The Energy Dilemma

Aug 28, 2009 15:59

Well looky there..."green" energy sources require 5 to 100 times the amount of land that fossil sources such as coal require. Not saying that we shouldn't pursue these options, but they're certainly not a silver bullet ( Read more... )

work, energy

Leave a comment

Comments 6

fudjo August 28 2009, 20:55:37 UTC
As much as it's an inefficient program now, the Conservation Reserve Program gives subsidies to farms to have them use a portion of their land to plant high grass and other erosion-preventing measures in order to avoid another Dust Bowl. That program could become more significant if we end up needing more land for green energy sources.

Reply


allartburns August 28 2009, 21:17:14 UTC
Well, that kinda makes sense, as coal is basically supercondensed biomass, right?

On the one hand, land is something we have a lot of, and maybe exploiting it by pulling CO2 out of the air to create fuel would be better than pulling more CO2 out of the ground and putting it into the air.

On the other hand, we have huge amounts of "wasted" land right now that could be pulling CO2 out of the air. Converting a flat roof into a extensive green roof might not gain us me any energy production, but it would help *conserve* energy while taking CO2 out of the air.

Wonder if I can justify doing the arithmetic on that instead of working. Probably not. :-)

Reply


alicelee August 28 2009, 23:03:46 UTC
I have a soft spot for papers like this. :) Confession: I read the abstract, skimmed lightly, and pulled up figure 3.

Even sprawling solar photovoltaic uses less land than petroleum? Seriously? That's good news. As others here note, there are many ways to make better use of existing space (e.g., wind and grazing land seem well matched, and dual use does not mean losing habitat to energy. The authors raise this point themselves, along with a reminder that wind power does not do good things for bird populations.)

The paper sure makes a case for geothermal over biofuels.

Reply


talldean August 30 2009, 23:29:21 UTC
I think the problem becomes, eventually, we outbreed any sustainable amount of resource use.

Aren't you in Reno?

Reply

talldean August 30 2009, 23:32:00 UTC
It takes 150 tons of concrete to install a single wind turbine. They're interestingly resource-heavy.

Reply


unprotoize September 2 2009, 15:34:31 UTC
There are different types of land use, too - consider how nasty mountaintop removal is.

Reply


Leave a comment

Up