Which is more environmentally friendly — an energy source that uses one unit of land to produce one unit of electricity, or a source that uses 100 units of land to produce one unit of electricity?
The answer should be obvious.
Nevertheless, “green” energy advocates call for a huge expansion of wind, solar and other renewables that use vast amounts of land to replace traditional power plants that use comparatively small amounts of land.
Vaclav Smil, professor emeritus at the University of Manitoba in Canada, extensively analyzed the power density of alternative sources used to generate electricity.
He defined power density as the average flow of electricity generated per square meter of horizontal surface (land or sea area).
Estimating power density is complex. Smil included plant area, storage yards, mining sites, agricultural fields, pipelines and transportation, and other associated land and sea areas in his analysis.
Smil’s work allows us to compare the energy density of electricity sources.
If we set a nuclear plant to one unit of land required for one unit of electricity output, then:
A natural gas-powered plant requires about 0.8 units of land to produce one unit of output.
A coal-fired plant uses about 1.4 units of land to deliver one unit of power.
But renewable sources require vastly more land.
A standalone solar facility requires about 100 units of land to deliver the same average electricity output as a nuclear plant that uses one unit of land.
A wind facility uses about 35 units of land, if only the concrete wind tower pads and service roads are counted, but over 800 units of land for the entire area spanned by a typical wind installation.
Production of electricity from biomass has the poorest energy density, requiring over 1,500 units of land to output one unit of electricity, such as willow trees for co-firing with coal
As a practical example, compare the Ivanpah Solar Electric Generating System in the eastern California desert to the Diablo Canyon Nuclear Plant near Avila Beach, California.
The Ivanpah facility produces about 793 GWh/y and covers an area of 3,500 acres.
The Diablo Canyon facility generates about 16,165 GWh/y on a surface area of 750 acres.
The nuclear plant delivers more than 20 times the average output on about one-fifth of the land, or 100 times the power density of the solar facility.
To approach even 50 percent renewable electricity using primarily wind and solar systems, the land requirements are gigantic.
“Net-Zero America,” a 2020 study published by Princeton University, calls for wind and solar to supply 50% U.S. electricity by 2050, up from about 14 percent today.
The study estimated that this expansion would require about 228,000 square miles of new land, not including the additional area needed for transmission lines.
That is larger than the combined area of Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, West Virginia and Wisconsin.
This area would be more than 100 times as large as the physical footprint of the coal and natural gas power systems that would be replaced.
.
.
Taking land for wind and solar can seriously impact the environment.
Standalone solar systems blanket fields and deserts, blocking sunlight and driving out plants and animals.
Since 2000, about 16 million trees were cut down in Scotland to improve the wind conditions for wind turbines, a total of more than 1,700 trees felled per day, that were sequestering CO2, the natural, low-cost way.
This environmental devastation will increase the longer net-zero goals are pursued.
Wind and solar require vast amounts of land to generate the electricity required by modern society.
Without Media-caused fears about climate change, these systems would be considered environmentally damaging.
Net-zero plans for 2050, "powered" by wind and solar, will encounter obstacles with transmission, zoning, local opposition and just plain space that are probably impossible to overcome.
CAVEATS REGARDING COSTS AND CO2 REDUCTION
US/UK 56,000 MW OF OFFSHORE WIND BY 2030; AN EXPENSIVE FANTASY
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/biden-30-000-mw-of-off...
EXCERPT
1) Cost of Counteracting/Balancing due to Variable Wind and Solar Outputs
Variable/intermittent wind and solar requires a fleet of quick-responding, counteracting/balancing power plants, usually combined-cycle, gas-turbine plants, CCGTs, and hydro plants, with adequate nearby fuel supply to cover all circumstances, fully staffed, and kept in good working order, to immediately perform service, on a less than minute-by-minute basis, 24/7/365, as demanded by the independent grid operator, such as ISO-NE, especially:
1) During days with variable cloudiness
2) During days with panels covered with snow and ice
3) During days with foggy conditions
4) During its near-total absence from late afternoon/early evening to mid-morning the next day.
5) During the peak demand hours of late afternoon/early evening, when wind and solar usually are minimal
6) During simultaneous wind/solar lulls, when the output of both is minimal for up to 5 to 7 days, sometimes followed by another multi-day wind/solar lull.
Without that fleet of counteracting power plants, variable wind/solar power could not be fed into the grid.
That means, wind/solar power cannot ever function on its own.
The more wind/solar fed to the grid, the greater the fleet capacity, MW, of traditional power plants required to be in counteracting/balancing mode.
Wind/Solar Lulls: These URLs provide examples of multi-day, simultaneous wind/solar lull conditions in Germany and New England
http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/wind-plus-solar-plus-storage-in-new-england
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/wind-and-solar-energy-lulls-energy-storage-in-germany
The grid counteracting/balancing costs are almost entirely due to the variations and intermittencies of wind and solar, because the fleet power plants have to operate far from their efficient modes of operation, 24/7/365. These plants experience:
1) More up/down production at lesser efficiencies; more Btu/kWh, more CO2/kWh, more c/kWh
2) More wear-and-tear, due to up/down production and more starts/stops; more Btu/kWh, more CO2/kWh, more c/kWh
4) Increased hot, synchronous (3,600 rpm), standby plant capacity, MW, to immediately provide power, if wind/solar generation suddenly decreases, or any other power system outage occurs.
5) Increased cold, standby plant capacity, MW, to provide power after a plant’s start-up period.
When wind and solar were only a very small percent of the electricity loaded onto the NE grid, those counteracting/balancing costs were minimal, i.e., “buried in the data noise of the grid”
Wind/solar became 28.4% of the 312 TWh of electricity loaded onto the UK grid in 2020; excludes net imports
The counteracting/balancing costs were £1.3 billion ($1.65 billion) in 2020, likely even more in 2021, 2022, 2023.
The US cost would be about 4000/312 x 1.65 = $21.2 billion, on a pro-rated basis, if 28.4% wind/solar loaded onto the US grid.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/514874/energy-mix-uk/
Those costs should have been charged to the Owners of wind and solar systems (the grid disturbers), but, in reality, they were politically shifted to taxpayers, ratepayers, and government debts.
Those costs are in addition to the various government subsidies, which are also politically shifted to taxpayers, ratepayers, and government debts.
2) Cost of Grid Extension/Reinforcement to Connect Wind and Solar Systems
Variable/intermittent wind and solar requires a significant extension/reinforcement of the grid.
The estimated capital cost of upgrading the UK grid for Net Zero by 2050 is about £200 Billion, which would be at least $2.0 TRILLION for the US, on a pro-rated basis, such as based on grid load or GDP.
A significant portion of those costs should be charged to the Owners of wind and solar systems (the grid disturbers), but, in reality, they will be politically shifted to taxpayers, ratepayers, and government debts.
Those costs are in addition to the various government wind/solar subsidies, which will also be politically shifted to taxpayers, ratepayers, and government debts.
3) CO2 Reduction, due to Wind, less than Claimed
In Ireland, with 17% wind loaded onto the Irish grid in 2012, the officially claimed CO2 reduction of grid CO2/kWh was 17%
However, analysis of 15-minute grid operating data and fuel consumption data of each power plant connected to the grid, showed, it was only 0.526 x 17% = 8.94%, due to inefficient operation of the other power plants, when counteracting/balancing the variable output of wind, as above described.
The only reason Ireland finally had to admit the lesser CO2 reduction, is because public pressures forced the government to hold hearings on why Irish gas imports had not decreased, as predicted.
The UK, with 28.4% wind and solar in 2020, has a CO2-reduction factor significantly less than 0.526, because even more counteracting/balancing is required.k
Ireland, the UK, US, Germany, Spain, etc., have been over claiming CO2 reduction from wind/solar for decades. See explanation in URL
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/fuel-and-co2-reduction...
4) Germany, Denmark, etc., Using Nearby Grids to Counteract/Balance Their Variable Wind and Solar
Germany and Denmark have been doing that for decades, as they increased their wind and solar buildouts.
Germany has strong connections to the grids of nearby countries, including Norway, which is connected to Norgrid, which has lots of hydro in Sweden and Norway and nuclear in Sweden, all steady, traditional sources of electricity.
There was quite some panic in 2021, well before Ukraine events, which started in February 2022, when, because of low water and low wind in Europe, Norway and France could not export electricity to Germany.
Germany had to restart coal plants and keep its 3 remaining nuclear plants in service longer than intended.
Germany cannot counteract/balance its own wind and solar, and when wind was lacking, it did not have a sufficient fleet of traditional counteracting/balancing plants, staffed, fueled, and with adequate fuel storage to provide 24/7/365 electricity.
Germany had to impose rationing measures on its industry and households.
You need to be a member of Citizens' Task Force on Wind Power - Maine to add comments!
Join Citizens' Task Force on Wind Power - Maine