NREL is a national laboratory of the U.S. Department of Energy

Office of Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy

Operated by the Alliance for Sustainable Energy, LLC.

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy

Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

Contract No. DE-AC36-08GO28308

Land-Use Requirements for 

Solar Power Plants in the United 

States

Sean Ong, Clinton Campbell, Paul Denholm, 

Robert Margolis, and Garvin Heath

Technical Report

NREL/TP-6A20-56290

June 2013
NREL is a national laboratory of the U.S. Department of Energy

Office of Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy

Operated by the Alliance for Sustainable Energy, LLC.

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy

Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

Contract No. DE-AC36-08GO28308

National Renewable Energy Laboratory

15013 Denver West Parkway

Golden, CO 80401

303-275-3000 • www.nrel.gov

Land-Use Requirements for 

Solar Power Plants in the 

United States 

Sean Ong, Clinton Campbell, Paul Denholm, 

Robert Margolis, and Garvin Heath

Prepared under Task Nos. SS12.2230 and SS13.1040

Technical Report

NREL/TP-6A20-56290

June 2013
NOTICE

This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States government. 

Neither the United States government nor any agency thereof, nor any of their employees, makes any warranty, 

express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of 

any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately 

owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, 

trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, 

or favoring by the United States government or any agency thereof. The views and opinions of authors

expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States government or any agency thereof.

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) 

at www.nrel.gov/publications.

Available electronically at http://www.osti.gov/bridge

Available for a processing fee to U.S. Department of Energy

and its contractors, in paper, from:

U.S. Department of Energy

Office of Scientific and Technical Information

P.O. Box 62 

Oak Ridge, TN 37831-0062

phone: 865.576.8401

fax: 865.576.5728

email: mailto:reports@adonis.osti.gov

Available for sale to the public, in paper, from:

U.S. Department of Commerce

National Technical Information Service

5285 Port Royal Road

Springfield, VA 22161

phone: 800.553.6847

fax: 703.605.6900

email: orders@ntis.fedworld.gov

online ordering: http://www.ntis.gov/help/ordermethods.aspx

Cover Photos: (left to right) photo by Pat Corkery, NREL 16416, photo from SunEdison, NREL 17423, photo by Pat Corkery, NREL 

16560, photo by Dennis Schroeder, NREL 17613, photo by Dean Armstrong, NREL 17436, photo by Pat Corkery, NREL 17721.

 Printed on paper containing at least 50% wastepaper, including 10% post consumer waste. 
iii This report is available at no cost from the 

National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) 

at www.nrel.gov/publications

Acknowledgments

This work was made possible by the Solar Energy Technologies Program at the U.S. Department 

of Energy (DOE). The authors wish to thank Billy Roberts, Jarett Zuboy, Trieu Mai, Nate Blair, 

Robin Newmark, Margaret Mann, Craig Turchi, Mark Mehos, and Jim Leyshon of the National 

Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) for contributing to and reviewing various versions of the 

document, as well as Karen Smith, Rob Horner, Corrie Clark of Argonne National Laboratory 

for their thoughtful reviews. The authors also thank Mary Lukkonen of NREL’s 

Communications Office for a thorough technical edit of the document. 
iv This report is available at no cost from the 

National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) 

at www.nrel.gov/publications

Executive Summary

By the third quarter of 2012, the United States had deployed more than 2.1 gigawatts (GWac

1

) of 

utility-scale solar generation capacity, with 4.6 GWac under construction as of August 2012 

(SEIA 2012). Continued growth is anticipated owing to state renewable portfolio standards and 

decreasing system costs (DOE 2012a). One concern regarding large-scale deployment of solar 

energy is its potentially significant land use. Efforts have been made to understand solar land use 

estimates from the literature (Horner and Clark 2013); however, we were unable to find a 

comprehensive evaluation of solar land use requirements from the research literature. This report 

provides data and analysis of the land use associated with U.S. utility-scale2

 ground-mounted 

photovoltaic (PV) and concentrating solar power (CSP) facilities.

After discussing solar land-use metrics and our data-collection and analysis methods, we present 

total and direct land-use results for various solar technologies and system configurations, on both 

a capacity and an electricity-generation basis. The total area corresponds to all land enclosed by 

the site boundary. The direct area comprises land directly occupied by solar arrays, access roads, 

substations, service buildings, and other infrastructure. We quantify and summarize the area 

impacted, recognizing that the quality and duration of the impact must be evaluated on a case-bycase basis. As of the third quarter of 2012, the solar projects we analyze represent 72% of 

installed and under-construction utility-scale PV and CSP capacity in the United States. Table

ES-1 summarizes our land-use results.

 

1 All capacity-based land-use intensity figures in this study are expressed in terms of MWac or GWac. This is to 

maintain consistency within the paper because CSP power plants are rated in terms of MWac. The conversion factor 

between dc-rating and ac-rating is discussed in Section 3. 2 We define utility-scale as greater than 1 MWdc for PV plants and greater than 1 MWac for CSP plants.
v 

This report is available at no cost from the 

National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) 

at www.nrel.gov/publications

Table ES-1. Summary of Land-Use Requirements for PV and CSP Projects in the United States

Technology Direct Area Total Area

Capacityweighted 

average land 

use 

(acres/MWac)

Generationweighted average 

land use 

(acres/GWh/yr)

Capacityweighted 

average land 

use 

(acres/MWac)

Generationweighted average 

land use 

(acres/GWh/yr)

Small PV (>1 MW, <20 MW) 5.9 3.1 8.3 4.1

Fixed 5.5 3.2 7.6 4.4

1-axis 6.3 2.9 8.7 3.8

2-axis flat panel 9.4 4.1 13 5.5

2-axis CPV 6.9 2.3 9.1 3.1

Large PV (>20 MW) 7.2 3.1 7.9 3.4

Fixed 5.8 2.8 7.5 3.7

1-axis 9.0 3.5 8.3 3.3

2-axis CPV 6.1 2.0 8.1 2.8

CSP 7.7 2.7 10 3.5

Parabolic trough 6.2 2.5 9.5 3.9

Tower 8.9 2.8 10 3.2

Dish Stirling 2.8 1.5 10 5.3

Linear Fresnel 2.0 1.7 4.7 4.0

We found total land-use requirements for solar power plants to have a wide range across 

technologies. Generation-weighted averages for total area requirements range from about 

3 acres/GWh/yr for CSP towers and CPV installations to 5.5 acres/GWh/yr for small 2-axis flat 

panel PV power plants. Across all solar technologies, the total area generation-weighted average 

is 3.5 acres/GWh/yr with 40% of power plants within 3 and 4 acres/GWh/yr. For direct-area 

requirements the generation-weighted average is 2.9 acres/GWh/yr, with 49% of power plants 

within 2.5 and 3.5 acres/GWh/yr. On a capacity basis, the total-area capacity-weighted average is

8.9 acres/MWac, with 22% of power plants within 8 and 10 acres/MWac. For direct land-use 

requirements, the capacity-weighted average is 7.3 acre/MWac, with 40% of power plants within 

6 and 8 acres/MWac. Other published estimates of solar direct land use generally fall within 

these ranges. 

Both capacity- and generation-based solar land-use requirements have wide and often skewed 

distributions that are not well captured when reporting average or median values. Some solar 

categories have relatively small samples sizes, and the highest-quality data are not available for all 

solar projects; both of these factors must be considered when interpreting the robustness of reported 

results. Owing to the rapid evolution of solar technologies, as well as land-use practices and 

regulations, the results reported here reflect past performance and not necessarily future trends.

Future analyses could include evaluating the quality and duration of solar land-use impacts and 

using larger sample sizes and additional data elements to enable a thorough investigation of 

additional land-use factors.
vi This report is available at no cost from the 

National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) 

at www.nrel.gov/publications

Table of Contents

1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................................... 1

2 Solar Power Plant Land-Use Metrics.................................................................................................. 2

3 Solar Land-Use Data and Methodology ............................................................................................. 4

4 Results................................................................................................................................................... 6

4.1 Summary Results........................................................................................................................... 7

4.2 PV Land-Use Results.................................................................................................................... 9

4.2.1 Evaluation of PV Packing Factors ................................................................................. 12

4.2.2 Impact of Location and Tracking Configuration on PV Land Use ................................ 13

4.3 CSP Land-Use Results................................................................................................................ 15

5 Conclusions ........................................................................................................................................ 17

References................................................................................................................................................. 20

Appendix A. CSP Solar Multiple Ranges................................................................................................ 22

Appendix B. PV Projects Evaluated........................................................................................................ 24

Appendix C. CSP Projects Evaluated ..................................................................................................... 32

Appendix D. Impact of PV System Size and Module Efficiency on Land-Use Requirements........... 34

Appendix E. Impact of CSP System Size and Storage on Land-Use Requirements.......................... 37
vii This report is available at no cost from the 

National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) 

at www.nrel.gov/publications

List of Figures

Figure 1. NREL mesa top PV system—example of direct and total land use .............................................. 3

Figure 2. Map of PV and CSP installations evaluated.................................................................................. 7

Figure 3. Distribution of solar land-use requirements—whiskers indicate maximum and minimum 

values, box indicates 75th (top of box) and 25th (bottom of box) percentile estimates............. 8

Figure 4. Distribution of generation-based solar land-use requirements—whiskers indicate maximum 

and minimum values, box indicates 75th (top of box) and 25th (bottom of box) percentile 

estimates. Blue dot represents eSolar’s Sierra Sun Tower (10 acres/GWh/yr), separated 

for clarity (but not considered an outlier) ................................................................................ 9

Figure 5. Distribution of small PV land-use requirements—whiskers indicate maximum and minimum 

values, box indicates 75th (top of box) and 25th (bottom of box) percentile estimates........... 11

Figure 6. Distribution of large PV land-use requirements—whiskers indicate maximum and minimum 

values, box indicates 75th (top of box) and 25th (bottom of box) percentile estimates........... 12

Figure 7. Capacity-weighted average packing factor for PV projects evaluated—whiskers indicate 

maximum and minimum values, box indicates 75th (top of box) and 25th (bottom of box) 

percentile estimates................................................................................................................ 13

Figure 8. Modeled data showing relationship between CSP thermal storage and land-use intensity......... 16

Figure D-1. Total-area requirements for small PV installations as a function of PV plant size ................. 34

Figure D-2. Total-area requirements for large PV installations as a function of PV plant size.................. 35

Figure D-3. Capacity-based direct-area land-use requirements for all PV systems as a function of 

module efficiency................................................................................................................... 35

Figure D-4. Generation-based direct-area land-use requirements for all PV systems as a function of 

module efficiency................................................................................................................... 36

Figure E-1. Total-area requirements for CSP installations as a function of plant size ............................... 37

Figure E-2. Direct-area requirements for CSP installations as a function of plant size.............................. 38

Figure E-3. Total generation-based area requirements for CSP installations as a function of 

storage hours.......................................................................................................................... 38

Figure E-4. Total capacity-based area requirements for CSP installations as a function of storage hours . 39

List of Tables

Table ES-1. Summary of Land-Use Requirements for PV and CSP Projects in the United States.............. v

Table 1. Summary of Data Categories Used for PV and CSP Plants ........................................................... 4

Table 2. Summary of Collected Solar Power Plant Data (as of August 2012) ............................................. 6

Table 3. Total Land-Use Requirements by PV Tracking Type .................................................................. 10

Table 4. Direct Land-Use Requirements by PV Tracking Type................................................................. 10

Table 5. Impacts of 1-Axis Tracking on Land-Use Intensity Compared With Fixed-Axis Mounting ....... 14

Table 6. Total Land-Use Requirements by CSP Technology..................................................................... 15

Table 7. Direct Land-Use Requirements by CSP Technology ................................................................... 15

Table 8. Summary of Direct Land-Use Requirements for PV and CSP Projects in the United States....... 18

Table 9. Summary of Total Land-Use Requirements for PV and CSP Projects in the United States......... 19

Table A-1. CSP Solar Multiple Ranges and Corresponding Estimated Annual Generation Values .......... 22

Table B-1. PV Land-Use Data .................................................................................................................... 24

Table C-1. Concentrating Solar Power Land-Use Data .............................................................................. 32
1 This report is available at no cost from the 

National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) 

at www.nrel.gov/publications

1 Introduction

By the third quarter of 2012, the United States had deployed more than 2.1 gigawatts (GWac3) of 

utility-scale solar generation capacity, with 4.6 GWac under construction as of August 2012 

(SEIA 2012). Continued growth is anticipated owing to state renewable portfolio standards and 

decreasing system costs (DOE 2012a). One concern regarding large-scale deployment of solar 

energy is its potentially significant land use. Estimates of land use in the existing literature are 

often based on simplified assumptions, including power plant configurations that do not reflect 

actual development practices to date. Land-use descriptions for many projects are available from 

various permitting agencies and other public sources, but we were unable to locate a single 

source that compiles or summarizes these datasets. The existing data and analyses limit the 

effective quantification of land-use impacts for existing and future solar energy generation, 

particularly compared with other electricity-generation technologies. 

This report provides data and analysis of the land use associated with U.S. utility-scale groundmounted photovoltaic (PV) and concentrating solar power (CSP) facilities, defined as 

installations with capacities greater than 1 MW. The next section (Section 2) discusses standard 

land-use metrics and their applicability to solar power plants. We identify two major classes of 

solar plant land use—direct impact (disturbed land due to physical infrastructure development) 

and total area (all land enclosed by the site boundary)—by which we categorize subsequent 

results. Section 3 describes our solar land-use data collection and analysis methods. We derived 

datasets from project applications, environmental impact statements, and other sources and used 

them to analyze land use based on the capacity and generation of solar plants. Section 4 presents 

our results. In addition to summarizing PV and CSP land use, we examine relationships among 

land use, plant configuration, location, and technology. Finally, in Section 5, we identify 

limitations to the existing solar land-use datasets and suggest additional analyses that could aid in 

evaluating land use and impacts associated with the deployment of solar energy. Appendices 

include tables of our solar project data as well as more detailed analyses of specific land-use 

relationships.

 

3 All capacity-based land-use intensity figures in this study are expressed in terms of MWac or GWac. This is to

maintain consistency within the paper because CSP power plants are rated in terms of MWac. The conversion factor 

between dc-rating and ac-rating is discussed in Section 3. 
2 This report is available at no cost from the 

National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) 

at www.nrel.gov/publications

2 Solar Power Plant Land-Use Metrics

There are many existing and proposed metrics for evaluating land-use impacts. Recent methods 

for quantifying land use include evaluating the direct and indirect life-cycle use (Fthenakis and 

Kim 2009) and assessing temporary and permanent land-area requirements (Denholm et al. 

2009). While there is no single, generally accepted methodology (Canals et al. 2007), at least 

three general categories are used to evaluate land-use impacts: (1) the area impacted, (2) the 

duration of the impact, and (3) the quality of the impact (Koellner and Scholz 2008). The quality 

of the impact (also called the “damage function”) evaluates the initial state of the land impacted 

and the final state across a variety of factors, including soil quality and overall ecosystem quality 

(Koellner and Scholz 2008). 

This report closely follows the methodology outlined in a National Renewable Energy 

Laboratory (NREL) U.S. wind power land-use study (Denholm et al. 2009). We quantify and 

summarize the area impacted, recognizing that the quality and duration of the impact must be 

evaluated on a case-by-case basis. We consider two land-use metrics. The first is the total area, 

which corresponds to all land enclosed by the site boundary. The perimeter of this area is usually 

specified in blueprint drawings and typically fenced or protected. The second metric is the directimpact area, which comprises land directly occupied by solar arrays, access roads, substations, 

service buildings, and other infrastructure. The direct-impact area is smaller than the total area 

and is contained within the total-area boundaries. Figure 1 illustrates the two types of areas, with 

the total area shaded yellow and the direct-impact area shaded orange. 
3 This report is available at no cost from the 

National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) 

at www.nrel.gov/publications

Figure 1. NREL mesa top PV system—example of direct and total land use4 

 

4 Access roads, infrastructure, and other direct impact areas are not shown in Figure 1. 
4 This report is available at no cost from the 

National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) 

at www.nrel.gov/publications

3 Solar Land-Use Data and Methodology

We collected PV and CSP land-use data from four categories of sources, in the following 

prioritized order. First, where available, we collected official project data from federal, state, or 

local regulatory agencies, including environmental impact statements, environmental 

assessments, and project applications to regulatory bodies. These sources typically contain 

detailed project information, but their availability is highly dependent on federal, state, and local 

regulations as some states require very detailed environmental assessments, while others require 

little land-use analysis. Second, we collected project fact sheets, news releases, and other data 

provided by the project owner or developer. Data from these sources were used when additional 

information was needed and not found in regulatory documents. When no other source of data 

could be located, we used news articles, websites unaffiliated with the developer/owner or 

regulatory bodies, and other secondary sources. Finally, when official project drawings were 

unavailable or documents did not include information necessary to estimate total and direct land 

area, we analyzed satellite images to identify plant configuration, direct land use, and projectarea boundaries. Table 1 shows the proportion of data source categories used for each technology 

and also indicates the percentage of sites where satellite imagery was analyzed in addition to the 

documents collected. 

Table 1. Summary of Data Categories Used for PV and CSP Plants5

 Technology 

Official 

Documents 

(%)

Developer 

Documents 

(%)

Third-Party 

Sources 

(%)

Percent of Projects 

That Required 

Satellite Imagery

PV 18% 36% 46% 40%

CSP 44% 28% 28% 40%

For PV, we used these datasets to analyze the relationship between land-use intensity (defined as 

land use per unit of capacity or generation) and stated PV module efficiency, array configuration, 

and tracking type. For CSP, we analyzed the land-use intensity of several different technologies. 

For PV and CSP, we limited the analysis to systems larger than 1 MW in capacity. We classified

systems smaller than 20 MW as “small” and those larger than 20 MW as “large.”

We quantified land-use requirements on a capacity (area/MWac) and a generation 

(area/GWh/yr6

) basis. Capacity-based results are useful for estimating land area and costs for 

new projects because power plants are often rated in terms of capacity. The generation basis 

provides a more consistent comparison between technologies that differ in capacity factor and 

enables evaluation of land-use impacts that vary by solar resource differences, tracking 

configurations, and technology and storage options. Most of the data collected for this analysis 

included the reported capacity of power plants but not annual generation. Because capacitybased land-use requirements are based on reported data, the capacity-based results are expected 

to have less uncertainty than the generation-based results. 

 

5 Percentages add up to over 100% because power plants evaluated with satellite imagery also required additional 

data sources to determine solar plant characteristics.

6 Generation results are reported in area/(GWh per year) which we display as area/GWh/yr. 
5 This report is available at no cost from the 

National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) 

at www.nrel.gov/publications

We simulated PV and CSP electricity generation using the System Advisor Model (SAM; 

Gilman and Dobos 2012). When available, we used project-specific inputs, such as location, 

array configuration, derate factor, and tracking technology. When project-specific inputs were 

unavailable, we used SAM default assumptions (e.g., if the tilt angle for fixed-tilt PV was 

unknown, we used SAM’s latitude-tilt default assumption). The PV derate factor7 was

determined by dividing the AC reported capacity by the DC reported capacity for each project. 

The weighted-average derate factor (0.85) was used for projects that did not report both AC and 

DC capacity. All capacity-based land-use intensity figures in this study are expressed in terms of 

MWac. For CSP projects, a range of solar multiple8 values was used to simulate annual 

generation output (see Appendix A for CSP solar multiple assumptions). Hourly solar resource 

and weather data for all projects were obtained from the NREL Solar Prospector tool9 for each 

project’s latitude and longitude. Each power plant was assigned to a cell within the National 

Solar Radiation Database (Wilcox 2007) equal in area to 0.1 degrees in latitude and longitude 

(approximately equal to a 10 km x 10 km square) (Perez et al. 2002). PV and CSP projects were 

simulated with typical direct-radiation-year weather data10 (NREL 2012). 

 

7

 The derate factor is used to determine the AC power rating at Standard Test Conditions (STC). The overall DC to 

AC derate factor accounts for losses from the DC nameplate power rating. We do not calculate the derate factor 

from component losses, but rather estimate the derate factor from the reported AC and DC power rating at each 

plant. For a discussion on derate factors, see 

http://rredc.nrel.gov/solar/calculators/pvwatts/version1/change.html#derate (accessed April 2013). 8 The solar multiple is the CSP field aperture area expressed as a multiple of the aperture area required to operate the 

power cycle at its design capacity (NREL 2012). 9 The Solar Prospector is a mapping and analysis tool designed to provide access to geospatial data relevant to the 

solar industry. For more information, visit http://maps.nrel.gov/prospector (accessed May 2013). 10 For consistency, PV and CSP data were both simulated using typical direct-radiation-year (TDY) weather data. 

Normally, CSP power plants are simulated using TDY data and PV power plants are simulated using typical 

meteorological year (TMY) data.
6 This report is available at no cost from the 

National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) 

at www.nrel.gov/publications

4 Results

We obtained land-use data for 166 projects completed or under construction (as of August 2012), 

representing 4.8 GWac of capacity, and 51 proposed projects, representing approximately 

8 GWac of capacity (Table 2). 

Table 2. Summary of Collected Solar Power Plant Data (as of August 2012)

 

Small PV (<20 MW) Large PV (>20 MW) CSP

Projects Capacity

(MWac) Projects Capacity(MWac) Projects Capacity(MWac)

Completed 103 413 10 256 9 508

Under construction 17 165 20 1,846 7 1,610

Proposed 6 70 36 6,376 9 1,570

Total 126 762 66 9,961 25 3,688

We collected data on 4.8 GWac (72%) of the 6.7 GWac of completed or under-construction U.S. 

utility-scale solar capacity reported by SEIA (SEIA 2012). Figure 2 maps the solar projects 

evaluated. Appendix B and Appendix C detail all the projects and data sources. There are over 

24 GWac of PV and CSP proposed (under development but not under construction) as of August 

201211 (SEIA 2012), and the results reported in this study must be taken in light of a rapidly 

growing installed base. The results reported in this study reflect past performance and not 

necessarily future trends. For example, many of the largest PV systems currently proposed 

consist primarily of thin-film technology on fixed-tilt arrays, which may have different land use 

requirements than the results presented in this study. 

 

11 As of February 2013, there are 26 GWac of PV and CSP proposed (SEIA 2013). 
7 This report is available at no cost from the 

National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) 

at www.nrel.gov/publications

Figure 2. Map of PV and CSP installations evaluated

4.1 Summary Results

Figure 3 summarizes capacity-based total and direct land-use results for small and large utilityscale PV and CSP projects. Direct land-use requirements for small and large PV installations

range from 2.2 to 12.2 acres/MWac, with a capacity-weighted average of 6.9 acres/MWac. 

Direct land-use intensity for CSP installations ranges from 2.0 to 13.9 acres/MWac, with a 

capacity-weighted average of 7.7 acres/MWac. Figure 4 shows generation-based total and direct 

land-use results. Direct land-use requirements for PV installations range from 1.6 to 

5.8 acres/GWh/yr, with a generation-weighted average of 3.1 acres/GWh/yr. Direct land-use 

intensity for CSP installations ranges from 1.5 to 5.3 acres/GWh/yr, with a generation-weighted 

average of 2.7 acres/GWh/yr. 

Solar direct land-use estimates in the literature generally fall within these ranges but are often 

smaller than the PV capacity-weighted averages we report and on par or larger for CSP capacityweighted averages we report. Hand et al. (2012) estimate 4.9 acres/MWac for PV and 

8.0 acres/MWac for CSP. Denholm and Margolis (2008) estimate 3.8 acres/MWac for fixed-tilt 

PV systems and 5.1 acres/MWac for 1-axis tracking PV systems. Our results indicate 

5.5 acres/MWac for fixed-tilt PV and 6.3 acres/MWac for 1-axis tracking PV (capacity-weighted 

average direct land-use requirements for systems under 20 MW; see Table 4 in Section 4.2).

Horner and Clark (2013) report 3.8 acres/GWh/yr for PV and 2.5 acres/GWh/yr for CSP. 

Fthenakis and Kim (2009) estimate 4.1 acres/GWh/yr for CSP troughs and 2.7 acres/GWh/yr for 
8 This report is available at no cost from the 

National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) 

at www.nrel.gov/publications

CSP towers. Our results indicate 2.3 acres/GWh/yr for CSP troughs and 2.8 acres/GWh/yr for 

CSP towers (see Table 7 in Section 4.3).12

Figure 3. Distribution of solar land-use requirements—whiskers indicate maximum and minimum 

values, box indicates 75th (top of box) and 25th (bottom of box) percentile estimates

 

12 Comparisons of generation-based land use results should be taken in light of the fact that annual generation 

(GWh) varies with solar resource (location). For example, generation-based results determined from solar power 

plants in a specific location may differ from results presented in this study, which includes solar plants from a 

variety of locations throughout the United States. 
9 This report is available at no cost from the 

National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) 

at www.nrel.gov/publications

Figure 4. Distribution of generation-based solar land-use requirements—whiskers indicate 

maximum and minimum values, box indicates 75th (top of box) and 25th (bottom of box) percentile 

estimates. Blue dot represents eSolar’s Sierra Sun Tower (10 acres/GWh/yr), separated for clarity

(but not considered an outlier)

4.2 PV Land-Use Results

Table 3 and Table 4 summarize PV land requirements by tracking type for total and direct area, 

respectively. Total-area data were available for all systems evaluated; however, direct-area data 

were only available for a subset of these systems. Fixed-tilt and 1-axis PV systems account for a 

majority (96%) of projects evaluated. 

On average, fixed-tilt systems use 13% less land than 1-axis tracking on a capacity basis but use 

15% more land on a generation basis. This difference is due to increased generation resulting 

from tracking technologies. One-axis tracking systems can increase PV generation 12%–25% 

relative to fixed-tilt systems, and 2-axis tracking systems can increase PV generation by 

30%–45% (Drury et al. 2012). We evaluated ten 2-axis PV plants: four flat panel (nonconcentrating) projects and six concentrating PV (CPV) projects. Two-axis, flat panel systems 

appear to use more land than fixed and 1-axis plants on a capacity and generation basis, but 

general conclusions should not be drawn until the sample size is increased. 
10 This report is available at no cost from the 

National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) 

at www.nrel.gov/publications

Table 3. Total Land-Use Requirements by PV Tracking Type13

Tracking Type

Total Area

Projects Capacity 

(MWac) 

Capacity-weighted 

average area 

requirements 

(acres/MWac)

Generationweighted average 

area requirements

(acres/GWh/yr)

Small PV (less than 20 MW)

Fixed 52 231 7.6 4.4

1-axis 55 306 8.7 3.8

2-axis flat panel 4 5 13 5.5

2-axis CPV 4 7 9.1 3.1

Large PV (greater than 20 MW)

Fixed 14 1,756 7.5 3.7

1-axis 16 1,637 8.3 3.3

2-axis CPV 2 158 8.1 2.8

Table 4. Direct Land-Use Requirements by PV Tracking Type14

Tracking Type

Direct Area

Projects Capacity 

(MWac) 

Capacity-weighted 

average area 

requirements 

(acres/MWac)

Generationweighted average 

area requirements

(acres/GWh/yr)

Small PV (less than 20 MW)

Fixed 43 194 5.5 3.2

1-axis 41 168 6.3 2.9

2-axis flat panel 4 5 9.4 4.1

2-axis CPV 4 7 6.9 2.3

Large PV (greater than 20 MW)

Fixed 7 744 5.8 2.8

1-axis 7 630 9.0 3.5

2-axis CPV 1 31 6.1 2.0

Figure 5 shows the capacity-based total and direct land-use requirement distributions for PV 

plants smaller than 20 MW. Direct land-use requirements for fixed-tilt PV installations range 

from 2.2 to 8.0 acres/MWac, with a capacity-weighted average of 5.5 acres/MWac. Direct landuse requirements for 1-axis tracking PV installations range from 4.2 to 10.6 acres/MWac, with a 

capacity-weighted average of 6.3 acres/MWac. Figure 6 shows the capacity-based total and 

 

13 Forty-two proposed projects representing 5,842 MWac could not be categorized by tracking type owing to 

insufficient information. These projects are not represented in this table.

14 Forty-two proposed projects representing 5,842 MWac could not be categorized by tracking type due to 

insufficient information. These projects are not represented in this table.
11 This report is available at no cost from the 

National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) 

at www.nrel.gov/publications

direct land-use requirement distributions for PV plants larger than 20 MW. Relatively large 

deviations between the median and weighted average values are due to a few very large PV 

installations (over 100 MW) contributing heavily to weighted average results. We found that PV 

system size appears to have no significant impact on land-use requirements per unit of capacity

(see Appendix D).

We also evaluated the impacts of efficiency on land-use intensity. We would expect land-use 

intensity to decrease with increasing module efficiencies, but we observed no significant trends 

between land-use intensity and module efficiency for small and large PV systems (see 

Appendix D). Variations in land-use intensity that remain after isolating for module efficiency 

and tracking type are not clearly understood. One source of variability could be the large range 

of packing factors described in the next section. 

Figure 5. Distribution of small PV land-use requirements—whiskers indicate maximum and 

minimum values, box indicates 75th (top of box) and 25th (bottom of box) percentile estimates
12 This report is available at no cost from the 

National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) 

at www.nrel.gov/publications

Figure 6. Distribution of large PV land-use requirements—whiskers indicate maximum and 

minimum values, box indicates 75th (top of box) and 25th (bottom of box) percentile estimates

4.2.1 Evaluation of PV Packing Factors

We evaluated array spacing for various PV tracking technologies. The area between arrays is

quantified using the packing factor metric, which is the ratio of array area to actual land area for 

a system15 (DOE 2012b). Figure 7 shows the average packing factor for each tracking 

technology evaluated. An evaluation of system packing factors shows that there is large 

variability in array spacing. Packing factors range from 13% (Prescott Airport CPV, Arizona) to 

92% (Canton Landfill Solar Project, Massachusetts). Fixed-tilt systems have a capacity-weighted 

average packing factor of 47%, followed by 1-axis systems with 34% and 2-axis systems with 

25%. Packing factor estimates from the research literature range from 20% to 67% (Horner and 

Clark 2013). The large variability in packing factor may contribute to the variability in land-use 

intensity observed, given an expectation that packing factor directly impacts land-use intensity. 

We did not attempt to isolate the impacts of packing factor, efficiency, capacity, and other 

factors on land-use intensity due to limited data availability. The availability of more data 

elements and larger sample sizes will enable a robust evaluation of these factors on 

land-use intensity. 

 

15 We display the packing factor ratio as a percentage. A 100% packing factor would represent complete coverage of 

solar panels with no spacing between arrays.
13 This report is available at no cost from the 

National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) 

at www.nrel.gov/publications

Figure 7. Capacity-weighted average packing factor for PV projects evaluated—whiskers indicate 

maximum and minimum values, box indicates 75th (top of box) and 25th (bottom of box) 

percentile estimates

4.2.2 Impact of Location and Tracking Configuration on PV Land Use

Given the relatively small amount of data, it is difficult to isolate the impact of any single factor 

on land-use requirements. This section isolates the theoretical impact of tracking arrays by 

simulating the performance of PV in multiple locations holding all other factors constant. 

Table 5 summarizes the relative impacts of tracking on land-use intensity, simulated for a variety 

of locations throughout the United States. Although tracking systems generate more energy than 

fixed-tilt systems, they also require more land per unit of capacity, as shown in Section 4.2. We 

assume the capacity-weighted average land-use requirements (as reported in Table 4) for PV 

systems smaller than 20 MW when evaluating the impact of tracking arrays: 5.5 acres/MWac for 

fixed-tilt systems, 6.3 acres/MWac for 1-axis tracking systems, and 9.4 acres/MWac for 2-axis 

tracking systems. These results indicate that the expected increase in energy yield from 1-axis 

tracking systems (12%–22%) is partially countered by increases in land-use requirements per 

unit of capacity. While the land use per unit of generation generally decreases for 1-axis tracking 

systems compared with fixed-tilt systems, this metric generally increases for 2-axis tracking 

systems compared with fixed-tilt systems. This is because the spacing required for 2-axis 

tracking increases more than the relative increase in energy yield. The land-use advantage of 

1-axis tracking is more pronounced in regions with higher direct normal irradiation (DNI) levels. 

Similarly, the negative land-use impacts of 2-axis tracking are less pronounced in regions with 

higher DNI levels. Denholm and Margolis (2008) estimated that land use per unit of generation 

would increase moving from fixed systems to 1-axis tracking systems and moving from fixed 

systems to 2-axis tracking systems.

47% 34%

51% 36% 22%

25%
14 This report is available at no cost from the 

National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) 

at www.nrel.gov/publications

Table 5. Impacts of 1-Axis Tracking on Land-Use Intensity Compared With Fixed-Axis Mounting 

Region 

Direct 

normal 

radiation 

(kWh/m2/yr) 

Estimated energy 

production (kWh/kW)

1-axis 

tracking 

increase in 

energy 

yield 

relative to 

Fixed

2-axis 

tracking 

increase in 

energy 

yield 

relative to 

Fixed

Land-use intensity 

(acres/GWh/yr)

1-axis 

tracking 

change in 

land-use 

intensity 

relative to 

fixed

2-axis 

tracking 

change in 

land-use 

intensity 

relative to 

fixed

Fixed 1-

axis 2-axis Fixed 1-axis 2-axis

San Francisco, 

CA 1,883 1,551 1,828 1,951 17.9% 25.8% 4.94 4.72 5.44 -4.40% 9.30%

San Diego, CA 1,965 1,607 1,864 1,974 16.0% 22.8% 4.77 4.65 5.39 -2.70% 11.40%

Alamosa, CO 2,530 1,813 2,200 2,606 21.3% 43.7% 4.23 3.93 4.08 -7.50% -3.60%

Phoenix, AZ 2,519 1,733 2,113 2,419 21.9% 39.6% 4.42 4.1 4.4 -8.00% -0.60%

Jacksonville, FL 1,507 1,380 1,634 1,504 18.4% 9.0% 5.56 5.29 7.07 -4.90% 21.40%

Newark, NJ 1,263 1,268 1,422 1,321 12.1% 4.2% 6.03 6.08 8.06 0.70% 24.90%

Seattle, WA 1,112 1,100 1,249 1,136 13.5% 3.3% 6.97 6.92 9.37 -0.60% 25.50%
15 This report is available at no cost from the 

National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) 

at www.nrel.gov/publications

4.3 CSP Land-Use Results

Table 6 and Table 7 summarize total and direct land-use requirements by CSP technology, 

respectively. Note there are significantly fewer CSP projects in the United States than PV 

projects, and due to reliance on solar DNI resource, most CSP projects are in the Southwest 

(Figure 2). We collected data for 25 CSP projects, with only one linear Fresnel project and one 

dish Stirling project. It is more important to evaluate CSP in terms of land use per unit of 

generation because of the effect of storage and solar multiple, which can increase the amount of 

energy produced per unit of capacity (Turchi et al. 2010). Direct land-use requirements for CSP 

trough technology range from 2.0 to 4.5 acres/GWh/yr, with a generation-weighted average of 

2.5 acres/GWh/yr. Direct land-use requirements for CSP tower technology range from 2.1 to 

5.3 acres/GWh/yr, with a generation-weighted average of 2.8 acres/GWh/yr. We found that 

system size appears to have little impact on generation-based CSP land-use requirements (see 

Appendix E). 

Table 6. Total Land-Use Requirements by CSP Technology 

Technology 

Total Area

Projects Capacity 

(MWac) 

Capacity-weighted average 

area requirements

(acres/MWac)

Generation-weighted average 

area requirements

(acres/GWh/yr)

All 25 3,747 10 3.5

Trough 8 1,380 9.5 3.9

Tower 14 2,358 10 3.2

Dish Stirling 1 2 10 5.3

Linear Fresnel 1 8 4.7 4.0

Table 7. Direct Land-Use Requirements by CSP Technology 

Technology 

Direct Area

Projects Capacity 

(MWac) 

Capacity-weighted average 

area requirements

(acres/MWac)

Generation-weighted average 

area requirements

(acres/GWh/yr)

All 18 2,218 7.7 2.7

Trough 7 851 6.2 2.5

Tower 9 1,358 8.9 2.8

Dish Stirling 1 2 2.8 1.5

Linear Fresnel 1 8 2.0 1.7

Data for CSP with multi-hour energy storage were also collected. Eight facilities included 

thermal storage technology, ranging from 3 to 15 hours of storage. One of the eight CSP 

facilities with storage is a parabolic trough system, while the remaining seven are tower systems. 

Little correlation is observed between storage and land-use intensity, both on a capacity and 

generation basis (see Appendix E). We would expect to see a trend of decreasing generationbased land use with increasing storage and increasing capacity-based land use with increasing 

storage based on modeled results as shown in Figure 8 (Turchi et al. 2010). Given the relatively 
16 This report is available at no cost from the 

National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) 

at www.nrel.gov/publications

small amount of data, it is difficult to isolate the impact of any single factor on land-use 

requirements. Higher sample sizes and additional data elements will enable a more robust 

evaluation of CSP land use. 

Figure 8. Modeled data showing relationship between CSP thermal storage and land-use intensity 

Source: Turchi et al. 2010

0

5

10

15

20

25

0 5 10 15

Estimated Direct Land Use 

(acre/GWh-yr or acre/MW-yr)

Thermal Storage (hours)

Area per Capacity (acre/MW/yr)

Area per Gen. (acre/GWh/yr)
17 This report is available at no cost from the 

National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) 

at www.nrel.gov/publications

5 Conclusions

Table 8 and Table 9 summarize the U.S. utility-scale PV and CSP land-use requirements 

evaluated in this report. Average total land-use requirements are 3.6 acres/GWh/yr for PV and 

3.5 acres/GWh/yr for CSP. Average direct-area requirements are 3.1 acres/GWh/yr for PV and 

2.7 acres/GWh/yr for CSP. On a capacity basis, the total-area capacity-weighted average for all 

solar power plants is 8.9 acres/MWac, with 22% of plants within 8 and 10 acres/MWac. For 

direct land-use requirements, the capacity-weighted average is 7.3 acre/MWac, with 40% of 

power plants within 6 and 8 acres/MWac. Solar land-use estimates from the literature generally 

fall within these ranges. Within the broad technology categories of PV and CSP, land-use metrics 

are also impacted by specific technology choices, such as cell efficiency, tracking method, and 

inclusion of thermal energy storage, and are a function of the solar resource available at 

each site. 

Although our results stem from an empirically based effort to estimate solar land use, several 

caveats are warranted. Some solar-technology categories have relatively small samples sizes, 

which must be considered when interpreting the robustness of reported results. Over 26 GWac of 

PV and CSP are under development as of February 2013 (SEIA 2013), and the results reported in 

this study must be understood in light of a rapidly growing installed base. Additionally, various 

data sources were used when gathering information about solar projects. Although we tried to 

obtain the highest-quality sources (project applications and regulatory documents, referred to as 

“official documents” in this report), we collected official documents for only 20% of all projects 

evaluated. Other data sources are expected to have higher levels of uncertainty (although how 

much higher is unclear), which could contribute to the observed variability in results. With the 

exception of a few CSP projects, we collected reported capacity of power plants but not annual 

generation. The generation-based land-use results are expected to have higher levels of 

uncertainty because annual generation is simulated. Although generation-based results provide a 

more consistent approach when comparing land-use requirements across technologies, capacitybased results are useful for estimating land area and costs for new projects because power plants 

are often rated in terms of capacity. Finally, owing to the rapid evolution of solar technologies as 

well as land-use practices and regulations, the results reported here reflect past performance and 

not necessarily future trends.

We analyze elements that affect the area of solar impact, but we recognize that the duration of 

use and impact on land quality are also important when considering land use impacts. Future 

analyses could include evaluating the quality of land impacts, assessing both the initial state of 

the land impacted and the final states across a variety of factors, including soil quality and 

overall ecosystem quality. Finally, larger sample sizes and additional data elements would 

improve the robustness of the conclusions and enable a more thorough investigation of the 

impacts of additional factors, such as tilt angle, azimuth, PV module technology, CSP solar 

multiple, and storage technologies. 
18 This report is available at no cost from the 

National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) 

at www.nrel.gov/publications

 Table 8. Summary of Direct Land-Use Requirements for PV and CSP Projects in the United States

Technology Direct Area

 

Number of 

projects 

analyzed

Capacity for 

analyzed 

projects 

(MWac)

Capacity-weighted 

average land use 

(acres/MWac)

Capacity-weighted 

average land use 

(MWac/km2) 

Generationweighted average 

land use 

(acres/GWh/yr)

Generationweighted average 

land use 

(GWh/yr/km2) 

Small PV

(>1 MW, <20 92 374 5.9 42 3.1 81

MW)

Fixed 43 194 5.5 45 3.2 76

1-axis 41 168 6.3 39 2.9 86

2-axis flat panel 4 5 9.4 26 4.1 60

2-axis CPV 4 7 6.9 36 2.3 105

Large PV 15 1,405 7.2 34 3.1 80

(>20 MW)

Fixed 7 744 5.8 43 2.8 88

1-axis 7 630 9.0 28 3.5 71

2-axis CPV 1 31 6.1 41 2.0 126

CSP 18 2,218 7.7 32 2.7 92

Parabolic trough 7 851 6.2 40 2.5 97

Tower 9 1,358 8.9 28 2.8 87

Dish Stirling 1 2 2.8 88 1.5 164

Linear Fresnel 1 8 2.0 124 1.7 145
19 This report is available at no cost from the 

National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) 

at www.nrel.gov/publications

Table 9. Summary of Total Land-Use Requirements for PV and CSP Projects in the United States

Technology Total Area

 

Number of 

projects 

analyzed

Capacity for 

analyzed 

projects 

(MWac)

Capacity-weighted 

average land use 

(acres/MWac)

Capacity-weighted 

average land use 

(MWac/km2) 

Generationweighted average 

land use 

(acres/GWh/yr)

Generationweighted average 

land use 

(GWh/yr/km2) 

Small PV

(>1 MW, <20 115 550 8.3 30 4.1 61

MW)

Fixed 52 231 7.6 32 4.4 56

1-axis 55 306 8.7 29 3.8 66

2-axis flat panel 4 5 13 19 5.5 45

2-axis CPV 4 7 9.1 27 3.1 80

Large PV 32 3,551 7.9 31 3.4 72

(>20 MW)

Fixed 14 1,756 7.5 33 3.7 67

1-axis 16 1,637 8.3 30 3.3 76

2-axis CPV 2 158 8.1 31 2.8 89

CSP 25 3,747 10 25 3.5 71

Parabolic trough 8 1,380 9.5 26 3.9 63

Tower 14 2,358 10 24 3.2 77

Dish Stirling 1 2 10 25 5.3 46

Linear Fresnel 1 8 4.7 53 4.0 62
20 This report is available at no cost from the 

National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) 

at www.nrel.gov/publications

References

Canals, L.M.; Bauer, C.; Depestele, J.; Dubreuil, A.; Freiermuth Knuchel, R.; Gaillard, G.; 

Michelsen, O.; Müller-Wenk. R.; Rydgren, B. (2007). “Key Elements in a Framework for Land 

Use Impact Assessment in LCA.” The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment (12:1); pp. 

5–15. 

Denholm, P.; Hand, M.; Jackson, M.; Ong, S. (2009). “Land-Use Requirements of Modern Wind 

Power Plants in the United States.” NREL/TP-6A2-45834. Golden, CO: National Renewable 

Energy Laboratory. 

Denholm, P.; Margolis, R. (2008). “Land-Use Requirements and the Per-Capita Solar Footprint 

for Photovoltaic Generation in the United States.” Energy Policy (36:9); pp. 3531–3543. 

DOE (U.S. Department of Energy). (2012a). SunShot Vision Study. DOE/GO-102012-3037. 

Accessed July 2012: http://www1.eere.energy.gov/solar/pdfs/47927.pdf. 

DOE. (2012b). Solar Energy Glossary. Accessed August 2012: 

http://www1.eere.energy.gov/solar/sunshot/glossary.html. 

Drury, E.; Lopez, A.; Denholm, P.; Margolis, R. (2012). “Relative Performance of Tracking 

versus Fixed Tilt Photovoltaic Systems in the United States.” Golden, CO: National Renewable 

Energy Laboratory. 

Fthenakis, V.; Kim, H.C. (2009). “Land Use and Electricity Generation: A Life-Cycle Analysis.” 

Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews (13); pp. 1465–1474. 

Gilman, P.; Dobos, A. (2012). System Advisor Model, SAM 2011.12.2: General Description. 

NREL/TP-6A20-53437. Golden, CO: National Renewable Energy Laboratory. 

Hand, M.M.; Baldwin, S.; DeMeo, E.; Reilly, J.M.; Mai, T.; Arent, D.; Porro, G.; Meshek, M.; 

Sandor, D. (2012). Renewable Electricity Futures Study. eds. 4 vols. NREL/TP-6A20-52409. 

Golden, CO: National Renewable Energy Laboratory. 

Horner, R.; Clark, C. (2013). “Characterizing variability and reducing uncertainty in estimates of 

solar land use energy intensity.” Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews (23); pp. 129–137. 

Koellner, T.; Scholz, R. (2008). “Assessment of Land Use Impacts on the Natural Environment.” 

The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment (13:1); pp. 32–48. 

NREL (National Renewable Energy Laboratory). (2012). System Advisor Model User 

Documentation. https://www.nrel.gov/analysis/sam/help/html-php/. 

Perez, R.; Ineichen, P.; Moore, K.; Kmiecikm, M.; Chain, C.; George, R.; Vignola, F. (2002). “A 

New Operational Satellite-to-Irradiance Model.” Solar Energy (73:5); pp. 307–317. 
21 This report is available at no cost from the 

National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) 

at www.nrel.gov/publications

SEIA (Solar Energy Industries Association). (2012). Utility-Scale Solar Projects in the United 

States: Operating, Under Construction, or Under Development (Updated August 15, 2012). 

Washington, DC: SEIA. 

SEIA. (2013). Utility-Scale Solar Projects in the United States: Operating, Under Construction, 

or Under Development (Updated February 11, 2013). Washington, DC: SEIA. 

Turchi, C.; Mehos, M.; Ho, C.; Kolb, G. (2010). “Current and Future Costs for Parabolic Trough 

and Power Tower Systems in the US Market.” NREL/CP-5500-49303. Golden, CO: National 

Renewable Energy Laboratory.

Wilcox, S. (2007). National Solar Radiation Database 1991 – 2005 Update: User’s Manual.

NREL/TP-581-41364. Golden, CO: National Renewable Energy Laboratory. 
22 This report is available at no cost from the 

National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) 

at www.nrel.gov/publications

Appendix A. CSP Solar Multiple Ranges

For CSP projects, a range of solar multiple values were used to simulate annual generation output. Assumptions for CSP solar multiple 

ranges are shown in Table A-1. 

Table A-1. CSP Solar Multiple Ranges and Corresponding Estimated Annual Generation Values

Name State Storage 

(hours) 

Solar 

multiple low

Solar multiple 

high 

Estimated 

generation low 

(GWh/yr)

Estimated generation 

high (GWh/yr) 

Crossroad Solar AZ 10 2.2 2.8 683 822

Quartzsite AZ 10 2.2 2.8 489 578

Saguaro Power Plant AZ 0 1.1 1.4 2 2 

Solana AZ 6 1.9 2.4 992 1,155

Abengoa Mojave CA 0 1.1 1.4 520 645

Coalinga CA 0 1.1 1.4 9 28

Ford Dry Lake (Genesis) CA 0 1.1 1.4 480 617

Hidden Hills 1 CA 0 1.1 1.4 545 655

Hidden Hills 2 CA 0 1.1 1.4 545 655

Ivanpah (all) CA 0 1.1 1.4 869 1,024

Kimberlina CA 0 1.1 1.4 9 11

Palmdale Hybrid Plant CA 0 1.1 1.4 107 138

Rice Solar CA 7 1.8 2.2 541 692

Rio Mesa 1 CA 0 1.1 1.4 529 659

Rio Mesa 2 CA 0 1.1 1.4 529 659

Rio Mesa 3 CA 0 1.1 1.4 529 659

SEGS (all) CA 0 1.1 1.4 725 888

Solar Two CA 3 1.3 1.7 20 30

Victorville 2 hybrid CA 0 1.1 1.4 101 125

Saguache Solar CO 15 2.6 3.2 1,073 1,216

Martin Next Generation FL 0 1.1 1.4 71 105
23 This report is available at no cost from the 

National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) 

at www.nrel.gov/publications

Name State Storage 

(hours) 

Solar 

multiple low

Solar multiple 

high 

Estimated 

generation low 

(GWh/yr)

Estimated generation 

high (GWh/yr) 

Nevada Solar One NV 0.5 1.2 1.5 114 144

Tonopah (Crescent Dunes) NV 10 2.2 2.8 525 590

Crossroad Solar AZ 10 2.2 2.8 683 822

Quartzsite AZ 10 2.2 2.8 489 578
24 This report is available at no cost from the 

National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) 

at www.nrel.gov/publications

Appendix B. PV Projects Evaluated

Table B-1. PV Land-Use Data

Asterisks represent data calculated from power plants that reported only AC capacity, as described in Section 3. 

Name State MW - DC Total area 

(acres)

Direct 

area 

(acres)

Tracking Module 

efficiency

Status as of 

August 2012 Data source 

Prescott Airport (CPV) AZ 0.2 1.9 1.0 2 axis 

CPV 29% Complete Third party

Pima County Wastewater AZ 1.1 8.4 6.4 1 axis 14% Complete Developer

Johnson Utilities AZ 1.1 10.6 7.5 1 axis Complete Third party

Prescott Airport (1-Axis Phase 1) AZ 2.8 22.6 22.3 1 axis Complete Third party

Springerville AZ 6.5 85.2 45.3 fixed 11% Complete Developer

Kingman Plant AZ 10.0 70.5 1 axis 14% Construction Third party

Prescott Airport (1-Axis Phase 2) AZ 11.8 94.0 1 axis Construction Third party

Luke Air Force Base AZ 15.0 107.1 1 axis 19% Complete Third party

Hyder Plant AZ 17.0 152.7 1 axis 14% Construction Third party

Paloma Plant AZ 20.3* 234.9 fixed 11% Complete Third party

Cotton Center Plant AZ 21.0 169.2 1 axis Complete Third party

Copper Crossing Solar Ranch AZ 23.5* 169.1 139.1 1 axis 19% Complete Developer

Chino Plant AZ 23.5* 187.9 164.4 1 axis 14% Construction Official documents

Tucson Solar AZ 25.0 233.7 1 axis Construction Developer

Avra Valley AZ 30.5* 352.4 1 axis 11% Construction Developer

Mesquite Solar 1 AZ 170.0 1,020.0 Unknown 15% Construction Official documents

Agua Caliente AZ 340.6* 2,818.9 fixed 11% Construction Developer

Sonoran Solar Energy Project AZ 352.4* 2,364.3 1 axis Proposed Official documents

Mesquite Solar Total AZ 700.0 4,698.1 Unknown Proposed Third party

Western Riverside County Regional 

Wastewater Authority CA 1.0 11.2 10.6 1 axis 20% Complete Developer

The North Face PV Plant CA 1.0 5.9 5.9 1 axis Complete Third party
25 This report is available at no cost from the 

National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) 

at www.nrel.gov/publications

Name State MW - DC Total area 

(acres)

Direct 

area 

(acres)

Tracking Module 

efficiency

Status as of 

August 2012 Data source 

Inlands Empire Utility Solar Farm CA 1.0 12.6 8.9 1 axis 20% Complete Developer

West County Waste Water PV Plant CA 1.0 11.7 6.9 2 axis

flat 14% Complete Developer

Nichols Farms PV Plant CA 1.0 8.0 8.0 2 axis 

CPV 25% Complete Third party

Budweiser PV Plant CA 1.1 9.4 7.2 1 axis 15% Complete Official documents

Wal-Mart Apple Valley PV Plant CA 1.1 10.7 7.8 1 axis 15% Complete Official documents

Rancho California PV Plant CA 1.1 13.6 8.9 1 axis 19% Complete Developer

Hayward Wastewater PV Plant CA 1.2 13.2 8.6 1 axis 14% Complete Third party

Chuckawalla State Prison PV Plant CA 1.2 8.4 4.8 fixed 14% Complete Official documents

Ironwood State Prison PV Plant CA 1.2 14.4 9.0 1 axis 13% Complete Official documents

Sacramento Soleil CA 1.3 10.0 8.1 fixed 11% Complete Developer

USMC 29 Palms CA 1.3 10.6 7.0 fixed Complete Developer

Box Canyon Camp Pendleton CA 1.4 9.6 5.6 fixed 14% Complete Third party

Vaca-Dixon Solar Station CA 2.6 17.8 11.5 fixed 14% Complete Developer

Newberry Springs PV Plant CA 3.0 25.8 1 axis Proposed Third party

Sunset Reservoir CA 5.0 15.3 15.3 fixed Complete Third party

Aero Jet Solar Project CA 6.0 47.0 32.3 1 axis Complete Developer

CALRENEW-1 CA 6.2 60.4 46.5 fixed 9% Complete Third party

Porterville Solar Plant CA 6.8 37.6 31.4 fixed 14% Complete Third party

Palm Springs project 1 CA 8.0 42.9 1 axis 14% Construction Third party

Dillard Solar Farm CA 12.0 94.3 70.4 1 axis 15% Complete Developer

China Lake PV Plant CA 13.8 138.6 1 axis 20% Construction Third party

Bruceville Solar Farm CA 16.4 131.1 92.9 1 axis 15% Complete Official documents

Kammerer Solar Farm CA 16.6 129.1 111.1 1 axis 15% Complete Official documents

Antelope Solar Farm CA 20.0 234.9 Unknown Proposed Developer

Mojave Solar CA 20.0 204.4 Unknown Proposed Developer
26 This report is available at no cost from the 

National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) 

at www.nrel.gov/publications

Name State MW - DC Total area 

(acres)

Direct 

area 

(acres)

Tracking Module 

efficiency

Status as of 

August 2012 Data source 

Tuusso Energy Antelope Plant CA 20.0 211.4 Unknown Proposed Third party

Grundman/Wilkinson Solar Farm CA 21.1* 163.5 117.5 Fixed 11% Complete Official documents

Adobe Solar CA 23.5* 187.9 Unknown Proposed Developer

Orion Solar CA 23.5* 311.2 Unknown Proposed Developer

Atwell Island Solar Project CA 23.5 188.0 Unknown Construction Third party

FSE Blythe CA 25.2 223.2 161.3 Fixed 10% Complete Developer

Imperial Valley Solar Company CA 28.7 153.5 Unknown 15% Proposed Third party

McHenry Solar Farm CA 29.4* 180.9 1 axis 19% Construction Developer

Del Sur Solar Project CA 38.0 219.6 Unknown Construction Third party

Lucerne Valley Solar CA 40.5 495.6 495.6 Fixed 10% Construction Official documents

Chocolate Mountains PV Plant CA 49.9 375.8 Unknown Construction Developer

Calipatria Solar Farm 2 CA 50.0 352.4 Unknown Proposed Third party

Salton Sea 1 CA 50.0 375.8 Unknown Proposed Developer

Avenal SunCity SandDrag Avenal 

Park CA 57.7 641.3 442.5 Fixed 9% Complete Developer

Copper Mountain PV Plant CA 58.0 459.2 393.9 Fixed 10% Proposed Third party

Midway Solar Farm 1 CA 58.7* 352.4 325.3 Unknown Proposed Developer

Regulus Solar CA 75.0 872.7 Unknown Proposed Developer

Calipatria Solar Farm 1 CA 82.2* 352.4 288.9 Unknown Proposed Developer

Salton Sea 2 CA 100.0 730.6 Unknown Proposed Third party

Quinto Plant CA 110.0 1,191.0 1 axis 20% Proposed Official documents

Imperial Solar Energy Center South CA 130.0 1,111.1 1 axis 11% Proposed Developer

Imperial Solar Energy Center West CA 150.0 1,241.5 2 axis 

CPV 25% Proposed Developer

Midway Solar Farm 2 CA 182.1* 1,097.5 Unknown Proposed Third party

Calexico Solar Farm 1 CA 234.9* 1,468.2 Unknown Proposed Developer

Calexico Solar Farm 2 CA 234.9* 1,468.2 Unknown Proposed Developer
27 This report is available at no cost from the 

National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) 

at www.nrel.gov/publications

Name State MW - DC Total area 

(acres)

Direct 

area 

(acres)

Tracking Module 

efficiency

Status as of 

August 2012 Data source 

Mount Signal PV Plant CA 234.9* 1,644.3 Unknown Proposed Developer

AV Solar Ranch One CA 284.0 2,593.0 2,414.0 1 axis 11% Proposed Developer

California Valley Solar Ranch CA 293.6* 2,037.8 1 axis Construction Developer

Centinela Solar CA 323.0* 2,427.7 Unknown Proposed Developer

Superstition Solar 1 CA 500.0 6,562.1 Unknown Proposed Official documents

Edwards Air Force Base CA 500.0 3,736.4 Unknown Proposed Developer

Desert Sunlight CA 646.0* 4,985.9 3,529.4 Fixed 10% Proposed Official documents

Topaz Solar Farm CA 646.0* 4,110.8 Fixed 11% Construction Developer

Alamosa Water Treatment Facility 

PV Plant CO 0.6 6.5 5.6 1 axis 16% Complete Official documents

Rifle Pump Station CO 0.6 5.3 4.3 1 axis 13% Complete Official documents

SunEdison Alamosa PV Plant (FixedTilt) CO 0.6 7.0 3.6 Fixed 14% Complete Official documents

Arvada Ralston Water Treatment 

Plant CO 0.6 7.1 4.5 1 axis 16% Complete Official documents

NREL Mesa Top PV Project CO 0.7 5.9 3.3 1 axis 16% Complete Official documents

SunEdison Alamosa PV Plant (2 

Axis) CO 1.0 14.0 7.3 2 axisflat 14% Complete Official documents

NREL National Wind Technology 

Center CO 1.1 11.5 7.1 1 axis 13% Complete Official documents

Buckley Air Force Base CO 1.1 4.5 3.8 Fixed 14% Complete Official documents

Denver Federal Center Solar Park 

Phase 1 CO 1.2 7.6 6.0 Fixed 13% Complete Official documents

Colorado State University Pueblo 

Plant CO 1.2 5.1 4.1 Fixed Complete Third party

Denver International Airport Phase 2 

(Fuel Farm) CO 1.6 10.6 8.3 Fixed Complete Developer

Rifle Waste Water Reclamation 

Facility CO 1.7 14.0 9.9 1 axis 14% Complete Official documents

Colorado State University Ft. Collins 

Phase 1 CO 2.0 17.6 15.0 1 axis Complete Third party
28 This report is available at no cost from the 

National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) 

at www.nrel.gov/publications

Name State MW - DC Total area 

(acres)

Direct 

area 

(acres)

Tracking Module 

efficiency

Status as of 

August 2012 Data source 

Denver International Airport 1 Pena 

Blvd CO 2.0 11.7 11.7 1 axis Complete Developer

Ft. Carson PV Plant CO 2.0 14.7 12.6 Fixed 11% Complete Developer

Colorado State University Ft. Collins 

Phase 2 CO 3.3 15.4 14.0 Fixed Complete Third party

Denver International Airport Phase 3 CO 4.4 35.2 26.9 Fixed Complete Developer

Air Force Academy CO Springs CO 6.0 50.5 31.4 1 axis Complete Third party

SunEdison Alamosa PV Plant (1 

Axis) CO 6.6 74.1 38.5 1 axis 14% Complete Official documents

Greater Sand Hill Solar Plant CO 20.0 206.6 132.6 1 axis 20% Complete Third party

San Luis Valley Solar Ranch CO 35.2 258.1 1 axis 20% Complete Developer

Cogentrix Alamosa Solar Generating 

Project CO 37.0 271.0 224.0 2 axis CPV 31% Construction Developer

Kent County Waste Water DE 1.2 7.0 6.6 Fixed Construction Third party

Dover Sun Park DE 11.7* 121.0 59.1 1 axis 20% Complete Third party

NASA PV FL 1.0 6.1 2.8 Fixed Complete Developer

Stanton Energy Center FL 5.9 41.1 29.1 1 axis Complete Developer

Rinehart Solar Farm FL 8.0 28.2 Unknown 16% Construction Third party

Space Coast FL 11.7* 52.9 35.2 Fixed Complete Developer

Jacksonville Solar FL 15.0 114.4 83.9 Fixed 11% Construction Third party

DeSoto Plant FL 28.0 263.2 201.6 1 axis 19% Complete Developer

Sorrento Eagle Dunes phase 1 FL 40.0 164.4 Fixed 14% Construction Developer

Sorrento Eagle Dunes phase 2 FL 60.0 422.8 Fixed 16% Proposed Third party

Babcock Ranch Solar FL 75.0 469.8 Unknown Proposed Developer

Liberty County Solar Farm FL 100.0 1174.5 Unknown Proposed Third party

Hardee County Solar Farm FL 200.0 2,349.1 Unknown Proposed Third party

Gadsden Solar Farm FL 400.0 4,698.1 Unknown Proposed Third party

Blairsville Plant GA 1.0 5.7 Fixed Complete Third party
29 This report is available at no cost from the 

National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) 

at www.nrel.gov/publications

Name State MW - DC Total area 

(acres)

Direct 

area 

(acres)

Tracking Module 

efficiency

Status as of 

August 2012 Data source 

Kopolei Sustainable Energy Park HI 1.2 4.7 3.2 Fixed 14% Complete Third party

Kalaeloa Oahu HI 5.0 47.0 1 axis 19% Construction Official documents

Exelon City Solar IL 10.0 48.2 37.6 1 axis Complete Developer

Grand Ridge Solar Plant IL 23.0 187.9 Unknown 12% Construction Third party

Indianapolis Airport Solar Farm IN 10.0 70.5 Fixed Construction Third party

Bowling Greens Solar Farm KY 2.0 15.3 10.6 1 axis Complete Third party

William Stanley Business Park MA 1.9 10.9 7.3 Fixed 14% Complete Official documents

Berkshire School MA 2.0 10.8 9.4 Fixed 15% Complete Third party

Northfield Mountain MA 2.0 12.9 9.3 Fixed Complete Third party

Indian Orchard Solar MA 2.3 14.1 Unknown Complete Third party

Springfield Plant MA 4.2 72.8 47.0 Unknown Complete Third party

Mueller Road Holyoke Plant MA 4.5 22.3 Fixed 15% Complete Third party

Canton Landfill MA 5.7 17.2 12.8 Fixed 15% Complete Official documents

Mount St. Mary's University MD 17.4 158.6 105.7 Fixed 11% Construction Third party

Progress Energy NC 1.2 11.3 9.1 1 axis 14% Complete Official documents

Mayberry/Mt. Airy Solar Farm NC 1.2 7.0 Fixed 14% Complete Third party

Neuse River Waste Water NC 1.3 11.7 Fixed 14% Complete Third party

SAS Solar Farm 1 and 2 NC 2.2 20.0 14.1 1 axis 15% Complete Developer

Kings Mountain Solar Farm NC 5.0 32.9 Unknown Complete Third party

Murfreesboro NC 6.4 36.7 30.6 1 axis 19% Complete Developer

Davidson County Solar NC 17.2 221.9 129.3 1 axis Complete Developer

Trenton Solar Farm NJ 1.3 6.5 5.3 Fixed Complete Third party

Silver Lake Solar Farm NJ 2.1 9.4 6.7 Fixed 14% Complete Third party

Mars Solar Garden NJ 2.2 14.4 11.9 Fixed 10% Complete Developer

NJMC landfill NJ 3.0 15.3 Fixed Complete Third party

Linden Solar Farm NJ 3.2 11.7 Unknown Complete Third party
30 This report is available at no cost from the 

National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) 

at www.nrel.gov/publications

Name State MW - DC Total area 

(acres)

Direct 

area 

(acres)

Tracking Module 

efficiency

Status as of 

August 2012 Data source 

Janssen Pharmaceutical NJ 4.1 29.4 21.9 1 axis Complete Third party

Vineland NJ 4.1 32.9 17.6 Fixed Complete Developer

Yardville Solar Farm NJ 4.4 18.4 16.6 Fixed 14% Complete Third party

Homdel Solar Farm NJ 4.8 39.9 18.8 1 axis Proposed Third party

Princeton University NJ 5.3 31.7 1 axis 19% Complete Third party

Lawrenceville School NJ 6.1 35.2 1 axis 15% Complete Third party

NJ Oak Solar Farm NJ 12.5 122.5 97.5 Fixed 14% Complete Third party

Upper Pittsgrove NJ 14.4 105.7 1 axis Proposed Third party

Tinton Falls NJ 19.9 111.6 Unknown Construction Third party

Pilesgrove Project NJ 20.0 148.9 85.3 Fixed 14% Complete Third party

Santa Fe Waste Water Plant NM 1.1 10.4 7.9 1 axis 14% Complete Developer

City of Madera Waste Water NM 1.2 11.2 10.6 2 axis

flat 14% Complete Third party

Questa NM 1.2* 20.0 12.6 2 axis 

CPV 25% Complete Third party

Albuquerque Solar Center NM 2.0 21.7 12.8 Fixed 11% Complete Third party

Deming Solar Energy Center NM 5.0 58.7 40.0 Fixed 11% Complete Third party

Alamogordo Solar Center NM 5.0 58.7 Fixed 11% Complete Third party

Hatch Solar Center NM 6.5 50.1 38.9 2 axis 

CPV 29% Complete Developer

SunEdison Jal NM 10.7 117.5 86.4 1 axis Complete Third party

SunEdison Carlsbad NM 10.8 100.7 90.3 1 axis Complete Third party

Elephant Butte NM 22.0 187.9 Fixed Construction Third party

Roadrunner Solar Facility NM 23.5* 246.7 198.8 1 axis 11% Complete Developer

Cimarron NM 35.2* 293.6 260.7 Fixed 10% Complete Developer

Estancia Solar Farm NM 50.0 187.9 Unknown Proposed Third party

Guadalupe Solar NM 300.0 2,936.3 Unknown Proposed Third party

Las Vegas Solar Center NV 5.0 58.7 Unknown 11% Complete Third party
31 This report is available at no cost from the 

National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) 

at www.nrel.gov/publications

Name State MW - DC Total area 

(acres)

Direct 

area 

(acres)

Tracking Module 

efficiency

Status as of 

August 2012 Data source 

El Dorado Solar NV 12.0 96.0 84.0 Fixed 11% Complete Developer

Nellis Air Force Base NV 18.0 186.7 148.0 1 axis Complete Official documents

Searchlight Solar Project NV 20.0 242.3 1 axis Complete Third party

Fish Springs NV 20.6 211.4 Fixed 10% Construction Official documents

Apex NV 24.9 187.1 Unknown Proposed Third party

Silver State Solar North NV 65.1 775.0 Fixed 10% Construction Official documents

Boulder City NV 176.2* 1,303.7 1 axis 10% Construction Developer

Silver State Solar South NV 350.0 3,406.1 3484.8 1 axis 10% Proposed Official documents

Mojave Green Center NV 720.0 6,384.7 Unknown Proposed Third party

Brookhaven Lab NY 37.0 231.3 225.5 Fixed 13% Construction Developer

Washington Township Solar Array OH 1.1 11.5 8.4 Fixed 9% Complete Developer

BNB Napoleon Solar LLC OH 9.8 70.5 1 axis 19% Construction Third party

Wyandot Solar OH 12.6 97.0 78.0 Fixed 11% Complete Developer

Turning Point Solar OH 58.6* 496.4 Unknown Proposed Official document

Yamhill Solar OR 1.2 11.0 Fixed 10% Complete Developer

Bellevue Solar OR 1.7 14.0 Fixed 10% Complete Developer

Pocono Raceway PA 3.0 27.2 17.9 Fixed Construction Third party

Exelon Conergy PA 3.0 19.4 12.9 Fixed Complete Developer

Claysville Solar Project PA 20.0 117.5 99.5 Fixed Proposed Developer

Shelby Solar Project SC 1.0 10.6 6.5 1 axis 19% Complete Third party

West Tennessee Solar Farm TN 5.0 29.4 26.9 Fixed Construction Developer

Blue Wing Solar TX 16.1 124.2 95.7 Fixed Construction Developer

Austin Energy Webberville TX 34.3 434.3 Unknown 15% Complete Third party

Pflugerville Solar TX 60.0 704.7 Unknown Construction Third party

South Burlington Solar Farm VT 2.2 31.7 25.8 2 axis

flat Complete Third party
32 This report is available at no cost from the 

National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) 

at www.nrel.gov/publications

Appendix C. CSP Projects Evaluated

Table C-1. Concentrating Solar Power Land-Use Data

Note: Additional CSP plant information, such as storage and annual generation, can be found in Appendix A. 

Name State MW - AC Total area 

(acres)

Direct 

area 

(acres)

Technology Status as of 

August 2012 Data source 

Maricopa Solar Project AZ 1.5 15 4 Stirling Engine Complete Third party

Quartzsite AZ 100 1,675 Tower Proposed Developer

Crossroad Solar AZ 150 2,560 Tower Proposed Developer

Solana AZ 280 1,920 Parabolic trough Construction Third party

Sierra SunTower CA 5 50 22 Tower Complete Developer

Kimberlina CA 7.5 35 15 Linear Fresnel Complete Developer

Solar Two CA 10 132 110 Tower Decommissioned Third party

Coalinga CA 13 86 57 Tower Proposed Developer

Victorville 2 hybrid CA 50 265 230 Parabolic trough Proposed Official document

Palmdale Hybrid Gas/solar 

Plant CA 57 377 250 Parabolic trough Proposed Official document

Rice Solar CA 150 2,560 1,410 Tower Construction Official document

Abengoa Mojave CA 250 1,765 Parabolic trough Construction Third party

Ford Dry Lake (Genesis) CA 250 4,640 1,800 Parabolic trough Construction Official document

Hidden Hills 1 CA 250 1,640 1,560 Tower Proposed Official document

Hidden Hills 2 CA 250 1,640 1,560 Tower Proposed Official document

Rio Mesa 1 CA 250 1,917 Tower Proposed Official document

Rio Mesa 2 CA 250 1,917 Tower Proposed Official document

Rio Mesa 3 CA 250 1,917 Tower Proposed Official document

SEGS (all) CA 354 2,057 2,057 Parabolic trough Complete Third party

Ivanpah All CA 370 3,515 3,236 Tower Construction Official document

Saguache Solar CO 200 3,000 2,669 Tower Construction Official document

Martin Next Generation FL 75 500 400 Parabolic trough Complete Developer
33 This report is available at no cost from the 

National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) 

at www.nrel.gov/publications

Name State MW - AC Total area 

(acres)

Direct 

area 

(acres)

Technology Status as of 

August 2012 Data source 

Nevada Solar One NV 64 400 290 Parabolic trough Complete Third party

Tonopah (Crescent Dunes) NV 110 1,600 1,527 Tower Construction Developer
34 This report is available at no cost from the 

National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) 

at www.nrel.gov/publications

Appendix D. Impact of PV System Size and Module 

Efficiency on Land-Use Requirements

System size appears to have little impact on capacity-based land-use requirements. Figure D-1 

and Figure D-2 show the total-area requirements for small and large PV systems, with respect to 

project capacity. No significant trends are observed for land use and system size for small or 

large PV systems.

Land use was also evaluated with respect to module efficiency. Figure D-3 shows capacity-based 

direct land-use requirements for all PV systems with respect to module efficiency, and Figure D4 shows the generation-based direct land-use requirements. We expect that land use will decrease 

with increasing module efficiencies, but no significant trends are observed for land use and 

module efficiency for small or large PV systems. A linear regression analysis yields a poor 

correlation coefficient for both the capacity-based area data (0.04) and the generation-based data 

(0.08). Isolating for fixed-tilt systems reveals that projects with higher efficiency use less land on 

a capacity basis (with a correlation coefficient of 0.50). No trends are observed within the pool of 

1-axis tracking systems. Variations in land use that remain after isolating for module efficiency 

and tracking type are not clearly understood. 

Figure D-1. Total-area requirements for small PV installations as a function of PV plant size

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24

Total Land Use (Acres/MW)

Capacity (MW-DC)

Small PV Fixed

1 Axis

2 Axis

CPV
35 This report is available at no cost from the 

National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) 

at www.nrel.gov/publications

Figure D-2. Total-area requirements for large PV installations as a function of PV plant size

Figure D-3. Capacity-based direct-area land-use requirements for all PV systems as a function of 

module efficiency

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400

Total Land Use (Acres/MW)

Capacity (MW-DC)

Large PV Fixed

1 Axis

CPV

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

8% 13% 18% 23% 28%

Direct Land Use (Acres/MW)

Module Efficiency

Fixed

1 Axis

2 Axis

CPV
36 This report is available at no cost from the 

National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) 

at www.nrel.gov/publications

Figure D-4. Generation-based direct-area land-use requirements for all PV systems as a function 

of module efficiency

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8% 13% 18% 23% 28%

Direct Land Use (Acres/GWh/yr)

Module Efficiency

Fixed

1 Axis

2 Axis

CPV
37 This report is available at no cost from the 

National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) 

at www.nrel.gov/publications

Appendix E. Impact of CSP System Size and Storage 

on Land-Use Requirements

We evaluated the impact of project capacity on land-use requirements and found that system size 

appears to have little impact on generation-based CSP land-use requirements. Figure E-1 and 

Figure E-2 show the total-area and direct-area requirements for all CSP systems evaluated, with 

respect to system size. No significant trends are observed for land-use and capacity for 

CSP systems.

Figure E-1. Total-area requirements for CSP installations as a function of plant size
38 This report is available at no cost from the 

National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) 

at www.nrel.gov/publications

Figure E-2. Direct-area requirements for CSP installations as a function of plant size

We evaluate the impact of multi-hour energy storage on CSP land-use requirements. Eight 

facilities included thermal storage technology, ranging from 3 to 15 hours of storage. One of the 

eight CSP facilities with storage is a parabolic trough system, while the remaining seven are 

tower systems. Figure E-3 shows the generation-based total-area requirements for all storageequipped CSP systems evaluated, with respect to storage capacity in hours. Figure E-4 shows the 

capacity-based total-area requirements. 

Figure E-3. Total generation-based area requirements for CSP installations as a function of 

storage hours
39 This report is available at no cost from the 

National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) 

at www.nrel.gov/publications

Figure E-4. Total capacity-based area requirements for CSP installations as a function of 

storage hours