The Climate Change Discussion Thread

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by Floppa

This only powers a single water treatment plant, how much land will we need to completely replace all the fossil fuels???

From the scientific journal Nature:

The potential land requirements and related land use change emissions of solar energy

Abstract

Although the transition to renewable energies will intensify the global competition for land, the potential impacts driven by solar energy remain unexplored. In this work, the potential solar land requirements and related land use change emissions are computed for the EU, India, Japan and South Korea. A novel method is developed within an integrated assessment model which links socioeconomic, energy, land and climate systems. At 25–80% penetration in the electricity mix of those regions by 2050, we find that solar energy may occupy 0.5–5% of total land....

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-82042-5

Land use is really not a problem in Canada or the US. This of a solar farm as a photon mine. In most cases, it has a better economic output than the same field planted with grain. And with wind farms and agrivoltaics, the land itself can actually be used for agricultural output.

It would be good to push more rooftop solar on industrial roofs. But everybody always balks at the cost.

[Airboy]

Currently working on a solar project. A preeng building. also a large recreation centre. we were lucky the Structural was enough to put panels on the roof. We will take up about 1/2 of the roof surface.

Using a building roof is great but you have to have the engineering done with the plan to add the panels. Most Pre -eng building will not have the capacity for solar.

One in Ft Mac we used the panels as a canopy in the parking lot.

[Floppa]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

From the scientific journal Nature:




https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-82042-5

Land use is really not a problem in Canada or the US. This of a solar farm as a photon mine. In most cases, it has a better economic output than the same field planted with grain. And with wind farms and agrivoltaics, the land itself can actually be used for agricultural output.

It would be good to push more rooftop solar on industrial roofs. But everybody always balks at the cost.

Holy cow... FIVE PERCENT OF ALL THE LAND IN CANADA??? You realize just how much that is? I doubt that more than 5% of the land is Canada is anything but wilderness. So you want to double the amount of land we've contaminated?

Granted, a lot could be rooftop solar or solar over parking lots and wind turbines in corn fields but still, looking at that picture by the WTP, I'd rather not have urban sprawl on steroids but with solar panels surrounding the existing hideous suburbs.

[Truenorth00]

Quite frankly that is not a lot of land. And that's for 80% solar. Given the massive amount of hydro a, nuclear and undeveloped wind resources, we'll never be at 80% solar. It's more like 2-3% ultimately in Canada.

But even if it were 5%, who cares? The land owners decide what goes one their land, not you or me.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Quite frankly that is not a lot of land. And that's for 80% solar. Given the massive amount of hydro a, nuclear and undeveloped wind resources, we'll never be at 80% solar. It's more like 2-3% ultimately in Canada.

But even if it were 5%, who cares? The land owners decide what goes one their land, not you or me.

The paper actually says 0.5% to 5% for certain countries, that are all more densely populated. So along with what you said, we should be well below the low end of that estimate, if they have calculated reasonably.

I can't really get my head around the scale, it feels unreasonable given how space inefficient wind and solar are. But Canada is really big.

[Floppa]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Quite frankly that is not a lot of land. And that's for 80% solar. Given the massive amount of hydro a, nuclear and undeveloped wind resources, we'll never be at 80% solar. It's more like 2-3% ultimately in Canada.

Canada surface area for 2018 was 9,879,750.00[sq. km], a 0% increase from 2017.

source

So 5% of that is around 200,000 sq. km or 2.5x the land area of the Greater Toronto and Hamilton Area. All that just being solar panels.

But even if it were 5%, who cares? The land owners decide what goes one their land, not you or me.

So you're okay with people having massive parties regardless of lockdowns as long as it's on their own private property? What about churches opening regardless of the lockdowns? No, we don't have unlimited choice when it comes to what goes on our private property. And wind energy is a massive boondoggle that kills huge numbers of flying creatures.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by milomilo

The paper actually says 0.5% to 5% for certain countries, that are all more densely populated. So along with what you said, we should be well below the low end of that estimate, if they have calculated reasonably.

I can't really get my head around the scale, it feels unreasonable given how space inefficient wind and solar are. But Canada is really big.

The Maritimes in particular, but also Ontario, have a ton of off-shore wind potential. So there's no wastage of space there. Wind isn't all that space inefficient on land either.

Solar can be more space inefficient. But again, who cares? A land owner putting up solar panels on a lot still leaves the land relatively usable.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by Floppa

source

So 5% of that is around 200,000 sq. km or 2.5x the land area of the Greater Toronto and Hamilton Area. All that just being solar panels.

And? Again, who cares? How land is used is entirely by up to the property owner. If somebody thinks it's a better business to farm electrons with PVs than grow wheat, it's really none of your business.

Also, since we're a big country, an area the size of GTA, spread across the country in dozen of solar farms is not really that bothersome at all.

Did you complain as much for all the places flooded to build hydro? That was probably far more damaging.

Originally Posted by Floppa

So you're okay with people having massive parties regardless of lockdowns as long as it's on their own private property? What about churches opening regardless of the lockdowns? No, we don't have unlimited choice when it comes to what goes on our private property

What dumbass nonsense is this? Health restrictions during a pandemic have zero to do with what is built on a given on a property.

Originally Posted by Floppa

And wind energy is a massive boondoggle that kills huge numbers of flying creatures.

It's really unfortunate that this ignorant bullshit is still making the rounds. You should look up how many birds are killed by cats, powerplants and refineries. Let alone climate change. Wind turbines are the least of their concerns.

[DoubleK]

Originally Posted by milomilo

The paper actually says 0.5% to 5% for certain countries, that are all more densely populated. So along with what you said, we should be well below the low end of that estimate, if they have calculated reasonably.

I can't really get my head around the scale, it feels unreasonable given how space inefficient wind and solar are. But Canada is really big.

Bare land solar is only a marginally better land use than surface parking.

Put it on roofs of logistic centers and warehouses, but taking up arable land is complete and utter lunacy.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by DoubleK

Bare land solar is only a marginally better land use than surface parking.

Wrong. PV farms don't degrade the land as much as parking or any other development.

There is also agrivoltaics where produce can be grown under and around the PV panels.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agrivoltaic

Originally Posted by DoubleK

Put it on roofs of logistic centers and warehouses, but taking up arable land is complete and utter lunacy.

Not that I disagree with using roofs and parking lots, the reason fields are used is because of the economics. Make it cheaper to use roofs and parking lots and it will happen.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by milomilo

The paper actually says 0.5% to 5% for certain countries, that are all more densely populated. So along with what you said, we should be well below the low end of that estimate, if they have calculated reasonably.

I can't really get my head around the scale, it feels unreasonable given how space inefficient wind and solar are. But Canada is really big.

Wind can exist on farmland can't it? It seems pretty space efficient if you ask me.

Solar is often best in land that has little other use. Southeastern California comes to mind. There are huge areas of unused desert and scrubland.

If we reduced our meat consumption and the huge crops required to feed it, we could certainly find the land.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

The land owners decide what goes one their land, not you or me.

Not true at all. Government has its say too (especially municipal, sometimes provincial).

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by lio45

Not true at all. Government has its say too (especially municipal, sometimes provincial).

Sure. But why should governments oppose reasonably low impact use of land. It's not like PV farms can't be turned back into farm land if needed.

Comparing a solar farm to parking lots is patently ridiculous. You know what's actually bad for farm land? Sprawling subdivisions. Or fracking wells. We don't stop those.

[Floppa]

Originally Posted by DoubleK

Bare land solar is only a marginally better land use than surface parking.

Put it on roofs of logistic centers and warehouses, but taking up arable land is complete and utter lunacy.

And like parking lots, solar panels are dark and contribute to the Urban Heat Island effect. Although not a terrible thing, since our growing season is short but the solar panels could extend your growing season somewhat.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by Floppa

And like parking lots, solar panels are dark and contribute to the Urban Heat Island effect. Although not a terrible thing, since our growing season is short but the solar panels could extend your growing season somewhat.

You know what makes the Urban Heat Island Effect worse? Fucking Climate Change.

Also, there's no URBAN Heat Island Effect out in the boonies.

I have no idea how old you are, but these talking points are starting to read like the Boomers hitlist of ignorance on climate change.

[ssiguy]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

Wind can exist on farmland can't it? It seems pretty space efficient if you ask me.

Isn't that a bit elitist? One or two windmills can actually look kind of cool but a whole sea of them is nothing but an eyesore which traditional power plants and solar farms aren't.

Why should people in the country have to tolerate these seas of windmills while touchy-feely urbanites don't even though many, especially along waterfronts, maybe ideal locations for windmills? Doesn't that smack of the "out of sight, out of mind" arrogant mentality?

Suzuki certainly loves windmills but he sure as hell doesn't have one on his tony West Side house.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by ssiguy

Isn't that a bit elitist? One or two windmills can actually look kind of cool but a whole sea of them is nothing but an eyesore which traditional power plants and solar farms aren't.

Why should people in the country have to tolerate these seas of windmills while touchy-feely urbanites don't even though many, especially along waterfronts, maybe ideal locations for windmills? Doesn't that smack of the "out of sight, out of mind" arrogant mentality?

Suzuki certainly loves windmills but he sure as hell doesn't have one on his tony West Side house.

Climate change >>> your right to a view on land owned by others.

Also, for a country like Canada, we really aren't likely to have a substantial amount of on-shore wind when all is said and done. Off-shore wind is more productive and less vulnerable to bitching NIMBYs like yourself.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by ssiguy

Isn't that a bit elitist? One or two windmills can actually look kind of cool but a whole sea of them is nothing but an eyesore which traditional power plants and solar farms aren't.

Traditional power plants are ugly AF. I like a sea of windmills.

Originally Posted by ssiguy

Why should people in the country have to tolerate these seas of windmills while touchy-feely urbanites don't even though many, especially along waterfronts, maybe ideal locations for windmills? Doesn't that smack of the "out of sight, out of mind" arrogant mentality?

Suzuki certainly loves windmills but he sure as hell doesn't have one on his tony West Side house.

Who said that? I'd love to see some offshore ones from the urban coast of BC.

[Truenorth00]

What's elitist is somebody who puts gas in their car every week complaining about the aesthetics of a fucking wind turbine.

Ever seen a field full of oil derricks or an open pit shale mine? Ever seen oil rigs just off your coast? Surely, stirs the heart like a Group of Seven painting....

What is elitist is telling some farmer he can't take advantage an additional source of revenue because it hurts the aesthetic sensibilities of others.

This nonsense reminds me of people who think chicken comes from the supermarket wrapped in plastic. And you know, not from an actual animal with feathers, who was slaughtered for your chicken fingers.

[Floppa]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

It's really unfortunate that this ignorant bullshit is still making the rounds. You should look up how many birds are killed by cats, powerplants and refineries. Let alone climate change. Wind turbines are the least of their concerns.

Things that aren't wind turbines kill birds, so don't be worried about that fact that we're adding to it.

Big oil is backing renewables because they require gas plants to back them up.