Resolving to End Solar Misinformation in 2026

In many communities in 2025, permitting and policy decisions about solar projects were shaped by misinformation—often amplified by well‑organized campaigns funded by interests opposed to clean energy. With rising energy demand coming from data centers, we need all the energy sources we can get to keep electricity costs in check. Misinformation does not help any of us.

To start off 2026 on a good foot, below are 7 solar myths that frequently surface in hearings, comment periods, and local debates, and the information that proves they are nothing more than misinformation.

Myth 1: Solar farms emit harmful electromagnetic fields and toxic substances

Opponents sometimes claim that electromagnetic fields (EMF) from inverters and other equipment at solar farms pose health risks; however, detailed measurements from North Carolina State University show that EMF levels at solar facilities are comparable to, or lower than, those from common household appliances and well within accepted exposure limits.[1]

At the point of highest exposure—standing directly next to the largest inverter at a utility‑scale solar facility—measured EMF is up to 1,050 milligauss (mG), which is lower exposure than operating a standard electric can opener (1,500 mG.)[2] Standing 150 feet from a utility‑scale inverter, EMF exposure drops to about 0.5 mG or less. These measurements sit comfortably below widely used exposure guidelines of roughly 2,000 mG.[3]

Solar panels do contain heavy metals such as lead or cadmium, however, the likelihood that these metals can leach from solar panels into soil and water is remote. Modern solar panels are manufactured as sealed, laminated units designed for outdoor use over decades. One peer-reviewed study measured heavy metal concentrations in the soil at various distances from a solar project and found no difference in lead and cadmium concentrations between soil taken from under the panels versus 45 feet and 100 feet away, [4]

Myth 2: Building solar on open land reduces biodiversity and, if trees are cleared, can worsen climate change

New Energy Equity avoids clearing trees to build solar projects whenever possible. Only about 4% of U.S. solar projects are sited on forested land; most are on previously disturbed or agricultural sites.[5]

To understand the impact of clearing trees to build a solar project, it's necessary to compare the climate impact of an acre of solar panels to an acre of forest using data. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) estimates that an average acre of U.S. forest sequesters about 0.857 metric tons of CO₂ per year.[6] By contrast, using National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) data on emissions avoided by solar, the report finds an average acre of U.S. utility‑scale solar panels prevents approximately 204 times more CO₂ emissions per year than an acre of forest sequesters.[7]

Clearing forests can also release stored carbon. EPA estimates an average acre of forest contains about 83 metric tons of carbon in biomass and soil.[8] Even in a conservative scenario where all of that carbon is released at once when a solar farm is built, the resulting emissions would be fully offset within about two years of solar operation due to the fossil fuel emissions displaced.[9] Modern solar projects typically operate for 30–35 years, leaving decades of net emission reductions.

The impact on biodiversity is site‑specific—and can be positive. When solar developers follow best practices—such as minimizing soil disturbance, using native vegetation, and incorporating wildlife corridors—solar projects on previously developed land can sustain or even increase local biodiversity.[10] Microclimates created beneath and between panels can improve botanical diversity and, in turn, support more diverse invertebrate and bird communities.[11]

Myth 3: Solar projects reduce agricultural production, harming farmers and rural communities

The fear that solar will "take away farmland" and threaten food security is one of the most emotionally powerful arguments made against solar projects. If we take a step back, however the land requirements for solar projects are modest relative to the land being used for agriculture in the U.S.

Even in a high deployment scenario where solar generation reaches over 1,050 GW by 2050 and is greater than all other generation sources, the total land area used for solar is about 10.3 million acres [12], which is about 1.15% of the 895.3 million acres of U.S. farmland recorded in 2021.[13]

In reality, many projects are built on brownfields, disturbed lands, marginal farmland, or co‑located with grazing and crops.[14]

Myth 4: Building and operating solar farms has a climate impact comparable to burning fossil fuels

A comprehensive 2021 review by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) examined about 3,000 life‑cycle assessment studies of the carbon emissions associated with the production, construction, and ongoing operation of solar projects and concluded that solar's life‑cycle greenhouse gas emissions are far lower than those of coal, oil, and natural gas.[15][16]

Key points from the report include:

• On average, it takes about three years of operation for a solar panel to "pay back" the emissions associated with its manufacture and transport.[17]
• With a typical 30–35‑year operating life, panels generate decades of net zero‑emission electricity after that payback period.[18]

One isolated study has suggested that, under an extreme "worst‑case" scenario—involving coal‑fired manufacturing and especially inefficient solar panels—life‑cycle emissions could approach those of the cleanest fossil plants.[19] Given the advances in solar panel production and efficiency, that study represents an outlier scenario that is unlikely to occur.

Myth 5: Solar farms reduce the value of nearby homes

Concerns about property values come up frequently in local communities but there are many studies that point to no impact from solar farms on property values.

A 2018 analysis of solar farms in Indiana and Illinois—cited in the report—found "no consistent negative impact" on nearby property values attributable to proximity to solar.[20]

A separate 2018 Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory study reviewed 956 U.S. solar projects installed before 2016 and concluded that a majority had a neutral impact on surrounding property values.[21]

To put this in context, studies have shown that fossil fuel power plants do cause measurable property value declines. A study of homes near fossil‑fueled plants found that living within 2 miles of a plant reduced home values by 4–7%, with the largest impact within one mile.[22]

Myth 6: Solar energy depends on subsidies and will be abandoned when those subsidies end

While it's true that many tax credits for renewable energy are ending in the U.S., solar projects that are currently in development or already operating will not be impacted. As for future solar projects, solar energy compares very favorably to fossil fuel sources of electricity, even without tax credits or other subsidies.

Lazard's 2023 Levelized Cost of Energy Analysis compares the unsubsidized cost of generating a megawatt hour of electricity across generation types:

• Utility‑scale solar: $60/MWh
• Gas-powered combined‑cycle generation: $70/MWh
• Coal-powered: $117/MWh
• Gas peaking plants: $168/MWh[23]

One shortcoming of this analysis is that it does not take into account the cost of additional energy generation needed when solar is not generating electricity at night. When factoring in fossil fuel backup, the unsubsidized cost of solar is still is lower than gas peaking plants and competitive with gas-powered combined cycle generation. [24]

Myth 7: Solar energy is unreliable in cloudy or cold climates and always requires fossil fuel backup

From a technical standpoint, solar panels generate electricity from light, not heat. While output is reduced on cloudy days, solar irradiance remains sufficient across most of the United States and panels often operate more efficiently at lower temperatures. Other than nighttime, solar projects generate electricity consistently and do not require constant backup.

That said, all power systems require reserves and backup resources because fossil fuel generators also fail unexpectedly. Having more energy generators with backup plans is the sign of a modern, well-planned electricity grid.

Solar projects are not free from real tradeoffs and some adverse impacts—but those impacts must be weighed against the need to increase energy supply to meet rising demand in a sustainable way.

On each of the myths addressed here—health risks, biodiversity, agriculture, climate benefits, property values, costs, and reliability—the best available data and peer‑reviewed research strongly support responsible expansion of solar power. By anchoring policy and permitting decisions in data and evidence rather than misinformation, communities can unlock the economic and climate benefits of solar.

Sources:

1. Ibid., Rebutting Myths About Solar, Wind and Electric Vehicles (Columbia Report), Columbia Law School, Sabin Center for Climate Change Law, citing North Carolina State University analysis of EMF at solar farms.
2. Massachusetts Department of Energy Resources et al., Questions & Answers: Ground-Mounted Solar Photovoltaic Systems , 10-11 (Jun. 2015), http://www.mass.gov/eea/docs/doer/renewables/solar/solar-pv-guide.pdf.
3. Ibid.
4. Seth A. Robinson et al., Potential for leaching of heavy metals and metalloids from crystalline silicon photovoltaic systems ," 9 J. NAT. RES. AND DEV. 19, 21 (2019), https://doi.org/10.5027/jnrd.v9i0.02.
5. Columbia Report, Part A, noting that only about 4% of U.S. solar projects are sited on currently forested lands.[Sequence 9, note 75]
6. U.S. EPA, Greenhouse Gas Equivalencies Calculator, as cited in Columbia Report.[Sequence 9, notes 71–72]
7. Columbia Report, Part A, Claim #4, text comparing CO₂ reductions per acre of solar vs. forest.[Sequence 9]
8. EPA forest carbon stock data, as cited in Columbia Report.[Sequence 9, notes 71–73]
9. Columbia Report, Part A, Claim #4, discussion of two‑year carbon payback when converting forest to solar.[Sequence 9]
10. Parikhit Sinha et al., Best Practices in Responsible Land Use for Improving Biodiversity at a Utility‑Scale Solar Facility, as cited in Columbia Report.[Sequence 11–12, note 91–92]
11. Ibid.; Anna Suuronen et al., Influence of Solar Power Plants on Microclimatic Conditions and the Biotic Community in Chilean Desert Environments, as cited in Columbia Report.[Sequence 12, note 93–94]
12. Columbia Report, Part A, False Claim #7, summarizing DOE land‑use estimates.[Sequence 13]
13. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Farms and Land in Farms: 2021 Summary, as cited in Columbia Report.[Sequence 13, note 106]
14. Eric Larson et al., Net‑Zero America, as cited in Columbia Report.[Sequence 13, note 107]
15. NREL, Life Cycle Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Electricity Generation: Update (2021), as cited in Columbia Report.[Sequence 9, note 68]
16. Columbia Report, Part A, Claim #5.[Sequence 9, 11]
17. Columbia Report, Part A, Claim #5.[Sequence 9, note 79]
18. Columbia Report, Part A, Claim #5., noting 30–35‑year panel lifetimes.[Sequence 9, note 80]
19. Jaime Fernandez Torres & Fontina Petrakopoulou, A Closer Look at the Environmental Impact of Solar and Wind Energy, as cited in Columbia Report.[Sequence 11, note 86]
20. Patricia McGarr & Andrew Lines, Property Value Impact Study: Proposed Solar Farm, McLean County, IL, as cited in Columbia Report.[Sequence 19, note 162]
21. Leila Al‑Hamoodah et al., An Exploration of Property‑Value Impacts Near Utility‑Scale Solar Installations, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (2018), as cited in Columbia Report.[Sequence 19, note 161, 164]
22. Lucas Davis, The Effect of Power Plants on Local Housing Value and Rents, as cited in Columbia Report.[Sequence 19, notes 165–166]
23. Lazard, Levelized Cost of Energy Analysis: Version 16.0 (Apr. 2023), as cited in Columbia Report., comparing unsubsidized LCOE for gas and coal.[Sequence 19, note 170]
24. Lazard, Levelized Cost of Energy Analysis: Version 16.0 (Apr. 2023), https://www.lazard.com/media/2ozoovyg/lazards-lcoeplusapril- 2023.pdf.