Why do you believe that land use is absolutely no concern? What data do you have for this?

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-82042-5

Notes that at 80% penetration, solar will occupy roughly 5% of total land. The paper goes on to study methods of ensuring that this land use change does not drive net carbon increases from vegetation loss etc.

You didn't read or understand the posting you replied to. Why should anybody expect you to read or understand anything else?

I’d suggest reviewing the site guidelines on comments.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

I posted a response on some of the challenges with marginal economics in renewables and responded to your comment with a peer reviewed and cited journal article on these issues and the relevant data point from this study.

Your response contains an ad-hominem personal attack, and does not contribute to the discussion.

Which part of a reservoir surface do you consider "land"?

Presuming a total adoption of solar across all reservoirs on the planet. We would have roughly 220k sq km of available “land”, roughly enough to support the EUs energy demand (assuming the energy could be magically transported from reservoirs on other continents)

Placing panels everywhere we can is a great idea, however pretending that there is a silver bullet is putting our heads in the sand.

Solar is not the only clean, cheap energy source. Wind coexists nicely with agriculture.

And, constructed reservoirs are not the only still water. California has estimated it can gather 12 GW just from its canals.

Solar may also usefully be sited on active pastureland, which is not in short supply. There, it reduces water demand and offers shelter for livestock. Livestock keeps down weeds.

There is a fair amount of industrial roofing in use, where solar extends its life. Some people have already installed there.

> Solar is not the only clean, cheap energy source. Wind coexists nicely with agriculture.

Then why not nuclear too? The world sorely needs options where we can spend some CapEx and solve global warming. I see nothing wrong with a mix of hydro, solar, geothermal, wind, and nuclear. There is no reason not to expect capital efficiencies in larger nuclear build-outs compared to the sporadic reactors we've built for the last ~50 years.

Right now we are seeing coal and natural gas plants getting built because there aren't enough renewable options. As has been the case for the last 50 years while renewables catch up.

Simply, capex $1 spent on renewables gets you several times what you would get buying nukes, and now, not in 2035.