Guest post by David Middleton
The Strata group at Utah State University recently published a study on the “footprint of energy.” For each energy source, the calculated the full-cycle land use required to generate 1 MW of electricity from each source of energy. Despite the fact that they included the land required to drill and mine for natural gas and coal, all of the processing and transportation requirements, as well as power plant footprints, fossil fuels and nuclear power were the clear winners, by a long-shot.
Modern society requires a tremendous amount of electricity to function, and one of this generation’s greatest challenges is generating and distributing energy efficiently. Electricity generation is energy intensive, and each source leaves its own environmental and ecological footprint. Although many studies have considered how electricity generation impacts other aspects of the environment, few have looked specifically at how much land different energy sources require.
This report considers the various direct and indirect land requirements for coal, natural gas, nuclear, hydro, wind, and solar electricity generation in the United States in 2015. For each source, it approximates the land used during resource production, by energy plants, for transport and transmission, and to store waste materials. Both one-time and continuous land-use requirements are considered. Land is measured in acres and the final assessment is given in acres per megawatt.
Specifically, this report finds that coal, natural gas, and nuclear power all feature the smallest physical footprint of about 12 acres per megawatt produced. Solar and wind are much more land intensive technologies using 43.5 and 70.6 acres per megawatt, respectively. Hydroelectricity generated by large dams has a significantly larger footprint than any other generation technology using 315.2 acres per megawatt.
While this report does not attempt to comprehensively quantify land requirements across the entire production and distribution chain, it does cover major land components and offers a valuable starting point to further compare various energy sources and facilitates a deeper conversation surrounding the necessary trade-offs when crafting energy policy.
[…]
| Chart 1: Land Use by Electricity Source in Acres/MW Produced | |
| Electricity Source Acres per Megawatt Produced | |
| Coal | 12.21 |
| Natural Gas | 12.41 |
| Nuclear | 12.71 |
| Solar | 43.5 |
| Wind | 70.64 |
| Hydro | 315.22 |
Strata receives at least some funding from those great Americans: The Koch Brothers. They are also very up-front about their economic philosophy:
Thought leaders and authors we tend to follow:
Friedrich Hayek
Adam Smith
Ronald Coase
Joseph Schumpeter
Elinor Ostrom
James Buchanan
Gordon Tullock
Milton Friedman
MILTON FRIEDMAN… 
I just couldn’t resist taking their results and seeing if I could make renewables look even worse… And it was easy.
The U.S. currently has 274 GW of coal-fired generating capacity (274,000 megawatts). Using the capacity factors in the EIA’s most recent LCOE analysis, I calculated how many MW of each source would be required to replace 274 GW of coal and then used Strata’s per MW footprint to calculate the footprint required by each source, if it completely replaced coal.
| MW | ac/MW | Total Footprint (ac) | Sq. Miles | Capacity Factor | |
| Coal | 274,000 | 12.21 | 3,345,540 | 5,227 | 0.85 |
| Capacity-Adjusted MW | ac/MW | Total Footprint (ac) | Sq. Miles | Capacity Factor | |
| Natural Gas | 267,701 | 12.41 | 3,322,171 | 5,191 | 0.87 |
| Nuclear | 258,778 | 12.71 | 3,289,066 | 5,139 | 0.90 |
| Solar PV | 970,417 | 43.5 | 42,213,125 | 65,958 | 0.24 |
| Wind | 597,179 | 70.64 | 42,184,759 | 65,914 | 0.39 |
| Hydro | 394,746 | 315.22 | 124,431,759 | 194,425 | 0.59 |
Then I related the footprint of each source to U.S. States.
| Sq. miles | |
| Connecticut | 4,845 |
| Nuclear | 5,139 |
| Natural Gas | 5,191 |
| Coal | 5,227 |
| Hawaii | 6,423 |
| Georgia | 57,906 |
| Wind | 65,914 |
| Solar PV | 65,958 |
| Washington | 66,544 |
| California | 163,696 |
| Hydro | 194,425 |
| Texas | 268,581 |
For hydroelectric, I used the total areas of California and Texas. Otherwise, I just used land areas.
Some may say, “That’s silly! No single power source is expected to replace coal.” This is true, however some people think that wind, solar and hydroelectric can provide 100% of our electricity. In which case we would need a Georgia-sized wind farm, a Washington-sized solar farm and a hydroelectric capacity (including the rivers) almost as big as Texas.
Or, we could just roll with three Connecticut-sized footprints: Coal, natural gas and nuclear.
Glossary
LCOE: Levelized cost of electricity.
MW: Megawatt
GW: Gigawatt = 1,000 MW
Featured image source:
Middleton makes a fool of himself again. The implicit assumption of this entire article is that “less land per megawatt is good. To show what a stupid assumption this is, consider rooftop solar. This technology takes area that serves no purpose, which would do nothing otherwise, and uses it to produce energy.
…
Another example of how stupid this implicit assumption is, is that the land used for a wind turbine farm does not preclude the land for it’s original purpose, be it livestock grazing, or crop production. When the land is use for TWO purposes simultaneously, it increases the value of said land.
…
Seriously Dave, go out and do a scientific poll of the cattle grazing underneath the wind turbines, and find out if they mind the whooshing noise.
Wind is not free for adjaent landowners in Germany. Real estate values for properties with a view of a wind turbine suffer a 15% discount relative to similar properties with unobstructed views. Who compensates those landowners?
And for me, the nightime visage of the wind farms on I-65 north of Inianapolis is absolutdly hellish, venturing into Mad Max territory. Anyone think this improves the view?
“Who compensates those landowners?”
…
The same people that compensate the landowners downstream of a coal ash pond:
about half of German wind turbines are owned collectively by local communities. who presumably agreed to the turbines being amongst them.
https://energytransition.org/2013/10/citizens-own-half-of-german-renewables/
(and I’d like to see a source for your assertion)
You really want to go there? Can anyone argue that the local wind farm increases property values?
From Forbes (23 Sept 2015):
Here are some more detailed analyses about wind project effects on
property values, by independent professionals:
A 2013 Study of over a million homes by the London School of Economics,
concluded that properties near turbines will decline in value. Searchlight wind farm could reduce property values by 25-60 percent, suggest studies.
A 2012 study by Lansink Appraisers: Diminution in Price.
A 2012 Study by E.ON Energy Research Center (German Utility company):
The Impact of Wind Farms on Property Values.
2012 testimony in Lee County, Illinois, by appraiser Michael McCann.
A 2011 study Values in the Wind: A Hedonic Analysis of Wind Power
Facilities by Clarkson economics professor, Dr. Martin Heintzelman.
A 2011 Study by appraiser Michael McCann on property value impacts in
Cape Vincent, New York.
A 2011 Report by appraiser Michael McCann on property value impacts in
Brewster, Massachusetts.
Testimony of appraiser Michael McCann on property value impacts in
Adams County, Illinois.
A study done by Metropolitan Appraisal, regarding the Forward Wind
Project (Wisconsin).
“A Wind Turbine Impact Study” by appraisers: Appraisal Group One, and a
later version.
A valuable report: “Impact of Wind Turbines on Market Value of Texas
Rural Land” by Gardner Appraisal Group.
“Living with the impact of windmills” presentation by Real Estate broker
Chris Luxemburger, is an analysis of some 600 sales over a three year
period.
Testimony of Maturen & Associates, Real Estate Appraisers, concerning the
effects of wind projects on home values.
In addition to being an excellent noise an health effects report, this
document has a twenty page appendix on property values.
Wind Power Siting Issues: Overview” (by energy expert Tom Hewson): cites
several studies.
Appraisers report property value losses near turbines.
Government Agency agrees that turbines do devalue property!
Property assessments reduced near turbines.
Property assessment lowered for home near wind project.
Grafton Vermont Property Values Forum (1/17/14): Mike McCann
Council tax cut for homes near wind farms.
These are some other analyses and commentary about wind project
effects on property values:
Wind farm ‘blight’ cutting value of homes by up to a third.
“How do wind turbines affect property value?”
Property values are the new front line in the war over wind turbines
32 Lawsuits against wind developer — including property value loss
Falmouth Real Estate – “The Turbine Effect”
Turbines complicate sales of abutting homes.
“Wind Industry Big Lie: Your Property Value Will Not Be Affected.”.
Vermont Wind Developer buys neighboring property after lawsuit
“A new slant on wind projects” offers a very helpful idea as to put some of
the economic benefits of wind projects into perspective.
This site has a fine collection of property value articles.
“Property Values decrease by 40% if view of wind turbines” is an analysis of
a real estate broker on turbine impacts on residential values.
An excellent discussion by the Wisconsin Realtor Association about the
adverse effects of wind development.
An analysis by an Illinois Realtor about effects of wind projects.
A survey by a Wyoming Realtor concluded that properties nearby a wind
project were virtually unmarketable.
“Property values blowing in the wind” is a report done by a local Realtor
about wind project effects in her area of northern NY.
See here and here where two Realtors make formal testimony about the
effects of wind turbines on property values.
Landowners say Turbines have Hurt their Property Values.
Wind turbines have reduced property values, court says.
Wind Turbine Compensation Stirring Discontent (Denmark).
“How Industrial Wind Projects Affect Property Values” is a worthwhile
commentary by Chuck Ebbing.
A nice presentation “Turbine Effects on View Shed” by engineer Chuck
Ebbing.
“Impact of wind farms on the value of residential property and agricultural
land” an RICS (Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors) Survey.
“Farm couple fights wind turbines”.
A newspaper article: “Critics say wind turbines hurt land values.”
“Wind turbine homes threat” is a news report.
“I predict a series of rural ghettos of abandoned, unmaintained homes” says
an experienced appraiser.
The Better Plan website has a good example of a real estate problem, plus
some good recommendations.
Here is a good news story about homeowners holding out for the wind
developers to buy their property — and succeeding very well.
This article says: “Horizon, opponents debate effects on property”.
“U.S. wrestling with property values and setbacks for its wind turbines”
touches on several related matters.
This UK site site lists several other sources regarding property values.
“Giant blades are slicing home prices” an article about experiences in
England.
“An Ill Wind Blowing” is a story about an English family’s experiences with
a wind project depreciating their home value.
Ontario Parliament member calls for a provincial home value study about
another English family’s experiences with a wind project depreciating their
home value.
“Windfarm Blows House Value Away” is a story about another English
family’s experiences with a wind project depreciating their home value.
“Wind farm property sells at sheriff’s sale.”
Ooooooops….
…
Hey Middleton, this analysis doesn’t account for the fact that off shore wind doesn’t use land.
…
And how about floating solar? http://www.seaflex.net/wp-content/sembly_data/thumbnail/f1/7614c7205535b2a4b9ab128ac69aeb.jpg?134177
The analysis didn’t address offshore wind, offshore gas production or waterboene solar. It addressed land use.
Any more red herrings or strawmen?
There is no assertion or assumption of good versus bad. It’s just a matter of size.
A hydroelectric power plant has a huge footprint because of the reservoir. The preexisting land use is totally changed. However, the reservoir usually provides added benefits (fresh water, recreation, etc).
Wind farms have the next largest footprint; but they generally don’t alter the preexisting land use.
Solar PV is next largest. It totally alters the preexisting land use and has no added benefits. Although when built in deserts, it doesn’t really matter.
Natural gas, coal and nuclear have tiny footprints. The upstream footprints of coal and nuclear (mining) have an impact on preexisting land use. Natural gas wells have very little impact on preexisting land use.
If you generated 100% of US electricity with wind, solar and hydroelectric, you would need an area roughly as large as Texas, Washington and Georgia.
If you generated 100% with coal, natural gas and nuclear, you would need three Connecticuts worth of land area.
It’s just math.
Hydroelectric, wind and solar require more land per MW. That’s an indisputable fact. They all have lower capacity factors than gas, coal and nuclear power. Another indisputable fact. When you combine the two facts, renewables look even worse on a capacity-adjusted MW/ac basis.
Middleton posted: “fossil fuels and nuclear power were the clear winners, by a long-shot.”….
…
How did they “win?” What measure did you use to determine “winning” and “losing?”….
…
Acknowledge the implicit assumption: “less land per megawatt is good,” which is how you determine the “winner”
They won in the contest for smallest footprints.
PS, offshore wind would beat out natural gas, coal and nuclear because it uses ZERO land.
It would. It has no land use footprint beyond shore facilities and transmission lines.
However, 99 999% of U.S. wind power generation is onshore.
Middleton expounds the metric: “smallest footprint” which means smaller is better, with “footprint” being Mw/acre.
…
Thanks Dave, you’ve just acknowledged my contention that your implicit assumption is: “less land per megawatt is good.”
Smaller just means smaller. Are you incapable of posting anything other than moronic straw man and red herring fallacies?
The Patriots won the Super Bowl by scoring more points than the Falcons. Is this good or bad?
Thanks Dave, you again acknowledged the implicit assumption that I previously pointed out.
…
Now, do you wish to talk about using desert land for solar? You know, land that can’t be used for anything else?
And?
Dave, have you spoken to the Iowa farmers that collect rent from the wind turbines that co-occupy their corn fields?………the farmers that collect a rent check monthly for the trouble of plowing around the base?
I’m generally pro-wind power, where there is an adequate wind resource and the economics make sense… places like the Llano Estacado of Texas and Iowa.
It would still take a Georgia-sized windfarm to offset 274 GW of coal-fired power plants.
Pointing out an implicit assumption that underlies your entire article is neither a straw man, nor a red herring. I find it funny you would label them as such being that you’ve acknowledged that the assumption is valid.
http://i0.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/000/995/415/b30.jpg
I don’t care who won the Super Bowl. I don’t like my herrings red.
Just drawing an analogy.
You assumed I oppose wind and/or hydroelectric power because I pointed out their huge land use footprints.
Strawman?
…
You are funny.
…
You posted: “It would” in this comment: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/08/09/the-footprint-of-energy-land-use-of-u-s-electricity-production/comment-page-1/#comment-2577123
…
You acknowledged my assertion of an implicit assumption.
…
Thanks for playing.
Just anorher strawman.
Middleton posts: “You assumed I oppose…….”
…
Nope, I didn’t make any assumption, I just pointed out one that you made.
http://i0.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/000/995/415/b30.jpg
Strawman? Could you please elaborate on that contention and stop posting the stupid pictures that waste bandwidth? Posting those pics just shows your desperation when losing an argument.
You keep repeating the same strawman fallacy over and over.
The fact that U.S. wind, solar and hydroelectric power plants have much larger full stream land use footprints than natural gas, coal and nuclear power plants is neither good nor bad.
The fact that intermittency makes the footprint discrepancy even larger is neither good nor bad.
It’s just math.
By saying “win” there is a clearly implied value to having smaller area. You could have said wind was the clear winner, by a long shot, of the biggest area needed. Yay!
That would have changed the way the article read.
The analogy of the Superbowl deonstrates this clearly. The purpose of the game is to win. To win is better than to lose. When we say one team won it is saying the outcome for that team was better. Winning is an implicitly superior to losing.
“The Patriots won the Super Bowl by scoring more points than the Falcons. Is this good or bad?” Almost everybody would say it was good for the Patriots and bad for the Falcons.
By analogy, fossil fuel won the energy race by having a smaller footprint than renewables. Almost everybody would say that was good for fossil and bad for renewables.
There is a value to having a smaller footprint. Natural gas, coal and nuclear win by a wide margin.
By the cost per MW and MWh, natural gas wins. Wind breaks even. Coal, nuclear and solar lose.
By units of GHG reduced per MW, nuclear wins by a wide margin.
Instead of using the Super Bowl, I should have used The Masters Golf Tournament, where low-score gets the green jacket.
On the flip side, nuclear, coal and natural gas win by wide margins in the capacity to generate more MWh per MW than wind, solar or hydroelectric. In this area, high score wins.
Winning is superior to losing. But this doesn’t make the losers bad. Hydroelectric is good, even when it loses. Wind just breaks even, from almost every angle. And solar pretty well sucks no matter how you look at it.
Mark, the next thing we know you will be talking about cold fusion and carbon capture.
MSJ,
Well, if cattle liked to eat feathers and guts they might well congregate under the windmills. But, they don’t! I haven’t done the “scientific poll” but I have been around cattle enough that my suspicion is that they probably will take a while to get used to the noise and the approaching blades. Cattle can be spooked easily. I’d be interested to see if anyone has actually done your study.
By the way can you tell me, if I were to replace the asphalt shingles on my roof with the new Tesla PV glass shingles, would I be able to walk on them to remove leaves or deep snow?
BTW Dave,
Your efforts in producing a large quantity of high quality articles for WUWT is greatly appreciated in this corner. Your energy level must be close to Trumpian proportions.
Robert, I agree with you regarding “quantity”, but the quality is lacking.
The amount of land used for wind power is negligible even though wind farms cover large areas. To say that it would take acreage the size of Georgia to produce required amount of electricity is meaningless since the US has potential wind areas able to produce electricity which are several times the size of Georgia, where the actual amount of land used would be a mere fraction of the total area of the wind farms.
Yes… and solar goes on old airfields, over parking lots (many already in use for this), on conference centers, warehouses, on reservoirs, over irrigation canals, on houses, schools, old coal mines and even on farmland which can still be used for grazing sheep or raising chickens.
No shortage of space for solar.
another place you can put solar – an old nuclear plant!
http://www.powermag.com/abandoned-tva-nuclear-site-new-life-solar-farm/
I note:
“he site remained mostly untouched until Charlotte, N.C.-based Birdseye Renewable Energy partnered with United Renewable Energy of Alpharetta, Ga., earlier this year to design and build the solar farm2
and
“A 2016 report from solar panel manufacturer SolarCity said today’s solar panels should still produce about 80% of their power after 35 years in service. “
Solar is banned around active airfields in NC, and, in the immediate area around them due to causing reflections that blind pilots.
You could say the same thing about natural gas. Most of the land under its footprint is still available for its preexisting land use. For that matter, the upstream and midstream segments of natural gas (producing wells and pipelines) are mostly underground.
It’s just a simple fact that wind farms would require Georgia-sized area to generate as much electricity as coal, natural gas or nuclear power could in a Connectcut-sized area.
“Most of the land under its footprint is still available for its preexisting land use.”
I don’t think that is the case. The land use decribed is pretty much the direct land use for fixtures and infrastructure. I don’t think that can be used for its previous purpose once a power station has been built on it. I don’t think the underground parts were included in the land use.
However, one does not need to make this argument because the land use for gas is so much smaller anyway.
I was referring to the upstream and midstream segments of the footprint: producing wells and pipelines. These have very little effect on the preexisting land use. The gas processing and power plants are relatively small.
I drive through the northern plains of the us and Canada every year. From North Dakota to Alberta and Manitoba I saw nothing but oil wells right in the middle of growing fields, for throusands of miles. No such additional use around wind mills, sorry.
David – A worthwhile article, thank you. My previous post disappeared so here is a shorter one.
The Capacity Factor for wind power (too high, imo) reflects the ridiculous fact that non-dispatchable wind power is legislated into the grid ahead of much cheaper and fully dispatchable conventional power. This is the BIG FIX that our idiot politicians have enacted to make wind power LESS UNeconomic.
We pay the wind power companies 20 cents/KWh 24/7 for their output, and when there is too much wind power we give it away for free to neighbouring provinces and states. We also idle much cheaper gas-fired power costing 2-4 cents/KWh to make room for the much more costly wind power. It takes a politician to be that stupid (or corrupt).
However, the true factor that reflects the intermittency of wind power Is the Substitution Capacity*, which is about 5% in Germany today. This is the amount of dispatchable (conventional) power you can permanently retire when you add more wind power to the grid. In Germany they have to add 20 units of wind power to replace 1 unit of dispatchable power – ja, that’ll work!
Regards, Allan
“David – A worthwhile article”
No Allen it is not. The article is worthless crap. David is an idiot for writing about the power industry. Why folks in the oil and gas part of the industry think they have a clue is beyond me.
First off, electricity has huge benefits to society.
Second the most important criteria is safety. Over the years, the power industry has become one of the safest industries to work in and live near.
Third, the power industry must show that it meets customers needs with insignificant environmental impact and we do. It has taken a long time to reach this goal
David is debating just how insignificant, insignificant is.
How stupid is that? Texas stupid! There are parts of Texas with lots of people and cars and no wind resource. Other parts of Texas has hardly any people or cars, but with a great wind resource. I have even seen a few wind turbines turbines there.
The step that David misses is determining the of such things as foot print. This a public process. If a windfarm is proposed, neighbors are asked what they think. Since David is not a neighbor, what think does not matter.
I have been to a few public meeting where the NRC ask for public input. The usual suspects from far away cities show up and make the same statements over and over. What you like or dislike also does not matter. To stop or shutdown a power project you need a substantive and non-emotional reason. It also has to be factual.
This is a two way street. Regulators are required to consider alternative power sources. For example, for a nuke plant; coal and gas are alternatives. Wind and solar are dismissed by the NRC because it does not meet the need for baseload power.
When and if wind and solar can produce baseload power, then fossil and nukes can be replaced. It is up to the wind and solar industry to show this. Not going to happen.
At no point was the Strata study or this post about the merits or safety of the power industry.
KIt – I reject your comments. Read my above post in detail.
Wind power is worthless, even harmful because of intermittency – it costs too much and it destabilizes the grid.
Paying 20 cents/KWh for nondispatchable intermittent wind power vs 2-4 cents for dispatchable reliable gas-fired power is so utterly stupid that it beggars belief.
Allan, game, set, match!
Retired Kit, you’re coming across as a crotchety old geezer with no major points other than to be contrarian. And you’re not particularly nice about it either. Doesn’t make your contributions very valuable, just saying.
Greenies don’t care about “frontprint” ’cause that’ll always be done somewhere out in the sticks/flyover country, away from their cities & suburbs. Unless it’s near their summer homes in Martha’s Vineyard (Kennedys) — then it’s not acceptable of course.
Wind farm developers I have talked have a map showing local wind resources. Superimposed are places are you can not build because wind advocates will see them from vacation houses.
It doesn’t matter whether anyone “cares” about it.
“Land footprint is the real amount of land, wherever it is in the world, that is needed to produce a product, or used by an organisation or by a nation.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_footprint
It’s simply a measure of how much land is required, on average, for 1 MW of generating capacity for various different energy sources.
Coal, natural gas and nuclear have small land footprints.
Solar, wind and hydroelectric have large land footprints.
A large land footprint in the Permian Basin is not a big deal. Vast wind farms and large oilfields have overlapping footprints, which generally don’t disrupt the preexisting land use.
How many wind proponents live near the wind plants? How many of you here that love wind live within 15 to 20 miles of 300+ turbines (many of which are visible from your road), another 46 in a different wind plant, drive by 11 turbines on the way to work and have over 200 near your recreation areas? How many of you have 700 being installed where you used to hunt and camp?
How many wind advocates would be estatic if a natural gas backup plant went in next to their house? Do you live with the reality of what you think is so great?
I am not a ‘proponent’ of windfarms. I am an an opponent of stupid.
Sheri is using the debating device of asking the rhetorical question.
I camp and sail smack dab in the middle of two wind farms. Does not bother me in the least. Can not hear them.
The trains on both sides of the river can be an irritating source of noise. A 100 car coal train goes by daily to the coal plant down the road. I like to use electricity.
The grain elevator makes noise along with the trucks bringing it wheat and the barges taking it away. Wheat dust all over the place. I like to eat bread.
When the wind is blowing from the east, I can smell the paper plant and feedlot. I use paper and like beef.
When we choose to enjoy modern conveniences, it is implicit that you accept the means of providing them.
‘the way to work’
Of course Sheri’s work and her driving a car would not be a problem to anyone!
There are WORKING means of providing them and then there are ripoffs. Wind turbines are ripoffs. The landscape is dispoiled for nothing but corporate welfare, passed on to land owners who get second hand welfare.
I have had railroads through my back yard, lived next to car washes, downwind of hog farms, grain elevators, and etc. I did not complain about these because they had VALUE. Wind turbines only function is to make billionaires richer. Nothing else.
My driving to work may involve an electric car for all you know. Yet you assume it does not. Assumptions are okay from your side?
I am curious how many turbines you are referencing? 10, 20? 50?
Would you live next to a nuclear power plant? A uranium mine? A rare earth mine? Is there anything you would consider an intrustion great enough to leave?
I am not doubting you. I am just trying to understand. People tend to dump on those who live in truly rural areas that are “worthless” to most people. That’s where many of the turbines are—where no one could fight back against them. What is “worthless” to you may have great value to me and I don’t want to give that up any more than you would something you valued, assuming you value anything enough to not want to lose it. Giving it up for the benefit of corporate welfare makes it all the worse.
I don’t mind NIMBY’s, but I don’t want them anywhere near me.
“Of course, since you don’t apparently like open spaces and wildlife and nature, you’d love wind turbines. Please have them moved to YOUR backyard, not mine, and we’ll both be happy.”
Sheri, why is that apparent? Clearly some open spaces are less desirable than a truck stop. Truck stops are crowded, most open spaces are deserted.
Here is an example of a beautiful open space. Although it is hard to get to, you can see some desire to be there. Gooseneck State Park, Mexican Hat, UT
https://freecampsites.net/#!914&query=sitedetails
We have a piece of land where we can hear the ocean surf in Washington State. It is mostly overgrown with nature. It is home to 5 deer. Enough was cleared enough to park the motorhome and the deer coexist within a few feet.
Another open space where we park the motorhome is on the lakes behind dams in Oregon and Washington State. We were sailing there long before windfarms took advantage of the good resource. Sailing by definition is an open space activity. Seeing wind turbines on the hills with wheat fields, does not destroy the open space.
“Seeing wind turbines on the hills with wheat fields, does not destroy the open space.” Open space does not include wheat fields. It’s open areas where there are no people living and no structures. Just short of being what used to be called a wilderness area where no vehicles were allowed.
This is extremely difficult for people to understand. Open space in the West means acres and acres of land used only for grazing or recreation. There are no buildings, nothing. People moved out West for the open space. Now, in order to supposedly keep the lights on in California, thousands of turbines are going in. It benefits only people out of state and takes away what people moved here for.
Perhaps a better way to explain:
If you lived in a city and it was decided to raze the city, send everyone to live only in small towns and on farms and ranches, in order to put in a power system that generated power on a random schedule in varying amounts, would you just sigh and move to the country. What turbines do to the open spaces out West is the same thing—razes our open areas for a power source that is completely random. We become an industial wind park, not open spaces. Can the city be razed and you just move away? Can several cities be razed?
Why are we having this debate?
Having worked at many nuke plants, I can tell you that some do not like nuke plants. Others do not like coal. Some want to tear out existing hydro. Being against something does not require rational thought. It is about the drama of having a cause in a world where survival from cold winter nights is no longer an important issue.
Since providing power is a public service, we are tasked with proving power they way our customers want even if it is not the most practical choice.
The expected unintended consequence is that a new set of crackpots will find irrational reasons to be against things like wind a solar. Sheri comes to mind.
Of course the reason they are a crackpot is normal people do not care. Think of it this way. A normal person understands that some people like chocolate ice cream and some do not. If you get angry, upset, and unhappy because not everyone agrees with you, you are a crackpot.
Unfortunately, crackpots organize and politicians pander to them. Next thing you know some mayor or governor is banning chocolate ice cream.
So how easy is it to avoid seeing power plants of any sort?
Last week I drove 1000 miles from the PNW to the Mohave Desert. The first power plant I saw was McNary Dam. Then there was a gas fired power plant and another wind farm which was the first in the PNW. The itinerary of the first 50 miles included dumping my sewage holding tank and buying fuel.
This was followed by 500 miles of backroads. Took a break in a beautiful Oregon state park. No one else was there. Took a break in a beautiful Blue Mountain forest service campground. No one else was there. In Nevada, had to wait for man on a horse to move a herd of horses off the road. Will not see that on the interstate.
Took a break in a ‘beautiful?’ Nevada rest stop that was 100% open space No one else was there. Had to run the generator to run the A/C since it was 105F.
Finally got to I-80 for 50 miles. Bought fuel and saw a coal fired power plant. This was followed by 500 miles of backroads. Took a break in a ‘beautiful?’ Nevada rest stop that was 100% open space No one else was there. Had to run the generator to run the A/C since it was still 105F.
The point, again, the footprint of the power industry is insignificant.
Excuse me, irrational wind worshipper.
“Of course the reason they are a crackpot is normal people do not care. Think of it this way. A normal person understands that some people like chocolate ice cream and some do not. If you get angry, upset, and unhappy because not everyone agrees with you, you are a crackpot.”
Wind plants are like mandating a set amount of chocolate ice cream per state, at an elevated price, subsidized by the government, paying the chocolate ice cream people for the ice cream even if they don’t deliver it and building the ice cream factories in the middle of parks. I’m sure “normal people” will agree that chocolate ice cream not delivered but paid for anyway and mandated to be bought before vanilla or any other flavor, paid for in large part by tax breaks and produced in factories in the middle of parks is a great way to sell ice cream.
Thanks Dave — interesting as always, but some people sure got ruffled!
Land acquisition is part of the cost of building anything. There’s a monetary aspect, which is of course quantitative and then there are intangibles. All other things being equal, acquiring more land costs more money. So it is not at all irrelevant to consider how much land is required to produce the same amount of power through different technologies. If you like recreational lakes, you might well think the land area converted to hydroelectric use is a net benefit. I suppose somewhere there are people who find living next to a wind farm is pleasant.
While land used for nuclear, gas or coal power generation is devoted exclusively to that purpose, land required for hydro and wind is still available for some other uses (I wouldn’t put a sky-diving school near a wind farm however). That mitigates to some extend the disparity between thermal and renewable technologies.
However, I believe you can put a CCGT plant on exactly the same footprint as a decommissioned coal plant — maybe even reuse the building — so the net land cost of replacing coal with CCGT is zero.
Alan the reason you are wrong is that each power project has a specific location. It is not some hypothetical situation. Regulations require the environmental impact be insignificant.
Sheri asked me if I would live next to a nuke plant. Well of course. Buy me the million dollar house on the cooling water lake for one of Duke’s plant and I will live there.
I would live next to the TVA coal plant with the worst coal ash spill. Again you will have to buy it for me because it is mire than I can afford.
I have been to these places. Land use is not a significant issue in the context of society. In the context of project development there is lots to consider.
No, we do not buy you the house, we build the plant next to your current house.
Sheri objection to windturbines is that she can see them and she does like them because she can see them.
This is called a circular argument.
Like said I have been there. You can see them from the interstate which I try to avoid. Ugly before wind turbines. I checked for the closest ‘free’ campsite. Walmart it is!
For those who have not been there, Wyoming is vast barren place. The foot print of beautiful places you would want to visit is small. Mostly butt ugly.
Culturally and historically barren too. Lots of fossil fuels.
I have lots of memories of Wyoming. All the goods ones are from avoiding the interstate.