[ExI] massive "green" industrial transformation of the landscape

[samantha]

spike wrote:
>   
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat-
>> bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Damien Broderick
>> Sent: Saturday, July 28, 2007 7:28 AM
>> To: 'ExI chat list'
>> Subject: [ExI] massive "green" industrial transformation of the landscape
>>
>>
>> <http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,2133896,00.html>Renewable
>> Energy Projects Will Devour Huge Amounts of Land, Warns Researcher
>> IAN SAMPLE, Science Correspondent - The Guardian (U.K.)
>>
>>
>> Large-scale renewable energy projects will cause widespread
>> environmental damage by industrialising vast swaths of countryside, a
>> leading scientist claims today. ...
>>     
>
> Ja, we knew that.
>   

We did?  What kinds?  Surely not wave energy projects, likely not 
geothermal, not anticipated thin film solar on many surfaces already 
part of more industrialized areas.  So what is meant?  Some types of 
solar farms, some bio-energy projects where the particular things being 
grown for energy were not already being grown and harvested though 
perhaps at a lesser scale?

I always reach for my reply key (or the delete key) when I see "a 
leading scientist claims today". :-)
>  
>   
>> The analysis showed that damming rivers to make use of hydroelectric
>> power was among the most harmful to the landscape, producing around
>> 0.1 watts of power per square metre. ...
>>     
>
> Of course, dams are not *primarily* for the purpose of generating power, but
> rather for water control.  For this analysis we must somehow take into
> account the value of property not destroyed by flooding because of the dams.
>
>   
Is a raw measure of area of land changed per unit of energy produced 
particularly meaningful?

>
>   
>> Biofuel crops and wind energy fared better in the study, with both
>> generating around 1.2w to a square metre...
>>     
>
> Furthermore, we have just begun to find the most efficient biofuels.  That
> is an area that will improve dramatically.
>
>
> ....
>   
>> Another calculation revealed that to meet US energy demands for 2005
>> with wind power would require constant winds blowing onto wind farms
>> covering more than 780,000 square kilometres of land, the area of
>> Texas and Louisiana combined...
>>     
>
>   
Of course no one is remotely suggesting any such thing so this is a bit 
of a canard.


>   
>> The report breaks what Prof Ausubel calls the "taboo of talking about
>> the strong negative aspects of renewables"...
>>     
>
> We know of the negatives, but there are many positives.  Countries all have
> their own wind and their own sunlight, even if some have more than others.
> No need to fight over resources.
>
>
>   
>> ... they're mistaking pleasant landscaping
>> with what would be a massive industrial transformation of the
>> landscape," he said.
>>     
>
> It's all in the way it is described.  Rather let us transform massive
> landscaping with pleasant industrial transformation. 
>
>
>   
>> "A fundamental credo of being green is that you cause minimal
>> interference with the landscape...
>>     
>
> So goes the dogma.
>   

Yeah.  This notion of the good presumes that what just happens to be 
there without interference by humans or eventually other intelligences 
is the best possible.  It also leaves "good" and its derivative "best" 
singularly undefined and ungrounded.
>   
>> We should be farming less land,
>> logging less forest and trawling less ocean - disturbing the
>> landscape less and sparing land for nature. But all of these
>> renewable sources of energy are incredibly invasive and aggressive
>> with regard to nature. Renewables may be renewable, but they are not
>> green," he added...
>>     
>
>   
Who says we "should" be doing any of these things?  The question to be 
answered is how do we meet our energy needs with the least well-defined 
harm to our well-being including our environmental dependencies. 

- samantha