lughnasadh OP t1_iqs7azf wrote
Reply to comment by grimtrigger86 in The US's largest ever combined wind+solar/battery electricity plant has opened in Oregon with a generating/storage capacity of 350MW/120MWh by lughnasadh
> This is great and all but it spans 7,850 acres. That's a whole lotta land.
It's worth noting that the USA devotes 781 million acres entirely to cows. (That's pasture + land that grows other food for livestock).
You could fit 100,000 of these renewable plants into that amount of space.
But don't worry, that would never happen. If all US electricity was generated by plants like this one, you would only need (approx/ball park) 1,500 of them, thus only needing 1.5% of the land devoted to cows.
MartinVanBurnin t1_iqsf5i6 wrote
And the beauty of it is, a huge amount of that is just rangeland, which is basically unimproved land where the cows wander around eating the natural vegetation. The cows don't give a damn if there are some windmills scattered around so the land becomes dual-use and it has very little actual effect on their range.
This is almost certainly the case with most of the acreage used by this project. There's a whole lotta nothing in that area except cattle range and a few tiny farming communities.
RMZ13 t1_iqse69n wrote
Good answer.
RonPMexico t1_iqscrcw wrote
The problem with this scheme and all renewables is storage capacity. This project does not solve it. There are no realistic solutions to the energy density issue that don't involve long chains of carbon.
Hot-mic t1_iqstfy9 wrote
It's getting there fast and it is capable of doing all that fossil fuels can do - grid wise. Remember fossil fuels has a 140 year head start, my friend.
edit; extra word
RonPMexico t1_iqsus4a wrote
Really? I wait with bated breath. The plant in this post clearly can't do what a gas turbine plant can.
Hot-mic t1_iqy7ka4 wrote
I don't know why someone downvoted you, because you're not wrong. This plant can't - yet. Things are progressing quickly and large capital interests are really just now turning to alt-fuel technologies for investments. This is a new thing and a turning point - even with this new investment, policy and regulation roadblocks continue to be erected by fossil fuel financial interests although they are beginning to wane slightly.
grimtrigger86 t1_iqsgtzg wrote
That's a bit of a strawman arguement. I said nothing about cows or their land use. And including the land used to feed them is a bit misleading as they typically use byproducts we don't consume to feed them, but whatever. The reality is that projects like this are going to use undeveloped land instead of land occupied for agriculture, habitation or commercial.
Which is the only reason I mention the land usage. If my math is correct.. annual consumption of mwh in my county is ~6,990,000 so we would need ~3 of these plants operating at 350mwh output 24/7. That's 23,550 acres of undeveloped land we do not have unless we start encroaching on wildlife preserves and state parks. My county has approximately 2k undeveloped land (if I'm reading the census correctly) that is not allocated to parks and preserves. None of the other land here is for agricultural use. This would not be an uncommon issue for more densely populated areas, so more rural areas would end up completely transformed by this. While people in densely populated areas might be okay with that, but people living in these rural areas where they'll likely end up may not be too pleased with that transformation. None of this is taking into consideration the areas that are even suitable or ideal for different types of renewable energy production, I'm not even sure where to look at what that number would be.
Renewables are great and we should find ways to incorporate them into our current infrastructure as much as possible but, I just don't see current land use being repurposed before I see them clear cut new areas for plants like this.
Edit: are you seriously citing Wikipedia?
MartinVanBurnin t1_iqsqda4 wrote
Talk about a strawman, it's like you think they built a huge fence around 8000 acres with "no trespassing" signs.
There's a reason this project was built where it was and that's because there's a metric fuckton of mostly empty, undeveloped land. I say mostly empty because a lot of that undeveloped land is used for something and I'd be udderly shocked if you couldn't guess what it is.
What you don't seem to be aware of is that while windfarms take a lot of acreage overall, they're low density, meaning the land can usually be used for other things at the same time. Like, say, grazing cattle or even farming. The land's owner can even get a bit of supplemental income from each little square they lease out.
Will this kind of thing work everywhere? No, of course not, but there are huge areas in the western US where none of the things you've brought up are a problem and it's nothing but win-win.
cornerblockakl t1_iqufwd2 wrote
Nah. I’ll take nuclear any day out west. Put these mega-acre things back East.
grimtrigger86 t1_iqsxx8o wrote
Not everyone is going to be okay with these things dotting the landscape or being installed in their "backyards". There have been both wind and solar projects rejected in my state because the communities just don't want them nearby. This is largely a very pro renewable and progressive state. The whole NIMBY thing. And to think it's okay to just push it on out to the midwest/rural areas is both short sighted and selfish. That being said, acceptance of these types of projects in a community are a consideration. Because denser areas do not have the real estate, so their power needs to be addressed somewhere right?
If the farmer wants to lease his land then sure, it makes sense, never said it didn't. From what I can see it doesn't look like they get much in the way of payment for the land they're giving up.
A few points with mentioning for non pasture acreage:
-The turbine themselves plus the access roads and support infrastructure take up space and reduce the amount of farmland available to be farmed.
-The turbines, access roads and support infrastructure create obstructions in the fields making it more difficult to farm that field.
-They limit some farming practices (aerial application) and others
-The installation of the turbines creates soil compaction and can damage tile, drainage ditches, etc.
-The money stream may not go to the farmer and may not be as steady as everyone thinks.
-To reiterate, not everyone enjoys the aesthetics of wind turbines in their backyard
Alternatively, its money for no effort on their part if they don't mind them being on the land.
And I'm not sure where NPR got its numbers from but the 2017 census (couldn't find a more recent one) is a little over half of the number they gave for permanent pastures.
https://www.nass.usda.gov/Publications/Highlights/2019/2017Census_Farms_Farmland.pdf
I'm not against this application of technology, but there are two sides to a viewpoint. It's either going to take up land people occupy or will be taking up new undeveloped land. People tend to be supportive of something until the ugly side of it directly impacts them.
MartinVanBurnin t1_iqtl2d6 wrote
Yeah, the whole NIMBY thing is a problem and it pisses me off that there are a lot of self-described progressives that hypocritically oppose these projects in their own areas.
I actually live in a mostly rural area that also has a lot of windfarms. That doesn't give me any special insights as I don't work in either industry, but I have observed them both.
> -The turbine themselves plus the access roads and support infrastructure take up space and reduce the amount of farmland available to be farmed. > > -The turbines, access roads and support infrastructure create obstructions in the fields making it more difficult to farm that field.
There are already access roads all around the farmland because semi-trucks are used to haul the produce from the fields. And while the windmills are huge, their footprint is actually pretty small as it's just a giant post at the ground. Maybe around a fifth of an acre each so they don't actually take up very much of the land. They're usually placed on the edges so they don't even create much obstruction.
> -They limit some farming practices (aerial application) and others
True, but crop dusting is expensive so it's really only used on the truly massive farms (around here, at least). The couple of dusters I know make very good livings.
> -The installation of the turbines creates soil compaction and can damage tile, drainage ditches, etc.
It would be minor relative to the day-to-day operations on the farm (semis, massive tractors, etc).
> -The money stream may not go to the farmer and may not be as steady as everyone thinks.
The actual amount of space leased is tiny so, yeah, not really super lucrative, but as you said, it's almost free money for them.
> -To reiterate, not everyone enjoys the aesthetics of wind turbines in their backyard
Rural areas like mine tend to be highly conservative and other than some initial whining about the "stupid environmentalist shit" no one cares anymore. If they'd just force a few on the NIMBYs, they wouldn't either.
grimtrigger86 t1_iqtyn5m wrote
I drove through Illinois not too long ago and saw the wind turbines along the highway there. It was a lot of farmland so I can't imagine anyone purchased the land recently for a "view" and got stuck with the wind turbines but I personally wouldn't care to see them everyday. I just know from personal experience that there are progressive areas/people content with volunteering someone else (aka rural/poor/blue collar/conservative) to take on the burden of whatever great idea they have. A personal example of that; my county has a number of psychiatrists on "staff" (they still have private practices) for like 250k (tax dollars) annually a pop to provide "mental health" services to people who cant afford it and may need it based on arbitrary criteria (basically noone who needs to use it can take advantage of it). The county executive and elected officials all reside in a very "well to do" area and made it a point to relocate the homeless into lower income areas of the county and provide these shelters and services there. It just strikes me as them looking down their noses at the "poors" as they provide "services" out of the kindness of their hearts. The reality is, many of the services we would really want nearby are all located in their community, the not so great ones are pushed out to the other not as affluent neighborhoods. And they could be full of shit, but I'm constantly being hassled by homeless outside of convenience stores asking for money so they can stay at one of the shelters nearby. Shit, our county executives salary is 350k. A flippin civil servant. Anyway, I digress. I'm basically just bitching about my community now. And no, I'm not in California lol
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments