4 ms·
It seems reductive to eliminate solar, but the land use is a real consideration. There are some areas where solar, and other forms of renewables, can be install
by janef0421 4y ago
It seems reductive to eliminate solar, but the land use is a real consideration. There are some areas where solar, and other forms of renewables, can be installed without issue, but those sites are limited. If you commit to an all-renewable energy system, you'll almost always end up running out of suitable sites and start installing solar panels and windmills in areas where they harm existing animal or human populations.
- Schroedingersat 4y agoFirst, there is a real solar park -- Vandel 3 -- in denmark that uses less land than the difference between their claimed rooftop and ground values at 180ha for 150,000MWh or 12m^2/MWh. More sensible areas to use solar get over double that much sunlight. Second even if we use their claimed 6W/m^2 that's still less area per person than the average american uses to park their car for world per capita average insolation. It's a non issue.
- janef0421 4y agoThe issue isn't solely density, it's also site suitability.
- Schroedingersat 4y agoThe land in famously sunny UK presently used for ethanol crops alone is enough to provide 50% of their electricity. At a more realistic 20W/m^2 (about what you get on a random spot in the UK on average) you can provide the net electricity for 60m^2 per household. At a more realistic penetration just the roof area of occupied buildings is enough. The land use is a non issue. If you're really concerned about biodiversity just cover half of the golf courses. Solar farms are far better for diversity than pesticide and fertilizer covered monocrop grass.