3 ms·
According to https://www.researchgate.net/publication/356705078_Zero_air_pollution_and_zero_carbon_from_all_energy_at_low_cost_and_without_blackouts_in_variable
by guerby 4y ago
According to https://www.researchgate.net/publication/356705078_Zero_air_pollution_and_zero_carbon_from_all_energy_at_low_cost_and_without_blackouts_in_variable_weather_throughout_the_US_with_100_wind-water-solar_and_storage https://www.researchgate.net/publication/356705078_Zero_air_...
"Transitioning may create ∼4.7 million more permanent jobs than lost and requires only ∼0.29% and 0.55% of new U.S. land for footprint and spacing, respectively, less than the 1.3% occupied by the fossil industry today."
So getting rid of fossil fuels infrastructure in the USA and replacing it by renewable would give back 0.45% of land.
- extra88 4y agoI am all for transitioning away from fossil fuels, the topic at hand is what’s better, adding solar on top of developed land or having it more centralized on undeveloped land (or redeveloped land) dedicated to this one purpose. I wonder how they arrived at 1.3% of land for fossil fuels, my hunch is they included every gas station. Gas stations already make their profits from non-gas products and are even smaller than parking lots; many are more likely to remain a part of transportation infrastructure, as charging stations, though their size is a limiting factor due to the longer energy transfer times of electrics. Some oil derrick and storage sites might be redeveloped for solar, ones that are less remote.