10 ms·

>You are vastly overstating the mineral requirements. No I didn't. A typical solar panel weighs around 40 pounds. All that material has to be mined from somew

>You are vastly overstating the mineral requirements. No I didn't. A typical solar panel weighs around 40 pounds. All that material has to be mined from somewhere, then transported, then processed. Some of that material are rare earth minerals that have an outsized mining requirement (like for every 1 pound, you need to turn over 1000 pounds or 10000 pounds of earth). All of that material will need to be landfilled at some point in the future as well, no matter how recyclable the solar and wind collectors are (and today, they aren't recyclable at all). >Wind power can share land with other uses. Sure. I didn't say it couldn't or it won't. I'm saying that you will need vast new tracks of land regardless of that fact. Why? Because you need to scale wind and solar collector deployments by several orders of magnitude. >There is a staggering amount of land out there that's not suitable for even grazing but will support utility scale solar. I have no idea why you think only 'grazing' areas are the only ecosystems we need to protect. Every square meter of Earth is part of some ecosystem that is already under tremendous stress due to human activity - that includes areas like deserts, mountains, ocean floors.

jasonwatkinspdx 6y ago
> No I didn't. Yes. You did. Solar panels do not use rare earth minerals. Go google it. Rare earth magnets are used in some wind turbines, but alternatives exist there. That does change the cost calculations a touch, but not enough to invalidate the viability of a renewables + storage solution. > I'm saying that you will need vast new tracks of land regardless of that fact. People have done the math. Land availability is not a bottleneck on this. > I have no idea why you think only 'grazing' areas are the only ecosystems we need to protect. Because I didn't. The big picture environmental imperative is to decarbonize as fast as possible. Nuclear is not competitive vs that goal due to the very high capital costs, garbage ROI, and very long time scales compared to renewables. This is the cold hard dollars math that you see regardless of politics, as the same economics are showing up in authoritarian states. If nuclear was the slam dunk you're assuming, China would just do it. And originally that was looking like the outcome of their "build everything then decarbonize after building the economy" long term energy strategy. But now they're pulling back from their original scale goals for nuclear. Even though they're building more plants than anyone now, they've consistently reduced the number in the long term plan, to the extent that they likely won't be starting projects that aren't already in motion.
- brmgb 6y ago
  > People have done the math. Land availability is not a bottleneck on this. I'm sorry but people have done the maths and consider land availability to be a major bottleneck for solar and wind (with the fact that it is intermittent). That's like one of the first point put forward in the Bill Gates'book everyone seems to be talking about nowadays. Offshore capacity means it's harder to estimate the ceiling for wind production but it doesn't seem to be the slam dunk you would like it to be especially when you consider that the world consumption will likely keep rising for decades as population grows and more and more get access to electricity. > If nuclear was the slam dunk you're assuming, China would just do it. China has scaled down its nuclear investment under the dual pressure of significant public opposition after the Fukushima disaster and a need to tighten its investments (China's debt situation is tricky to manage and the CCP absolutely wants to avoid a situation comparable to what happened to Japan in the 90s). China isn't the be all end all regarding energy policies.
  - kragen 6y ago
    I don't understand why people are screaming at each other to do the math, or referring to others who have hypothetically done the math, or accusing each other of lying, or claiming that solar panels are made out of rare earth elements (!!), instead of just doing the math themselves here in the comments. It's almost as if they're more interested in being vicious to one another than in finding out the truth. World marketed energy consumption is 18 terawatts. Terrestrial insolation is 127 petawatts (below the atmosphere. Also my earlier figure here of 41 was incorrect.) Common PV solar panels are 16–24% efficient, so the total PV resource is 20–30 petawatts, 1000–1500 times larger. Utility-scale PV capacity factors (relative to the nominal 1000 W/m² peak insolation) in polar countries like Germany and the Netherlands are around 10%, which is abysmal, but in California they average 29%, and in more equatorial countries with less clouds they're presumably higher (I'd be grateful for more data here but I've only found what look like trustworthy, transparent operational reports containing this data from the US, Germany, and the Netherlands). Let's look at three cases here: a worst case, a best case, and a plausible case. In the worst case, all our solar panels are in terrible places like Germany with a 10% capacity factor, and they're all cheap 16%-efficient panels, and also the world marketed energy consumption doubles to 36 terawatts. In that case they take up 2.3 million square kilometers, a circle of 850 km radius. This is about 13% of the area of Russia or 17% of the area of Siberia. You have: double 18 TW / 10% / (1000 W/m^2) / 16% You want: km^2 * 2250000 / 4.4444444e-07 You have: double 18 TW / 10% / (1000 W/m^2) / 16% You want: circlearea 846284.38 m You have: double 18 TW / 10% / (1000 W/m^2) / 16% You want: 17125191 km^2 * 0.1313854 / 7.611196 In the best case, world marketed energy consumption goes down slightly to 16 terawatts, all the panels are using expensive 24%-efficient monocrystalline solar cells, and they're all located in places like the Atacama, the Gobi, and the Sahara, so there are no clouds, it virtually never rains, and the sun is nearly directly overhead, so their capacity factor is even better than California's. Say, 35%. In that case we only need 190 thousand km², a 246-km-radius circle. This is a little bigger than Tunisia or about 36% of the area of Yemen: You have: 16 TW / 35% / (1000 W/m^2) / 24% You want: km^2 * 190476.19 / 5.25e-06 You have: 16 TW / 35% / (1000 W/m^2) / 24% You want: circlearea 246232.52 m You have: 16 TW / 35% / (1000 W/m^2) / 24% You want: 527968 km^2 * 0.36077223 / 2.771832 For the plausible case, let's figure on a nominal capacity factor of 25% (like Arizona), 20% growth in usage to 22 terawatts, and low-cost 16%-efficient panels, even though PERC is starting to see mass adoption. This is 550 thousand km², a circle of 420 km radius (groovy, mang!), about 80% of the area of Texas: You have: 22 TW / 25% / (1000 W/m^2) / 16% You want: km^2 * 550000 / 1.8181818e-06 You have: 22 TW / 25% / (1000 W/m^2) / 16% You want: circlearea 418414.19 m You have: 22 TW / 25% / (1000 W/m^2) / 16% You want: 695662 km^2 * 0.79061383 / 1.26484 This 18 TW figure isn't just electricity; it includes human energy use in forms like jet fuel, diesel for trucks, bunker fuel, and oil for heating, but not firewood, livestock feed, or human food. And it's world marketed energy consumption, not just the US: that Texas-sized area would be powering Australia, China, Brazil, and Madagascar too. So, no, land availability is not a bottleneck on this. I'd like to challenge you all collectively to step up your epistemological game a bit from the profoundly disappointing "I'm sorry but" level you seem to be stuck at. It's just not that hard. There's a lot of concrete, verifiable information out there, and it's easy to do the calculations. Then if you're wrong you'll change your mind to agree with the people who were right, and if you were right the other people who will wrong will change their minds to agree with you. Either way you won't have anything to fight about. Unless they're just looking for an excuse to be vicious. You should be ashamed of yourselves. You do not become a hacker by attacking people and repeating talking points you don't understand. You become a hacker by figuring things out. Calculemus.

jasonwatkinspdx 6y ago

> No I didn't. Yes. You did. Solar panels do not use rare earth minerals. Go google it. Rare earth magnets are used in some wind turbines, but alternatives exist there. That does change the cost calculations a touch, but not enough to invalidate the viability of a renewables + storage solution. > I'm saying that you will need vast new tracks of land regardless of that fact. People have done the math. Land availability is not a bottleneck on this. > I have no idea why you think only 'grazing' areas are the only ecosystems we need to protect. Because I didn't. The big picture environmental imperative is to decarbonize as fast as possible. Nuclear is not competitive vs that goal due to the very high capital costs, garbage ROI, and very long time scales compared to renewables. This is the cold hard dollars math that you see regardless of politics, as the same economics are showing up in authoritarian states. If nuclear was the slam dunk you're assuming, China would just do it. And originally that was looking like the outcome of their "build everything then decarbonize after building the economy" long term energy strategy. But now they're pulling back from their original scale goals for nuclear. Even though they're building more plants than anyone now, they've consistently reduced the number in the long term plan, to the extent that they likely won't be starting projects that aren't already in motion.

brmgb 6y ago
> People have done the math. Land availability is not a bottleneck on this. I'm sorry but people have done the maths and consider land availability to be a major bottleneck for solar and wind (with the fact that it is intermittent). That's like one of the first point put forward in the Bill Gates'book everyone seems to be talking about nowadays. Offshore capacity means it's harder to estimate the ceiling for wind production but it doesn't seem to be the slam dunk you would like it to be especially when you consider that the world consumption will likely keep rising for decades as population grows and more and more get access to electricity. > If nuclear was the slam dunk you're assuming, China would just do it. China has scaled down its nuclear investment under the dual pressure of significant public opposition after the Fukushima disaster and a need to tighten its investments (China's debt situation is tricky to manage and the CCP absolutely wants to avoid a situation comparable to what happened to Japan in the 90s). China isn't the be all end all regarding energy policies.
- kragen 6y ago
  I don't understand why people are screaming at each other to do the math, or referring to others who have hypothetically done the math, or accusing each other of lying, or claiming that solar panels are made out of rare earth elements (!!), instead of just doing the math themselves here in the comments. It's almost as if they're more interested in being vicious to one another than in finding out the truth. World marketed energy consumption is 18 terawatts. Terrestrial insolation is 127 petawatts (below the atmosphere. Also my earlier figure here of 41 was incorrect.) Common PV solar panels are 16–24% efficient, so the total PV resource is 20–30 petawatts, 1000–1500 times larger. Utility-scale PV capacity factors (relative to the nominal 1000 W/m² peak insolation) in polar countries like Germany and the Netherlands are around 10%, which is abysmal, but in California they average 29%, and in more equatorial countries with less clouds they're presumably higher (I'd be grateful for more data here but I've only found what look like trustworthy, transparent operational reports containing this data from the US, Germany, and the Netherlands). Let's look at three cases here: a worst case, a best case, and a plausible case. In the worst case, all our solar panels are in terrible places like Germany with a 10% capacity factor, and they're all cheap 16%-efficient panels, and also the world marketed energy consumption doubles to 36 terawatts. In that case they take up 2.3 million square kilometers, a circle of 850 km radius. This is about 13% of the area of Russia or 17% of the area of Siberia. You have: double 18 TW / 10% / (1000 W/m^2) / 16% You want: km^2 * 2250000 / 4.4444444e-07 You have: double 18 TW / 10% / (1000 W/m^2) / 16% You want: circlearea 846284.38 m You have: double 18 TW / 10% / (1000 W/m^2) / 16% You want: 17125191 km^2 * 0.1313854 / 7.611196 In the best case, world marketed energy consumption goes down slightly to 16 terawatts, all the panels are using expensive 24%-efficient monocrystalline solar cells, and they're all located in places like the Atacama, the Gobi, and the Sahara, so there are no clouds, it virtually never rains, and the sun is nearly directly overhead, so their capacity factor is even better than California's. Say, 35%. In that case we only need 190 thousand km², a 246-km-radius circle. This is a little bigger than Tunisia or about 36% of the area of Yemen: You have: 16 TW / 35% / (1000 W/m^2) / 24% You want: km^2 * 190476.19 / 5.25e-06 You have: 16 TW / 35% / (1000 W/m^2) / 24% You want: circlearea 246232.52 m You have: 16 TW / 35% / (1000 W/m^2) / 24% You want: 527968 km^2 * 0.36077223 / 2.771832 For the plausible case, let's figure on a nominal capacity factor of 25% (like Arizona), 20% growth in usage to 22 terawatts, and low-cost 16%-efficient panels, even though PERC is starting to see mass adoption. This is 550 thousand km², a circle of 420 km radius (groovy, mang!), about 80% of the area of Texas: You have: 22 TW / 25% / (1000 W/m^2) / 16% You want: km^2 * 550000 / 1.8181818e-06 You have: 22 TW / 25% / (1000 W/m^2) / 16% You want: circlearea 418414.19 m You have: 22 TW / 25% / (1000 W/m^2) / 16% You want: 695662 km^2 * 0.79061383 / 1.26484 This 18 TW figure isn't just electricity; it includes human energy use in forms like jet fuel, diesel for trucks, bunker fuel, and oil for heating, but not firewood, livestock feed, or human food. And it's world marketed energy consumption, not just the US: that Texas-sized area would be powering Australia, China, Brazil, and Madagascar too. So, no, land availability is not a bottleneck on this. I'd like to challenge you all collectively to step up your epistemological game a bit from the profoundly disappointing "I'm sorry but" level you seem to be stuck at. It's just not that hard. There's a lot of concrete, verifiable information out there, and it's easy to do the calculations. Then if you're wrong you'll change your mind to agree with the people who were right, and if you were right the other people who will wrong will change their minds to agree with you. Either way you won't have anything to fight about. Unless they're just looking for an excuse to be vicious. You should be ashamed of yourselves. You do not become a hacker by attacking people and repeating talking points you don't understand. You become a hacker by figuring things out. Calculemus.