Wind is even a bit more space efficient in Germany. Land use is really not a problem for renewables.
1. Lobbying groups for fossils and nuclear trying to find disadvantages of renewables. The most bizarre thing I saw a while ago was arguing strongly for nuclear largely based on the fact that it's more space efficient (saying the importance of that outweighs cost), while completely ignoring the fact that nuclear plants require extensive nofly zones (note theybare not really a problem atm either but would affect how much we can build out nuclear).
2. A strong push for making large scale renewable installations. While it is true that large scale solar is more efficient than smaller scale, I think the prime motivation is that it benefits large operators and investors, not individuals or small communities. Hence the lobby efforts.
In reality just putting solar on most existing warehouses and parking lots would already cover a significant proportion of our electricity use. And others pointed out how solar (and wind) can often be used in dual use environments benifiting both.
We would get more GW for the buck by using subsidies to really accelerate the expansion of green power generation that is already cost effective without subsidies (solar/wind/pumped storage) rather than throwing money at a form of power generation that wouldnt even exist without subsidies.
If the subsidies were distributed on the basis of stability, GW output and availability then that would be efficient, effective and fair but that would kill off the nuclear industry entirely.
Only one of those choices feeds an exponentially increasing capacity to respond to the crisis.
There are plenty of much lower hanging fruit available than a nuclear plant. Insulation, residential thermal batteries, trains, cycleways, green hydrogen infrastructure, solar water heating, CAES projects, variable load upgrades to aluminium smelters, etc. etc.
I'm all for increasing public spend on green energy, but until there's enough money for the cost efficient things, then nuclear is just helping the fossil fuel industry
Or just do any of the other things on the list I mentioned. Getting 400 commuters out of cars and into a train is an instant 4MW saving.
Eminent domain is a common tool to solve this, and it is also used for mining. It is however not very popular.
Land used for rail and roads is used up. Land used for solar may continue being used for whatever else it was doing already.
Please do not make up BS problems.
But most crops do not, and benefit both from reduced heat stress and reduced water loss. Livestock, likewise, benefit from shelter, and the grass grows not less, same reasons.
When you have all of cultivated land available to site solar in, you can choose places to put it where it is most beneficial.
Farm and pasture are not the only places that benefit from shade. Reservoirs and canals lose huge amounts of water to evaporation, and need constantly to fight biofouling.
Roofs, too, last longer in shade.
Maybe a specialized tractor could be built to go around the panels but really you’d want to grow laborious crops that are mostly hand-planted/harvested anyway.
On wheat you may not want to collect too much of the light anyway, because yield might suffer.
Corn is a little harder because it grows so tall. You would need high fencerows, or give up collecting much when the crop gets high.
One merit of these systems is that they produce revenue in fallow years and year-round, while the crops only produce revenue in a spike once a year.
Researchers are experimenting with which plants do best under solar panels and even trying to grow tomatoes and potatoes between rows at existing utility-scale farms, Macknick says.
https://www.reuters.com/business/environment/solar-panels-he...
Solar and wind can be much more opportunistic in using small packets of land.
Or are there examples of more intensive uses under wind turbines?
https://talkbusiness.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/Wind-Far...
https://static01.nyt.com/images/2016/07/19/world/windfarms-w...
Just what about these turbines makes farming / ranching more difficult?
just calling everyone a "NIMBY" is not a valid response to criticism of externalities.
The exact blend depends on the location of course, but any sensible grid will likely include both of them (and mixes of distributed solar, onshore, offshore wind). Generally solar and wind should be about 80% of the generation mix, and the precise balance (after including the cost difference over the next few decades) globally leans towards solar being the dominant of the two in most plans and predictions.
edit: this has now made me wonder if anyone calculates the LCOE of 'optimal' solar/wind mix for the region.
The first video has pretty sound (pardon the pun) methodology.
Findings: Unless you're within 200m of a turbine, the background ambient sounds are louder than the sound of the turbine.
Do you have evidence to the contrary?
Their values and systems of belief/reality-building and trust networks are totally different. Successfully negotiating that doesn't mean "my numbers are more correct" but understanding the different subcultures, what's important to them, and being able to respectfully and empathetically communicate according to their needs, not yours.
My primary reason for sharing it was to avoid other (reasonable) people from walking away with some false belief that there might be something to the noise issue. There isn't anything to it.
I'm not trying to convince this person. However, there might be others who don't have the time to do the research. This comment is for them.
People generally like making money with their land, and especially for wind it often doesn't impact the economics of current land use very much. (And even solar isn't necessarily exclusive)
The comparison with rail and highways also isn't very good since for those there are much stricter constraints to cover a useful and practical route in its entirety.
The biggest problem in those situation isn't that the actually land that get used, it is how the farmer get impacted by the rail road being there. If they got a lot of money for those 0.5% with no negative effect then naturally people would have no objection to sell that for huge profits.
I can't speak for your family members or the locations where they are involved, but I do know how much politics there is around where I live. There is a lot of resistance to place wind farms on farm fields, and farmers aren't exactly lining up to rent out their land (or at least not for the price people are willing to pay). Ocean farms are often cited as being easier to build because there is less resistance from land owners and local government.
One land location that does seem a bit easier for wind production are forests in mountain areas which is sparsely populated. The draw side is that the consumers isn't generally located there, so you get the situation where the best and easiest locations to install wind is also the worst location to utilize the production.
(And don't get me started on this, but most arrays are wired stupidly, ignoring what the telegraph and phone guys learned 125 years ago: you want to ground the positive leg, NOT the negative, so you can use cathodic protection via a sacrificial anode to prevent the wires corroding away. You would be shocked how many 10-15 year old arrays I've seen that have something rapidly approaching empty straws of insulation connecting the panels - the breakeven on a solar PV plant is around 20-22 years, so these will never break even!)
For a certain number of hours in the day, yes. This always strikes me as an odd observation because storage and distribution have always been the more important challenges in our current implementation.
I'd also caution against any form of "monoculture strategy." The lessons from history are pretty clear on this.
Edit: They don't add it to the fuel because they want to. They do it because they are mandated to. Anti-knock properties are just a tiny silver lining that could be obtained through more efficient means were it not for the subsidized ethanol.
> Due to the phasing out of MTBE as a gasoline additive and mainly due to the mandates established in the Energy Policy Act of 2005 and the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, ethanol blends have increased throughout the United States, and by 2009, the ethanol market share in the U.S. gasoline supply reached almost 8% by volume
and
> In the U.S. MTBE has been used in gasoline at low levels since 1979, replacing tetraethyllead (TEL) as an antiknock (octane rating) additive to prevent engine knocking.[15] Oxygenates also help gasoline burn more completely, reducing tailpipe emissions and dilute or displace gasoline components such as aromatics (e.g., benzene). Before the introduction of other oxygenates and octane enhancers, refiners chose MTBE for its blending characteristics and low cost.
It is a farm subsidy program, but it also has an actual use. Oil companies went with lead in the first place, despite being well aware of the dangers, because ethanol is also a competitor to gasoline, being a fuel itself.
Yes, Archers Daniels Midland collects a monstrous undeserved federal subsidy.
But unleaded gasoline needs something to raise its octane rating. MBTE turned out to be a public health and ecological disaster. What we use now is ethanol. Probably some other alternative would be cheaper and not burn crop acreage, but wasting corn has been good politics: corn farming states have a preponderance of senators.
Probably naive, what does this mean? There are unleaded gases for sale that are ethanol free at some gas stations (typically only the premium / highest octane) which are often preferred for small motors / high end engines. I don't think they mix in lead, is MTBE what is added instead in those cases? I haven't heard of MTBE before.
ETA: I've been able to find a number of sites for WI gas stations saying "we have ethanol free," but none of them mention what is added in its place (if anything).
https://www.classicfuelsolutions.co.uk/products/classic-fuel...
That's a UK supplier but an answer on Quora suggests 'race' fuels are sold in the US with lead too. Not legal to use on the road though.
> Effective January 1, 1996, leaded gasoline was banned by the Clean Air Act for use in new vehicles other than aircraft, racing cars, farm equipment, and marine engines.
The only leaded fuel you can buy in the US is aviation fuel. You can't buy it at a gas station and the only reason it still exists with lead in it is because that is necessary for compliance with government rules that regulate what fuel can be sold for that specific purpose.
You do get alkylate gasoline, maybe that's what is being sold:
> The availability of alkylate petrol is limited. The actual alkylation process to produce Aspen is a much more advanced and expensive process which only a few refineries in the world can produce. Even if new ways of producing alkylate petrol is developed, regular petrol will still be the dominant type of motor fuel in the world.
https://www.buyrealgas.com/states.html
I found this website, that lists places that sell ethanol free gas, and the number of them that appear to be Marinas, combined with the bit above about lead being used for marine purpsose makes me think they're just using lead.
Somebody call Congress! Think of the children!
Pretty much nobody does this because on the high end race fuels as well as various alcohol fuels are more available and better supported by industry and on the low end ethanol free premium is substantially cheaper. If lots of people did it it wouldn't still be legal. Dumping 100LL into your boat or race car just isn't a good value way to solve a problem anyone has.
> I found several posts from people saying that they buy aviation fuel because they don't like ethanol for their lawn equipment, and presumably people informed enough about the issue to intentionally buy leaded avation fuel would know about other options available).
I hope I'm not the only one appreciating the schadenfreude here. It reminds me of when people unscrew the spout from their crappy compliant cans. Regardless, the overwhelming majority of these people just drag their butt to whatever local station has ethanol free premium rather than go to the airport because it's a faster/easier/cheaper way of accomplishing the same goal.
The current status quo is stupid but the rules are written by a bunch of jerks who either a) DGAF about what happens beyond the next election cycle or b) DGAF so long as they're not responsible and can collect their pension so it's no surprise that the things people do to compensate are non-optimal.
Large tanks are generally okay, but if you try to start a small carbouretted engine after 6mo and haven't drained the tank you'll need to clean the jets and replace the spark plug.
And the first primary or caucus state of the election season is Iowa. The state produces the most corn in the Union and by far the most corn per capita. Large corn subsidies will likely continue until this fact changes.
https://www.masterresource.org/political-capitalism/adm-etha...
> Thanks to federal protection of the domestic sugar industry, ethanol subsidies, subsidized grain exports, and various other programs, ADM has cost the American economy billions of dollars since 1980 and has indirectly cost Americans tens of billions of dollars in higher prices and higher taxes over that same period.
> At least 43 percent of ADM’s annual profits are from products heavily subsidized or protected by the American government. Moreover, every $1 of profits earned by ADM’s corn sweetener operation costs consumers $10, and every $1 of profits earned by its ethanol operation costs taxpayers $30….
It seems like a misunderstanding of both ag subsidies as they exist today and of ADM's business model
Probably because you took the time posting that you might otherwise have taken thinking. I suggest trying it the other way.
So the question is: Will you find enough locations that don't annoy the locals and once you found them will your project survive the inevitable intrigues amongst land owners over who gets to rent out their land for the lucrative PV installations?
Even though it's more expensive, I think that using rooftops and other already occupied spaces first is a more sensible route.
It’s quiet and doesn’t smell. It’s about as unobtrusive as you can imagine a thing to be.
If solar panels were more efficient and mass produced in the 1990s, I have to imagine solar farms would have replaced most tobacco farms after the buyouts.
Though maybe I’m biased by my feeling that solar panels are damn-near magic - you leave them outside, basically neglect them, and power just comes spilling out of them.
It is extremely uncommon to site dedicated solar farms within 100m of residential areas.
So let them cultivate a perimeter of just enough forest to hide the panels if it really is a real issue and not a product of NIMBY OCPD.
I spent six years in the utility-scale solar PV industry. You would be shocked to learn how many of the panels are not working in any given array. I've seen everything from almost 10% of the strings not even being connected to the inverters in a utility scale array, to a shocking number of rooftop arrays that were producing nothing. In my entire experience with the company and all its customers, we never encountered a single utility-scale array that was fully working when we arrived on site to add our monitoring or optimization systems, and many of those were brand new!
In one case of a sizable array on the roof of a Texas energy provider here in Austin, we discovered the inverter had died years before we discovered it! (This was field testing of of inverter bus noise effects, and the oscilloscope showed nothing but what the wiring picked up as antennas!) Turns out no one ever looks at the power bills in a power company... :-)
Solar PV actually requires a fair amount of maintenance for both prevention and remediation (cleaning and/or replacing panels, repairing connections/wiring, combiners, inverters, etc.) to ensure they are actually operating, but most owners are happier to cover their ears and eyes and sing, "La, la, la..."