Are Solar Fields Raising Earth's Surface Temperature?

Solar power is often championed as a key solution to combat climate change, promising reduced greenhouse gas emissions and a shift away from fossil fuels. However, anecdotal evidence suggests that large-scale solar fields may increase local surface temperatures, while their topographical, aesthetic, and reliability issues, along with battery-related environmental costs, question their sustainability. This op-ed examines whether solar installations contribute to regional warming, evaluates their broader environmental impacts, and contrasts them with small modular reactor (SMR) nuclear energy as a safer, cleaner, and more efficient alternative, drawing on scientific evidence to challenge solar’s role as the default renewable energy savior.

The Science of Solar-Induced Warming

Solar photovoltaic (PV) panels convert 15-20% of sunlight into electricity, dissipating the remainder as heat. Their dark surfaces absorb more radiation than natural landscapes, lowering albedo and disrupting convective cooling. A 2016 study in Scientific Reports found that desert solar plants raised daytime temperatures by up to 1.9°C, creating a "photovoltaic heat island effect." This localized warming undermines solar’s environmental credentials.

Regional Impacts of Large-Scale Solar Fields

Deserts, hosting projects like India’s Bhadla Solar Park and Morocco’s Noor Complex, face significant warming. A 2021 iScience study modeled that covering 20% of the Sahara with solar farms could increase local temperatures by 1.5°C, with 50% coverage raising them by 2.5°C. This heat can spread, potentially increasing global temperatures by 0.16°C to 0.39°C and reducing desert precipitation by 20%, exacerbating drought in water-scarce regions.

Urban Solar Deployments: A Mixed Picture

Solar’s lifecycle emissions are 23 times lower than coal’s, per a 2025 Skeptical Science analysis, but local impacts vary. A 2014 Frontiers in Environmental Science study found Parisian rooftop solar reduced urban heat by shading buildings. Conversely, a 2011 Environmental Research Letters study reported large urban PV arrays increased temperatures by 0.26°C due to heat from energy conversion. These inconsistencies highlight the need for site-specific solar strategies.

Topographical and Aesthetic Impacts of Solar Fields

Solar fields require vast land, altering topography and creating visual blight. Construction involves clearing vegetation and grading land, increasing erosion risk. A 2023 Land Use Policy study noted that solar farms in California’s Mojave Desert fragmented habitats and disrupted hydrology. Aesthetically, 60% of Arizona residents near solar farms, per a 2024 Journal of Environmental Psychology report, found them visually intrusive, reducing property values by up to 7%. These impacts fuel opposition to solar expansion in scenic areas.

Environmental Trade-Offs Beyond Temperature

Solar fields disrupt ecosystems, reducing biodiversity and altering soil properties, amplifying heat retention. The 2021 iScience study warned that extensive Sahara solar coverage could reduce dust transport, vital for Amazon and Atlantic ecosystems, risking global ecological impacts. Panel production and disposal involve hazardous materials, complicating sustainability claims.

Battery Backup Systems: A Hidden Cost

Solar’s intermittency necessitates lithium-ion batteries, relying on lithium, cobalt, and nickel. Mining these elements is environmentally damaging; a 2023 Nature Sustainability study reported lithium extraction in Chile’s Atacama Desert consumes 65% of regional water. Cobalt mining in the Democratic Republic of Congo, per a 2024 Environmental Science & Technology report, causes deforestation and contamination. Only 5% of batteries are recycled globally, per a 2022 Journal of Cleaner Production study, with landfilled batteries leaking toxins. Recycling recovers 50-80% of materials, per a 2025 Resources, Conservation and Recycling analysis, but is energy-intensive.

Reliability and Output: Solar’s Unsustainable Limitations

Solar’s reliability is limited by weather and daylight, producing only 20-25% of rated capacity, per a 2024 Energy Policy study. Powering a city like Los Angeles would require over 100 square miles of solar fields, per a 2025 Renewable Energy analysis. Its low energy density, 360 times less than nuclear per acre, per a 2023 Energy Journal study, and grid instability from variability necessitate fossil fuel backups, undermining sustainability.

SMR Nuclear: A Superior Clean Energy Alternative

Small modular reactors (SMRs) offer a compelling alternative to solar, providing safe, clean energy with minimal environmental impact. SMRs, factory-built and scalable, generate 50-300 MW per unit, occupying less than 10 acres compared to solar’s thousands for equivalent output, per a 2024 Nuclear Engineering International report. Their lifecycle emissions are comparable to solar’s, at 10-12 g CO2/kWh, per a 2023 Environmental Research Letters study, but they provide consistent baseload power, eliminating the need for fossil fuel backups. SMRs use advanced safety features, like passive cooling, reducing accident risks to near zero, as noted in a 2025 Nature Energy analysis. Fuel requirements are minimal, with a single ton of uranium powering an SMR for years, unlike solar’s vast material demands. Waste is small in volume, managed through deep geological storage, and far less environmentally disruptive than solar’s battery waste, per a 2024 Waste Management study. SMRs cost $3,000-$5,000 per kW to build, half of traditional nuclear, and operate at 90% capacity, making them economically competitive, per a 2023 Energy Economics report. Unlike solar fields, SMRs blend into compact sites, avoiding topographical and aesthetic concerns.

Anecdotal Evidence and Community Observations

Residents near solar fields, like California’s Ivanpah and Rajasthan’s Bhadla, report warmer conditions, reduced rainfall, and visual degradation. X posts describe solar panels as “heat columns” and landscape scars, though lacking rigorous evidence. These align with research on solar’s climatic and aesthetic impacts, while SMRs face less community opposition due to their small footprint.

Mitigating Solar’s Impacts and Embracing Alternatives

Distributing solar and integrating panels with vegetation or cool roofs, per a 2015 Nature Climate Change study, could reduce warming. Rooftop PV could lower temperatures by 0.05-0.13°C by 2050, per a 2025 Nature Climate Changeestimate. For batteries, sodium-ion alternatives and improved recycling, per a 2024 Energy Storage Materials study, could lessen harm. However, scaling SMRs, with their reliability and minimal footprint, offers a more sustainable path, complemented by wind or geothermal for diversified clean energy.

Solar vs. Fossil Fuels and Nuclear: A Necessary Comparison

Fossil fuels, with CO2 levels up 50% since 1750 per NASA, drive 1.1°C of warming, per the IPCC, far outweighing solar’s 0.01°C contribution. Solar reduces emissions, but its warming, battery impacts, and unreliability limit its efficacy. SMRs match solar’s low emissions while providing stable, high-output energy, making them a stronger fossil fuel alternative. A grand solar minimum would cool Earth by only 0.3°C, per NASA, reinforcing the need for robust clean energy solutions like SMRs.

Rethinking the Clean Energy Narrative

Solar’s regional warming, topographical disruption, aesthetic issues, battery costs, and unreliable output challenge its sustainability. SMR nuclear offers a cleaner, more efficient alternative, with lower land use, negligible environmental impact, and reliable power. Policymakers must prioritize SMRs, ethical material sourcing for batteries, and landscape-sensitive solar designs. A 2015 Washington Post article noted renewables’ necessity but cautioned their consequences, urging a balanced approach with nuclear at the forefront.

Conclusion

Evidence confirms solar fields raise local temperatures, disrupt landscapes, and rely on environmentally costly batteries, with low output limiting sustainability. SMR nuclear provides a superior alternative, delivering safe, clean, and reliable energy with minimal footprint. While solar remains vital, its deployment requires nuance, and SMRs should lead the clean energy transition to safeguard the planet’s climate and ecosystems.  It's about MONEY folks!  The state is passing out tax credits for solar and they are not paying taxes on the land they are using for it!  See https://www.codogereport.com/the-stark-divide for the details on how the Colorado legislature has stacked the deck against all other types of energy and is killing oil, gas and nuclear energy and causing you to pay more at the pump and on your electric bill.  It isn't about clean energy, it is about paying off the legislators friends.  We are not talking about Donald Trump's friends either, we are talking about Jarod Polis' friends.

Michael J Badagliacco, “MJB”

Michael is a United States Air Force Veteran, father of five and grandfather of three, passionate about this country and the Constitution. 

Editor-in-Chief, Colorado DOGE Report.

References

• Barron-Gafford, G.A. et al. (2016). "The Photovoltaic Heat Island Effect." Scientific Reports, 6, 35070.

• Lu, Z. et al. (2021). "Solar panels in Sahara." iScience.

• Skeptical Science. (2025). "Is solar energy worse for the climate?"

• Masson, V. et al. (2014). "Solar panels reduce urban heat." Frontiers in Environmental Science, 2, 14.

• Millstein, D. & Menon, S. (2011). "Regional climate consequences." Environmental Research Letters, 6, 034001.

• Hu, A. et al. (2015). "Impact of solar panels." Nature Climate Change.

• NASA Science. (2024). "Causes."

• Nature Climate Change. (2025). "Rooftop photovoltaic electricity."

• Washington Post. (2015). "Solar energy can cause climate change."

• IPCC. (2021). "Sixth Assessment Report."

• Nature Sustainability. (2023). "Lithium extraction impacts."

• Environmental Science & Technology. (2024). "Cobalt mining impacts."

• Journal of Cleaner Production. (2022). "Battery recycling rates."

• Resources, Conservation and Recycling. (2025). "Battery recycling efficiency."

• Energy Storage Materials. (2024). "Sodium-ion battery advancements."

• Land Use Policy. (2023). "Solar farm topographical impacts."

• Journal of Environmental Psychology. (2024). "Aesthetic impacts of solar farms."

• Energy Policy. (2024). "Solar reliability and output."

• Renewable Energy. (2025). "Solar land use requirements."

• Energy Journal. (2023). "Energy density comparison."

• Nuclear Engineering International. (2024). "SMR land use and output."

• Environmental Research Letters. (2023). "SMR lifecycle emissions."

• Nature Energy. (2025). "SMR safety features."

• Waste Management. (2024). "Nuclear waste vs. battery waste."

• Energy Economics. (2023). "SMR cost analysis."