A significant portion of farmland in the US is used to grow corn solely for ethanol production.
If this land – and this land only – was instead used for solar farms, it would produce several times more electricity than the entire country uses, easily allowing the US to be 100% solar powered. (Not with some hypothetical future solar tech – with the tech we have right now.) Corn production for food and even for livestock food would not be reduced at all, only ditching the cornfields used for ethanol production.
Or just, you know, put some solar farms in the vast desert areas the US has, where there’s even better sun exposure and hardly ever any cloud coverage. Then they’ll be even more efficient, and most of that land isn’t used for anything anyway, except maybe some light cattle grazing. (And light cattle grazing can work perfectly fine alongside solar panels. The cows might even appreciate the shade on hot days.)
Long-distance electricity transport is exponentially lossy, and it makes people dependent on vulnerable centralized infrastructure. So your first suggestion is more practical on a national/continental scale.
Solar panels could also be placed on parking lots of dead malls and other decaying suburban infrastructure.
Why do you say that? Intuitively every kilometer takes the same fraction of the remaining electicity, which creates an exponential curve. Technically the loss fraction would be 1 minus the exponential curve, but that’s still an exponential function. Is there something about power generation that makes it a log function of distance?
A significant portion of farmland in the US is used to grow corn solely for ethanol production.
If this land – and this land only – was instead used for solar farms, it would produce several times more electricity than the entire country uses, easily allowing the US to be 100% solar powered. (Not with some hypothetical future solar tech – with the tech we have right now.) Corn production for food and even for livestock food would not be reduced at all, only ditching the cornfields used for ethanol production.
Or just, you know, put some solar farms in the vast desert areas the US has, where there’s even better sun exposure and hardly ever any cloud coverage. Then they’ll be even more efficient, and most of that land isn’t used for anything anyway, except maybe some light cattle grazing. (And light cattle grazing can work perfectly fine alongside solar panels. The cows might even appreciate the shade on hot days.)
Long-distance electricity transport is exponentially lossy, and it makes people dependent on vulnerable centralized infrastructure. So your first suggestion is more practical on a national/continental scale.
Solar panels could also be placed on parking lots of dead malls and other decaying suburban infrastructure.
Why do you say that? Intuitively every kilometer takes the same fraction of the remaining electicity, which creates an exponential curve. Technically the loss fraction would be 1 minus the exponential curve, but that’s still an exponential function. Is there something about power generation that makes it a log function of distance?
Power throughput follows a logarithm