News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Nuclear energy is long-term sustainable. Parent comment

Re:Nuclear energy is long-term sustainable by BitwiseFool on Friday November 12, 2021 @11:28AM (#29201033)
I don't think this is a meaningful comparison because they are not interchangeable and they exist independently of each other. The large footprint of farmland and roads doesn't make solar appealing in comparison, it just means that other facets of civilization are worse in terms of land use. To me, at least, just because something is way worse does not mean the other thing is acceptable because of it.

I also believe the amount of land we would need to convert to solar would be mostly be newly developed land. We probably wouldn't be converting already productive and utilized land.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Nuclear energy is long-term sustainable by cedilla on Friday November 12, 2021 @11:38AM (#29201219)
It is a meaningful comparison. Agricultural and road use is huge. The solar installation you linked looks huge, but really, I could just as easily link an image of a uranium mine. Some of them are positively enormous - but that doesn't mean that land use for nuclear is.

A pessimistic scenario for Germany requires about 2.5% of the area for 100% renewable energy with today's technology. In a very densely populated country not exactly blessed with loads of sunshine hours. Taking into account the possibility of dual use (PV on buildings, wind turbines on farmland etc) we'll probably use about two times as much land for renewables than we use for cemeteries. It's very manageable.

[ Parent | on HN ]