paulfdietz

paulfdietz OP t1_j5mbw57 wrote

> What is the more reliable, albeit slightly more expensive way to produce and equivalent amount of beef at the equovalent rate to that which is already being produced on agricultural land?

Animal feed can be made from microorganisms grown on synthetic chemicals. This was done half a century ago:

https://collection.sciencemuseumgroup.org.uk/objects/co8452715/pruteen-sample-sample-synthetic-protein

The methanol there was made from natural gas, but it could be equally made from CO2 reacted with hydrogen produced by electrolysis.

> Additionally, how many new agricultural projects are slated to begin on protected land?

That's not the point. How much land could go back to wilderness if we weren't growing food on it? You are arbitrarily ruling out the value of land converted back to wilderness in this fashion, privileging food production on existing land for no reason other than inertia.

But suppose we go along with that, and just stick with existing farmland and consider it usable for any purpose just because we're already using it. Converting some of that farmland to PV collectors, and then allowing beef to become a bit more expensive (perhaps making some synthetic feed to compensate), would be a profitable thing to do -- the value of energy from PV on former agricultural land would be at least an order of magnitude higher than the value of the animal feed produced on that land. Would you object to this? If so, why?

> You're the one claiming they're the same thing.

In economic analysis, we can trade X off against Y. The tradeoff is based on the economic value of the activities. If land in a wild state has value, it has value regardless of whether we were considering to use that land for farming or for solar energy collection (or for any other use.)

The central point here is that farming doesn't deliver all that much value per acre. Why are you so hung up on preserving this, but objecting to the far more lucrative use of that land for PV? Your position is hypocritical.

2

paulfdietz OP t1_j5lee3x wrote

I'm disagreeing that the equivalency is false.

I want you to explain how one can consider eating beef to be in any way different from using the land to instead make energy for industrial society. Why the inequivalence? Why is beef production somehow morally privileged? Justify, don't just assert.

2

paulfdietz OP t1_j5kqz4v wrote

Most food is entertainment. Food just for human existence requires far less land than food that satisfies aesthetic concerns. For example, beef is enjoyed by many people, and it wastes something like 90% of the calories in the feed that goes to fattening the cattle.

So, most of the land used to grow food in the US is for making life more enjoyable, just like ultimately all the things are that energy is used for.

2

paulfdietz OP t1_j5k0wwf wrote

Land use is a complete canard.

We can estimate the value that society gives to putting land into a wild state by looking at other uses of land. In particular, we can look at agriculture. The value of crops produced per acre is not much. It's an order of magnitude less than the value of electrical energy produced by putting a PV field over that same land.

If the "wilderness value" of land were an obstacle to use of PV, it would absolutely be a showstopper for agriculture. And yet society doesn't treat agriculture that way at all (for example, by banning raising of crops for animal feed). So I conclude society doesn't value wilderness to an extent that would present any real obstacle to mass rollout of PV.

3

paulfdietz OP t1_j5jmdpk wrote

Reliability is encompassed by cheapness, though. You deal with intermittency by adding storage and CO2-free backup, and this appears to be cheaper than doing things with nuclear.

For example: you can back up the entire grid with combustion turbines burning hydrogen or other non-fossil fuel. A combined cycle power plant has a capital cost of about $1/W, a simple cycle one, $0.50/W. Compare this to the nuclear plant at $10-20/W.

2

paulfdietz OP t1_j5cvxag wrote

Yes. We can do it without using any excessive amount of any rare material. Storage can be done with cheap materials available in essentially unlimited amounts (steel, for example). The materials required are small compared to the materials used by industrial society as a whole.

You should have realized that your claim there requires that you know that no possible storage technology or combinations thereof could do the job. You are making a very strong claim that would require exhaustive analysis of all known or possible storage technologies that I am sure you have not performed. The claim that it could be done only requires finding some specific counterexamples.

5

paulfdietz OP t1_j5csu19 wrote

The existing capacity is not relevant, because as long as most power is coming from burning fossil fuels such storage is pointless.

Pumped hydro would be installed off river. It does not require flooding any significant watercourses. The area flooded would be small compared to the area used by other human activities.

3