Thorn Lake Solar Farm; Boon or Bust?
Google map view of Sharon Hollow Rd. & Herman Rd. intersection.
by Kenny Frost
There is certainly no shortage of hot-button topics in the public discourse today, although few are echoed globally both in media and scientific journals as much as climate change. With many factions and just as many proposed calls to action, the movement to employ reliable, renewable, and, optimistically, cheaper and safer alternatives to carbon-heavy nonrenewable energy has been vigorously underway for decades.
As with the discovery of any crisis, there was for a long time opposition to notions of climate change, particularly with regard to humanity’s use of fossil fuels as the leading causal factor. An article published by the Associated Press on August 10, 2021, seemed to finally put to rest this opposition. The article was based on a report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change of the United Nations. This report was more than 3,000 pages and included findings from 234 leading scientists from all over the world. The report stated that human-caused climate change was “an established fact” and that Earth was well under way to surpass even pessimistic forecasts made by the Paris Climate Agreement in 2015. Fortunately, means of harvesting renewable energy have already been employed and studied for years. Hydroelectric dams, solar panels, and wind farms have mostly led the charge, although more creative solutions are emerging all the time.
In light of this reform, it is easy for one to think of all models of renewable energy as unassailable. With regard to the Thorn Lake Solar Farm (TLSF) that is being planned for construction where Herman Rd. and Sharon Hollow Rd. intersect, many area residents believe this is not the case. The 159-acre project, proposed by Virginia-based company AES, claims it will harvest enough energy to power more than 3,000 homes annually, to be sold to and distributed by Consumer Energy. This seems undoubtedly positive with regard to carbon offset, but is the location ideal?
According to the US Energy Information Administration, Michigan is powered mostly by natural gas (33%) and coal (27%), with renewable energy providing only 11% of Michigan’s kilowatt-hours, the rest being mostly from nuclear power plants. Of that 11%, 60% is generated from wind farms. This means that even with Michigan’s impressive hydroelectric resources, solar power remains largely untapped. This is especially true when compared to countries like Finland, Germany, and Denmark, which have significantly higher percentages of solar power per capita.
“This is a big decision … we all want the community to thrive.” These are the words that 20-year Manchester resident Mike Brown chose to begin a 5-minute speech at a Planning Commission meeting in Manchester last Thursday, May 5. This was the Commission’s recurring monthly meeting, so it was not called specifically to address the TLSF. If it had been, one got the impression that Brown could have spoken for much longer. Brown has been very active in his opposition to the TLSF project, starting a Facebook group that currently has 130 members. He and others post frequently.
“I want you to know some things so we’re all on the same page,” said Brown as he gestured to several graphics on a presentation board he had brought to the meeting. Shortly after his speech, Manchester resident Andy Bobo commented with a presentation board of his own. When the meeting opened up for comments, Manchester resident Patty Hansen shared that she had collected 83 signatures of locals opposed to the TLSF. “I plan on getting a lot more,” she told the attendees. Manchester resident Gina Brown asked if the project was “not about sustainability, but more about tax credit.” Local Mike Cunningham also spoke, asking, “Other than the landowner and AES, who benefits?”
Or, more importantly, who loses?
Many complaints voiced at the meeting referred to the TLSF as a “monstrosity” and an “eyesore,” seeming to invoke the perennial complaint of “not in my backyard” or NIMBY. These concerns have been underpinned by articles posted to the Facebook group by Brown and others, claiming that solar farms have been shown to reduce the property value of surrounding homes by 7–30%. Noise and maintenance of a functioning solar farm seem minimal, and can be ameliorated with landscaping and equipment placement, but construction can be problematic in the best of circumstances. Labor and supply are still being impacted hugely by the pandemic, making projections in these fields unpredictable and dangerous to make. The placement and height of surrounding barrier trees and fences, with or without barbed wire, also seemed to concern many. According to another article posted by Brown, once the lease expires or if it is terminated early, there is the risk of the township being responsible for equipment removal. This can run upward of $280,000 an acre and has happened to agricultural communities in the past. Still another article posted by Brown demonstrated difficulties in the acquisition of solar panel equipment due to trade tariffs and shipping, specifically with regard to Southeast Asian markets.
This wasn’t the first meeting where such concerns were voiced. An AES representative hosted another on April 21, and both meetings were so well attended people were lined out of the door. If nothing else, the community interest has clearly displayed that the TLSF proposal should be carefully researched, discussed, and debated before a decision is made. Soon-to-be Manchester resident Chris Caron made a long, comprehensive post on the Facebook group, and it is worth quoting at length.
“We’re in a situation in which we may not be able to stop the complex from being built,” begins Caron. “If this is the case, we need to do everything we can to make it the best and most tolerable neighbor possible. If we make TLSF the best neighbor possible, it should have a lesser impact on property values and be something that we can be proud to have in our community, and could serve as a model for other sites going forward. Climate change is real and solar is one of many tools that humans have developed to help combat it. If we are forced into this project—please take some heart in the fact that it very likely benefits the larger community and our children in the long run.”
Caron continues, “As someone who is very new to the area, I have concerns about this parcel of land moving forward. I don’t want to reject a solar complex if the consequence is fighting off a gas-burning plant, fracking operation, landfill, or commercial farming operation that could more heavily use herbicides and pesticides in the future. Is this the lesser of many evils?”
Caron, Brown, and most others who have been vocal about the TLSF all seem to agree that clean energy is a project worth striving for. The concerns brought forth have not been in opposition to solar energy, or even necessarily AES or the TLSF proposal. If there is an unwavering sentiment in all of the discourse, it is the insistence by all that any direction moving forward cause the least amount of disruption to Manchester’s community and rural charm.
“I do trust the township board and planning commission are doing their due diligence in regard to liability, and believe they are doing their best to follow ordinances,” says Manchester resident Mike Austin.
When reached for comment, AES did not respond.
You must be logged in to post a comment Login