Comments by "ElephantInTheRoom " (@elephantintheroom5678) on "How much of the worlds land mass we need to cover in solar" video.

But the whole point is NOT to cover land like Vermont or New Hampshire, but rather areas that humans don't use for any other purpose. That's what the whole study, and this entire video was about...
2
@jebes909090 Most of the world's population lives in the sun band of the planet where new solar is outpacing coal by a factor of 18. Solar out-generated nuclear power, worldwide, in 2017, it will out-generate hydro this year, it will out-generate coal in 3 years, and by 2031 solar will out-generate all these means of generating power, worldwide, COMBINED.🤣laugh at that.
2
@Rovinman Wow! Excellent.
2
@AndrewLumsden You just made @jebes look like an utter twit.
1
@AndrewLumsden True.
1
Shelter that shades a crop from the fierce sun in the middle of the day, while exposing crops to morning and afternoon sun, is desirable in many places. It stops heat stress, and slows evaporation of moisture from the soil.
1
@johnhancock2667 In large parts of the world they don't need full sun in the middle of the day at all.
1
Exactly, think of all those government buildings, carparks, shopping centres, stadiums, power poles etc
1
I don't think that is going ahead now. Look it up. They had some financial troubles.
1
Ray Johnson I hope so.
1
Good idea.
1
The biggest battery on Earth, in South Australia, made so much profit after it was installed that it was quickly expanded.
1
@PistonAvatarGuy As this channel has reported, South Australia was running completely on wind, battery and solar power for about 2 weeks last year, when storms cut SA off from the rest of the Ozzy grid. During that period, SA generated the cheapest power it ever had, in no small part due to that huge battery. You can't rationally argue with those facts. All you have left are irrational, emotional arguments.
1
@PistonAvatarGuy Do you have a problem with comprehension? Reread my comment; it spoke of the proof that SA can and has run entirely on renewable energy for over eleven days straight in 2022, when storms stopped their ability to import or export energy. That is an entirely different point than what South Australia is invested in.
1
@PistonAvatarGuy Gas provides only 7% of Australian energy production and won't grow much, since it is more expensive than solar and wind. In fact, Australia is leading the world in proving how we can rapidly transition to renewable energy. Per capita, Australia is installing solar at twice the rate of anywhere in the world, followed by Japan and Germany. Despite the old fossils who still knock it, solar produced more energy worldwide than nuclear in 2017, and this year it will surpass worldwide hydro generation. Furthermore, in three years it will surpass worldwide coal generation, and by 2031 solar will surpass the generation capacity of nuclear, hydro, coal and gas COMBINED. Indeed, in most places in the world it is cheaper to install new solar installations (with batteries) than it is to keep existing coal plants running, as coal plants run at a loss if they are operating at less than 70% capacity, which they often are because wind and solar is so cheap. At the moment, the only thing keeping coal plants operational is contractual agreements and hefty, taxpayer-funded subsidies. In short, fossil fuels have no future anywhere in the world, and the future of energy is solar (in the world's sunbelt, where most people live) and wind, outside of that.
1
@PistonAvatarGuy You are falling for the twisted narrative that fossil fuel companies have been peddling, quite frankly. The subsidies they receive are astronomical. I'll find some stats and quote them, as you're too lazy or gullible to look them up yourself.
1
@PistonAvatarGuy Here is the source for my comments about the various energy sources and when solar produced more energy than them: European Electricity Review 2022 (International Renewable Energy Agency and Global Energy Monitor data)...should you want to check the truth of my statements. Or just rest on your silly unverified opinions...
1
@PistonAvatarGuy Just because S.A. rejoined the interconnected Australian electricity grid when connection was reestablished, doesn't mean S.A. couldn't have continued on independently had it been necessary. Logic isn't your strong suit.
1
@PistonAvatarGuy 🤣And the International Monetary Fund? And the Australia Institute? I suppose you also claim that the IPCC is a biased source? I expect you also claim that the WHO was lying about covid-19, too? 😂 You're laughable.
1
@PistonAvatarGuy Incentives and subsidies are just different word for the same thing. refer to my comments quoting the IMF as to what energy source is most subsidised, worldwide.
1
@PistonAvatarGuy According to the IMF, "fossil fuels account for 85% of all global subsidies," and reducing these subsidies "would have lowered global carbon emissions by 28%, and fossil fuel air pollution deaths by 46%." Source: International Monetary Fund. Also, according to the Australia Institute, Australian taxpayers paid $11 billion in fossil fuel subsidies in Australia in 2021-2022. Source: The Australia Institute. Not only that, if we look at global figures, taxpayers paid $5.9 trillion, or 6.8% of GDP in 2020, and is expected to rise to 7.5% of GDP in 2025. Source: International Monetary Fund. * See what happens when you do some actual research rather than listening to Fox or Sky News propaganda points?
1
@PistonAvatarGuy According to the International Energy Agency's latest forecast, over the 2022-2027 period, renewables are seen growing by almost 2400 GW, worldwide. In comparison, the International Energy Agency reports that present nuclear operational capacity (2022) is 413 GW. Source: International Energy Agency (2022).
1
@PistonAvatarGuy Why? Because you spout the same talking points they do.
1
@PistonAvatarGuy New nuclear, as well as maintaining or expanding old nuclear, is actually way more expensive than wind and solar (with batteries). You should look into how many offline days French nuclear plants have due to repairs (cracks at the welds, and the like), and how much it costs taxpayers. Indeed, nuclear is actually the most expensive energy of all to expand humanity's power generation. You need to watch the video by Engineering with Rosie (on YouTube) explaining and illustrating the relative costs of all means of energy generation. Also, batteries have decreased 90% in price over the last few years. Once again, you haven't a clue what you're talking about. Do some research.
1
@PistonAvatarGuy Variability is absolutely irrelevant when you have batteries, and the batteries are plummeting in price as fast as solar did.
1
@PistonAvatarGuy Well, if you ignore the evidence from the international Energy Agency and the International Monetary Fund it is clear to all that you simply are either unwilling or unable to face reality. The fact is, your research must be from REPUTABLE sources.
1
@PistonAvatarGuy Wrong. In Europe, during the recent energy crisis, the areas that used the most renewables had the lowest energy costs.
1
@PistonAvatarGuy You are so sadly misinformed it is pathetic. My source is The International Energy Agency, as I have already cited. Now - GO READ IT. Stop babbling in the face of so much evidence. You are looking exceedingly foolish.
1
Says who?
1