2 ms·

For example because these require vast swaths of land close to the place of consumption. That means destroying the nature near human settlements, which is often

For example because these require vast swaths of land close to the place of consumption. That means destroying the nature near human settlements, which is often also the most unique (both humans and the nature thrive in similar environments). Manufacturing and later decommissioning the storage and solars is not nice to the nature too. I wonder if the oceans of the 22nd century will be full of plastics, or... https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.wired.com/story/solar-panels-are-starting-to-die-leaving-behind-toxic-trash/amp https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.wired.com/story/solar-panel...

adrianN 6y ago
2% of the land area of Germany would suffice to satisfy all energy demand of the country. Sunnier places fare even better. There is very little "nature" near human settlements. Almost all of the land is used for agriculture. For example, replacing the 2.4 million hectares Germany uses for "energy crops" with solar panels would cover a large part of Germany's energy demand. And while trash is indeed a problem, I don't think stopping global warming in exchange for more trash would count as no improvement at all.
- emteycz 6y ago
  I don't believe that amount takes in consideration that there are many and many days in Germany when the sun doesn't shine almost at all. I live nearby (in Czechia) and the solar arrays here are very widespread - so much that both the biologists and the public already hate them and don't want any more - and yet it all generates only a few percents of our energy. The cost of these projects was enormous too. Czechia will be building new nuclear power sources soon and decommission some of the arrays, thankfully people here are not like Germans. I also don't think we should aim to generate the same amount of energy. We want more and better manufacturing, and if that should be done cleanly, it needs a lot of electricity, way more than the "renewables" could ever bring.
  - adrianN 6y ago
    You can do the math yourself. Solar panels have around 150W/m^2. In Germany they produce a little more than 10% of peak output if you average over one year. The average German uses about 48000kWh per year (primary energy), so around 350m^2 per person. That's around 8% of Germany's land area, or two percentage points more than what we currently use for energy crops. Since primary energy includes heat and transportation, both of which can be done much more efficient with electricity (e.g. a car is maybe 30% efficient, and a heat pump gets you 2-5J of heat per Joule of electricity) you can very conservatively cut that in half. I'm reasonably sure that it also includes power plant inefficiencies (another 40%?) but let's not account for those. That gets you down to about 4%. Wind power is more efficient per m^2 than solar in Germany, and a lot can be produced offshore. That gets you down to the 2-3% range. And of course a lot of solar can be installed on rooftops and such where it doesn't consume any additional land at all.

adrianN 6y ago

2% of the land area of Germany would suffice to satisfy all energy demand of the country. Sunnier places fare even better. There is very little "nature" near human settlements. Almost all of the land is used for agriculture. For example, replacing the 2.4 million hectares Germany uses for "energy crops" with solar panels would cover a large part of Germany's energy demand. And while trash is indeed a problem, I don't think stopping global warming in exchange for more trash would count as no improvement at all.

emteycz 6y ago
I don't believe that amount takes in consideration that there are many and many days in Germany when the sun doesn't shine almost at all. I live nearby (in Czechia) and the solar arrays here are very widespread - so much that both the biologists and the public already hate them and don't want any more - and yet it all generates only a few percents of our energy. The cost of these projects was enormous too. Czechia will be building new nuclear power sources soon and decommission some of the arrays, thankfully people here are not like Germans. I also don't think we should aim to generate the same amount of energy. We want more and better manufacturing, and if that should be done cleanly, it needs a lot of electricity, way more than the "renewables" could ever bring.
- adrianN 6y ago
  You can do the math yourself. Solar panels have around 150W/m^2. In Germany they produce a little more than 10% of peak output if you average over one year. The average German uses about 48000kWh per year (primary energy), so around 350m^2 per person. That's around 8% of Germany's land area, or two percentage points more than what we currently use for energy crops. Since primary energy includes heat and transportation, both of which can be done much more efficient with electricity (e.g. a car is maybe 30% efficient, and a heat pump gets you 2-5J of heat per Joule of electricity) you can very conservatively cut that in half. I'm reasonably sure that it also includes power plant inefficiencies (another 40%?) but let's not account for those. That gets you down to about 4%. Wind power is more efficient per m^2 than solar in Germany, and a lot can be produced offshore. That gets you down to the 2-3% range. And of course a lot of solar can be installed on rooftops and such where it doesn't consume any additional land at all.