A different perspective on renewable energy

Red_Hack

Assistant Head Coach
Dec 20, 2005
10,225
13,549
113
No more than anyone wants an oil derick in thier back yard. Or high volt transmission lines.

Total of land needed for all wind and solar 10 times more than we need, is less than the footprint of all carbon based sourcing/processing/transportation current in use.

Infrastructure is not desirable no matter where. Rather a necessity.
 

burntorange72

First Team All-Big Ten
Gold Member
Mar 9, 2004
3,699
2,477
113
No more than anyone wants an oil derick in thier back yard. Or high volt transmission lines.

Total of land needed for all wind and solar 10 times more than we need, is less than the footprint of all carbon based sourcing/processing/transportation current in use.

Infrastructure is not desirable no matter where. Rather a necessity.
First the derick comes down once the well has been drilled. The article says it takes 43.5 acres per mega watt for solar vs 12. Something for gas or coal. Wind is worse at 70 acres per mega watt. Until we start to see solar panels on the south facing sides of office buildings and wind generation on the roofs I question how we can power the whole country on renewables.
 

cavalot

Head Coach
Gold Member
Oct 3, 2003
12,557
9,257
113
First the derick comes down once the well has been drilled. The article says it takes 43.5 acres per mega watt for solar vs 12. Something for gas or coal. Wind is worse at 70 acres per mega watt. Until we start to see solar panels on the south facing sides of office buildings and wind generation on the roofs I question how we can power the whole country on renewables.
I don't think we can... not entirely. Nuclear, wind, hydro, solar... should all be used to replace carbon based energy. Fact is carbon based energy is finite...

Various studies show that the total remaining recoverable oil resources would last 190 years, natural gas 230 years, and coal, a whopping 2900 years. These numbers apply if current rates of production hold for centuries to come, which may not be the case.

While Coal probably will outlasts human kind at the rate we are going, the others simply can not stand the test of time.

As much as the hard right hates people pushing for clean renewable energy, the fact is we must progress towards the inevitable fact that it is the way of the future.
 

Red_Hack

Assistant Head Coach
Dec 20, 2005
10,225
13,549
113
First the derick comes down once the well has been drilled. The article says it takes 43.5 acres per mega watt for solar vs 12. Something for gas or coal. Wind is worse at 70 acres per mega watt. Until we start to see solar panels on the south facing sides of office buildings and wind generation on the roofs I question how we can power the whole country on renewables.
You answered your own question. Rooftops. The second is offshore wind. And the 70 acres of use per Wind turbine does not prevent the 70 acres from being used.

And the Derick is not the only item chewing up space. You got processing, storage, pipelines, gas stations, and the list goes on. Same as using and providing Electricity.

Using your logic of 70 acres consumed by Wind, would then mean 8 million acres used by carbon production in North Dakota alone. More than enough land to produce the entire solar/wind needs of the USA

The point is, the entire argument of more or less land use is asinine.

There are many issues to get to green from brown. No need to make up points of contention that are not real.

The only issue we have is how to transition jobs from Carbon to Renewable and build an economic model that continues to generate revenue for our capitalist system. And how to justify the spending to get there.

That is an issue worth the time. The land use is a red herring.
 

sklarbodds

Administrator
Moderator
Nov 30, 2006
32,530
38,116
113
I'll chime in here.

Could we run the entire world on renewables? Yes.

Is that the goal we should be aiming for? No. At least not right at the moment.

Land is not an issue really (esp not in the US). The amount of area it would take to power the entire US with solar is like 100 sq miles and another like 5 sq miles for batteries. While not a small chunk of land, it's not really significant considering the size of the country.

Now obviously, this kind of design wouldn't work anyway because you'd lose a ton in transmission, but the notion that "we don't have enough room to go completely renewable" is absurd.



The reason we don't go full boar right now? Storage. We're not ready to put in enough energy storage to adequately handle the variability of renewables. Tons of new technologies are being worked on like underground gravity batteries, etc...but scaling up needs some work.

So, we look for the perfect (at the time) combination of Nuclear and Renewable.

Dems need to get the ____ off the anti-nuclear train. For real. Yes, there's nuclear byproduct but it PALES in comparison to coal or even NG. It's super clean and super efficient and super reliable.

Phase out by crappiness, end coal plants forever sooner than later.

Oh...and then let's bring on nuclear fusion and never worry about pollution again :)
 

DRay827

Senior
Gold Member
Aug 28, 2016
2,200
4,557
113
Lincoln, NE
I'll chime in here.

Could we run the entire world on renewables? Yes.

Is that the goal we should be aiming for? No. At least not right at the moment.

Land is not an issue really (esp not in the US). The amount of area it would take to power the entire US with solar is like 100 sq miles and another like 5 sq miles for batteries. While not a small chunk of land, it's not really significant considering the size of the country.

Now obviously, this kind of design wouldn't work anyway because you'd lose a ton in transmission, but the notion that "we don't have enough room to go completely renewable" is absurd.



The reason we don't go full boar right now? Storage. We're not ready to put in enough energy storage to adequately handle the variability of renewables. Tons of new technologies are being worked on like underground gravity batteries, etc...but scaling up needs some work.

So, we look for the perfect (at the time) combination of Nuclear and Renewable.

Dems need to get the ____ off the anti-nuclear train. For real. Yes, there's nuclear byproduct but it PALES in comparison to coal or even NG. It's super clean and super efficient and super reliable.

Phase out by crappiness, end coal plants forever sooner than later.

Oh...and then let's bring on nuclear fusion and never worry about pollution again :)
Totally agree that Dem's need to embrace Nuclear. In a House hearing yesterday, Granholm (Energy Secretary) suggested the Biden Admin knows they will need to subsidizing Nuclear in the short/medium term while renewables are scaled. I think we'll still need it long term, but it's a good starting point.
 

jja699

Sophomore
Gold Member
Oct 17, 2007
1,021
1,141
113
Hello carbon capture. 2900 years of coal keep burning it. Makes lots of jobs.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: sklarbodds

EriktheRed

Offensive Coordinator
Gold Member
Jul 1, 2001
8,180
6,961
113
Totally agree that Dem's need to embrace Nuclear. In a House hearing yesterday, Granholm (Energy Secretary) suggested the Biden Admin knows they will need to subsidizing Nuclear in the short/medium term while renewables are scaled. I think we'll still need it long term, but it's a good starting point.
I am 100% with you on this. If we are actually saying climate change is such a danger then nuclear needs to be part of the conversation.
 
Last edited:

DRay827

Senior
Gold Member
Aug 28, 2016
2,200
4,557
113
Lincoln, NE
I am 100% with you on this. If we are actually saying climate change is such a danger than nuclear needs to be part of the conversation.
For sure. If we can create nuclear energy, there's no reason we can't create better technology or processes to dispose of the toxic waste it produces. I feel like that's an R&D opportunity that's ripe for competition.
 
Last edited:

Hardlyboy

Offensive Coordinator
Gold Member
Jan 26, 2011
8,386
13,046
113
I'll chime in here.

Could we run the entire world on renewables? Yes.

Is that the goal we should be aiming for? No. At least not right at the moment.

Land is not an issue really (esp not in the US). The amount of area it would take to power the entire US with solar is like 100 sq miles and another like 5 sq miles for batteries. While not a small chunk of land, it's not really significant considering the size of the country.

Now obviously, this kind of design wouldn't work anyway because you'd lose a ton in transmission, but the notion that "we don't have enough room to go completely renewable" is absurd.



The reason we don't go full boar right now? Storage. We're not ready to put in enough energy storage to adequately handle the variability of renewables. Tons of new technologies are being worked on like underground gravity batteries, etc...but scaling up needs some work.

So, we look for the perfect (at the time) combination of Nuclear and Renewable.

Dems need to get the ____ off the anti-nuclear train. For real. Yes, there's nuclear byproduct but it PALES in comparison to coal or even NG. It's super clean and super efficient and super reliable.

Phase out by crappiness, end coal plants forever sooner than later.

Oh...and then let's bring on nuclear fusion and never worry about pollution again :)
Biden is on board with nuclear.

 

Bobfather

Athletic Director
Gold Member
Oct 6, 2002
14,562
7,469
113
50
Biden is on board with nuclear.

Th.e only nuclear thing Beijing Biden is on board with is letting Iran have nuclear weapons.....
 
  • Like
Reactions: IowaHuskerFan3

EriktheRed

Offensive Coordinator
Gold Member
Jul 1, 2001
8,180
6,961
113
Biden is on board with nuclear.

If he was he needs to have THIS as part of the infrastructure plan like it should be.
 

Red_Hack

Assistant Head Coach
Dec 20, 2005
10,225
13,549
113
Th.e only nuclear thing Beijing Biden is on board with is letting Iran have nuclear weapons.....
How can you prevent a country from doing what it wants? Who anointed you or any to determine someone else's future?

Way to contribute to the subject matter bob.
 
  • Like
Reactions: nelsonj22

Red_Hack

Assistant Head Coach
Dec 20, 2005
10,225
13,549
113
If he was he needs to have THIS as part of the infrastructure plan like it should be.
Everything and every option need to be on the table.

I am for heavy Carbon taxes with credits based on building new green energy solutions.

We also need incentives to move jobs from carbon to green.

And I think electric generation to produce hydrogen for storage is the only scalable method for Green.
 

burntorange72

First Team All-Big Ten
Gold Member
Mar 9, 2004
3,699
2,477
113
I'll chime in here.

Could we run the entire world on renewables? Yes.

Is that the goal we should be aiming for? No. At least not right at the moment.

Land is not an issue really (esp not in the US). The amount of area it would take to power the entire US with solar is like 100 sq miles and another like 5 sq miles for batteries. While not a small chunk of land, it's not really significant considering the size of the country.

Now obviously, this kind of design wouldn't work anyway because you'd lose a ton in transmission, but the notion that "we don't have enough room to go completely renewable" is absurd.



The reason we don't go full boar right now? Storage. We're not ready to put in enough energy storage to adequately handle the variability of renewables. Tons of new technologies are being worked on like underground gravity batteries, etc...but scaling up needs some work.

So, we look for the perfect (at the time) combination of Nuclear and Renewable.

Dems need to get the ____ off the anti-nuclear train. For real. Yes, there's nuclear byproduct but it PALES in comparison to coal or even NG. It's super clean and super efficient and super reliable.

Phase out by crappiness, end coal plants forever sooner than later.

Oh...and then let's bring on nuclear fusion and never worry about pollution again :)
Well let me respond. The solar array of which you speak was proposed by Elon Musk as 100km by 100 km or as we think of it about 100 miles square, not 100 square miles. But your point is still valid and accurate, the amount of land needed to replace all of the electricity used in the US with solar is not significant in the total land area of the US.
the second point of the article is what I thought was more interesting. Not so many people want a renewable energy source in their backyard. I recall years ago a power company wanted to build wind turbines offshore and over the horizon at Martha’s Vineyard. That happened to be where Ted Kennedy like to sail and he stopped the construction. Point being everyone like renewables until it comes to your neighborhood.
Nebraska farmers and native Americans in the Dakotas had a fit about the location of the Keystone pipeline. Once the line is in the ground you never know it’s there. If I were to propose a transmission line along that same route how do you suppose that would be received?
I'm not against renewables. I’m just reminding folks that it’s easy to wave your arms and advocate. It’s more difficult to deal with the details especially when it affects you.
As to nuclear, I support it generally and the new reactor designs specifically would be a good thing. But after Fukushima and Chernobyl , it’s going to be an uphill push to get public support to build new nuclear facilities.

so for the time being I’m in the all of the above camp.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: jja699

Red_Hack

Assistant Head Coach
Dec 20, 2005
10,225
13,549
113
the second point of the article is what I thought was more interesting. Not so many people want a renewable energy source in their backyard. I recall years ago a power company wanted to build wind turbines offshore and over the horizon at Martha’s Vineyard. That happened to be where Ted Kennedy like to sail and he stopped the construction. Point being everyone like infrastructure until it comes to your neighborhood.
See this is misleading. Nobody wants ANY infrastructure in their backyard. Be it a Coal Plant, Nuclear, Wind, Interstate, refinery, sewage plant, Oil storage, solar arrays, Ethanol plant, etc, etc, etc, etc.
 
  • Like
Reactions: nelsonj22

sklarbodds

Administrator
Moderator
Nov 30, 2006
32,530
38,116
113
the second point of the article is what I thought was more interesting. Not so many people want a renewable energy source in their backyard. I recall years ago a power company wanted to build wind turbines offshore and over the horizon at Martha’s Vineyard. That happened to be where Ted Kennedy like to sail and he stopped the construction. Point being everyone like renewables until it comes to your neighborhood.
Nebraska farmers and native Americans in the Dakotas had a fit about the location of the Keystone pipeline. Once the line is in the ground you never know it’s there. If I were to propose a transmission line alone that same route how do you suppose that be received?
It's not an invalid point, but it's also not as big of a impediment as the article lets on IMO.

A lot of farmers like the steady income it generates and some of the more "farmer" states have been the highest adopters...Iowa, Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, South Dakota...these are exactly the people you are talking about who are signing up for wind power in droves:

8E11ZIr.png
 
  • Like
Reactions: nelsonj22

burntorange72

First Team All-Big Ten
Gold Member
Mar 9, 2004
3,699
2,477
113
See this is misleading. Nobody wants ANY infrastructure in their backyard. Be it a Coal Plant, Nuclear, Wind, Interstate, refinery, sewage plant, Oil storage, solar arrays, Ethanol plant, etc, etc, etc, etc.
Of course that’s right but the thread is about renewables.
 

jja699

Sophomore
Gold Member
Oct 17, 2007
1,021
1,141
113
It's not an invalid point, but it's also not as big of a impediment as the article lets on IMO.

A lot of farmers like the steady income it generates and some of the more "farmer" states have been the highest adopters...Iowa, Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, South Dakota...these are exactly the people you are talking about who are signing up for wind power in droves:

8E11ZIr.png
Just keep them from our ranch in the Sandhills. Idc otherwise lol. They are having a hell of time getting, the high power line approved. Part of the trouble is the people making decisions. They don’t know a damn thing about the part of the country. They wanna come across the most sandy parts. There big trucks will be stuck so many times.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Red_Hack

Red_Hack

Assistant Head Coach
Dec 20, 2005
10,225
13,549
113
Just keep them from our ranch in the Sandhills. Idc otherwise lol. They are having a hell of time getting, the high power line approved. Part of the trouble is the people making decisions. They don’t know a damn thing about the part of the country. They wanna come across the most sandy parts. There big trucks will be stuck so many times.
The same old problem with the goverment. People making decisions that have no clue what the impact is.
 

Red_Hack

Assistant Head Coach
Dec 20, 2005
10,225
13,549
113
Of course that’s right but the thread is about renewables.
When the point of view in the article is no one wants Windmills by their house. Yes, yes it is relevant. The point is trying to besmirch renewables based on that fact and land use. That is the WHOLE point of the thread and article by OP.

No one wants a prison either.
 
  • Like
Reactions: nelsonj22

sklarbodds

Administrator
Moderator
Nov 30, 2006
32,530
38,116
113
Part of the trouble is the people making decisions. They don’t know a damn thing about the part of the country. They wanna come across the most sandy parts. There big trucks will be stuck so many times.

The same old problem with the goverment. People making decisions that have no clue what the impact is.
Yep. Government is sometimes impossibly bad at doing stuff
 
  • Like
Reactions: nelsonj22

Hardlyboy

Offensive Coordinator
Gold Member
Jan 26, 2011
8,386
13,046
113
Is it? Not doubting you but I'd like to read it, do you have a link?

Here you go.

“The President is calling on Congress to enable the manufacture of those cars, ports, pumps, and clean materials, as well as critical technologies like advanced nuclear reactors and fuel, here at home through a $46 billion investment in federal buying power, creating good-paying jobs and reinvigorating local economies, especially in rural areas.”

“leverage the carbon pollution-free energy provided by existing sources like nuclear and hydropower.”

“his plan will invest $15 billion in demonstration projects for climate R&D priorities, including utility-scale energy storage, carbon capture and storage, hydrogen, advanced nuclear,”

 

EriktheRed

Offensive Coordinator
Gold Member
Jul 1, 2001
8,180
6,961
113
Here you go.

“The President is calling on Congress to enable the manufacture of those cars, ports, pumps, and clean materials, as well as critical technologies like advanced nuclear reactors and fuel, here at home through a $46 billion investment in federal buying power, creating good-paying jobs and reinvigorating local economies, especially in rural areas.”

“leverage the carbon pollution-free energy provided by existing sources like nuclear and hydropower.”

“his plan will invest $15 billion in demonstration projects for climate R&D priorities, including utility-scale energy storage, carbon capture and storage, hydrogen, advanced nuclear,”

It sounds very vague, but wish it mentioned building more plants. I do see tech for advanced reactors, but that is years and years down the line. We need to replace coal with Nuclear like now.
 

HUSKERinLA

College Football Hall of Fame
Gold Member
Nov 25, 2007
21,134
24,577
113
I'll chime in here.

Could we run the entire world on renewables? Yes.

Is that the goal we should be aiming for? No. At least not right at the moment.

Land is not an issue really (esp not in the US). The amount of area it would take to power the entire US with solar is like 100 sq miles and another like 5 sq miles for batteries. While not a small chunk of land, it's not really significant considering the size of the country.

Now obviously, this kind of design wouldn't work anyway because you'd lose a ton in transmission, but the notion that "we don't have enough room to go completely renewable" is absurd.



The reason we don't go full boar right now? Storage. We're not ready to put in enough energy storage to adequately handle the variability of renewables. Tons of new technologies are being worked on like underground gravity batteries, etc...but scaling up needs some work.

So, we look for the perfect (at the time) combination of Nuclear and Renewable.

Dems need to get the ____ off the anti-nuclear train. For real. Yes, there's nuclear byproduct but it PALES in comparison to coal or even NG. It's super clean and super efficient and super reliable.

Phase out by crappiness, end coal plants forever sooner than later.

Oh...and then let's bring on nuclear fusion and never worry about pollution again :)
**** nuclear.

Sun, wind, and kombucha only!
 

nelsonj22

Nebraska Football Hall of Fame
Gold Member
Sep 27, 2014
19,192
20,211
113
First the derick comes down once the well has been drilled. The article says it takes 43.5 acres per mega watt for solar vs 12. Something for gas or coal. Wind is worse at 70 acres per mega watt. Until we start to see solar panels on the south facing sides of office buildings and wind generation on the roofs I question how we can power the whole country on renewables.
Really? How in the Fook are they getting 70 acres?

Around us they take up 3-5acres tops and that's with their driveway back into the field to it. that is a 2.4 megawatt Windmill.
 

nelsonj22

Nebraska Football Hall of Fame
Gold Member
Sep 27, 2014
19,192
20,211
113
100km by 100 km or as we think of it about 100 miles square, not 100 square miles
100km x 100km is only 39% of the area of 100miles x 100 miles, they are in no way close to similar other than the number 100 is in both.
 

nelsonj22

Nebraska Football Hall of Fame
Gold Member
Sep 27, 2014
19,192
20,211
113
It's not an invalid point, but it's also not as big of a impediment as the article lets on IMO.

A lot of farmers like the steady income it generates and some of the more "farmer" states have been the highest adopters...Iowa, Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, South Dakota...these are exactly the people you are talking about who are signing up for wind power in droves:

8E11ZIr.png
Why wouldn't you, paid well and can still farm withing 20 yards of the base 🤷‍♂️
 

Red_Hack

Assistant Head Coach
Dec 20, 2005
10,225
13,549
113
Really? How in the Fook are they getting 70 acres?

Around us they take up 3-5acres tops and that's with their driveway back into the field to it. that is a 2.4 megawatt Windmill.
70 acres has merit. And I say more like 100. Reson is due to moving shadows. Area is unsuitable for practical human use. Not that it cannot be used for other purposes. But I have sat through the presentation made to a board I was on. And there is an issue.

But both numbers (yours, theirs) are misleading. And the truth is in the middle.

Only point that really matters, is we have land galore suitable for renewables. And land owners can make some money. Masses and masses of near empty land.
 
  • Like
Reactions: nelsonj22

nelsonj22

Nebraska Football Hall of Fame
Gold Member
Sep 27, 2014
19,192
20,211
113
70 acres has merit. And I say more like 100. Reson is due to moving shadows. Area is unsuitable for practical human use. Not that it cannot be used for other purposes. But I have sat through the presentation made to a board I was on. And there is an issue.

But both numbers (yours, theirs) are misleading. And the truth is in the middle.

Only point that really matters, is we have land galore suitable for renewables. And land owners can make some money. Masses and masses of near empty land.
Huh I have hunted and fished within a 100 acre circle of windmills and I guess the shadows didn't bother me 🤷‍♂️

What about the shadows make it unsuitable for human use?
 

Red_Hack

Assistant Head Coach
Dec 20, 2005
10,225
13,549
113
Huh I have hunted and fished within a 100 acre circle of windmills and I guess the shadows didn't bother me 🤷‍♂️

What about the shadows make it unsuitable for human use?
Correct if your not in them constantly. Why I said practical use. Fast moving shadows interact with our primal instincts. Constant exposure has a negative effect on some people.

Study was on where they could be placed. By a school, a playground, golf course, prision, etc. And what the impact would be. Plus the distance they could be placed.

There are two numbers used. Zone and used. 70 acres is a windmill zone, and 5 acres are used. The 65 acres can be used, for anything up to human habitation.

I not saying that is what is used, but it was what was presented.

The onlt real question is renewables or not? And the only answer is why would you waste something as precious as oil, for anything other that you absolutely had too, if there are alternatives. And there are. There is zero upside to continued waste of carbon fuel. Karens driving accross town in their suburban to get there hair done, while sipping a bottle of water, while burning 2 gallons of a substance that is absolutely critical to modern life, is a complete waste, when we can do the same with a windmill and electric car.

Not land use, not climate change, nada.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: nelsonj22

nelsonj22

Nebraska Football Hall of Fame
Gold Member
Sep 27, 2014
19,192
20,211
113
Correct if your not in them constantly. Why I said practical use. Fast moving shadows interact with our primal instincts. Constant exposure has a negative effect on some people.

Study was on where they could be placed. By a school, a playground, golf course, etc. And what the impact would be. Plus the distance they could be placed.

There are two numbers used. Zone and used. 70 acres is a windmill zone, and 5 acres are used. The 65 acres can be used, for anything up to human habitation.
Thanks, didn't know it messed with people.
 

burntorange72

First Team All-Big Ten
Gold Member
Mar 9, 2004
3,699
2,477
113
Huh I have hunted and fished within a 100 acre circle of windmills and I guess the shadows didn't bother me 🤷‍♂️

What about the shadows make it unsuitable for human use?
I assume it would be related to flicker vertigo in some way. I have also heard people complain very low vibration or humming they swear comes from wind turbines. They say you feel it more than hear it.

I know farmers who get royalties from oil wells on their land that still hate to plow around the well site. I think they would have the same complaint about wind turbines and especially transmission towers. But the real point is the power companies are going to have to fight for locations and right of ways. Renewable infrastructure is not going to be built-out without push back. And this is not going to just come from oil companies. It’s going to come from the same environmental groups that pushed back on hydrocarbon. Can this all get done by 2035?
 

Latest posts