You're viewing part of a thread.
Absolutely not. 100+ acres vs 3,000+ acres is anything but miniscule. I suggest you do a little research on the discussion you're attempting to take part in.
See, you're talking like 3000+ acres is a lot on the global scale, and it just isn't. You could literally cover a few fields that grow better in indirect light, produce more from your crops, and supply the global requirements for electricity. Seriously, just 5 square miles is over 3000 acres.
The only good argument against solar or wind is matching load against production, and that one is becoming less relevant all the time.
Compared to a hundred acres? Meaning the other 2,900 acres could be preserved in some form of natural state? That absolutely is a lot when you consider the energy needs of a modern country. The fact you're acting like that's not a valid argument just proves how ignorant you are.
Growing crops under a solar array does not justify your inability to comprehend land size/use. Corn? Fine, that works with indirect. Soy and rice do not though. So 2 of the 3 most widely grown crops would be hindered by that plan.
So instead of destroying major crops with the ridiculous idea of building thousands of acres of solar panels, or tens of thousands of acres of wind turbines, we should focus on the much smaller impact of nuclear energy.
Wow, I just can't wrap my head around how many things you can get wrong, all at one time. You do realize that not all crops are the same, right? As I said in my previous post, there are plenty of crops (including pastureland) that do better with less direct light. And there are 1 million square miles of farmland in the U.S. right now. If 2% of that was covered with solar, and nowhere else, that could supply America's electricity needs. Of course, this ignores all the great options for solar in urban areas, such as rooftops and parking lots. I haven't heard many people complaining that they couldn't park their car in an uncovered parking space at the mall.
Notice that this doesn't require any new land to be developed, so rather than the pie in the sky idea that 100 acres of nuclear equates to the realized opportunity to return or keep 2900 acres in a natural state, it means 3000 acres of solar in areas that are already developed, so we can leave that 100 acres of undeveloped land in its previous state.
There is certainly a place for nuclear, especially until we have an effective means of power storage, but at the expense of solar, one of the cheapest electricity solutions we have right now, is probably not it.
You can't wrap your head around it because you simply don't want to. Of course I didn't mention every single potential crop. I mentioned the three most widely grown, around the entire world. Corn, rice, and soy. Yes, others would do well, but building above these crops would never work on large agricultural areas. Why? Because you need machinery to harvest large grow ops before they spoil. Farmers would never afford the human labor required to match. It will work great on smaller scale farms, people using upwards of 25 acres. What does that achieve power wise though by comparison? Not enough power.
Pastures are an issue for two reasons. One, grass needs direct sunlight to properly grow. Two, animal agriculture is a major cause of carbon emissions. We need less pastureland, and covering it doesn't help. You could convert existing pastureland into a reactor site, saving existing nature from development.
You would still need to develop new land for larger arrays. Land use that could be minimized by maximizing the possible power output.
You keep coming back to that one single argument you seem to have with space requirements, which several people have explained to be ridiculous, and you just keep repeating it? Do you have any idea about the scale of a country vs that of a solar park?
Because that was the discussion, the amount of energy produced by nuclear vs other clean means and the amount of area dedicated for each to produce the same.
There are very few ignorantly disagreeing with this easy to prove fact, you being one of them. I do understand scale of a country, and the space required to power it via reactors saves hundreds of thousands of acres when compared to solar and wind.
Go Google the required acreage for each and educate yourself. You're the one being ridiculous by attempting to call me out for "one single argument" and then continuing to prove you have no real concept of size and scale.
The discussion is not whether solar needs more space per energy produced, (and it does, nobody is disputing that), the discussion is if the area difference is relevant in the first place. And there have points been made why it is not, namely:
-
You can cover area that is not natural anyways: parking lots, rooftops, farmland that does not need strong direct sunlight
-
There is so much space in a country compared to that needed for solar that or just does not matter. Obviously you don't go and remove forests to put solar panels there
-
Plenty of space isn't arable in the first place, so what's the point of not putting solar there? Protecting the sensitive desert?
@GreyEyedGhost even gave you an actually ok argument against wind/solar, maybe try that one?
-
The discussion is not whether solar needs more space per energy produced, (and it does, nobody is disputing that), the discussion is if the area difference is relevant in the first place. And there have points been made why it is not, namely:
-
You can cover area that is not natural anyways: parking lots, rooftops, farmland that does not need strong direct sunlight
-
There is so much space in a country compared to that needed for solar that or just does not matter. Obviously you don't go and remove forests to put solar panels there
-
Plenty of space isn't arable in the first place, so what's the point of not putting solar there? Protecting the sensitive desert?
@GreyEyedGhost even gave you an actually ok argument against wind/solar, maybe try that one?
-