Comments on: SPIEGEL — Wrong Again

By: beernotwar

beernotwar — Mon, 18 Mar 2013 20:38:00 +0000

The best point in this article is that species loss from global warming will be orders of magnitude worse than anything solar or wind power installations. And if those concerns aren’t overblown I’d be surprised.

I’m actually curious if large solar installations can change a desert environment for the better from a species-diversity perspective. Would it be possible for a very large solar installation to reduce the average daily temperatures in its local area? Could this slow evaporation and improve plant growth in the surrounding area? Could shade provided by an installation help some species…for example those that need to hide from avian predators?

On a much larger scale I wonder how much solar we’d need to install to counter the lost albedo effect of the ice caps melting. I’m assuming the answer is “a ridiculous amount” but I’d like to know how ridiculous, exactly.

By: Zachary Shahan

Zachary Shahan — Mon, 18 Mar 2013 19:56:00 +0000

Thanks

By: anderlan

anderlan — Sun, 17 Mar 2013 05:15:00 +0000

The power usage of humanity in 2008 is equivalent to the power generated if only HALF of human structures were covered with solar panels. So there, the “solar land use” problem is BS. Like there’s not deserts covering half the non-ice land surface of the earth? Replacing a solar array’s concrete ground contact points with wheels, and you could even use fallow agricultural land year after year.

Bottom line, this is, as you point out, propaganda: SOLAR REQUIRES NO FOREST DESTRUCTION. And, by the way, solar and other renewables are inherently about a hundred times better than biomass because they convert solar energy about 100 times more efficiently. Biomass will always ALWAYS ALWAYS account for a tiny sliver energy use of our current age. DON’T FORGET THAT.

By: sault

sault — Sat, 16 Mar 2013 19:14:00 +0000

This is a classic canard that can easily fool people who don’t know any better. If anyone has seen the massive Tar Sand extraction operations in northeast Alberta (even just on Google Maps), or the thousands of square miles pockmarked by fracking well fields in the USA, or the horrors of mountain top removal mining, then they would know that clean energy is a MUCH better option. Or just look at the offshore rigs, the oil pipelines and the oil spills that accompany them. Heck, I’ve even seen a SINGLE coal power plant fill an entire rural valley with brown cloud smog like it was LA or something. Yeah, Spiegel is just parroting a bunch of dog-bites-dog nonsense with this story.

By: globi

globi — Sat, 16 Mar 2013 16:03:00 +0000

Actually, coal and nuclear power plants have a large footprint because they require large mining areas and as opposed to PV cannot be placed on existing roofs.

Also, a wind-farm can still be used for agricultural purposes. An uranium mine on the other hand cannot. And offshore wind-farms don’t have a foot-print and in fact protect marine life from trawlers.

Needless to say that wind-farms and PV are built much faster than new nuclear.