this is true. I’m not saying that we should stop efforts to install solar to install nuclear instead. as you say replacing the 12 million ha of corn ethanol with solar would produce nearly three times the US demand of 4200 TWh/y (with the averages from the chart above, you have 12 million/1000=12000) i’m for solar. however, i’m also saying that the us could meet nearly 300 times its entire electricity demand just by putting nuclear reactors on the land we currently waste growing corn ethanol. we don’t have to debase nuclear for solar
what is your standard of evidence? you’ve moved the goalposts three times now. first it was “define efficiency”, then “by the definition solar is better”, and now this which i still don’t understand
Goal post? What are you talking about? Word “efficiency” is used in terms of many things. Energy per square ft of land, energy per gallon of clean water, energy per ton of material, energy consumption per mile, per minute, per rotation, per square foot, per this, per that, the list goes on depending on what we’re talking about. Out of nowhere, you bring up per land. So what? Who cares? What are you looking for? What problem are you tying to solve? In terms of power (energy per second), solar systems produce more than nuclear plants worldwide. That’s what the title says and that’s what I say too. Veer off in a different path if you want to but I’m out. Cheers.
I have been searching and providing you with sources. Give me a source that compares any of these other definitions of energy I haven’t yet covered between nuclear and solar. Per land is the only one widely accepted and what an expert will assume the title says.
Yes, so nuclear uses 100 times less land for the same energy. The unit is hectares per TWh.
The United States could meet its entire electricity demand just by putting solar panels on the land we currently waste growing corn ethanol.
The land argument is beyond grasping at straws. The last refuge of the incompetent.
this is true. I’m not saying that we should stop efforts to install solar to install nuclear instead. as you say replacing the 12 million ha of corn ethanol with solar would produce nearly three times the US demand of 4200 TWh/y (with the averages from the chart above, you have 12 million/1000=12000) i’m for solar. however, i’m also saying that the us could meet nearly 300 times its entire electricity demand just by putting nuclear reactors on the land we currently waste growing corn ethanol. we don’t have to debase nuclear for solar
Do you just burn piles of money for fun? Is that your hobby?
Who gives a crap what the maximal power output per land area is? It’s utterly irrelevant.
for one thing, it’s exactly what your argument about corn ethanol is
lol, using a land version of “efficiency” to make solar look bad. 🤣
what is your standard of evidence? you’ve moved the goalposts three times now. first it was “define efficiency”, then “by the definition solar is better”, and now this which i still don’t understand
Goal post? What are you talking about? Word “efficiency” is used in terms of many things. Energy per square ft of land, energy per gallon of clean water, energy per ton of material, energy consumption per mile, per minute, per rotation, per square foot, per this, per that, the list goes on depending on what we’re talking about. Out of nowhere, you bring up per land. So what? Who cares? What are you looking for? What problem are you tying to solve? In terms of power (energy per second), solar systems produce more than nuclear plants worldwide. That’s what the title says and that’s what I say too. Veer off in a different path if you want to but I’m out. Cheers.
I have been searching and providing you with sources. Give me a source that compares any of these other definitions of energy I haven’t yet covered between nuclear and solar. Per land is the only one widely accepted and what an expert will assume the title says.
what does this even mean