Besides we can still use that same land for crops with agrivoltaics
Instructions unclear, re-invaded Poland.
“they were invited” german tour guide in family guy
O kurwa, znowu to samo.
Turns out turning sunlight into food and then burning it is very inefficient, who could have guessed /s
It’s not an inefficient way to turn political donations into federal subsidies though, and that’s the real point of it. It’s horribly inefficient, worse pollution, worse mileage, takes as much energy to make as they get from it, leads to overuse of chemicals that get everywhere, and raises food prices.
None of that matters a whit, because it turns donations to lawmakers into huge subsidies to agribusiness, the majority of which get claimed by the few remaining gatekeeping conglomerates in the agricultural sector.
Biofuels are a scam. They get worse mileage, it takes as much energy to make as it produces, the pollution is worse, it leads to toxic chemicals from the agriculture being introduced into the environment, and it raises the price of food.
All those talking points are courtesy of gas and oil. Any farming means toxic chemicals, ethanols only take energy because renewable sources are not used for distillation, and no farming used for ethanol comes from food crops.
Most of the corn grown in the US is not edible, it is grown to make oils, sugar and plastics. Biofuels are carbon capture, the carbon released from burning is captured in a cycle for growth in the next season. But NY has several PR firms paid millions a years to counter biofuels , but in countries like Brazil where biofuels are common, people prefer E90 because of lower cost and motors lasting longer because of no gasoline burning by-products.
lol okay I get being suspicious of oil and gas bs, but some of what you said about ethanol is just not right…
In the US most ethanol is made from corn. It’s usually field corn, not the kind you eat like corn on the cob, but it’s still part of the food system. It turns into animal feed and all the corn ingredients in processed food, so saying “no ethanol comes from food crops” doesn’t really hold up.
Also yeah you could power the distillation with renewables, cool, but that doesn’t magically fix the bigger issues people point to: growing more corn usually means more fertilizer and more runoff and more land pressure. You know how much fertilizer corn takes?
That’s not just “oil talking points,” that’s just what happens when you scale it… i’m not saying ethanol is pure evil or whatever, but dismissing the criticism as all oil propaganda is doing the same thing in reverse. It’s certainly not the climate justice solution they’ve sold it as.
It’s unfortunate the arguments are in favor of oil, but they are true, those aren’t arguments the oil companies made through their bullshit mercenary scientific outfits, those are from real studies that have been made and reported on by real scientists and do gooders over the decades. And reported in real publications, from newspapers, back when those still existed, to periodicals.
The pesticides and fertilizers from corn are not something to slough off, it’s systematic pollution at this point, and they use more and worse chemicals for the stuff that’s not for human consumption.
A good share of corn is used to make ethanol, I don’t doubt they use the leftovers from that to make plastics, that’s exactly the problem it drives food prices up taking away agricultural land by subsidizing inefficient fuel production, started during the Bush Administration by the way, the ultimate whores to big oil.
Corn oil and syrup/sugar, is for human consumption, and included in what we call food. It’s also subsidized and driving bad outcomes but that’s another story. 5% of the continental united states is corn. 5% of the total land in the lower 48 is devoted to corn. Think about that. There is only one larger crop, grass. Worthless lawns, although Idk if that is measured in land coverage or weight of the product to be honest.
Unfortunate that the person that made this article shot themself in the back of the head 3 times with a long range rifle just after making this.
??
Both authors seem to be alive:
Is this a pessimistic joke like movie’s where someone creates cold fusion so the government is after them to cover it up?
Yes
I only really asked because of the upvotes. It’s a bit upsetting how pessimistic the audience is
If you write movie’s, why don’t you also write author’s?
I’m on a phone (swipe autocomplete) and it was 4am when I couldn’t sleep (poor proofing)? You got upvote’s, impressive. <- Left another there for you
There are so many places we could install solar before we even have to touch agriculture.
Rooftop solar is expensive for a lot of people unfortunately because it’s paid by the household installing them (government subsidies help, but even if gvt is paying 50% of your 20k solar install, 10k is still a lot of money). But there’s ways for businesses and municipalities to install solar.
Without getting into reducing car dependency (which is also important), I maintain that every car park of any significant size should have solar. We’re going electric anyway, this makes the EV chargers slightly cheaper to operate (and when nobody is charging, should make some money back) and there’d be shade in the summer, as well as slight protection from snow in the winter. Everyone wins. The owner of the solar, the people parking, etc.
Mandating rooftop solar on all non-historic government buildings at any level of government would also be helpful. I’m sure there could be countries already doing it - I’m advocating for more countries to start doing it.
Also for businesses and communities to install solar, there’s crowdfinancing apps to get loans. Goparity has a bunch of solar projects. I’ve contributed negligible sums to a few, figuring that it might be a riskier investment than say index funds, but at the very least I’m contributing to something good happening to the planet I live on. There are other alternatives too, that’s just the one I’m using.
What they’re saying is this is only tangentially agriculture. We grow crops, process them, and make additives for fuel or just fuel. If we stopped doing all that, we could provide enough electricity to make all the cars electric.
This, of course, doesn’t take into consideration things such as battery requirements, etc. but it does give perspective on just how much land is being used for some small fraction of car fuel, and how absurd biofuel is, given how little we actually use relative to our overall fuel use.
Edit: everything else you said is true, but even turning biofuel land into grazing land and having it covered by solar panels would be more useful. And we need more batteries.
We’re not going battery electric. We’re going bus grid electric and bicycle.
Legislation for solar roofs on car parks is a great start. It’s a win-win for space usage, just a more expensive installation. Korea just did some
Or you could just do ground mount arrays somewhere because it’s way cheaper to install and who cares about a 1% or whatever change in land usage.
Ground-mount is good economically, but ecologically not so much.
If we can build more Solar + Storage (SS) in suburban and urban contexts, then we can capitalize on the land that’s already being used for human purposes - leaving other land able to be rewilded.
I grew up in the Midwest of the US, and as I got older it was so disheartening to see how chopped up the natural world is in between large fields of corns, soy, and wheat. I don’t want the land that’s being used currently for industrial agriculture to be used for utility-scale solar. But I realize my wishes and dreams don’t mean much when the people that own these properties have financial incentives to build solar anyways.
I think we need to have more legislation about re-wilding and regenerating nature in the US apart from conserving what we have. Building solar on the already built environment is one way to prevent barriers to that regeneration.
In a perfect world sure but I categorically refuse to care about the land usage of solar when we waste so much more land on stuff that is actively harming the planet. Once the cost of moving the grid to 100% renewables is no longer the barrier then we should care about reinstalling the panels somewhere else.
Every MW of solar not built is a MW of natural gas being burned. Until that’s not the case building more renewable energy should be the top priority.
As much as it pains me, I think this should all be our ultimate concern if we want to defeat fossil fuels.
Depends on the location. Around me, they’re sometimes close to towns where the land could otherwise be used for homes or businesses in the medium-term future.
Also land is still a limited resource in much of the world. Why not use one piece of land for multiple purposes?
For sparsely populated areas I’ll agree with you. Here in Europe, there’s not a lot of completely unused land and in my country in particular most “unused” land is forests and bogs which have value of their own (sadly only 5% is wetlands nowadays - used to be over 20% before the soviets drained most of it). I’d much prefer those to remain untouched by both agriculture AND solar energy. Doing agriculture in a city is kinda hard, but solar is not. As a bonus, if solar panels in cities displace some of the demand for biofuels, that’s biofuel-related land that could be used for something else.
You don’t need unused land you just need to displace agriculture. If you have any land used for cattle grazing for example you can have enough grass to feed 1 cow or you can have enough solar to power 20-40 homes. Pretty obvious to me which is the more productive land usage there.
Or keep the cow and put solar on rooftops, car parks, etc. The cow shits out natural fertilizer which helps the land recover quicker so it can be used to produce more productive (in terms of people fed) crops again while the cow goes and grazes somewhere else where the soil’s no longer very productive.
It’s not a lot of land, sure, but there’s literally zero downside to putting solar in places where shade is desirable anyway. Just mandating solar in car parks alone could provide a ridiculous amount of electricity in more car-dependent cities.
As a solar engineer building this stuff daily, I tend to agree with your solution of sub/urban solar rather than agrivoltaics.
Doesn’t mean you can do agrivoltaics in a sub/urban context though ;P
Now do lithium mine externalities.
Again, our proposal isn’t that we should cover all of this land in solar panels, or that it could easily power the world on its own. We don’t account for the fact that we’d need energy storage and other options to make sure that power is available where and when it’s needed (not just when the sun is shining). We’re just trying to get a sense of perspective for how much electricity could be produced by using that land in more efficient ways.
Now do iron and aluminum mine externalities for ICE cars, which carry hundreds of pounds extra of those metals, plus much rarer cataysts like platinum and rubidium. The business community keeps quoting one white paper written by Volvo on this, but of course, no one actually read that paper because the authors saw fit to exclude the metals used in engines and transmissions in ICE cars when comparing to EVs. There is so much bullshit math on both sides of this argument, no one is realizing how we are getting distracted from major sources of pollution that continue unfettered like shipping, air travel and cement production.
ICE engines are mostly cast aluminum, which can be recycled trivially and indefinitely with renewable energy and no environmental harm.
Lithium batteries cannot be recycled without environmental harm.
Biofuels (due to inefficiency) are net negative emitters.
You couldn’t come up with a less efficient form of solar power if you tried. It’s there to subsidize US farmers.
brazil produces more biofuel iirc
They’ve also cut down a lot of rain forests to do it.
no, the rainforests cut go majority to cattle ranching
Both statements can be true.
That may be. But as a percentage of farm income, the prices that corn (and soybeans to an extent) demands is driven by biofuel mandates within the US. If the only market was food and export, those prices would be substantially lower.
meaning what
Meaning that in the US biofuels are a very inefficient way of giving corn growers subsidies. That’s why congress has supported various biofuel requirements.
worry not brazil, also gives subsidies to the ethanol industry here, in part because we want to more independent of oil imports
They’re 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, they’re a lot closer to the cities. Why not use the windows of the buildings for
thermal energytransparent solar. 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.
I do agree, if we remove the problem then there’s no need for the solution. If we didn’t have to worry the sudden expansion of electric vehicles and large data centers. But would we not be exchanging one problem for another? A lot of cities were not built with future public transportation in mind so building railways and bus routes then changing how people travel might be just as hard as getting electricity from rural areas.
I also agree that the farmers would plant another crop. But covering the land with solar panels is just impractical. The reason these farms are located where they are is because turning it into biofuel crops is easy, inexpensive, and the land probably isn’t worth doing anything else with. Turning it into food crops would depend on climate and demand.
Either way, as a society, we have several immediate problems and you’re right there isn’t one way to solve them. I just felt that tiny patches of land spread out all over the world would generate enough power and get it to where it needs to be for everyone to have electric cars just seemed like a silly idea when there’s much simpler and faster ways to get power where it’s needed the most.
Especially since I’m an electrical engineer that works for a company that specializes in energy management, building controls, and engineering sustainablility into buildings. So I’m actively working on these things that are theory to most of the people here.
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.
Bah hahaha you got me there… didn’t you
Damn, twin. That’s a great rebuke you got there.
Ok change it to transparent solar. I was half asleep
The double their for they’re is driving me nuts.
Oil refining uses an insane amount of energy.
An electric car could travel 60km (or more) on the electricity used to refine enough fuel to drive 100km.
Here’s a whole article on agrovoltaics. IIRC, they require less water because of the shade. https://www.climatehubs.usda.gov/hubs/northwest/topic/agrivoltaics-pairing-solar-power-and-agriculture-northwest
Archive because who knows what they’ll do next: https://archive.is/n4jF8
How about putting that farmland back to producing food, and covering all our rooftops and carparks with solar panels?
There is already an over production of food. We don’t need to grow more food.
I don’t know about that, but we certainly need to waste less food, and removing the profit motive from it’s production might help getting it to the people that need it but can’t get it. There are still people in the world starving needlessly.
We both grow more than we need, and throw more than we should away.
Some of that is a result of picky shoppers wanting unblemished produce. Some of that is a result of not having an
easyprofit motivated way of getting produce from where it’s grown to where it’s most desperately needed.We have tropical fruit available all year, but when impoverished peoples experience a crop failure, best we can do is send powdered milk.
Which incidentally may have cured them of lactose intolerance.
People are starving because capitalists would rather throw away perfectly good food and put bleach on it than give it to the starving to maximize their profits
That’s why I said removing the profit motive would be a good thing.
Its even more efficient. In Poland we have that project, where food is grown under solar panels - they harvest even more than before, because panels protect plants from too much sun.
I second this, if you design your solar panels well, not only do you get to outpu a lot of electricity, yiu actually increase your crop/cattle etc yield
Please. I used to live in RI and driving through ri and ma you will regularly see ACRE upon ACRE of woodland mowed down, flattened, and thousanda of gaudy panels put up in what was once public lands and wooded areas. They do this right outside of the Worcester city limits like they don’t have acre upon ACRE of already developed paved over areas that could benefit from shade from solar panels(think car parks, strap mall and dept store building roofs, residential roofs etc). I’m all for solar but I hate when they destroy nature for no reason. I’m not stupid I know it’s easier to build them on a level earth than on rooftops but we only have so much land available as it is why not be more efficient with the land we have already used?
It was a metaphor, no one is thinking of replacing farmland with solar panels.
And this whole thread ignores inclement weather. A few years ago Texas had 35MW of solar panels destroyed in minutes by hail. Hurricanes and tornadoes will do the same thing.
It was a metaphor, no one is thinking of replacing farmland with solar panels.
Fair point. It’s just the idea of using perfectly good farmland to fuel cars feels like a fucked up priority to me.
Hurricanes and Tornados can, and do, do the same to refineries too.
It’s been great traveling the world and seeing more and more solar installations. There is a long tail for things like aviation and plenty of chemistry but the world is changing. It would be nice if less governments were voted in that were anti the transition but progress is still being made
The size of Germany, Poland, Finland, or Italy
😄
First, pretty weird to go with 4 examples
Second, those 4 are of VASTLY different sizes by “my country isn’t one of the 5 largest in the world” standards. The difference in size between Germany and Italy is the equivalent of almost 150% of Denmark.
Third, even IF those countries were roughly the same size, they’re of such disparate shapes that the comparison would STILL be pretty much useless as a reference point to most people.
deleted by creator
is the equivalent of almost 150% of Denmark.
I chuckled. Weird comparison usage should be embraced! :D
What about the required raw materials to fabricate the solar panels? What about aging and recyclability percentage?
I don’t say, abandon solar power. I say: improve the recycling rate of the panels. Dual use agricultural land, maybe try to take advantage of the panel’s properties (shadows cast by the panels, wind erosion idk).
And maybe don’t overspend on the world’s energy budget. Evaluate where cars for personal transportation are really needed and how the fuel efficiency could be raised.
Mass transportation complemented by rental bikes and scooters - it’s mostly an infrastructural change, which leads to reduced fuel consumption.
Car sharing: One could aim to increase the frequency of use per vehicle - less cars to build, less space required for parking lots and streets.
Sometimes a web conference instead of a lengthy journey is sufficient. Home office - Maybe commuting 3 of 5 days is enough?
The possibilities are endless. Don’t focus too much on one aspect.
you could drive 70 times as many miles in a solar-powered electric car as you could in one running on biofuels from the same amount of land.
that and biofuels only land could produce the same as existing global electricity demand are bigger takeaways.
Article undersells the 7000twh of existing car+truck energy. With just 75% efficiency for solar panel to EV wheel, just 2366twh of solar would replace the ICE twh to wheel equivalent fuel consumption. So, the land conversion formula allows for 10x the number of cars and trucks. Even H2 electrolysis would permit 7x the number of cars and trucks (ensuring lighter trucks/cars as well) from biofuels land.
Saddly 75% is still a pipe dream, lucky to get 40% from panel to road. Not that biofuel is not one of if not the worst use of land mind you.
The DC-AC-DC conversion loop does cost 15% or so. LiFePo batteries (better than NMC) 10%, and motor 10-15%. AC grid transmission losses add more.
With home solar, DC charging (hopefully bidirectional), 75%-80% efficiency to the wheel. But sure, AC grid tied charging could drop it by 20%. Still better than 60% losses.
Comparing to ICE engines, its fair to exclude transmission losses (exists in both. about 5%), and there is regen available for EV, and it doesn’t idle. My original 75% claim may be too generous, but 3x efficiency of ICE is still fair.
Evs are 75% to 90% efficient from their battery, but the real issue is solar on the grid. Its way more then 20% loss from the grid, hell 40% loss in transmission is normal around here, and that’s just last run. The issue is that its loss on every step. I think local solar is the way to go for ev charging but this is clearly about mass deployment and that means the grid.
