Finally They Admit Renewables Are Terrible for the Environment | Hacker News Reader

Finally They Admit Renewables Are Terrible for the Environment

michaelshellenberger.substack.com

5 pointsgarraeth8 comments

This is ridiculous. They use more space. Well windfarms over water are using space we cannot otherwise use. Solar plants in the dessert likewise use land that is otherwise unused. And in some cases it means there is now shaded area in which plants can thrive, making the land therefore useful again. Now I am generally a proponent of nuclear energy. But the land around Chernobyl and Fukushima is certainly not useable and wont be for a while.

Even if a windfarms could destroy itself the worst it could do is tear itself apart.

The overall point I took was the expanding space and thus transmission infrastructure which is therefor required is a huge expense and hidden overhead.

>And in some cases it means there is now shaded area in which plants can thrive,

This would be fantastic if it were the case but I don't believe I have ever seen a single plant at a solar farm. They are typically extremely sterile environments. I live in the desert and thus near many extremely large solar farms.

Nuclear will be the answer in the long run. I am pretty certain of this. It is generally reliable, not effected by the weather, can be placed nearly anywhere it is needed reducing infrastructure requirements. Obviously, there is a containment problem that needs to be solved which seems to be helped by smaller plants. ( not to mention Bill Gates made a huge investment in nuclear[0]. This should provide some indicator where wealth thinks the future is leading.

[0]https://www.cnbc.com/2021/04/08/bill-gates-terrapower-is-bui...

I also think that nuclear has to be a foundational piece, but the economics and politics of the situation are stacked against it. In the US, there would have to be a continuation of support across administrations; no way we are building plants in less than 4 years, and this makes me very pessimistic. Thoughts?

The political struggle is legitimate. A sustained agreed upon agenda is unlikely. Unfortunately.

I pass a couple regularly, at/near farms outsite the city. There's grass growing, it gets less sunlight than it would without the solar panels but it gets enough light for the grass. The grass seems to be used for hay or something like that.

Many plants don't need direct sunlight, they do well with the diffuse light from the clouds. Of course those won't be happy in your desert climate where the sun is strong, they're more the likely to grow well in my native Norway, where there's little direct sun but a lot of diffuse light.

In the desert, most plants are dependent on the water that falls directly on them. Solar panels do not make this possible. Any space between the panels is also maintained.

There are some plants that lay down gravel across the entire farm.

I think the point is that wind/solar have scaling limits. Sure they work today, and in the immediate future, but what would it look like to have 100% of daily usage delivered by wind or solar?

Don't forget political boundaries. Not all countries/regions have enough water for huge windfarms or deserts for solar panels. Also remember electricity usage generally grows with time, so how long do you think we can increase by x annually if land use has to increase by 470x?

Today there aren't any large regions where 100% of power comes from renewables and we really don't know what's it's like managing renewable generation at large scale. It's not a concern we should be totally dismissive of.

Think of the "worst" case more like we're trapped growing a solar installation and need the land from your home to do it.

Right - I think we can all agree that there is no power-generation method that is "good" for the environment, only for us. I still can't imagine a situation where our growing power needs are met without a viable nuclear component, but maybe the timelines & political steadiness just aren't there for it.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com