Post 9wJlyFVgzzjZDBP7p2 by amici@snabelen.no
(DIR) More posts by amici@snabelen.no
(DIR) Post #9wJEBXuMVhnVaw70WO by kravietz@social.privacytools.io
2020-06-21T13:32:47Z
0 likes, 1 repeats
It's actually quite ironic that renewable energy activism tends to completely ignore one critical resource it uses that also happens to be non-renewable: the land surface. The challenge here is that the best renewable energy source (solar) uses three orders of magnitude (1000x) more land than the best non-renewable (gas).To replace gas with nuclear you need pretty much the same area. But to replace gas with solar you suddenly need to find 1000x more extra space.https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421518305512
(DIR) Post #9wJEy5qBeWwmjdJAuG by amici@snabelen.no
2020-06-21T13:41:32Z
0 likes, 1 repeats
@kravietz First: I call bullshit. How much areas are disturbed by harvesting, transporting, storing and consuming gas? And unless you're clearing forests I'm not sure the land used by solar and wind matters much. Lots of "useless" land lying about, like deserts, or areas either too cold or hot for significant vegetation. And the ground beneath to wind turbines and solar can still be utilized, it's not like it's totally useless.
(DIR) Post #9wJFLP4gJA8R32CecC by kravietz@social.privacytools.io
2020-06-21T13:45:45Z
0 likes, 1 repeats
@amici If there's a scientific paper whose conclusions are not intuitive for you, your first reaction should be to read methodology rather than rather arrogantly rant about "bullshit". Because your first question is already answered in the article and yes, the land usage already includes mining, manufacturing etc.
(DIR) Post #9wJFX2nGyPD3Q7bwie by kravietz@social.privacytools.io
2020-06-21T13:47:52Z
0 likes, 1 repeats
@amici The reason this might be counter-intuitive is a widespread misconception that solar panels somehow arrive to this world made of pranic energy and just magically appear on the target site.Unfortunately this is not the case. Solar panels are made entirely from metals that are mined, mining of which (especially cadmium, rare-earth metals) produce huge amounts of toxic waste which needs to be processed and stored.
(DIR) Post #9wJGC4D4c3qzgYExUW by marathon@mastodon.host
2020-06-21T13:55:16Z
0 likes, 1 repeats
@kravietz Not to mention the toxic materials that go into making solar panels.
(DIR) Post #9wJGKNlxlMlYftWasC by marathon@mastodon.host
2020-06-21T13:56:42Z
0 likes, 1 repeats
@kravietz It would be better if they could use recycled plastics (if possible) in the process, maybe?
(DIR) Post #9wJIsXUeKNTEZqqEIi by trinsec@mastodon.host
2020-06-21T14:25:21Z
0 likes, 1 repeats
@kravietz I'm not really in favor of 'solar farms' myself. There's plenty of urban area that can use solar panels. There are also vertical panels in development so they could cover the walls of really tall buildings.
(DIR) Post #9wJJx1Qx3HjUY2oToW by kravietz@social.privacytools.io
2020-06-21T14:37:24Z
0 likes, 1 repeats
@amici And your second argument is not true either. Solar panels compete for sunlight with both plants and humans. Large solar farms in densely inhabited areas are an obvious residential and environmental concern. Wind farms are noisy and require that no trees are growing around, which was precisely the reason why they faced opposition in Sweden when they were forcing deers migrating away due to the noise.
(DIR) Post #9wJTKyVmT1IK1TZJ8i by berkes@bitcoinhackers.org
2020-06-21T16:22:33Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@kravietz you ignore the fact that a lot of area is only usefull for solar: roofs, covers, buildings.
(DIR) Post #9wJXiFi35jfBq1f5pA by kravietz@social.privacytools.io
2020-06-21T17:11:36Z
0 likes, 1 repeats
@berkes I don't ignore anything, I state the fact supported by the scientific data. Now *where* exactly you find that extra space is another topic and yes, residential solar panels do solve this challenge to some extent even if they have other issues.
(DIR) Post #9wJbhAAMcE3gAmdrF2 by _1751015@mastodon.host
2020-06-21T17:56:06Z
0 likes, 1 repeats
@marathon @kravietz Plastics and recycling are not a solved problem. The most encountered "lie by omission" is the fact that you can't get the same quality plastics as the origin one only by recycling. This is true only for metals - melt copper, get copper."The material is then blended with >>either virgin or recycled thermoplastics<< to make a reinforced, filled thermoplastic pellet. The company can adjust the percentage of recycled fiberglass content depending on customers’ preferences. GFS can easily create a 50-50 blend, for example, although GFS expects most customers will want a lower level of fiberglass content, he said.Generally speaking, the addition of the fiberglass boosts stiffness and sometimes strength, and it reduces thermal expansion, Englund said. On the other hand, it hampers impact strength. >>Possible end products include decking and siding materials, containers, pallets, parking bollards and more.<<"https://resource-recycling.com/plastics/2019/03/27/company-expands-wind-turbine-recycling-operation/So to "recycle" plastics you need to find some application for it with lower requirements. But then we still get the poisonous effect of the microplastics all over the ecosystems. IMO this is called "a dead end".The problems with wind turbine blades particularly (also a search with the keywords):1) https://resource-recycling.com/plastics/2019/03/27/company-expands-wind-turbine-recycling-operation/2) https://www.npr.org/2019/09/10/759376113/unfurling-the-waste-problem-caused-by-wind-energy?t=15927614482333) https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-03-09/a-recycling-plan-to-clear-wind-turbine-blades-from-graveyards4) https://www.bbc.com/news/business-51325101
(DIR) Post #9wJev1DeyaD6LETxBI by berkes@bitcoinhackers.org
2020-06-21T18:32:20Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@kravietz i'm not just talking about residential panels. But industry, warehouses, offices, malls, farmsteads, and so on.It might not solve all energy needs, but no monoculture will. It requires a mix. And the amount of space where solar could lie without taking up any space is huge. In NL, for example, it allows 800% increase just putting panels on the obvious space.Once done, one can start increasing the other energy sources in the 'mix'.
(DIR) Post #9wJlEBMk4jab2NFeMK by amici@snabelen.no
2020-06-21T19:43:01Z
0 likes, 1 repeats
@kravietz A single of the newest wind turbine can power thousands of homes per year. How could gas possible compete with such power output in use of surface area? I'm deeply skeptical about the claim that the "best renewable energy source", which you call solar (instead of wind) uses more land than gas. And I'm also wondering if they've accounted for seafloor exploitation for natural gas, or if they're only counting for surface land uses. The tech needed to dig up offshore NG is quite involved.
(DIR) Post #9wJlhReWbHf1wpWSvI by amici@snabelen.no
2020-06-21T19:48:18Z
0 likes, 1 repeats
@kravietz And while green tech such as wind and solar can stay in place for decades after they're installed, with minor fixes and replacements along the way, the exploitation of gas is work that requires the continuous claiming of new land for harvesting gas deposits, which would also mean much higher use of secondary equipment, tools and services that should feed into the sum.
(DIR) Post #9wJlyFVgzzjZDBP7p2 by amici@snabelen.no
2020-06-21T19:51:20Z
0 likes, 1 repeats
@kravietz I'm not naïve about where solar panels come from. And the real counter-intuitiveness is how something that can power thousands of homes for decades over a small piece of land, should require more land in total than something that is in continuous need for new land over the same time frame, as well as in need for the making of new equipment used in exploring for gas deposits and laying new gas pipes to feed from the new deposits.
(DIR) Post #9wJmWmyR5Xs2qKJoMy by marathon@mastodon.host
2020-06-21T19:57:30Z
0 likes, 1 repeats
@_1751015Good explanation.
(DIR) Post #9wJplr34WKergeMXJI by kmic@qoto.org
2020-06-21T20:33:55Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@kravietz though solar can be distributed and put on already occupied spaces like my roof xD(Personal nuclear reactors (promoted in the past by Microsoft/Gates) too but they require additional fuel+waste logistics.)
(DIR) Post #9wJzNrXC3sz5mkeMU4 by kravietz@social.privacytools.io
2020-06-21T22:21:39Z
0 likes, 1 repeats
@kmic Residential PV does reuse the space on roofs, parkings or other spaces that does not require sunlight. Residential PV has however other problems which make it of little use for supplying power to industry for example.
(DIR) Post #9wJzdwrY1EfKwaqC80 by kmic@qoto.org
2020-06-21T21:00:07Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@kravietz woah, now I see some righteous folks have attacked you repeating claims already mentioned by the (obvious in my opinion) paper.RE is less energy dense than non‑RE—it’s clear it will take more space. It must take more space by definition.(Three orders of magnitude more land is not that much though ‘cuz initial amount is also small.)
(DIR) Post #9wJzdxDsgCWw3rI1wG by kravietz@social.privacytools.io
2020-06-21T22:24:33Z
0 likes, 1 repeats
@kmic The core problem here is that large-scale PV farms will always compete for sunlight with equally or more needed environmental uses. Land in densely populated places that is not used for housing is used for farming, and what is not used for farming is used for recreation and nature reserves.This was precisely the point of recent protests against a PV farm in Kent where they essentially wanted to cover 7 ha of meadows and forest with PV panels.
(DIR) Post #9wJzpHtIB2ltLa40wq by kmic@qoto.org
2020-06-21T21:08:01Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@kravietz Though in the OP you also make an additional conclusion that the land is non‑renewable and that 1000x of additional space is a serious issue. Those are not supported by the paper.
(DIR) Post #9wJzpL1uVSRp5B7RIW by kravietz@social.privacytools.io
2020-06-21T22:26:35Z
0 likes, 1 repeats
@kmic Land is reusable (think recycling) but not renewable. Natural land creation happens in geological time scale, so pretty much like new fossil fuels.
(DIR) Post #9wKj6Oe2oZgv9eSpd2 by kmic@qoto.org
2020-06-22T06:53:51Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@kravietz when we pump up all gas/oil, dig up all coal/uranium there’s nothing left. Finito. When we dismantle PV/wind turbine we can start growing potatoes in that place or graze cows (if humanity is still after eating animals). We can reclaim land after RE usage. Physical space (the topic of the paper) is a renewable resource in this context.The paper don’t asses anything about land erosion from RE or land pollution from non‑RE sources. It’s only concerned about physical space usage when replacing non‑RE with RE.
(DIR) Post #9wKjjN3mdnpDX75VAm by kmic@qoto.org
2020-06-22T07:00:57Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@kravietz industry can make PV farms on wastelands like in my local case spoil banks of an opencast mine.The paper did not analyze whether we have enough wastelands or impact of using them for RE or even how much industry vs domestic usage needs.
(DIR) Post #9wKkYtBgx1yBwZLuwC by kmic@qoto.org
2020-06-22T07:10:16Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@kravietz Land in densely populated places is precious and RE are more problematic there, 1000x more problematic. No argument here.At the same time we have plenty of wastelands and sparsely populated places plus a distribution grid so no need to make new RE plants in those densely populated places.Also if folks do not want any industrial infrastructure next to them then they have full right to protest and block its installation. No argument here too.Personally we objected to a power distribution line (from non‑RE) next to our village.Those issues are not discussed by the paper so we cannot use it as an argument.BTW it was a pleasant meta‑study. Thank you for the link.
(DIR) Post #9wLTfYYIZE8huOToem by kravietz@social.privacytools.io
2020-06-22T15:35:42Z
0 likes, 1 repeats
@amiciA 600 MW nuclear plant occupies maybe 0.5 km² and can run for 80 years at the same power 95% oftime. A 500 MW solar plant occupies 2500 ha and will run for maybe 20 years with power output degrading over time, and only operating maybe 20% at full power.Gas is a no-go anyway but Greens somehow prefer it.
(DIR) Post #9wLTybnMjYvBT7c1bc by kravietz@social.privacytools.io
2020-06-22T15:39:09Z
0 likes, 1 repeats
@amiciIf you're still wondering after reading it then I definitely cannot help you by paraphrasing it 🤷♂️
(DIR) Post #9wPN7VcgdYDxDBuJsG by CyberSocialist@social.privacytools.io
2020-06-24T12:41:10Z
0 likes, 1 repeats
@kravietz I’m not sure most of the Sahara desert is going to be missed tbh. Global problems need global solutions. Also fewer golf courses sounds good to me...