[frankthetank]

I've been crunching some numbers the past few days and what i'm seeing is that renewables use way too much land! and would almost be impossible to replace fossil fuels.

Take wood and wind for example.

To heat homes in my county, i figure to do it sustainably it would require 533,000 acres (41000 households/4 cords house/.3 cords/acre). This is not possible without exploiting the lightly populated northwoods and mowing them down. Not to mention we'd be fighting with Madison, Eau Claire, Milwaukee, and even Minneapolis for these resources WHEN it comes to that

To power the state of Wisconsin with wind i figure it would require 4,000 1.5 MW turbines covering a land area as big as 3 Wisconsin counties (1 per every 30 acres...you can't stack turbines this big). Of course this wouldn't work without some huge battery backup.

Wisconsin has no oil/natural gas... We use coal for almost all electricity (which is imported) with ONE nuclear power plant (what a joke!). We also import 15% of our electricity needs. All hydro sources are exploited or used for barge traffic (Mississippi). Only geothermal would be ground source heat pumps that cost $25,000 and still use plenty of energy (my neighbor has one, isn't impressed) Heat comes from NG, propane, electricity and some wood...

Without clear cutting our forests and covering every sq inch with wind turbines, we are screwed in this state without nuclear OR going without heat/electricty...

Go ahead and tell me how well off or screwed your state is

[Homesteader]

They are all screwed.

Renewables are to Peak Oil as five or six BB's are to a charging grizzly bear.

[Homesteader]

What do you feel is the risk of a large increase in population as events unfold?

[hillsidedigger]

I often suggest to people on message boards that there should be no more than one person per 16 acres of good land in the world (12 billion good acres = 750 million people). Such a statement is generally scoffed at but the analysis in the opening post of this thread just goes to show how few people this planet can support for the long term.

[frankthetank]

Pstarr-

Your right. Some people live in areas that are very lightly populated with many natural resources. Not everyone is screwed, at least not right away

Now REMEMBER... I'm only looking at heat and electricity. I haven't even mentioned transportation. When you start think of replacing oil/gasoline/diesel with renewables the numbers will make your head spin around and your eyes roll back in your head.

Wisconsin does have a lot of wood, so i'm sure we'll mow it down in due time. I think we'll ravage this country of every last morsel before we realize that population and our style of life is very unsustainable.

I crunched the numbers and looks like we could produce all our electricity from wood, but it would require about 75% of our forestland here in Wisconsin to be harvested at a rate of about 5 green tons an acre (staying sustainable). I still not sure how we would heat our homes or power our cars I think if you added heating into the equation we couldn't do it, even with 16 million acres of forest here in the state.

Nuclear (hopefully Thorium) is basically the only hope we have to keep the lights on down the road. Sooner or later even coal will start to run out. NG will be gone within 20 years? 30? Sure we can ship it from overseas, but those countries don't want our toilet paper, plus they have GROWING populations that will require more energy. I still think personal transportation is dead, there will be no energy available for that (down the road).

[lateStarter]

I often suggest to people on message boards that there should be no more than one person per 16 acres of good land in the world (12 billion good acres = 750 million people). Such a statement is generally scoffed at but the analysis in the opening post of this thread just goes to show how few people this planet can support for the long term.

17 acres feels about right to me. On one of our properties we have 7 acres of mixed forest, 7 acres of produce, and 1 acre of pasture. Too bad I don't live there!

[hillsidedigger]

The existing hydroelectric power production capacity is enough to keep enough of the lights on thruout the country if a lot of the trivial uses of electricity were eliminated.

[davep]

I've been crunching some numbers the past few days and what i'm seeing is that renewables use way too much land! and would almost be impossible to replace fossil fuels.

Take wood and wind for example.

To heat homes in my county, i figure to do it sustainably it would require 533,000 acres (41000 households/4 cords house/.3 cords/acre). This is not possible without exploiting the lightly populated northwoods and mowing them down. Not to mention we'd be fighting with Madison, Eau Claire, Milwaukee, and even Minneapolis for these resources WHEN it comes to that

In that case you need to reduce the energy requirement of your homes. It can be done, although it's obviously easier to build something designed correctly from scratch rather than retro-fitting an older place.

[frankthetank]

Dave-

Yeah... I realize that we could cut a huge amount of waste. Like just turning off the TV, lights, turning down the hot water heater, drying clothes outside, using cold water vs hot water for certain things, etc would be big. However, telling people to cut their use isn't easy, actually telling most people how to live their lives can get ugly! The only way i can see would be to just increase the price to cut usage. BUT we do have an ever increasing population (not good) which will require more energy or less energy per person.

I hold out a lot of hope for nuclear to play a bigger role, but we really need to start building some reactors.
I guess we can hope for another 50 years of stable coal output and NG output, although i highly doubt it.

[kiwichick]

if the US can't even provide universal health care , good luck telling them they are only allowed to have one child

[Ludi]

17 acres feels about right to me. On one of our properties we have 7 acres of mixed forest, 7 acres of produce, and 1 acre of pasture. Too bad I don't live there!

Might not be sustainable in the long term. Most hunter-gatherers had a population density of 1 square mile per person. Not saying we need to or should be hunter-gatherers, just that might be the kind of density we really need as apex predators (like bears need large territories).

Talkin' long term here.

<<<personally against any large-scale renewable schemes. If individuals and communities want to install them, great, but T Boone Pickens and his ilk can kiss my blotchy pinkish ass.

[Homesteader]

My main source of meat will be the millions of acres of woods and the rivers and streams within a 30 minute run in a freighter canoe. No need to invest in fences, buildings, feed, and no needing to protect the farm from starving people.

And the town which is 15 minutes away by boat runs on its own stand alone hydro power. Town has a hospital, postal service, etc. ..

[frankthetank]

After research, looks like almost all my electricity comes from coal and burning of garbage!

[frankthetank]

Good example of land use and wind farms:

Farmers in DeKalb County, Mo., who depend on corn, soybeans and pasture land for their livelihoods will soon gain another source of income: annual payments from the Wind Capital Group, which is leasing space on their properties to create the largest wind farm in Missouri. Lost Creek Wind Farm will cover 32,000 acres and produce enough electricity to power 50,000 homes. The project will also create short-term construction jobs and ongoing operations jobs as well as infrastructure benefits for DeKalb County

Wind Capital Group has awarded contracts to General Electric for supply of 100 1.5 megawatt turbines for its Lost Creek wind farm in Missouri, and to provide operation and maintenance for the project for five years.

So in this case they are putting one of these monsters 1 per 32 acres...

[lateStarter]

17 acres feels about right to me. On one of our properties we have 7 acres of mixed forest, 7 acres of produce, and 1 acre of pasture. Too bad I don't live there!

Might not be sustainable in the long term. Most hunter-gatherers had a population density of 1 square mile per person. Not saying we need to or should be hunter-gatherers, just that might be the kind of density we really need as apex predators (like bears need large territories).

Talkin' long term here.

<<<personally against any large-scale renewable schemes. If individuals and communities want to install them, great, but T Boone Pickens and his ilk can kiss my blotchy pinkish ass.

Ludi, I'm not planning on anything 'sustainable'. I'd just like to survive long enough to see how things unfold. I don't think it will be pleasant. Morbid curiousity, perhaps! The ones that survive should have plenty of space to wander and 'hunter-gather' (assuming that something is left to hunt or gather) in the near future. I might even get the opportunity to try my hand at it if we do the fast-crash thing. Fortunately, the backyard of my primary residence is several thousand acres of forest and park-land with a river on its northern border.

[highlander]

Good example of land use and wind farms:

Farmers in DeKalb County, Mo., who depend on corn, soybeans and pasture land for their livelihoods will soon gain another source of income: annual payments from the Wind Capital Group, which is leasing space on their properties to create the largest wind farm in Missouri. Lost Creek Wind Farm will cover 32,000 acres and produce enough electricity to power 50,000 homes. The project will also create short-term construction jobs and ongoing operations jobs as well as infrastructure benefits for DeKalb County

Wind Capital Group has awarded contracts to General Electric for supply of 100 1.5 megawatt turbines for its Lost Creek wind farm in Missouri, and to provide operation and maintenance for the project for five years.

So in this case they are putting one of these monsters 1 per 32 acres...

32000/100=320, last time I checked. That is 2 per square mile.
If you cram enough people into those 50,000 homes, you might be on to something!

[neocone]

They are all screwed.

Renewables are to Peak Oil as five or six BB's are to a charging grizzly bear.

How about I spit on the bear? That should surely work right?

[davep]

They are all screwed.

Renewables are to Peak Oil as five or six BB's are to a charging grizzly bear.

How about I spit on the bear? That should surely work right?

How about you do something positive rather than spout off on the internet?