I did some quick math, and the 240k acres it says they own comes out to about 378 square miles, which if condensed down to a square would be 20 miles by 20 miles.
On the one hand, that's a lot of land. On the other, it's not really anything.
On the one hand, that's a lot of land. On the other, it's not really anything.
Also worth noting here that the 240k acres they own wouldn't get them into the top 10 private landowners in the US.
Edit: One of the solar maps: https://www.freeingenergy.com/how-much-solar-would-it-take-t...
Not the residential density map, but fun: https://www.6sqft.com/believe-it-or-not-the-worlds-entire-po...
The residential density maps: https://gothamist.com/arts-entertainment/map-if-the-world-li...
Always struck me as interesting in that you could easily section off a chunk of desert, properly sort and encapsulate the trash. At the same time fund research into ways to do recycling that is more cost efficient and more environmental friendly with regard to chemicals used, etc. Then once you have better tech for a certain class of garbage, go process it in bulk.
Of course humans being humans, we'd probably not bother to fund the research, not do upkeep on the encapsulation material and mess up the ground water, etc. Still interesting to think about just having one or two national trash dumps.
Storage of long lived nuclear waste is often considered a major problem. There are suggestions of firing them to the sun (worst idea ever), burring them in subduction zones (a bit more sensible) or in special sites with plenty of warning for future generations (artists get creative on this one).
The thing is, nuclear waste may actually be among the most valuable things on earth. These elements do not exist in nature, and producing them require nuclear reactors and enriched uranium, which is a finite resource.
Even today we have the technology to burn nuclear waste in fast breeder reactors, though for some reason we haven't made a lot of progress, maybe it is not commercially viable compared to more conventional reactors. This has the potential to supply us with energy for so long that we can effectively consider it renewable energy.
All that to say that in the future, nuclear "waste" may become extremely valuable. I find one particularly ironic quote from a suggested warning message for long term nuclear waste storage sites. "This place is not a place of honor... no highly esteemed deed is commemorated here... nothing valued is here." I find it extremely dismissive of future humanity, as if we somehow reach the peak of technological progress and that future generations will be cavemen.
The risk that reprocessing can produce weapons-grade plutonium has been one reason. [1] Frustrating not only because it makes it unavailable as an energy source, but, as I understand it, the waste products from fast breeder reactors generally have much shorter half-lives than the current waste.
The decision not to do reprocessing was based on 1970s cost/benefit analysis. We're in a different world now.
Dull thuds in the distance as dark masses streak across the sky every 10 minutes.
Futurama Season 1 Episode 8, "A Big Piece of Garbage": https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Big_Piece_of_Garbage
Edit: in Utah
Amusing. Why not a section of marsh? Or river delta?
#LizardLivesMatter
https://www.digikey.com/en/articles/synchronizing-small-scal...
It's not challenge to switch from grid-connected to off-grid mode. The reason that solar PV systems today shut down during grid outages today is to protect line workers from current feeding back to to the grid from the PV - which is to say the automatic shutoff is there by design.
Home battery storage systems, however, have transfer switches that automatically "island" the PV system from the grid in the event of an outage so that it can continue to produce power.
> The challenge is such that most home PV can’t operate standalone.
Decentralized != Off-grid
Much easier to actually use
I suppose the problems arise when infrastructure has to be built for those linear communities (Dutch word of the day:'lintdorp', or ribbon-village). Because suddenly the average population density is awful and we have to drive a lot, build more schools and hospitals, etc. Not to mention the poor sods that have a 500 km commute to work the land so that the rest of us can eat >:-)
https://www.designboom.com/architecture/saudi-arabia-the-lin...
I'm not convinced it's not vapourstructure given how ridiculous it seems.
That's some tell-tale bullshit right here.
That said, the video is very interesting. As well as branding - The Line. Would work very well as a setting in a sci-fi movie or a videogame.
There is ~4ft of shoreline in the US per household, which gives me some notion of what the packing would look like.
That assumes everyone wants shore view. With young kids I prefer my house to be far away from places weak/non swimmers can drawn. I know many other reasons why someone would choose to not live somewhere far from the sea if they get a choice.
That rules out whole countries. And misses all the fun of having water nearby. The chances of that happening are so vanishingly small that it probably is a bad guide as to where you want your kids to grow up.
So the buildings would double as a tsunami wall? Interesting, though kind of self-defeating.
Retrofitting roofs with panels seems wildly inefficient compared with using robots to plant thousands of panels few hundred miles away.
n.b. you do get slightly dicked by 'maintenance fees', but those probably gonna go down with time.
Doesn't hold much of a candle to Weyerhaeuser which owns more than 12 million acres.
I know it is a subtle thing, but I am just curious. If you know which it is I would like to hear. Thanks.
Indeed. I seem to recall seeing that you could power the entire western hemisphere with just a Texas-sized solar farm.
Have you seen Texas? Boy howdy. That's 23,155 Noor Power Stations[0]. Scaling costs linearly, that's $58 trillion[1].
[0] 268597 (tx) / 11.6 (noor) square miles
[1] $2.5b * 23,155
http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=texas%20area%20%2A%2010...
Worldwide power consumption is about 18 TW, electricity is about 3 TW.
And current PV looks like it’s good for 20+ years so you’re getting that power at about $3 trillion per year. The only reference I can find to current energy costs is this from Wikipedia:
"""In 2010, expenditures on energy totaled over US$6 trillion, or about 10% of the world gross domestic product (GDP)""" - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_energy_consumption
On that basis, you’d be getting roughly twice as many exajoules for roughly half as many USD.
(Also: Quarter of the expenses if you keep power use the same: It’s half cost for double the energy)
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Growth_of_photovoltaics
(Someone should update the “Grid parity for solar PV around the world”, that map was last edited in 2015)
58T is the opposite of pretty reasonable.
Even if you could assume it wouldn't need any maintenance, which you can't, it's too much money for anything.
60T is 10x more than global energy expenditure in 2010, and that's just for the Western Hemisphere, which I'm fairly certain expends significantly less energy then the Eastern.
Edit: just checked, and I was correct. In 2010, Western Hemi energy demand was ~130 PBtu, while Easter Hemi demand was ~330 PBtu[1], or 2.5x more.
So at this same price point, it would be 210T to power the whole world with solar, or 50% more than global GDP in 2019 (but only using 2010 energy consumption numbers, so it's actually much more). And of course you'd need to keep adding more solar as demand went up.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_energy_consumption#/medi...
Even then, this is still a wildly conservative estimate in terms of price. For example, you're also not taking into account any of the things that can't currently be easily electrified, such as passenger jets.
Thinking about it more it would seem likely that as overall oil consumption falls, the relative cost of oil derivatives like jet fuel would go up because the advantages of scale decrease from what they are now. It's a pretty fascinating subject since solar prices seem to follow a Moore's law type price evolution at the moment while oil will get cheaper as well while demand decreases. Presumably there is a balance point somewhere?
While I haven't looked up the data yet, it seems plausible to assume that maintenance on photovoltaic electric generation is not only lower but significantly lower than thermal generation.
For example, having no moving parts in the generation process must be a large maintenance savings, though of course there must be unique costs associated with photovoltaics - cleaning, perhaps?
> Even then, this is still a wildly conservative estimate in terms of price.
I just did some quick calculations to check this statement and found it basically true - I estimate the cost of 100% PV solar generation at around $180tn 2019 USD for 30 years of capacity.
For reference, I used these figures:
173,340 TWh energy consumption in 2019 [1] * $35/MWh for utility-scale PV solar[2] * 1,000,000 MWh/TWh = $6.1t yearly energy cost for 100% PV energy production, or $182t over a 30-year lifetime.
This, of course, does not take into account the increase of energy consumption over that period which would raise costs, nor the economies of scale of this level of PV deployment which would surely lower costs, but as a BotE calculation it sounds about right and corresponds with your earlier estimate of $210tn for the same investment. Note also that the $35/MWh figure includes all operating expenses and amortized capital costs i.e. it takes all costs into account already.
However, as you imply with your first question regarding maintenance burden, the correct comparison is not "how much would it cost" but rather "how much would it cost relative to projected costs of energy" - and again per [2], utility PV solar is already cheaper than new utility thermal power generation. There is of course plenty of nuance when it comes to energy consumption - you point out, for example, that aviation will be a difficult sector to "electrify," a true enough statement in and of itself. However, it's pointed out in [3] that jet fuel represents 12% of transportation energy consumption and that transportation overall represents 25% of global energy consumption, implying that aviation only represents about 3% of global energy consumption.
Based on this, I speculate that aviation fuels can be produced in a 100% solar PV energy regime without increasing - and likely lowering - energy production costs above the current regime.
[1] https://ourworldindata.org/energy-production-consumption [2] https://www.lazard.com/perspective/lcoe2019 [3] https://www.maritime-executive.com/article/transport-uses-25...
If thats small, how can you describe the size of nuclear power plants required to do the same job?
And power plants would be way smaller and aren't impractical.
The plant will be able to store solar energy in the form of heated molten salt, allowing for production of electricity into the night. Phase 1 comes with a full- load molten salt storage capacity of 3 hours. Noor II, commissioned in 2018, and Noor III, commissioned in January 2019, store energy for up to eight hours.
Very cool.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ouarzazate_Solar_Power_Station
If the entire planet resided in TX, each person would get 1100 sq feet to themselves. That's a very large 1BR, good sized 2BR apt.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1B3Vtm-bk8NIntYc8mZRw...
Getting 10x our total energy would only require half the Sahara. We have plenty of deserted place for this if that's what we wanted to do. Transporting and storing that energy is more the issue, which is why hydro/wind/solar mixes aided by batteries/nuclear are probably what we'll be focusing on for the next few decades.
So while im all for solar and hope we build tons of it, I don't see it becoming the primary energy generation source of the world any time soon. The solar farms that we would need will be the biggest man made wonders in the world, which I don't see as all that feasible in our economic and political environment.
Last time I looked, the USA was in a similar position. Hasn't started building one in at least 40 years[1] and the one I saw on that list finishing in 1990 (Seabrook) I thought might be more recent, says it was permitted in 1976, took 14 years to get Unit 1 working and Unit 2 was cancelled due to delays, and cost overruns. That's the kind of thing I'm talking about.
The current 92 of them provided 20% of the USA's electricity generation. So you'd need another 368 to do the other 80%. How long will they take to build, 15 years each? 55 years to go all nuclear, assuming you build ten at a time. How do you get from "we haven't built a nuclear power plant in 40 years" to "we could build 10 at a time continuously for the next half-century" in a convincing way?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_the_United_St...
The same way we were like let's go to the moon, build the transcontinental railroad or some nuclear bombs. Everything is a hell of a lot easier and possible if you have alignment.
As with most technical projects, the technical problem is usually not the barrier to achievement.
One moon rocket, in an age of rocketry, competing with the Russians. 120 continuous nuclear power plants in an age of struggling to build a train line in California. One moon rocket to visit the moon which would look amazing, versus fighting climate change which the incumbent President thinks is a hoax. Not being able to get alignment is a valid reason to question "could".
I agree. That's precisely what I mentioned was the only barrier in achieving it. The answer to getting it done is getting alignment from various stakeholders.
Many of the people that think it's a hoax or the ones that don't believe it's doomsday support nuclear plants. That's always been the case in the US.
You can get alignment without even agreeing on why to go nuclear. This escapes the doomsdayers and the climate crusaders. And based on your comment... you.
I mean - you provided a perfect example. You mentioned our outgoing President thinking climate change is a hoax while we are talking about nuclear plants. And he supported nuclear plants.
People with different concerns and end goals can't talk and agree on things that would help both of their agendas.
You want nuclear plants? Pitch national security to one group. Pitch saving the world to the other. Pitch cleaner air to another.
You aren't going to get anything done if you try to convince them that they need to believe your reason.
As Neil deGrasse Tyson's dad told him - it's not enough to be right. You must be effective.
If fusion (or anything else) adds four orders of magnitude (~200 PW) of new power at ground level, the new global average blackbody equilibrium temperature would increase from about +15 C to about +70 C.
Something similar happened to the King Ranch. More oil, less beef.
John Malone is #1 I guess, but I thought that Ted Turner approach was pretty badass. Ted Turner also has a herd of 50k bison.
"With approximately two million acres of personal and ranch land, Ted Turner is the second largest individual landholder in North America. Turner lands are innovatively managed to unite economic viability with ecological sustainability. Turner ranches operate as working businesses, relying on bison, hunting and fishing, and ecotourism as principal enterprises. In addition, Turner ranches support many progressive environmental projects including water resource and timber management, and the reintroduction of native species to the land." [2]
I like that.
[1] https://www.businessinsider.com/who-are-the-top-10-land-owne...
Drove through it a few months ago (and another time decades ago). It completely surrounds the township of William Creek, and the main road (well, track) in the area goes through the station for quite some time.
That puts the Gates at around 0.07% of the US farmland.
The #5 on their list of farmland owners (the infographic at the top of the page) has ~60% the farmland of the Gates family.
It's also worth noting that #2-5 rank 81, 81, 94, and 99 on the overall 2020 Land Report 100 -- and Gates doesn't rank at all. So a lot of people own a lot more land, but almost no one owns nearly as much farmland in the US.
It also confirms what I have always said..most of our food and farmland is controlled by sovereign wealth funds, insurance companies, pension funds, unions and institutional investment. In the coming decade, all small farms and family farms will disappear. They will only exist as hobby farms or subsidy collecting token farms.
I grew up on a small citrus farm, I saw NAFTA and the migrant worker bills ravage the small farmers first hand. The way it was done was unfair and amounted to a transfer of wealth to these entities but with that being said, I know why they did it. They need economies of scale, as well as the ability to offset risk, the easiest way to do that is to conglomerate the land together so that if there is a loss of production in one area output can be raised in another. This is hard to do with a co-op of independent farmers.
Starving people are dangerous to stability it really is as simple as that, and that is why you see these entities involved in farmlands.
Having said that, we can’t do away with small farms and family farms. The only way to save it is with automation and labour cost saving tech so it provides enough to be considered a career like any other.
I see it as forming co-ops and co-op hubs. Jellicles Farm is creating Hundred-Acre-Hubs and then co-ops of clusters hubs. I want to focus on small acreage automation. Small robots/cobots swarming in small acreages managed by individual farmers. Labour is 40-60% of cost. And it’s becoming increasingly unreliable and unavailable and expensive for small farmers. Automation is the only way. It will satisfy local food security and niche crops. Commodities will still be grown in large commercial corporate farms as they should be..
I was just noting that there was a human toll that happened for all this farm land to be rolled up by the conglomerates. Not implying that it was the wrong decision on the larger geo-political scale.
I would like to see the return of small farms if someone can make it viable, I would not trade the life I lived as a child for anything, but as I said above, I will never again scratch a living out of dirt, unless it is absolutely necessary for my and my families survival.
We are covered for grains, commodities and essentials. But we can maintain off grid homesteads and grow niche and high value crops on small acreages.
Look at all the vineyards we have now, marijuana grows, lavender fields and an embarrassment of riches when it comes to gourmet consumption.
Farming is magical. We convert sunlight and water through alchemy and plant genetics. There is absolutely nothing that compares.
Does it though? Based on a post above yours he owns less than 0.1% of US farmland. That means ownership is not concentrated. It seems to be much like the logistics / trucking industry. There is no concentration of power.
John Deere employee, but not speaking for my employer.
However, if it does pass..then it could just be the dollar value of farmland that is redistributed or with the caveat that they form a co-op to professionally farm the acreage to be productive.
All farmland needs protection. Transitioning of farmland into commercial land or residential land should be fully discouraged.
Also..small holdings(less than 1000 acres) should be automated. Farming is for the rich. You need to lose a lot of money first before you can start making returns.
Encouraging those with no farm experience with farmland is pushing them into debt and penury.
I am talking about food production and farming.
They are two entirely different issues
Outside of the USA, small farm holdings feed the citizens. It is even more important for them to avail new tech and labour cost saving automation.
In India heavily subsidizes farming as well, for good reason since a significant portion of the population is employed in the agricultural sector.
https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php...
I grew up around family farms. Many members of my family still produce crops and own livestock. So, to someone with first hand knowledge your comment rings false. The large feedlots, processing plants, etc. are the most inhumane (and dehumanizing), places I know of in the industry.
I would appreciate if you would at least _attempt_ to provide proof/justification before making such a blanket, mean-spirited statement.
But it’s expensive. The failure of small farms is mostly seen in the balance sheet.
Having said that, it is because of economics. Small farm environmental sustainability is not feasible due to $$. The solution for this small acreage automation(what I am working on) systems and protocols.
Small acreage automation is important because globally, food comes from small acreages and it is becoming increasingly difficult for many small and poorer nations to feed their people. Not all countries have rich people owning very large acreages in cultivation.
American farms also produce little food and more fodder/fiber/fuel. We import most of our nutritious food like produce.
For food security, there needs to be more small acreage automation and more small farmers. We educate everyone these days and they need to be employed. They are not going to manually pick weeds if they run a sustainable farm. The only reason California has $45+ billion in ag revenue is because of the poorly paid undocumented immigrant labour force. And massive entitlements that big farmers(most of them as corporates own between 20k-100k acres of land) earn mostly through our complicated water agreements that the tax payers bear most of the cost indirectly.
Could you elaborate on this? What exactly is it that you want to automate?
I am unable to elaborate at this point, but I think this will give you an idea about the kind of costs and returns we face in our industry: https://coststudyfiles.ucdavis.edu/uploads/cs_public/7a/c9/7...
Any thoughts or insights would be appreciated and helpful to me.
It isn't nearly so clear cut a situation.
This list of 73 properties are all significantly bigger than Bill's little patch of dirt:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_the_largest_stations_i...
eg. Anna Creek Station
23,677 km2 (9,142 sq mi; 5,851,000 acres)
There are ~340 million acres of farmland alone in the US
To put that in perspective though.. per Wikipedia, all of Manhattan is 22.7 square miles!
*mindblown*
Another stat I read said the median US plot size is 10861 sq. feet., so Gates owns very nearly 1 million times the square footage of the average property.
https://www.floridatrend.com/article/17957/the-mormon-church...
Unless you are actually using the land for farming, of course.
So there's that.
EDIT: I failed basic arithmetic, apparently. It's 0.03%
267K acres out of 897M acres.
source in blog post sorry
https://thinkingagriculture.io/incentivizing-regenerative-ag...
"Total land in farms, at 897,400,000 acres, decreased 2,100,000 acres from 2018."
I've seen the 330M acres figure elsewhere as the "prime" farmland area rather than total farmland and the blog post you cite has figures that include fallow, idle, and pasture farmland categories above the crop usage figure of 330M acres.
In any case, cropland is 2.5 orders of magnitude higher than GP's calculation rather than a full 3.
Yes, it’s a lot of land and it’s not remotely justifiable. Inequality isn’t something to just handwave away.