4 ms·

How about the space required to generate a given amount of power? How big does a wind farm have to be to equal a typical nuclear plant?

dmitriy_ko 11y ago
Wind farm would have to be about 30 times bigger than area taken by nuclear plant. Solar farm -- about 15 times [1]. Renewables definitely take more land. But there's no shortage of land in most places in the world. Shortage of arable land? Sure. But not land in general. E.g. all US energy demand could be met by covering a small fraction of Arizona deserts with solar panels. Solar and wind could also be located offshore. [1] http://wilderness.org/sites/default/files/legacy/Website-Land%20Use%20and%20Renewable%20Energy%20Generation.pdf http://wilderness.org/sites/default/files/legacy/Website-Lan...
- rbanffy 11y ago
  And you can still use the arable land under a wind farm.
  - ZeroGravitas 11y ago
    Solar farms in temperate regions can be mounted higher to let animals graze below them, assuming you don't stick them on an existing roof.
    - rbanffy 11y ago
      They'll still reduce the amount of sunlight plants under them receive. Not sure the side-effects are negligible.
- toomuchtodo 11y ago
  People will argue with you, "What about transmission losses?" Transmission losses are ~6%. Build more renewables.
toomuchtodo 11y ago
If marginal land available for wind and solar are in great supply, why are we using space consumed as a comparison point? Should we not be comparing capital costs, cost per kwh, fuel costs, waste costs, and dispatchability? And not "but how much space does it use"?
- joshuapants 11y ago
  > why are we using space consumed as a comparison point? Mostly, I asked out of curiosity. But now that you mention it, I think there is value in comparing space requirements. If you need a vast amount of space, you may have to build further away, perhaps in areas where there isn't already infrastructure to support a major power station (you need roads, utilities, level ground, and so on). That adds to the cost. edit: Not to mention if you move further out, you have more miles of wire to transport the energy. That's more opportunities for something to damage a line and more time and money spent finding and repairing the issue. > Should we not be comparing capital costs, cost per kwh, fuel costs, waste costs, and dispatchability? And not "but how much space does it use"? Let's not get snippy and dismissive, I simply asked a question.
  - toomuchtodo 11y ago
    My apologies, my response was not meant to have an adversarial tone.
    - joshuapants 11y ago
      No worries I kind of struck back at you. I apologize for that.

dmitriy_ko 11y ago

Wind farm would have to be about 30 times bigger than area taken by nuclear plant. Solar farm -- about 15 times [1]. Renewables definitely take more land. But there's no shortage of land in most places in the world. Shortage of arable land? Sure. But not land in general. E.g. all US energy demand could be met by covering a small fraction of Arizona deserts with solar panels. Solar and wind could also be located offshore. [1] http://wilderness.org/sites/default/files/legacy/Website-Land%20Use%20and%20Renewable%20Energy%20Generation.pdf http://wilderness.org/sites/default/files/legacy/Website-Lan...

rbanffy 11y ago
And you can still use the arable land under a wind farm.
- ZeroGravitas 11y ago
  Solar farms in temperate regions can be mounted higher to let animals graze below them, assuming you don't stick them on an existing roof.
  - rbanffy 11y ago
    They'll still reduce the amount of sunlight plants under them receive. Not sure the side-effects are negligible.
toomuchtodo 11y ago
People will argue with you, "What about transmission losses?" Transmission losses are ~6%. Build more renewables.

toomuchtodo 11y ago

If marginal land available for wind and solar are in great supply, why are we using space consumed as a comparison point? Should we not be comparing capital costs, cost per kwh, fuel costs, waste costs, and dispatchability? And not "but how much space does it use"?

joshuapants 11y ago
> why are we using space consumed as a comparison point? Mostly, I asked out of curiosity. But now that you mention it, I think there is value in comparing space requirements. If you need a vast amount of space, you may have to build further away, perhaps in areas where there isn't already infrastructure to support a major power station (you need roads, utilities, level ground, and so on). That adds to the cost. edit: Not to mention if you move further out, you have more miles of wire to transport the energy. That's more opportunities for something to damage a line and more time and money spent finding and repairing the issue. > Should we not be comparing capital costs, cost per kwh, fuel costs, waste costs, and dispatchability? And not "but how much space does it use"? Let's not get snippy and dismissive, I simply asked a question.
- toomuchtodo 11y ago
  My apologies, my response was not meant to have an adversarial tone.
  - joshuapants 11y ago
    No worries I kind of struck back at you. I apologize for that.