Is covering 500,000 sq KM of desert (which has a relatively high albedo for a non-frozen surface) with dark solar panels really going to help with global warming? Especially considering that as our power needs expand, we will decrease the surface albedo even more. However my biggest concern is the effects on the local regions, it's been shown that when rainforest is cut down, the change in surface albedo and evaporation can increase temperatures by 3C.
Covering 1/18th of the Sahara with solar panels (a number that will drastically increase as African economies grow and as the large majority of Europe is still growing quickly) will not only raise the temperature in one of the hottest places on the planet, but it will cause significant changes to the climate of Eurasia and Africa. The weather in most of Europe is heavily influenced by Saharan winds, and I don't think it's especially wise to screw with the one thing that keeps the region temperate and capable of widespread food production.
Their predictions don't appear to include the fact that solar power isn't 100% guaranteed, you need extra production if you're planning on powering a region. Most wind and solar production has to be turned off after meeting a quota, because they have to supply customers with the same amount, you can't go producing 500MW one day and then produce only 50MW the next because it's cloudy.
Perhaps I'm just a doomsayer, but all the gung-ho environmentalism that gets proposed seriously disturbs me. Farmers get paid to have wind turbines on their land, not only does this cause demineralization of their fields, which increase fertilizer use, which no matter what causes nitrates to get into the water, but it also decreases bird and bat populations that act as natural pesticides. Now you have to increase pesticide usage too, which gets more into the food and more into the water. There's a solution to all this, whilst sticking with wind turbines, but I've yet to see a company deploying helical wind turbines (which significantly reduce demineralization and bird strikes).
I like good old green nuclear, it produces guaranteed amounts of power on a daily basis rain or shine, windy or calm. Modern reactors produce significantly less waste than old reactors, produce medical isotopes. Reactors also often cause a benefit to the environment as the majority of their land is a buffer zone, which goes untended and becomes a natural habitat.
I'm sorry but when nuclear frequently increases biodiversity and 'green' frequently reduces it, you've got some serious shit going wrong with your plans to save the planet.
Um... how exactly do wind turbines cause demineralization?
How do modern reactors produce less waste? The underlying nuclear reactions can't really be influenced by technology.
Not to mention that your "green" reactors' fuel is
A) produced in strip mines that devastate entire landscapes
B) running out about as soon as oil is, unless you start using breeder reactors, which are a much less tested technology and pose a massive proliferation risk.
Comments
Is covering 500,000 sq KM of desert (which has a relatively high albedo for a non-frozen surface) with dark solar panels really going to help with global warming? Especially considering that as our power needs expand, we will decrease the surface albedo even more. However my biggest concern is the effects on the local regions, it's been shown that when rainforest is cut down, the change in surface albedo and evaporation can increase temperatures by 3C.
Covering 1/18th of the Sahara with solar panels (a number that will drastically increase as African economies grow and as the large majority of Europe is still growing quickly) will not only raise the temperature in one of the hottest places on the planet, but it will cause significant changes to the climate of Eurasia and Africa. The weather in most of Europe is heavily influenced by Saharan winds, and I don't think it's especially wise to screw with the one thing that keeps the region temperate and capable of widespread food production.
Their predictions don't appear to include the fact that solar power isn't 100% guaranteed, you need extra production if you're planning on powering a region. Most wind and solar production has to be turned off after meeting a quota, because they have to supply customers with the same amount, you can't go producing 500MW one day and then produce only 50MW the next because it's cloudy.
Perhaps I'm just a doomsayer, but all the gung-ho environmentalism that gets proposed seriously disturbs me. Farmers get paid to have wind turbines on their land, not only does this cause demineralization of their fields, which increase fertilizer use, which no matter what causes nitrates to get into the water, but it also decreases bird and bat populations that act as natural pesticides. Now you have to increase pesticide usage too, which gets more into the food and more into the water. There's a solution to all this, whilst sticking with wind turbines, but I've yet to see a company deploying helical wind turbines (which significantly reduce demineralization and bird strikes).
I like good old green nuclear, it produces guaranteed amounts of power on a daily basis rain or shine, windy or calm. Modern reactors produce significantly less waste than old reactors, produce medical isotopes. Reactors also often cause a benefit to the environment as the majority of their land is a buffer zone, which goes untended and becomes a natural habitat.
I'm sorry but when nuclear frequently increases biodiversity and 'green' frequently reduces it, you've got some serious shit going wrong with your plans to save the planet.
Um... how exactly do wind turbines cause demineralization?
How do modern reactors produce less waste? The underlying nuclear reactions can't really be influenced by technology.
Not to mention that your "green" reactors' fuel is
A) produced in strip mines that devastate entire landscapes
B) running out about as soon as oil is, unless you start using breeder reactors, which are a much less tested technology and pose a massive proliferation risk.