One of the most persistent criticisms of new solar developments is that they are taking over valuable farmland, threatening food security and harming rural communities. Headlines often warn that productive agricultural land is being “swallowed” by solar panels, while campaign groups argue that renewable energy projects are putting farmers’ livelihoods at risk.
Big results from small scale use
In many cases, farmers themselves choose to lease land for solar projects as a way to diversify their income and improve the long-term resilience of their businesses. Farming organizations such as the National Farmers Union (NFU) in England and Wales support this approach, recognizing that renewable energy can provide a stable revenue stream alongside traditional agricultural activities. According to the NFU’s chief climate adviser, there is no threat to national food security from solar development.
It is true that many solar farms are built on agricultural land. The same characteristics that make land attractive for farming—flat terrain, good sunlight and easy access—also make it suitable for solar power generation. Yet the scale of land used by solar remains surprisingly small.
Research shows that golf courses occupy far more land than solar installations in many developed countries. In the United States, golf courses cover roughly four times more land than solar farms. In the United Kingdom, the figure is six times greater, while in Canada it is fifteen times greater. These comparisons highlight how relatively modest the land footprint of solar energy actually is.
Even under ambitious net-zero scenarios, solar power would require only a tiny fraction of national land area. The U.S. Department of Energy estimates that meeting long-term climate goals would require approximately 0.5% of land in the contiguous United States and up to 0.7% of land in the United Kingdom for solar development. This equates to around 1% of agricultural land in both countries.
Prime farmland protected
Critics often focus on the loss of high-quality or “prime” farmland. Governments and industry bodies generally agree that the best agricultural land should be avoided wherever possible. Planning frameworks globally are shifting to mandate a “mitigation hierarchy” where developers must first avoid prime agricultural land. Under modern policies—such as the USA’s Farmland Protection Policy Act and the American Farmland Trust’s Smart Solar Siting frameworks, agencies are increasingly requiring developers to steer projects toward previously disturbed, brownfield, or lower-quality soil sites. While some solar projects are built on productive farmland, the overall impact remains relatively small compared with the total agricultural area available.
Innovative approaches are also helping reduce potential conflicts between energy production and food production. Agrivoltaics—the practice of combining agriculture and solar panels on the same land—is gaining momentum around the world. Livestock can graze beneath panels, while certain crops benefit from the shade and improved moisture retention that solar arrays provide. This dual-use approach can increase farm income while maintaining agricultural output.
Because solar sites are often planted with perennial vegetation and see minimal soil disturbance, soil health may improve during the life of a solar project compared to conventional row cropping. Planting native species of plants gives the soil a “break” from nutrient loss from farming, while the shade of the panels helps retain water and grow essential native bacteria and prevent erosion.
Indiana’s farmland
Indiana is one of the most productive agricultural states in the country, with about 14.6 million acres of farmland. We’re already using much of that land (43%) for energy production through ethanol. However, with that same acreage, Indiana could produce up to 100 times as much energy through solar as compared to ethanol. Overall, using any land for energy production would be vastly more efficient via a solar farming system.
The real impact of solar on Indiana’s farmland conversion is currently very low. Between 2013 and 2021, Indiana only lost 5% of farmland due to energy production (of any type including wind, natural, gas, and biomass). Most farmland loss resulted from residential developments, not solar.
How solar farms positively affects farmland
Even for land that does add solar, it doesn’t necessarily take away the productive agricultural capacity of the land. Solar can also coexist with agriculture in several ways:
- Sheep grazing between panels
- Pollinator-friendly vegetation that improves soil health
- Agrivoltaics, where crops grow under raised solar panels
Solar leases can also provide stable income for farmers, helping keep family farms financially viable when crop yields or prices are low. This helps supplement the economy of rural communities, aiding in their survival.
And no solar farm is permanent. After the lifetime of the project (typically 25-35 years), the land typically returns to farmland as it was before.
Solar energy occupies relatively little land, can coexist with agriculture, and helps reduce the emissions driving climate change. Rather than threatening food security, responsible solar development may play an important role in protecting it for future generations.
Chief Executive Officer
Cindy started as a consultant with Green Alternatives in 2009 and has moved into her current position within the last few years. She loves meeting with potential clients, answering their questions, and ultimately designing a PV solar system that meets their needs and goals.