Environment & Energy

Last edited Sun Jul 21, 2024, 11:38 PM - Edit history (2)

from https://www.democraticunderground.com/10143004710#post7

Solar comes out very well on concrete, but terrible on steel, glass, and other.

==============================================

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/02/14/bill-gates-concepts-to-understand-the-climate-crisis.html?&doc=107178583
Land use efficiency, watts/square meter:
fossil fuel: 500 to 10,000,
nuclear: 500 to 1000,
solar: 5 to 20,
wind: 1 to 2 -- that's 1 to 2 MW per square kilometer

Amount of square kilometers needed to produce 1 GW (1,000 MW), calculated from above:
Fossil fuel: 0.1 to 2 square kilometers
Nuclear: 1 to 2 square kilometers
Solar: 50 to 200 square kilometers
Wind: 500 to 1,000 square kilometers

A square kilometer is 0.3861 square miles,   A square mile is 2.590 square kilometers

As far as I know, the solar and wind figures above are for when they are the only use for the land they are on. In fairness, especially with wind, one can have wind turbines on actively-farmed farmland and grazing pastureland. There are also articles like on sheep grazing under solar panels, solar panels covering canals, and the like.

===========================================
While I'm at it, I'm reminded of this graphic (just so I have all this info that I know about in one place):

CO2 equivalent emissions of different power sources, grams/KWH (entire life cycle)

https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/energy-and-the-environment/carbon-dioxide-emissions-from-electricity
The site blocks one from seeing anything with an email solicitation but eventually that goes away, takes at least 30 seconds, grr



Figure 1: Average life-cycle CO2 equivalent emissions (source: IPCC)