I'm rather surprised you don't like ZeroHedge, it seems like it would be one of your favorite websites given how much it covers from a far/libertarian right perspective.
-
Please be sure to read the rules and adhere to them. Some banned members have complained that they are not spammers. But they spammed us. Some even tried to redirect our members to other forums. Duh. Be smart. Read the rules and adhere to them and we will all get along just fine. Cheers. :beer: Link to the rules: https://www.forumsforums.com/threads/forum-rules-info.2974/
Tesla’s New Record! / Musk Sparks OUTRAGE / California To Forbid All Tesla Sales (???) / Tesla News
- Thread starter 300 H and H
- Start date
Land Use by Electricity Source in Acres/MW ProducedI was curious about that so I started googling.
How many square miles of solar panels would it take to power the U.S.? It’s smaller than you think - Inovateus Solar
Have you ever wondered how many square miles of solar installations it would take to power the entire United States? The answer may be smaller than you think. An intriguing video by Solar City shared on the GOOD website in April 2016 takes viewers for a quick tour of what it would take to...inovateus.com
Looks like Elon stated this also I'm curious how accurate. Did you have a source for your statement? I would genuinely like to research this more. When I Google I keep getting Elon statements. Not to say that he's wrong, I'm just curious
Electricity Source Acres per Megawatt Produced
Coal 12.21
Natural Gas 12.41
Nuclear 12.71
Solar 43.5
Wind 70.64
Hydro 315.22
'The Footprint of Energy: Land Use of U.S. Electricity Production' • Watts Up With That?
Guest post by David Middleton The Strata group at Utah State University recently published a study on the "footprint of energy." For each energy source, the calculated the full-cycle land use required to generate 1 MW of electricity from each source of energy. Despite the fact that they included...
wattsupwiththat.com
And another source, basically says wind farms use 200x the amount of land as required for equivalent power generation of nuclear but obviously is taking into account the space between the turbines. As I live fairly close to, and drive thru, one of the largest wind farms in the midwest, I can tell you that they take up a lot of space, literally horizon line to horizon line and beyond as I drive through them for miles.
The Land Footprint of PV Solar (and Nuclear and Wind Power)
After I wrote An Ode to PV Solar Power, an article highlighting several unique and fascinating aspects of solar power (namely its physics…
chowderman
Well-known member
"traditional" estimates are 4-6 acres per megawatt - seriously more than the assumption - which apparently was generated by folks insisting solar will become technically much more efficient and all the old solar panels will instantly be replaced by the latest more efficient conversion panels . . . .
the 4 million mega-watt/hrs needed is a good number, except . . . . of course, that is "current usage" and does not include charging all cars/truck/semis plus heat pumps to replace . . . and electric water heaters to replace . . . and electric stoves to replace . . .
those "replacements" will increase "usage" by tenfold - per current estimating / methodology.
battery storage does not impact the land area required - actually increases it. ALL the energy need has to be generated during solar hours - whether it is used immediately or stored for later use. and the battery banks and switch gear require land area as well. relying on battery storage increases the generating capacity and the battery storage to cover "having a bad cloud day"
bottom line: 17,500 square miles is not an outrageous over or under estimate _for current usage_
but "current usage" don't feed the greenie dog....
multiple by 10.... that's some serious area needed....
wind farms are having their own debacles.... aside from the energy input to manufacture one, they are failing at a much much higher than predicted rate and essentially at an unsustainable failure rate. there has been no required 'failure rate tracking' - so it's based on news reports and company reporting. altho there is a mandatory failure reporting in the works /?/ approved - which should allow much more accurate analysis of how wind turbines are performing. at present, wind power is having real serious problems living up to the free energy bit. to wit, the Danish company who recently withdrew from a contact to build a mega-offshore wind farm when they were required to warranty the long term economic results. (government interference also had really big smidges to do with it . . . )
as mentioned by multiple posters - way far too much "information" is published by people/organizations/industries who generate "truth" / propaganda based on being seriously invested in their technology.
the 4 million mega-watt/hrs needed is a good number, except . . . . of course, that is "current usage" and does not include charging all cars/truck/semis plus heat pumps to replace . . . and electric water heaters to replace . . . and electric stoves to replace . . .
those "replacements" will increase "usage" by tenfold - per current estimating / methodology.
battery storage does not impact the land area required - actually increases it. ALL the energy need has to be generated during solar hours - whether it is used immediately or stored for later use. and the battery banks and switch gear require land area as well. relying on battery storage increases the generating capacity and the battery storage to cover "having a bad cloud day"
bottom line: 17,500 square miles is not an outrageous over or under estimate _for current usage_
but "current usage" don't feed the greenie dog....
multiple by 10.... that's some serious area needed....
wind farms are having their own debacles.... aside from the energy input to manufacture one, they are failing at a much much higher than predicted rate and essentially at an unsustainable failure rate. there has been no required 'failure rate tracking' - so it's based on news reports and company reporting. altho there is a mandatory failure reporting in the works /?/ approved - which should allow much more accurate analysis of how wind turbines are performing. at present, wind power is having real serious problems living up to the free energy bit. to wit, the Danish company who recently withdrew from a contact to build a mega-offshore wind farm when they were required to warranty the long term economic results. (government interference also had really big smidges to do with it . . . )
as mentioned by multiple posters - way far too much "information" is published by people/organizations/industries who generate "truth" / propaganda based on being seriously invested in their technology.
tommu56
Bronze Member
Nuclear power is the ticket!
All the problem plants were pressurized reactors of some sort or wacky heat transfer media to my knowledge (yes that might be limited) none of the boiling water reactors have had an issue.
Fukushima was an engineering nightmare putting the emergency generators below the plant essentially below sea level wasn’t the brightest of ideas for an backup power source.
Chernobyl media was graphite do any air that got in to system at the elevated temperatures and you know the result.
Stick with boiling water reactors tried and proven and more simple design.