| Next revision | Previous revision |
| energycrisis [2025/02/06 20:01] – created admin | energycrisis [2025/02/09 20:53] (current) – admin |
|---|
| === The Energy Crisis: A Summary for Meteorologists === | === The Energy Crisis: A Summary for Meteorologists === |
| Presented on April 15, 2008. Here is the [[http://www.nssl.noaa.gov/seminars/abs.php?id=257|abstract]]. | Presented on April 15, 2008. Here is the [[http://www.nssl.noaa.gov/seminars/abs.php?id=257|abstract]]. |
| <<TableOfContents>> | |
| |
| == Dedication to Friedrich Hayek == | == Dedication to Friedrich Hayek == |
| we ignore [[http://www.mises.org/books/TRTS/| Hayek's warning]] at our peril. By the way, the TIME | we ignore [[http://www.mises.org/books/TRTS/| Hayek's warning]] at our peril. By the way, the TIME |
| article misrepresents what the mobilization would produce. Lester Brown's Table 12-1 has a goal | article misrepresents what the mobilization would produce. Lester Brown's Table 12-1 has a goal |
| for 3,000,000 megawatts of wind power '''capacity''' in 2020. For wind power, actual production | for 3,000,000 megawatts of wind power //capacity// in 2020. For wind power, actual production |
| is typically 1/3 of capacity. Confusing capacity with production is common in presentations about | is typically 1/3 of capacity. Confusing capacity with production is common in presentations about |
| wind power. Let's hope the planners catch the mistake before the wartime mobilization proceeds, | wind power. Let's hope the planners catch the mistake before the wartime mobilization proceeds, |
| * Prudhoe Bay was the bulk of the North Slope oil. Here is the history and forecast for the entire North Slope: see [[http://www.planetforlife.com/anwr/index.html | Oil and Alaska; The ANWR Controversy ]] and [[http://www.netl.doe.gov/technologies/oil-gas/Petroleum/projects/EP/Explor_Tech/41817.htm | Alaska North Slope Oil and Gas Resources Assessment ]] | * Prudhoe Bay was the bulk of the North Slope oil. Here is the history and forecast for the entire North Slope: see [[http://www.planetforlife.com/anwr/index.html | Oil and Alaska; The ANWR Controversy ]] and [[http://www.netl.doe.gov/technologies/oil-gas/Petroleum/projects/EP/Explor_Tech/41817.htm | Alaska North Slope Oil and Gas Resources Assessment ]] |
| * Saudi Arabia has 240 Gb of oil, or 8.5 cubic miles. | * Saudi Arabia has 240 Gb of oil, or 8.5 cubic miles. |
| * ''It’s no secret anymore that for every nine barrels of oil we consume, we are only discovering one.'' -The BP Statistical Review of World Energy, March 13th, 2008 | * //It’s no secret anymore that for every nine barrels of oil we consume, we are only discovering one.// -The BP Statistical Review of World Energy, March 13th, 2008 |
| * Learn more in the Wikipedia: [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_energy_consumption | World energy resources and consumption]] and [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_oil | Peak Oil]]. | * Learn more in the Wikipedia: [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_energy_consumption | World energy resources and consumption]] and [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_oil | Peak Oil]]. |
| |
| == Watts == | == Watts == |
| |
| * 1 terawatt = 1 TW = 10^12^ W is convenient unit for measuring world energy consumption. | * 1 terawatt = 1 TW = 10<sup>12</sup> W is convenient unit for measuring world energy consumption. |
| * World energy consumption was 15 TW in 2004. With a global population of 6.5 x 10^9^, per capita consumption was 2300 W. | * World energy consumption was 15 TW in 2004. With a global population of 6.5 x 10<sup>9</sup>, per capita consumption was 2300 W. |
| * Per capita consumption in America was 11,400 W. | * Per capita consumption in America was 11,400 W. |
| * Humans eat about 100 W of food. (Note the fundamental problem in converting food to fuel). | * Humans eat about 100 W of food. (Note the fundamental problem in converting food to fuel). |
| * With 100 W of food, humans can sustain about 10 W of muscle work, averaged over a day. | * With 100 W of food, humans can sustain about 10 W of muscle work, averaged over a day. |
| * 1 gigawatt = 1 GW = 10^9^ W , electrical production from a large nuclear power plant. | * 1 gigawatt = 1 GW = 10<sup>9</sup> W , electrical production from a large nuclear power plant. |
| * 1 megawatt = 1 MW = 10^6^ W, electrical production from a very large, modern wind turbine | * 1 megawatt = 1 MW = 10<sup>6</sup> W, electrical production from a very large, modern wind turbine |
| |
| == Shell energy scenarios to 2050 == | == Shell energy scenarios to 2050 == |
| Despite increasing rhetoric, action to address climate change and encourage energy efficiency is pushed into the future, leading to largely sequential attention to supply, demand and climate stresses... | Despite increasing rhetoric, action to address climate change and encourage energy efficiency is pushed into the future, leading to largely sequential attention to supply, demand and climate stresses... |
| |
| {{attachment:scramble.png}} | {{:scramble.png}} |
| |
| === Blueprint Scenario === | === Blueprint Scenario === |
| As more consumers and investors realise that change is not necessarily painful but can also be attractive, the fear of change is moderated and ever-more substantial actions become politically possible. These actions, including taxes and incentives in relation to energy and CO2 emissions, are taken early on. The result is that although the world of Blueprints has its share of profound transitions and political turbulence, global economic activity remains vigorous and shifts significantly towards a less energy-intensive path. | As more consumers and investors realise that change is not necessarily painful but can also be attractive, the fear of change is moderated and ever-more substantial actions become politically possible. These actions, including taxes and incentives in relation to energy and CO2 emissions, are taken early on. The result is that although the world of Blueprints has its share of profound transitions and political turbulence, global economic activity remains vigorous and shifts significantly towards a less energy-intensive path. |
| |
| {{attachment:blueprint.png}} | {{:blueprint.png}} |
| |
| === Summary of the Shell Scenarios === | === Summary of the Shell Scenarios === |
| |
| * In 2050, coal consumption is 2 to 2.5 as large as in 2000. In Blueprints, some of the CO2 is sequestered. Scramble is on a path to increase carbon dioxide ''well above'' 550ppmv. In Blueprint, a long-term path below 550 ppmv is ''feasible''. | * In 2050, coal consumption is 2 to 2.5 as large as in 2000. In Blueprints, some of the CO2 is sequestered. Scramble is on a path to increase carbon dioxide ''well above'' 550ppmv. In Blueprint, a long-term path below 550 ppmv is //feasible//. |
| * Biomass contains non-commercial biomass, for example 3rd world wood cooking fires. Commercial biomass may replace some of that, for example for aviation fuels. But Blueprints contains much less biomass than Scramble. International agreements prevent the deforestation required for increasing biofuel production. | * Biomass contains non-commercial biomass, for example 3rd world wood cooking fires. Commercial biomass may replace some of that, for example for aviation fuels. But Blueprints contains much less biomass than Scramble. International agreements prevent the deforestation required for increasing biofuel production. |
| * There is more nuclear energy and oil in Blueprint, arising from the fact that the world is more ordered. | * There is more nuclear energy and oil in Blueprint, arising from the fact that the world is more ordered. |
| * Both scenarios have a mysterious large '''other'''. These plots were drafted from the data in the appendix ''Summary quantification''. '''Other''' denotes ''Other Renewables''. This may be a mistake in the appendix. There are no explicitly defined ''Other Renewables'' forecasted - in this report or elsewhere - to produce more power than wind in 2050. | * Both scenarios have a mysterious large //other//. These plots were drafted from the data in the appendix //Summary quantification//. //Other// denotes //Other Renewables//. This may be a mistake in the appendix. There are no explicitly defined //Other Renewables// forecasted - in this report or elsewhere - to produce more power than wind in 2050. |
| |
| == The Coal Dilemma == | == The Coal Dilemma == |
| |
| * [[http://www.theoildrum.com/node/3788|Hansen to Australian PM: stop coal plants now]]. | * [[http://www.theoildrum.com/node/3788|Hansen to Australian PM: stop coal plants now]]. |
| * It is doubtful that the Australian PM could do that, given [[http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/23/world/europe/23coal.html?ex=1367294400&en=ce9b1cffcc8da424&ei=5124&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink| Europe Turns Back to Coal, Raising Climate Fears ]] or [[http://climateprogress.org/2007/10/31/the-immorality-of-chinas-coal-policy-is-breathtaking-literally-part-i/|China's coal investment]] or [[http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/24/business/worldbusiness/24power.html?ex=1350964800&en=a830d8de74cbc4f1&ei=5124&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink |China’s Green Energy Gap ]]. China ''built 114,000 megawatts of fossil-fuel-based generating capacity last year''. That is .114 TWe, which could consume about .3 TW of coal! | * It is doubtful that the Australian PM could do that, given [[http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/23/world/europe/23coal.html?ex=1367294400&en=ce9b1cffcc8da424&ei=5124&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink| Europe Turns Back to Coal, Raising Climate Fears ]] or [[http://climateprogress.org/2007/10/31/the-immorality-of-chinas-coal-policy-is-breathtaking-literally-part-i/|China's coal investment]] or [[http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/24/business/worldbusiness/24power.html?ex=1350964800&en=a830d8de74cbc4f1&ei=5124&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink |China’s Green Energy Gap ]]. China **built 114,000 megawatts of fossil-fuel-based generating capacity last year**. That is .114 TWe, which could consume about .3 TW of coal! |
| * Or given that [[http://www.yaleclimatemediaforum.org/features/0408_mit.htm | MIT's Emanuel Rethinking Warming/Hurricanes]] | * Or given that [[http://www.yaleclimatemediaforum.org/features/0408_mit.htm | MIT's Emanuel Rethinking Warming/Hurricanes]] |
| * Or given Dr. Kevin Vranes's statement: [[http://scienceblogs.com/nosenada/2006/12/so_what_happened_at_agu_last_w.php | But now they are listening. Now they do believe us. Now they say they're ready to take action. And now we're wondering if we didn't create a monster. We're wondering if they realize how uncertain our projections of future climate are. ]] | * Or given Dr. Kevin Vranes's statement: [[http://scienceblogs.com/nosenada/2006/12/so_what_happened_at_agu_last_w.php | But now they are listening. Now they do believe us. Now they say they're ready to take action. And now we're wondering if we didn't create a monster. We're wondering if they realize how uncertain our projections of future climate are. ]] |
| * Is it really possible for a group of politicians to slay the coal industry? What would be the political consequences? William Shakespeare's [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julius_Caesar_(play) | Julius Caesar ]] might be relevant. You are invited you to watch [[http://youtube.com/watch?v=eNRoeMvzMVo | Marlon Brando as Marc Antony ]] (think ''Julius Carbon''). | * Is it really possible for a group of politicians to slay the coal industry? What would be the political consequences? William Shakespeare's [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julius_Caesar_(play) | Julius Caesar ]] might be relevant. You are invited you to watch [[http://youtube.com/watch?v=eNRoeMvzMVo | Marlon Brando as Marc Antony ]] (think ''Julius Carbon''). |
| * And on May 30, 2008: [[http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/30/business/30coal.html?ex=1369886400&en=7fc56d96af4f08b6&ei=5124&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink | Mounting Costs Slow the Push for Clean Coal]] | * And on May 30, 2008: [[http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/30/business/30coal.html?ex=1369886400&en=7fc56d96af4f08b6&ei=5124&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink | Mounting Costs Slow the Push for Clean Coal]] |
| * Here is an example of capital investment in coal: [[http://www.rwestoen.pl/index.php?id=921&L=1 | 1.5 billion euros for a 800 MW plant]] or '''$2.71 per Watt'''. The costs of fuel for the plant will be comparable to the interest being paid on the capital. Here is a comparison of [[ http://www.firsturanium.com/cws/projects/firsturanium/uranium_industry.jsp | capital and operating costs in 2005]]. You can work out the 2007 costs of fuel from the [[http://www.economist.com/business/displaystory.cfm?story_id=10145492 | graph at bottom of this 2007 story]]. Apparently in 2005, the costs for coal are a bit lower than my estimate of a wholesale cost of $0.023 per kWh to pay off capital investment on the power plant (from the RWE story above), and $0.022 per KWh for coal, for that modern 46% efficient plant. In 2008, Oklahoma Gas and Electric sells electricity to my home for $0.10 per KWh. | * Here is an example of capital investment in coal: [[http://www.rwestoen.pl/index.php?id=921&L=1 | 1.5 billion euros for a 800 MW plant]] or \$2.71 per Watt. The costs of fuel for the plant will be comparable to the interest being paid on the capital. Here is a comparison of [[ http://www.firsturanium.com/cws/projects/firsturanium/uranium_industry.jsp | capital and operating costs in 2005]]. You can work out the 2007 costs of fuel from the [[http://www.economist.com/business/displaystory.cfm?story_id=10145492 | graph at bottom of this 2007 story]]. Apparently in 2005, the costs for coal are a bit lower than my estimate of a wholesale cost of \$0.023 per kWh to pay off capital investment on the power plant (from the RWE story above), and \$0.022 per KWh for coal, for that modern 46% efficient plant. In 2008, Oklahoma Gas and Electric sells electricity to my home for \$0.10 per KWh. |
| |
| == Biofuels == | == Biofuels == |
| == Nuclear Power == | == Nuclear Power == |
| | |
| * A new 1.6 GW nuclear power plant: [[http://virtual.finland.fi/netcomm/news/showarticle.asp?Thread=&intNWSAID=65266&contlan=&CatTypeNumber=3&intThreadPosition=1&intCatID |World's most powerful nuclear power plant under construction at Olkiluoto]]. The construction cost will be about 5 billion US dollars, or about '''$3.12 per Watt''', as inferred from [[http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aFh1ySJ.lYQc&refer=home | Nuclear Bid to Rival Coal Chilled by Flaws, Delay in Finland]] | * A new 1.6 GW nuclear power plant: [[http://virtual.finland.fi/netcomm/news/showarticle.asp?Thread=&intNWSAID=65266&contlan=&CatTypeNumber=3&intThreadPosition=1&intCatID |World's most powerful nuclear power plant under construction at Olkiluoto]]. The construction cost will be about 5 billion US dollars, or about \$3.12 per Watt, as inferred from [[http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aFh1ySJ.lYQc&refer=home | Nuclear Bid to Rival Coal Chilled by Flaws, Delay in Finland]] |
| * New nuclear construction planned for the United States: [[http://www2.snl.com/irweblinkx/file.aspx?IID=4057436&FID=4916766 | NRG Energy Submits Application for New 2,700 Megawatt Nuclear Plant in South Texas ]]; First nuclear plant license application in 29 year (in US). | * New nuclear construction planned for the United States: [[http://www2.snl.com/irweblinkx/file.aspx?IID=4057436&FID=4916766 | NRG Energy Submits Application for New 2,700 Megawatt Nuclear Plant in South Texas ]]; First nuclear plant license application in 29 year (in US). |
| * Europe is reconsidering its anti-nuclear stance: [[http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/23/world/europe/23nukes.html?ex=1369281600&en=071d7e554b01680e&ei=5124&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink | Italy Plans to Resume Building Atomic Plants ]]. | * Europe is reconsidering its anti-nuclear stance: [[http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/23/world/europe/23nukes.html?ex=1369281600&en=071d7e554b01680e&ei=5124&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink | Italy Plans to Resume Building Atomic Plants ]]. |
| From the Wikipedia's [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power | Nuclear Power]] we obtain: | From the Wikipedia's [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power | Nuclear Power]] we obtain: |
| |
| {{attachment:794px-Nuclear_Power_History.png}} | {{:794px-Nuclear_Power_History.png}} |
| |
| Many of current nuclear power plants are old and are scheduled to be decomissioned. | Many of current nuclear power plants are old and are scheduled to be decomissioned. |
| |
| == Hydroelectric power == | == Hydroelectric power == |
| * [[http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/5000092.stm | Three Gorges Dam]] will produce 16 GW. With the ''official'' cost stated to be $25 billion US, that is '''$1.56 per Watt'''. | * [[http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/5000092.stm | Three Gorges Dam]] will produce 16 GW. With the //official// cost stated to be \$25 billion US, that is \$1.56 per Watt. |
| * Modest expansion is projected for hydroelectric power, mostly in China, and very little in North America. See the wikipedia: [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydroelectricity | Hydroelectricity ]] | * Modest expansion is projected for hydroelectric power, mostly in China, and very little in North America. See the wikipedia: [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydroelectricity | Hydroelectricity ]] |
| |
| == Photovoltaic power == | == Photovoltaic power == |
| * We can learn much from the Wikipedia's [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photovoltaics | Photovoltaics]] and [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_cell | Solar Cell]]. Here is monitor of [[http://www.solarbuzz.com/moduleprices.htm | cost per peak Watt]], showing for May, 2008 $4.81 per Watt. But using [[http://www.solarbuzz.com/StatsCosts.htm| 20% capacity factor]], typical for Southern California, puts the cost at '''$24 per Watt'''. Nevertheless, there are some [[http://www.photon-consulting.com/en/true_cost_2007/index.htm | optimistic projections]] of $2.50 per Watt peak. Here is optimistic story about [[http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/01/technology/01solar.html?ex=1359608400&en=49a1d419a3f8d70a&ei=5124&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink |start-ups exploring exotic materials like copper indium gallium selenide]], or CIGS, an alternative to the conventional crystalline silicon that is now the dominant technology. Unfortunately, exotic means rare: [[http://www.science.org.au/nova/newscientist/027ns_005.htm?id=mg19426051.200&print=true |gallium and indium will probably contribute to less than 1 per cent of all future solar cells - a limitation imposed purely by a lack of raw material ]]. | * We can learn much from the Wikipedia's [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photovoltaics | Photovoltaics]] and [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_cell | Solar Cell]]. Here is monitor of [[http://www.solarbuzz.com/moduleprices.htm | cost per peak Watt]], showing for May, 2008 \4.81 per Watt. But using [[http://www.solarbuzz.com/StatsCosts.htm| 20% capacity factor]], typical for Southern California, puts the cost at \$24 per Watt. Nevertheless, there are some [[http://www.photon-consulting.com/en/true_cost_2007/index.htm | optimistic projections]] of \$2.50 per Watt peak. Here is optimistic story about [[http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/01/technology/01solar.html?ex=1359608400&en=49a1d419a3f8d70a&ei=5124&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink |start-ups exploring exotic materials like copper indium gallium selenide]], or CIGS, an alternative to the conventional crystalline silicon that is now the dominant technology. Unfortunately, exotic means rare: [[http://www.science.org.au/nova/newscientist/027ns_005.htm?id=mg19426051.200&print=true |gallium and indium will probably contribute to less than 1 per cent of all future solar cells - a limitation imposed purely by a lack of raw material ]]. |
| * | |
| == Concentrating solar power == | == Concentrating solar power == |
| |
| * [[http://www.solardaily.com/reports/Abengoa_Solar_To_Build_World_Largest_Solar_Plant_999.html |Abengoa Solar To Build World's Largest Solar Plant ]]. The claim is 240 MW peak capacity. The ''70,000 homes'' implies about 140 MW production. A revenue of $4 billion over 30 years implies $133 million per year. If the yearly revenue is a 7.5% return on the investment, then the investment was $1777 million. '''$12.70 per Watt'''. More than three times the cost of nuclear power? | * [[http://www.solardaily.com/reports/Abengoa_Solar_To_Build_World_Largest_Solar_Plant_999.html |Abengoa Solar To Build World's Largest Solar Plant ]]. The claim is 240 MW peak capacity. The ''70,000 homes'' implies about 140 MW production. A revenue of \$4 billion over 30 years implies \$133 million per year. If the yearly revenue is a 7.5% return on the investment, then the investment was \$1777 million. \$12.70 per Watt. More than three times the cost of nuclear power? |
| |
| == Wind power == | == Wind power == |
| * [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cape_Wind | Cape Wind]] is expected to produce 170 MW with an investment of $900 million. '''$5.29 per Watt'''. Consistent with the common statement that wind energy is cheaper than solar. | * [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cape_Wind | Cape Wind]] is expected to produce 170 MW with an investment of \$900 million. \$5.29 per Watt. Consistent with the common statement that wind energy is cheaper than solar. |
| |
| {{attachment:CapeWindlocation.jpg}} | {{:CapeWindlocation.jpg}} |
| |
| == Investment Needed == | == Investment Needed == |
| |
| * [[http://www.livescience.com/environment/080131-ap-gw-costs.html | UN: Climate Change May Cost $20 Trillion ]]. So for 20 TeraDollars do we get 4 TeraWatts of renewable (or low carbon) energy? Or 2 | * [[http://www.livescience.com/environment/080131-ap-gw-costs.html | UN: Climate Change May Cost \$20 Trillion ]]. So for 20 TeraDollars do we get 4 TeraWatts of renewable (or low carbon) energy? Or 2 |
| TeraWatts? How many TeraWatts do we need ''to place the world on a markedly different and sustainable energy trajectory'' ? | TeraWatts? How many TeraWatts do we need to place the world on a markedly different and sustainable energy trajectory ? |
| * Today, the global energy industry spends about \$300 billion a year in new plants, transmission networks and other new investment, according to U.N. figures.'' So that implies additional spending of approximately \$700 billion per year. That is a lot of money, given that [[http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/spending.htm | World military spending]] is \$1.1 trillion. But maybe it is a bargain, considering that [[http://www.newscientist.com/channel/opinion/mg19826545.400-comment-what-lies-beneath-the-makeup.html | people around the world spend a staggering \$290 billion a year on over-the-counter beauty products]]. | * Today, the global energy industry spends about \$300 billion a year in new plants, transmission networks and other new investment, according to U.N. figures. So that implies additional spending of approximately \$700 billion per year. That is a lot of money, given that [[http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/spending.htm | World military spending]] is \$1.1 trillion. But maybe it is a bargain, considering that [[http://www.newscientist.com/channel/opinion/mg19826545.400-comment-what-lies-beneath-the-makeup.html | people around the world spend a staggering \$290 billion a year on over-the-counter beauty products]]. |
| |
| == Renewable Energy Options == | == Renewable Energy Options == |
| Need a review here of flux density physics, and costs of: | Need a review here of flux density physics, and costs of: |
| * ''land-based photosynthesis'': '''1 Watt per square meter''' (And that is only energy out, not subtracting off the energy required to produce biofuels from photosynthesis). | * **land-based photosynthesis**: 1 Watt per square meter (And that is only energy out, not subtracting off the energy required to produce biofuels from photosynthesis). |
| * ''wind-energy'': '''3 Watts per square meter''' (If your wind turbines are too densely spaced, the wind will diminish to enforce that limit, and waste the turbine capacity). | * **wind-energy**: 3 Watts per square meter (If your wind turbines are too densely spaced, the wind will diminish to enforce that limit, and waste the turbine capacity). |
| * ''photovoltaics'': '''20 Watts per square meter'''. (Presently, too costly. Especially for the greater than 10% efficiency.) | * **photovoltaics**: 20 Watts per square meter. (Presently, too costly. Especially for the greater than 10% efficiency.) |
| |
| I overprinted on [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Solar_land_area.png | this image from the Wikipedia ]] to make the following images. The depicted sites for photovoltaic land use are | I overprinted on [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Solar_land_area.png | this image from the Wikipedia ]] to make the following images. The depicted sites for photovoltaic land use are |
| optimal; the depicted sites for wind farms and photosynthesis are not (of course). | optimal; the depicted sites for wind farms and photosynthesis are not (of course). |
| === required photovoltaic land use === | === required photovoltaic land use === |
| {{attachment:photov.png}} | {{:photov.png}} |
| === required wind farm land use === | === required wind farm land use === |
| This land could be dual use, the turbines must be spread out. The flux density removed by the disc of the blades of the turbine could be order 100 times this number. | This land could be dual use, the turbines must be spread out. The flux density removed by the disc of the blades of the turbine could be order 100 times this number. |
| |
| {{attachment:wind.png}} | {{:wind.png}} |
| === required photosynthesis land use === | === required photosynthesis land use === |
| This is ''not'' biofuels. No account is made here for the energy inputs for | This is ''not'' biofuels. No account is made here for the energy inputs for |
| growing, harvesting, and processing the output from photosynthesis. | growing, harvesting, and processing the output from photosynthesis. |
| |
| {{attachment:biomass.png}} | {{:biomass.png}} |
| |
