8 ms·

If Germany switched all the land that is currently used for "energy crops" to PV, it could cover a large fraction of its primary power demand. I assume it's sim

• belorn 4y ago
  I find the issue of land use for renewables (especially wind) to be similar as land use for rail and highways. Technically they don't use up a lot of land, but when it is time to actually build there tend to be a lot of problems finding land that people are willing to sell. Either because of noise, or because current utilization of that land would be hindered in some way. Eminent domain is a common tool to solve this, and it is also used for mining. It is however not very popular.
  • adrianN 4y ago
    A wind turbine "uses" very little land. The area under the turbine can be used for many other things. That doesn't stop NIMBYs.
    • QuarterReptile 4y ago
      Presumably you mean farming? And,more particularly, industrial farming since the turbines would probably scare animals and endanger birds near it. Or are there examples of more intensive uses under wind turbines?
      • ncmncm 4y ago
        "Industrial" farming? You mean using tractors instead of mules?
      • lostapathy 4y ago
        Crops grow just fine around a wind turbine, regardless of farm size. And they don't get scared of it either.
      • tstrimple 4y ago
        I'm having a difficult time understanding your arguments. https://talkbusiness.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/Wind-Farm-WEB-1024x538.jpg https://talkbusiness.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/Wind-Far... https://static01.nyt.com/images/2016/07/19/world/windfarms-web/windfarms-web-jumbo.jpg?quality=75&auto=webp https://static01.nyt.com/images/2016/07/19/world/windfarms-w... Just what about these turbines makes farming / ranching more difficult?
    • collegeburner 4y ago
      the sight and sound impact of a wind turbine is real though newer models are a lot quieter. if i lived out in the country where it was quiet i'd be against someone putting them up super close as well. just calling everyone a "NIMBY" is not a valid response to criticism of externalities.
      • adrianN 4y ago
        Well if you want to use cheap carbon free electricity but don't want to see turbines that makes you a NIMBY in the most literal sense of the word.
        • iosono88 4y ago
        • krupan 4y ago
          "cheap" and "carbon free"
          • throwaway894345 4y ago
            Pretty sure wind is about as cheap and low-carbon as energy gets. Hydro might be better, but it’s not feasible in most locations.
            • singhrac 4y ago
              On shore wind has the lowest LCOE (even excluding subsidies) of any utility scale type of energy; significantly lower than coal, and a bit lower than solar or nat gas.
              • ZeroGravitas 4y ago
                This has been true since about 2015 (if you include pollution externalities) but solar is on track to move ahead about now. The more important thing is that both are below fossil fuel alternatives, and can complement each other. The exact blend depends on the location of course, but any sensible grid will likely include both of them (and mixes of distributed solar, onshore, offshore wind). Generally solar and wind should be about 80% of the generation mix, and the precise balance (after including the cost difference over the next few decades) globally leans towards solar being the dominant of the two in most plans and predictions. edit: this has now made me wonder if anyone calculates the LCOE of 'optimal' solar/wind mix for the region.
  • ncmncm 4y ago
    They are in fact nothing alike. Land used for rail and roads is used up. Land used for solar may continue being used for whatever else it was doing already. Please do not make up BS problems.
    • stevehawk 4y ago
      I can grow corn on a field covered in solar panels?
      • montalbano 4y ago
        There might be some studies on corn available, although it's not explicitly mentioned in the article. From the article: Researchers are experimenting with which plants do best under solar panels and even trying to grow tomatoes and potatoes between rows at existing utility-scale farms, Macknick says.
        • ncmncm 4y ago
          Some pepper varieties get 3x yield in partial shade.
      • ncmncm 4y ago
        "Covered in"? No. Corn, and also wheat, yield less in partial shade. But most crops do not, and benefit both from reduced heat stress and reduced water loss. Livestock, likewise, benefit from shelter, and the grass grows not less, same reasons. When you have all of cultivated land available to site solar in, you can choose places to put it where it is most beneficial. Farm and pasture are not the only places that benefit from shade. Reservoirs and canals lose huge amounts of water to evaporation, and need constantly to fight biofouling. Roofs, too, last longer in shade.
        • Scoundreller 4y ago
          Corn and wheat would be a non-starter since you’d partially/entirely lose the scale of mechanically planting/tassle/harvesting. Maybe a specialized tractor could be built to go around the panels but really you’d want to grow laborious crops that are mostly hand-planted/harvested anyway.
  • detaro 4y ago
    Where in the world do you see that problem? Doesn't match anything I've encountered about the topic, and I have family members deeply involved in the planning and permission process for such things. People generally like making money with their land, and especially for wind it often doesn't impact the economics of current land use very much. (And even solar isn't necessarily exclusive) The comparison with rail and highways also isn't very good since for those there are much stricter constraints to cover a useful and practical route in its entirety.
    • DontGiveTwoFlux 4y ago
      https://www.sierraclub.org/sierra/2021-4-fall/feature/nimby-threat-renewable-energy https://www.sierraclub.org/sierra/2021-4-fall/feature/nimby-...
      • detaro 4y ago
        That doesn't appear to be about difficulties buying land.
      • jandrese 4y ago
        Ironically the Sierra Club is one of those organizations behind NIMBY type objections to solar and wind production. They are an outdoorsman club, not an environmental club. Their objective is maximizing the amount of untouched wilderness available, and that means not being able to see wind turbines from mountaintops.
    • belorn 4y ago
      The average farm in the US is around 2 square kilometers. let say a railway road is about 10 meter across, and let say it goes through those 2 square kilometers. How much of that land is taken up by the railroad? 0.5%, leaving the farmer 99.5% to use for everything else. Railroad isn't generally that wide and thus don't use up a lot of land. The biggest problem in those situation isn't that the actually land that get used, it is how the farmer get impacted by the rail road being there. If they got a lot of money for those 0.5% with no negative effect then naturally people would have no objection to sell that for huge profits. I can't speak for your family members or the locations where they are involved, but I do know how much politics there is around where I live. There is a lot of resistance to place wind farms on farm fields, and farmers aren't exactly lining up to rent out their land (or at least not for the price people are willing to pay). Ocean farms are often cited as being easier to build because there is less resistance from land owners and local government. One land location that does seem a bit easier for wind production are forests in mountain areas which is sparsely populated. The draw side is that the consumers isn't generally located there, so you get the situation where the best and easiest locations to install wind is also the worst location to utilize the production.
  • dv_dt 4y ago
    The land doesn't have to be purchased though, there are plenty of uses which cooperatively use the land. Parking lots, and solar-agriculture. The coop use may even improve the hybrid performance - a little less sun and a little better shade microclimate for humidity can even be a crop yield booster (esp with climate change induced droughts).
    • dublin 4y ago
      Just putting arrays on commercial rooftops is the most cost-effective solution by far. And no you can't really grow crops or much of anything but low grass/weeds under the panels due to 1) the problems (of shading with tall weeds or crops), and 2) the potential for damaging the surprisingly fragile wiring. (And don't get me started on this, but most arrays are wired stupidly, ignoring what the telegraph and phone guys learned 125 years ago: you want to ground the positive leg, NOT the negative, so you can use cathodic protection via a sacrificial anode to prevent the wires corroding away. You would be shocked how many 10-15 year old arrays I've seen that have something rapidly approaching empty straws of insulation connecting the panels - the breakeven on a solar PV plant is around 20-22 years, so these will never break even!)
• ZeroGravitas 4y ago
  In the US, just the switch to EVs will reduce the amount of land used for energy, since ICE engines need ethanol as a lead replacement, which is sourced from corn.
  • ncmncm 4y ago
    Yes: fully a third of the US corn (maize) crop is wasted on fuel. Even more is wasted turning it into poison (fructose) for food additives.
  • throwaway0a5e 4y ago
    This is just falsehood. Ethanol gas is a pure subsidy program. It serves no utility other than ensuring fuel quality corn gets grown. Edit: They don't add it to the fuel because they want to. They do it because they are mandated to. Anti-knock properties are just a tiny silver lining that could be obtained through more efficient means were it not for the subsidized ethanol.
    • ZeroGravitas 4y ago
      From Wikipedia: > Due to the phasing out of MTBE as a gasoline additive and mainly due to the mandates established in the Energy Policy Act of 2005 and the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, ethanol blends have increased throughout the United States, and by 2009, the ethanol market share in the U.S. gasoline supply reached almost 8% by volume and > In the U.S. MTBE has been used in gasoline at low levels since 1979, replacing tetraethyllead (TEL) as an antiknock (octane rating) additive to prevent engine knocking.[15] Oxygenates also help gasoline burn more completely, reducing tailpipe emissions and dilute or displace gasoline components such as aromatics (e.g., benzene). Before the introduction of other oxygenates and octane enhancers, refiners chose MTBE for its blending characteristics and low cost. It is a farm subsidy program, but it also has an actual use. Oil companies went with lead in the first place, despite being well aware of the dangers, because ethanol is also a competitor to gasoline, being a fuel itself.
      • enragedcacti 4y ago
• cycomanic 4y ago
  Completely agree. I think we are seeing two things here: 1. Lobbying groups for fossils and nuclear trying to find disadvantages of renewables. The most bizarre thing I saw a while ago was arguing strongly for nuclear largely based on the fact that it's more space efficient (saying the importance of that outweighs cost), while completely ignoring the fact that nuclear plants require extensive nofly zones (note theybare not really a problem atm either but would affect how much we can build out nuclear). 2. A strong push for making large scale renewable installations. While it is true that large scale solar is more efficient than smaller scale, I think the prime motivation is that it benefits large operators and investors, not individuals or small communities. Hence the lobby efforts. In reality just putting solar on most existing warehouses and parking lots would already cover a significant proportion of our electricity use. And others pointed out how solar (and wind) can often be used in dual use environments benifiting both.
  • colordrops 4y ago
    Lobbyists in California have made multiple attempts to destroy solar, including existing residential installations. They failed their first attempt last year and are pushing again this year [1]. The proposal is a tax that is so high that solar panels will lose you money. https://solarrights.org/ https://solarrights.org/
    • api 4y ago
      I'm sure California will find some way to screw up anything connected with either housing or infrastructure.
      • einpoklum 4y ago
        It pains me so - yet I have no choice but to upvote your answer! T_T
  • BostonEnginerd 4y ago
    I do think that space efficiency and good availability for nuclear are a reasonable argument for that technology. That doesn't mean we also shouldn't be putting solar onto every flat surface in the country, homes, businesses, parking lots, etc.
• choeger 4y ago
  That's at the same time true and misleading. Land usage for energy crops will vary year on year (natural crop rotation). On top of that, only some crops are really disturbing people living close by (e.g. rapeseed stinks when wet). Large-scale PV installations really look and feel bad when you live or walk right next to them. Wherea a field of wheat, corn, or rapeseed somewhat feels natural and even has its beauty, solar panels just look ugly up close. So the question is: Will you find enough locations that don't annoy the locals and once you found them will your project survive the inevitable intrigues amongst land owners over who gets to rent out their land for the lucrative PV installations? Even though it's more expensive, I think that using rooftops and other already occupied spaces first is a more sensible route.
  • ncmncm 4y ago
    And, you can post as much BS you can make up. It is called trolling, and is unwelcome here.
  • adrianN 4y ago
    Personally I don't find PV panels ugly and I bet that the biodiversity under the panels is a larger that on endless monocultures.
  • konschubert 4y ago
    I lived by a large PV installation and it neither looked nor felt bad. It’s quiet and doesn’t smell. It’s about as unobtrusive as you can imagine a thing to be.
    • choeger 4y ago
      Could you look over them?
      • konschubert 4y ago
        I didn’t live IN it.
    • thedougd 4y ago
• rr888 4y ago
  Sure but solar wont help you get through the cold winter, where biofuel will.
  • adrianN 4y ago
    Since plants are only about 2% efficient in turning sunlight to biomatter, you'd need a lot more space if you wanted to store winter reserves in biofuel than if you generated electricity and turned that into hydrogen.
• krupan 4y ago
  Wait, we are going to replace plants that consume carbon with solar panels that do not consume carbon in order to reduce carbon in the atmosphere and save us from global warming? Why does none of this make sense?
  • jrk 4y ago
    "Energy crops" are burned as fuel. They aspire to be carbon-neutral (and are often still fed a lot of petroleum-based fertilizer), not carbon-negative.
  • Analemma_ 4y ago
    You know all that stored carbon gets released as soon as the plants are burned for power, right? As opposed to PV panels which can replace fossil fuel consumption.
    • krupan 4y ago
      The only two choices for this land are solar panels or plants that get burned for fuel?
  • ncmncm 4y ago
    > Why does none of this make sense? Probably because you took the time posting that you might otherwise have taken thinking. I suggest trying it the other way.
• akira2501 4y ago
  > it could cover a large fraction of its primary power demand For a certain number of hours in the day, yes. This always strikes me as an odd observation because storage and distribution have always been the more important challenges in our current implementation. I'd also caution against any form of "monoculture strategy." The lessons from history are pretty clear on this.
  • brianwawok 4y ago
    My car in my garage has the battery capacity to power 2-4 houses overnight. This problem is not impossible to solve.
  • adrianN 4y ago
    I meant averaged over a year. Of course storage and transmission also need to be solved. They have even less problems with land use than generation though, which I why they weren't relevant to the point that I was trying to make.