pollen, and other debris that reduce their efficiency. The industry calls this photovoltaic soiling.

However, that doesn’t mean every solar facility requires routine washing.

Rainfall naturally removes some accumulated debris, although certain materials, particularly pollen, can remain attached to the glass even after heavy rain.

Whether a facility needs cleaning depends on its location, environmental conditions, actual production losses, and the cost of restoring that production.

In fact, a National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) study examined five utility-scale solar facilities in North Carolina that had operated for more than seven years without manual panel cleaning.

Did those facilities experience production losses? Absolutely. But the study also demonstrates that solar farms aren’t necessarily being washed every few weeks or even every year.

CLAIM #2: Solar operators are just guessing when their panels need cleaning.

FACT: We have technology specifically designed to measure this.

Commercial instruments such as the Kipp & Zonen DustIQ measure the amount of sunlight transmission being lost to dust, pollen, and other debris.

Other monitoring methods compare clean reference panels against dirty ones to calculate production losses.

These measurements, along with actual electrical production data, allow operators to evaluate whether cleaning makes financial sense.

Think about it this way.

If cleaning a facility costs $50,000 but the additional electricity recovered is only worth $15,000, why would an operator spend the money?

That’s not how you run a profitable business.

CLAIM #3: Washing a 200-megawatt solar farm requires 132,000 to 317,000 gallons of water.

FACT: That’s not a universal requirement.

Water consumption depends heavily on the cleaning method.

Conventional wet washing can consume substantial amounts of water, but there are also water-efficient brushing systems, specialized cleaning equipment, and dry robotic cleaning technologies that use little or no water.

The number of panels, their surface area, and the equipment used all matter.

You cannot take a water-consumption estimate from one particular cleaning method, multiply it across an entire solar facility, and claim that every solar farm requires that amount.

And remember, a facility that doesn’t require washing isn’t consuming water for panel washing in the first place.

CLAIM #4: Solar farms cost hundreds of thousands of dollars every year to wash.

FACT: Those figures are estimates, not universal operating expenses.

NREL has discussed an estimated $5,000 cost to clean a 10-megawatt solar facility once.

But multiplying that number by the size of a larger facility doesn’t establish its actual annual cleaning bill.

You’d also need to know how often it gets cleaned, whether cleaning is necessary, what equipment is used, and what the operator actually pays.

A theoretical expense isn’t the same thing as an expense that has actually occurred.

CLAIM #5: Agricultural activity makes solar panels impractical because of dust and pollen.

FACT: Agricultural dust and pollen can affect solar production, but that doesn’t make the two land uses incompatible.

We work in agrivoltaics, where agricultural production and solar energy generation take place on the same property.

Our sheep graze beneath solar panels, helping maintain vegetation while continuing to produce agricultural products.

Vegetation management can also help control some sources of dust by maintaining ground cover and limiting exposed soil.

There’s no question that dust and pollen deserve consideration. But they are maintenance factors to be evaluated, not automatic evidence that agriculture and solar energy cannot coexist.

THE BOTTOM LINE

Solar panels get dirty. Sometimes they need washing. Sometimes rainfall is sufficient. Sometimes mechanical cleaning is justified, and sometimes the cost of cleaning exceeds the value of the electricity recovered.

The important thing is that these decisions can be based on actual measurements and economics.

We’re not suggesting that solar energy is perfect or that maintenance is free. We spend our working days maintaining these facilities, so we’re well aware that they require upkeep.

But there’s a substantial difference between discussing legitimate maintenance costs and presenting worst-case assumptions as though they represent the everyday operations of every solar farm in America.

Good energy policy starts with accurate information, regardless of whether you’re for or against solar development.

AgriSolar Ranch
Keeping agriculture alive beneath the panels.

10/04/2026

Do solar panels contaminate the water?

I hear this one all the time, especially anytime a new solar project is proposed. Usually it’s some version of “those panels are going to leach heavy metals into the groundwater.”

So instead of arguing about it, I went looking for actual studies where somebody tested it.

And there is one.

In 2025, researchers published a study in Environmental Geochemistry and Health looking at one of the older solar farms in Poland. It has been operating since 2012 and uses monocrystalline silicon panels. The researchers collected water running directly off the panels and tested it for 19 different elements. They also tested the soil around the solar farm.

They did find something.

Cadmium in the panel runoff was above the drinking-water limit used in the study. That’s worth acknowledging and absolutely worth studying.

But that’s also where reading the entire study becomes important.

Most of the other elements they tested for were either low or below the laboratory’s ability to quantify them. And the researchers found that a lot of the heavy-metal contamination in the surrounding soil, including cadmium, lead, chromium and zinc, was associated with the area’s long history of mining and smelting. They specifically warned that there were multiple potential sources of pollution at the site and called their research a preliminary study.

They did identify indium and antimony as possible emerging pollutants associated with long-term photovoltaic use, and recommended more research at solar farms in different areas.

So there is a legitimate environmental question here. But this study does not show that solar farms are poisoning groundwater.

And there’s another really important part of this conversation that almost never gets mentioned:

Not all solar panels are the same.

Another 2025 peer-reviewed study published in the Journal of Environmental Management tested 97 samples taken from 33 different solar modules representing 16 manufacturers. They compared older traditional silicon panels with newer technologies, field-aged panels with new panels, glass/backsheet with glass/glass construction, and silicon panels with cadmium-telluride panels.

The difference between old and new technology was pretty interesting.

Three of the 33 modules tested exceeded the EPA TCLP threshold for lead. All three were traditional silicon technology. None of the modern PV modules tested exceeded the lead threshold.

The researchers found that newer-generation silicon panels using modern cell technology, newer interconnections and glass/glass construction generally had lower potential for metals to leach than the older designs.

They also tested cadmium-telluride, or CdTe, panels. Those are a completely different type of solar panel that actually uses cadmium telluride in the semiconductor. Cadmium was detected in the CdTe modules, while lead and barium were the metals detected in the silicon modules.

So when somebody says “solar panels contain toxic metals,” my next question is becoming:

Which solar panel?

What technology? How old is it? Is it damaged? Is it glass/glass or glass/backsheet? Are we talking about a modern silicon module, an older BSF silicon module, or a CdTe thin-film module?

Those differences actually matter.

I work around utility-scale solar every day, so obviously I support agrivoltaics. But supporting solar doesn’t mean we need to pretend it has absolutely zero environmental risks. Panels age. Panels get damaged. Materials can potentially leach, and those risks should be studied, monitored and dealt with properly when panels reach the end of their life.

At the same time, finding that a damaged or aging solar panel can leach a metal under certain conditions is very different from proving that thousands of acres of operating solar panels are poisoning wells or groundwater.

So far, I haven’t found good evidence demonstrating widespread groundwater contamination underneath normally operating solar farms.

There are legitimate questions here. There are legitimate environmental risks worth monitoring.

But the science is considerably more complicated than “solar panels poison the water.”

And personally, I think we’re better off talking about the actual risks and figuring out how to mitigate them than pretending they either don’t exist or are automatically catastrophic.

Sources:

Yandem, G., Grygoyć, K. & Jabłońska-Czapla, M. (2025). Impact of photovoltaics on soil and water by metal(loid)s including technology critical elements: preliminary study. Environmental Geochemistry and Health, 47, 389. DOI: 10.1007/s10653-025-02686-4.

Li, F., Tatapudi, S.R., Shaw, S.L., Libby, C., Bicer, B. & TamizhMani, G.S. (2025). Photovoltaic module leach testing: Database development and statistical analysis. Journal of Environmental Management, 377, 124666. DOI: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2025.124666.

10/02/2026

A Picture of Agriculture Changing

There’s something almost painfully symbolic about this photo.

On one side stands an old dairy barn, slowly collapsing under the weight of time. It represents an agricultural system that once supported families, livestock, and rural communities, but has become increasingly difficult for many small farms to sustain.

Just beyond it is a new solar facility. But the agriculture didn’t disappear.

Sheep graze beneath and between the panels. An apiary gives bees a productive home. Blocks of planted wildflowers provide forage for pollinators and habitat for insects and wildlife. The same acreage produces electricity while remaining actively managed as agricultural and ecological land.

That contrast matters.

We often talk about solar and agriculture as though one must replace the other. This photograph shows another possibility: agriculture adapting alongside a changing rural economy. The old barn is disappearing, but farming doesn’t necessarily have to disappear with it.

Maybe the question shouldn’t always be, “What did solar replace?”

Sometimes we should also ask, “What can we build around it?”

Pasture. Sheep. Honey. Pollinator habitat. Local jobs. Energy.

The barn and the solar panels aren’t simply a picture of the old versus the new. They’re a reminder that rural land has always changed with the economics of farming. The challenge now is making sure the next chapter still has room for farmers.

09/29/2026

Sheep, cops, a couch

09/27/2026

Did some residential and commercial mowing today! 💪

09/27/2026

Great day for mowing, we do it all from solar and residential - to everything in between!

09/26/2026

Energy Independence Starts at Home

I think there is something we need to start paying a lot more attention to when we talk about solar, battery storage and energy development in our communities.

Who benefits when we stop building our own energy?

I’m not saying everyone who opposes a solar project is some kind of foreign agent. That’s ridiculous. There are legitimate concerns with any large development, and communities absolutely deserve answers.

But we also shouldn’t pretend foreign countries haven’t figured out that American energy policy is something they can manipulate.

We already have proof.

A U.S. House Science Committee investigation found roughly 9,000 Russian social media posts targeting American energy issues between 2015 and 2017. They weren’t just pushing one side. They were getting involved in arguments over pipelines, fossil fuels, fracking and climate change. The point was largely to stir people up, deepen divisions and influence the conversation around American energy policy.

That should concern everybody, regardless of politics.

More recently, the Department of Justice charged two employees of Russian state-controlled RT with secretly funneling nearly $10 million into an American media company producing content for U.S. audiences. That company worked with American social media influencers, some with huge followings. Importantly, there is no evidence those influencers necessarily knew where the money originated.

DOJ has uncovered other Russian influence operations using fake American social media accounts, AI-generated content and even websites designed to look like legitimate American news outlets.

So why should people in rural Virginia care?

Because a lot of America’s energy future isn’t being decided in Washington.

It’s being decided at the county level.

A utility solar project can live or die at a Board of Supervisors meeting. The same goes for battery storage. A Facebook post gets shared a few thousand times, people get angry, a meeting room fills up and suddenly millions of dollars worth of American energy infrastructure can disappear.

That makes rural communities a pretty attractive place to spread misinformation.

And we’re starting to see increasingly aggressive social media campaigns telling rural Americans that solar is destroying farmland, ruining communities or somehow working against American energy independence.

Some concerns are legitimate. Some claims aren’t.

That’s exactly why we need to slow down and ask where the information is coming from.

If someone with a million followers tells you solar is destroying American agriculture, check the numbers.

If a page suddenly starts hammering your county about a proposed energy project, find out who’s behind it.

If an organization is spending money fighting projects across multiple states, ask who’s funding them.

And we should be asking the same questions of developers and renewable-energy companies. Nobody gets a free pass simply because they’re on the other side.

There’s another part of energy independence we can’t ignore either: where our equipment comes from.

America shouldn’t replace dependence on foreign oil with dependence on foreign solar panels, batteries and critical minerals. The Department of Energy has identified vulnerabilities in battery-storage supply chains and the need to expand secure domestic manufacturing.

That’s a real national-security issue.

But the answer to foreign dependence isn’t to stop building energy infrastructure in America.

It’s to build more of it here, strengthen American manufacturing, secure our supply chains and use every resource that makes sense: solar, batteries, nuclear, natural gas and whatever comes next.

And when solar is properly managed, the land underneath it doesn’t have to stop producing either. It can continue supporting agriculture through grazing, hay production, pollinator habitat and other agrivoltaic uses.

That’s something I’ve seen firsthand.

So maybe the question at the next county meeting shouldn’t simply be:

“Do you support solar?”

Maybe it should be:

“Does this project make our community and our country more energy independent?”

Then look at the facts and make the decision locally.

Because foreign governments have already demonstrated that they’re willing to manipulate Americans through social media and exploit arguments surrounding energy.

We’d be foolish to assume they’ll suddenly stop.

Sources: U.S. Department of Justice, Two RT Employees Indicted for Covertly Funding and Directing U.S. Company; U.S. House Committee on Science, Space & Technology, Russia’s Social Media Meddling in U.S. Energy Markets; U.S. Department of Justice, Justice Department Disrupts Covert Russian Government-Sponsored Foreign Malign Influence Operation; U.S. Department of Energy, CESER battery-storage supply-chain assessment.

09/26/2026

Solar Fact Check: Does Solar Take Away Farmland?

One of the most common arguments against utility-scale solar is that it “takes farmland out of production.”

But look at this photo.

That isn’t farmland that disappeared. That’s pasture underneath an operating power plant.

With the right design and vegetation management, solar facilities can create hundreds or even thousands of acres of fenced pasture. Sheep can graze between and underneath the panels, turning vegetation that would otherwise be mechanically mowed into agricultural production. The same acre can produce electricity, forage, livestock, and potentially pollinator habitat at the same time.

And there’s a bigger agricultural issue hiding behind the solar debate: access to land.

Beginning farmers face an enormous barrier before they ever buy their first sheep, tractor, or roll of fence. They need land. Buying enough acreage to support a commercially viable livestock operation can require more capital than a new farmer can realistically obtain. Leasing productive pasture isn’t always easy either.

Meanwhile, solar development is creating large areas that must be vegetated and maintained for decades.

That creates an opportunity.

Instead of treating the vegetation underneath solar panels as something that simply needs to be cut down, we can manage suitable sites as working pasture and give local livestock producers access to acreage they may never have been able to purchase themselves. In some grazing arrangements, the farmer isn’t paying for access to the land. They’re being paid to manage it with livestock. That’s a radically different entry point for someone trying to build a farm without inheriting several hundred acres or arriving with a suitcase full of money.

Solar development absolutely changes how land is used. Pretending otherwise doesn’t help the conversation. But changing agricultural land use is not necessarily the same thing as eliminating agriculture.

Done poorly, a solar facility can become little more than panels surrounded by repeatedly mowed vegetation.

Done thoughtfully, that same property can become energy infrastructure, pasture, habitat, and an entry point for the next generation of farmers.

The picture tells the story pretty well: the panels are producing power, and underneath them is still land capable of producing agriculture.

Maybe the better question isn’t “Does solar take farmland?”

It’s “How do we make sure solar land continues to farm?”

Professional land management for commercial, residential, solar & agricultural properties. Vegetation management, grazing, mowing, grounds maintenance & more.

09/26/2026

Native wildflowers