Except it doesn’t work that way and it isn’t that simple, the article pokes a big hole in its own argument in the second sentence, the world, it’s spread out across the world. The crop land used for biofuel is hundreds or thousands of miles way from where the electricity would need to get to. The farmers would have nothing to farm and they would have to give up or lease their land to electric companies or the government. The entire infrastructure for utilities and farming would need to be torn down and rebuilt, it wouldn’t be practical for at least 2 generations once construction started, in that time we could be using a completely different form of fuel making solar obsolete.
The problem isn’t where to put panels but how to get electricity to the electric cars that are thousands of miles away from the farms and the farms are many miles from each other. Plus biofuels will never go away and we’ll need significant quantities for at least another hundred years.
Use old landfills or old quarries or building rooftops, their a lot closer to the cities. Why not use the windows of the buildings for thermal energy. Why not use the energy from our heating and cooling and plumbing systems to generate electricity. Plus we can do them all at the same time, it doesn’t have to be one or the other, put a windmill and solar panels and thermal on the same rooftop. Put steam turbines everywhere.
As another commentator points out, transportation of electricity and vehicles themselves are the major problems. Farmers that grow biofuels could conceivably shift to another crop, and many of the crops used for biofuels are routinely farmed for other uses (e.g., corn is animal feed and biofuel feed). In that regard, I disagree with the the argument that the entire infrastructure would have to be rebuilt.
the problem of getting electricity to cars is removed if we have better public transportation, though developing that infrastructure and reconfiguring the existing system (e.g., car-centric) is a much bigger problem. Regardless, you can still use solar for other uses (houses, industry) while you convert transportation slowly (and painfully, as we’ve really painted ourselves into a corner).
I do* like your take on alternate land uses for quarries (and mines! don’t forget those). Not all mines are close to cities, but some are. There’s a few really good example of mines installing solar panels on their reclaimed tailings storage facilities., or old mines being used for pumped hydro batteries.
The energy issue is multifaceted, and while it’s easy to say ‘just do nuclear’ ‘just do solar’ ‘just do hydro’, one size doesn’t fit all. However, the one thing that DOES fit, is how we have to start thinking about how to repurpose what we have already (e.g., windows as you point out) to suit our objectives of green energy.
Their right, in the sense of square acres.
Get ready for a rant.
Except it doesn’t work that way and it isn’t that simple, the article pokes a big hole in its own argument in the second sentence, the world, it’s spread out across the world. The crop land used for biofuel is hundreds or thousands of miles way from where the electricity would need to get to. The farmers would have nothing to farm and they would have to give up or lease their land to electric companies or the government. The entire infrastructure for utilities and farming would need to be torn down and rebuilt, it wouldn’t be practical for at least 2 generations once construction started, in that time we could be using a completely different form of fuel making solar obsolete.
The problem isn’t where to put panels but how to get electricity to the electric cars that are thousands of miles away from the farms and the farms are many miles from each other. Plus biofuels will never go away and we’ll need significant quantities for at least another hundred years.
Use old landfills or old quarries or building rooftops, their a lot closer to the cities. Why not use the windows of the buildings for thermal energy. Why not use the energy from our heating and cooling and plumbing systems to generate electricity. Plus we can do them all at the same time, it doesn’t have to be one or the other, put a windmill and solar panels and thermal on the same rooftop. Put steam turbines everywhere.
As another commentator points out, transportation of electricity and vehicles themselves are the major problems. Farmers that grow biofuels could conceivably shift to another crop, and many of the crops used for biofuels are routinely farmed for other uses (e.g., corn is animal feed and biofuel feed). In that regard, I disagree with the the argument that the entire infrastructure would have to be rebuilt.
the problem of getting electricity to cars is removed if we have better public transportation, though developing that infrastructure and reconfiguring the existing system (e.g., car-centric) is a much bigger problem. Regardless, you can still use solar for other uses (houses, industry) while you convert transportation slowly (and painfully, as we’ve really painted ourselves into a corner).
I do* like your take on alternate land uses for quarries (and mines! don’t forget those). Not all mines are close to cities, but some are. There’s a few really good example of mines installing solar panels on their reclaimed tailings storage facilities., or old mines being used for pumped hydro batteries.
The energy issue is multifaceted, and while it’s easy to say ‘just do nuclear’ ‘just do solar’ ‘just do hydro’, one size doesn’t fit all. However, the one thing that DOES fit, is how we have to start thinking about how to repurpose what we have already (e.g., windows as you point out) to suit our objectives of green energy.
Why? Because basic engineering will tell you that small areas of low quality waste heat isn’t something you turn into usable energy.
That’s the one sentence out of thay post I didn’t agree with a well.
It’s almost as if @kboos1@lemmy.world doesn’t know what the fuck they are talking about and is saying complete nonsense.