It's actually quite ironic that renewable energy activism tends to completely ignore one critical resource it uses that also happens to be non-renewable: the land surface.
The challenge here is that the best renewable energy source (solar) uses three orders of magnitude (1000x) more land than the best non-renewable (gas).
To replace gas with nuclear you need pretty much the same area. But to replace gas with solar you suddenly need to find 1000x more extra space.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421518305512
If there's a scientific paper whose conclusions are not intuitive for you, your first reaction should be to read methodology rather than rather arrogantly rant about "bullshit".
Because your first question is already answered in the article and yes, the land usage already includes mining, manufacturing etc.
@kravietz A single of the newest wind turbine can power thousands of homes per year. How could gas possible compete with such power output in use of surface area? I'm deeply skeptical about the claim that the "best renewable energy source", which you call solar (instead of wind) uses more land than gas. And I'm also wondering if they've accounted for seafloor exploitation for natural gas, or if they're only counting for surface land uses. The tech needed to dig up offshore NG is quite involved.
If you're still wondering after reading it then I definitely cannot help you by paraphrasing it 🤷♂️
@kravietz And while green tech such as wind and solar can stay in place for decades after they're installed, with minor fixes and replacements along the way, the exploitation of gas is work that requires the continuous claiming of new land for harvesting gas deposits, which would also mean much higher use of secondary equipment, tools and services that should feed into the sum.
The reason this might be counter-intuitive is a widespread misconception that solar panels somehow arrive to this world made of pranic energy and just magically appear on the target site.
Unfortunately this is not the case. Solar panels are made entirely from metals that are mined, mining of which (especially cadmium, rare-earth metals) produce huge amounts of toxic waste which needs to be processed and stored.
@kravietz I'm not naïve about where solar panels come from. And the real counter-intuitiveness is how something that can power thousands of homes for decades over a small piece of land, should require more land in total than something that is in continuous need for new land over the same time frame, as well as in need for the making of new equipment used in exploring for gas deposits and laying new gas pipes to feed from the new deposits.
A 600 MW nuclear plant occupies maybe 0.5 km² and can run for 80 years at the same power 95% oftime.
A 500 MW solar plant occupies 2500 ha and will run for maybe 20 years with power output degrading over time, and only operating maybe 20% at full power.
Gas is a no-go anyway but Greens somehow prefer it.
And your second argument is not true either. Solar panels compete for sunlight with both plants and humans. Large solar farms in densely inhabited areas are an obvious residential and environmental concern. Wind farms are noisy and require that no trees are growing around, which was precisely the reason why they faced opposition in Sweden when they were forcing deers migrating away due to the noise.
@kravietz
Not to mention the toxic materials that go into making solar panels.
@kravietz It would be better if they could use recycled plastics (if possible) in the process, maybe?
@marathon @kravietz Plastics and recycling are not a solved problem. The most encountered "lie by omission" is the fact that you can't get the same quality plastics as the origin one only by recycling. This is true only for metals - melt copper, get copper.
"The material is then blended with
>>either virgin or recycled thermoplastics<<
to make a reinforced, filled thermoplastic pellet. The company can adjust the percentage of recycled fiberglass content depending on customers’ preferences. GFS can easily create a 50-50 blend, for example, although GFS expects most customers will want a lower level of fiberglass content, he said.
Generally speaking, the addition of the fiberglass boosts stiffness and sometimes strength, and it reduces thermal expansion, Englund said. On the other hand, it hampers impact strength.
>>Possible end products include decking and siding materials, containers, pallets, parking bollards and more.<<"
https://resource-recycling.com/plastics/2019/03/27/company-expands-wind-turbine-recycling-operation/
So to "recycle" plastics you need to find some application for it with lower requirements. But then we still get the poisonous effect of the microplastics all over the ecosystems. IMO this is called "a dead end".
The problems with wind turbine blades particularly (also a search with the keywords):
1) https://resource-recycling.com/plastics/2019/03/27/company-expands-wind-turbine-recycling-operation/
2) https://www.npr.org/2019/09/10/759376113/unfurling-the-waste-problem-caused-by-wind-energy?t=1592761448233
3) https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-03-09/a-recycling-plan-to-clear-wind-turbine-blades-from-graveyards
4) https://www.bbc.com/news/business-51325101
@_1751015
Good explanation.
@kravietz I'm not really in favor of 'solar farms' myself. There's plenty of urban area that can use solar panels. There are also vertical panels in development so they could cover the walls of really tall buildings.
@kravietz you ignore the fact that a lot of area is only usefull for solar: roofs, covers, buildings.
I don't ignore anything, I state the fact supported by the scientific data. Now *where* exactly you find that extra space is another topic and yes, residential solar panels do solve this challenge to some extent even if they have other issues.
@kravietz i'm not just talking about residential panels. But industry, warehouses, offices, malls, farmsteads, and so on.
It might not solve all energy needs, but no monoculture will. It requires a mix. And the amount of space where solar could lie without taking up any space is huge. In NL, for example, it allows 800% increase just putting panels on the obvious space.
Once done, one can start increasing the other energy sources in the 'mix'.
@kravietz I’m not sure most of the Sahara desert is going to be missed tbh. Global problems need global solutions. Also fewer golf courses sounds good to me...
@kravietz First: I call bullshit. How much areas are disturbed by harvesting, transporting, storing and consuming gas? And unless you're clearing forests I'm not sure the land used by solar and wind matters much. Lots of "useless" land lying about, like deserts, or areas either too cold or hot for significant vegetation. And the ground beneath to wind turbines and solar can still be utilized, it's not like it's totally useless.