Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

gerkletoss t1_j5qgr4c wrote

It would certainly affect whether it's preferable to biofuels


mhornberger t1_j5qh99h wrote

Plant-based biofuels are land- and water-intensive. Putting aside recent rains, CA has been facing serious drought issues. Plant-based biofuels are just not that great.

If we scaled algae-based biofuels that picture might be different.


gerkletoss t1_j5qijno wrote

Solar power is land-intensive.

Hence why a trade study is needed.


mhornberger t1_j5qixij wrote

Solar can coexist with agriculture on the same land via agrivoltaics, and also with wind turbines. PV can also go on rooftops, over reservoirs, etc. Studies have already been done showing that, per acre, PV generates more energy than plant-based biofuels. "But they both use land" doesn't make them equal.


gerkletoss t1_j5qlgv7 wrote

May I see some of these studies?

Regardless, when it comes to load-following power plants or airplanes, the balance does shift.


expertestateattorney t1_j5qtokg wrote

I have been through that area. There are immense tracts of unused desert land.


gerkletoss t1_j5r03w5 wrote

A) deserts have important ecology

B) we're not just talking about this one site


SandAndAlum t1_j5sc769 wrote

The worst areas are within easy transmission range of somewhere with a winter capacity factor over 8%.

Power density is around 1MW/ha nameplate when land optimized. This is under 70m^2 (8m x 8m) per person to provide world final energy of around 10TW. This land can coexist with many other uses (such as roofs, car parking, and agrivoltaics)

The fact that you're pearl clutching over this, but not over the average 8 car parks per person at 40m^2 each or the land required to support eating beef makes your motivations fairly clear.


gerkletoss t1_j5skjo1 wrote

I don't need a lecture from someone who can't even keep track of what I'm talking about trading.


SandAndAlum t1_j5smffo wrote

You only dog whistled it but it's obvious nonetheless.

You're talking about more land, more pollution and more long term costin the form of gas.


gerkletoss t1_j5smw7i wrote

I could make up far worse lies about you but it would only make me look like more of a moron than you and I'd probably get banned for it.

Maybe if you pull you head out of your ass you'll figure out that deserts are real places with real environmental impact and while they're certainly not bad places for solar installation care must be taken to avoid erosion problems due to construction and lack of plants.


SandAndAlum t1_j5sbjym wrote

Solar uses less land than coal extraction or the largest uranium mines per unit power. There is no choice with lower impact.


gerkletoss t1_j5skgn8 wrote

If you look back three comments you'll see that I wasn't comparing to any of those.

>There is no choice with lower impact.

For many applications there are. For instance, it's better to run my blender off the grid than to use solar hydrogen.


[deleted] t1_j5sky5m wrote



[deleted] t1_j5smloa wrote



SandAndAlum t1_j5smwv0 wrote

No. You were repeating fossil fuel propaganda unrelated to the issue at hand.


gerkletoss t1_j5sn5my wrote

They use real concerns in their propaganda because it's effective

But you'll note that I only mentioned carbon-neutral alternative technologies here, which terrifies the fossil fuel industry. Or maybe not. My hopes aren't high.


SandAndAlum t1_j5sniku wrote

Except it's not a real concern when its less bad than any other option. By all means push for less land use, but pick the low hanging fruit first.


gerkletoss t1_j5snsqw wrote

The other carbon-neutral options are what I was talking about you reactionary hero


SandAndAlum t1_j5snx6r wrote

You continue to dog whistle gas with carbon capture (which is fictional) whilst not being brave enough to say it out loud.


gerkletoss t1_j5so2bi wrote

Yes, carbon capture is on the list of things I didn't say.


SandAndAlum t1_j5so76s wrote

Which continues to be fossil fuel propaganda.


gerkletoss t1_j5sohfm wrote

Fossil fuel propaganda would be accusing everyone who asks questions about hydrogen generation compared to other carbon-neutral technologies of being shills regardless of whether they're suggesting that it's probably great for certain applications in other contexts and were doing so before you made your accusation.


SandAndAlum t1_j5sp0hl wrote

You're attacking solar derived energy and dog whistling fossil fuel hydrogen. The motivation is obvious. This 'just asking questions' act fools nobody.