Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Was watching one of the news shows (can't remember which or who was doing the talking - could have been on the business news channels) and the guest (I believe it was some expert, not a politician) said that the largest piece of land for solar power would power 45,000 homes. Thinking that was a measley number for so much valuable land, today I tried to find that factoid:
"Construction is underway for a 75 megawatt photovoltaic power plant in Cle Elum, located 90 miles east of Seattle. This project will eventually have 400,000 PV panels installed across 900 acres of public land, surrounded by pine trees. When completed, the solar power station, will power 45,000 homes. Touted as the largest project of its type in the Pacific Northwest, developers expect the Teanaway Solar Reserve to start generating power in early 2012."
Isn't land a very valuable item to give up for so little in return (900 acres/45,000 homes)?
Now both articles say it's the largest amount of land for the effort in the Pacific Northwest not in the US but it got me to thinking -
How much land has to be given up for a solar power farm? 900 acres for only 45,000 homes? How does that compare with how much land for coal mining is needed to power X number of homes, oil land is needed, wind farm land is needed, other?
Please, stick to "the land" angle for this thread rather than "the green" angle. I want to know if you think that much land is worth giving up for solar panels compared to the amount of land needed for other types of domestically produced energy.
Do politicians talk about this "land needed" aspect of solar energy?
Isn't 90 miles east of Seattle is a Mountain? How many people want to live in a mountain?
If they can actually build there, that would be great. Of course, EPA will tell you there are some species no know even know or care live there, and you can't build because of reason.
Land doesn't seem to have ANY value when it comes to drilling for oil and natural gas. But somehow, solar power is a terrible idea?
Just look at it. 900 acres of land going to waste to power just 45,000 homes? This goes to show how unreliable "green" energy is. They really need to increase the efficiency of solar panels. If you can only power 45k homes on 1.4 square miles of land, then you have serious efficiency problems.
I wonder if the same people crying about 900 acres to power tens of thousands of homes would be up in arms about that same land becoming a ski resort or a billionaire's mountain retreat.
I wonder if the same people crying about 900 acres to power tens of thousands of homes would be up in arms about that same land becoming a ski resort or a billionaire's mountain retreat.
Land doesn't seem to have ANY value when it comes to drilling for oil and natural gas. But somehow, solar power is a terrible idea?
Yes, it does. I think land is the most valuable thing we have. That's why I want to know comparatively speaking, how much land is needed for other forms of domestic energy compared to solar. You know, compare the bang for the buck. If I thought we could turn Venus into a solar farm, I'd be all for it.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
