Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Environment & Energy
In reply to the discussion: Sacrificing the desert to save the Earth [View all]OKIsItJustMe
(21,875 posts)27. And how many square miles of land will be yielded uninhabitable by a solar accident?
Seriously, a solar farm will not destroy the land. The land is still there under the solar farm.
Open pit uranium mining on the other hand
Lets put our thinking caps on for a moment
http://www.nei.org/newsandevents/newsreleases/nuclear-industry-opposes-administrations-mining-ban-in-southwestern-united-states
[font face=Times, Times New Roman, Serif]Nuclear Energy Institute FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact:202.739.8000
For Release:January 9, 2012
[font size=5]Nuclear Industry Opposes Administration's Mining Ban in Southwestern United States[/font]
[font size=3]WASHINGTON, D.C.U.S. Interior Secretary Ken Salazar today announced a 20-year ban on new hardrock mining claims on one million acres surrounding the 1.2 million-acre Grand Canyon. The region is rich in uranium deposits. Following is a statement from the Nuclear Energy Institutes Senior Vice President for Governmental Affairs, Alex Flint:
Because there is no scientifically verified threat to the Grand Canyons environment from uranium mining, the nuclear energy industry opposes the prohibition announced today. Without scientific justification, the administrations decision prevents mining for some of the nations best high-grade uranium deposits.
This decision actually makes more challenging the difficult struggle to reduce Americas dependence on imported sources of energy. The land covered by this prohibition contains as much as 375 million pounds of uranium, seven times current U.S. annual demand. Our nations ability to realistically pursue energy independence hinges in part on our ability and willingness to produce uranium supplies domestically. Thirty years ago, reactors here used U.S.-mined uranium for all of our electricity production, but the level today is less than 10 percent.
[/font][/font]
Contact:202.739.8000
For Release:January 9, 2012
[font size=5]Nuclear Industry Opposes Administration's Mining Ban in Southwestern United States[/font]
[font size=3]WASHINGTON, D.C.U.S. Interior Secretary Ken Salazar today announced a 20-year ban on new hardrock mining claims on one million acres surrounding the 1.2 million-acre Grand Canyon. The region is rich in uranium deposits. Following is a statement from the Nuclear Energy Institutes Senior Vice President for Governmental Affairs, Alex Flint:
Because there is no scientifically verified threat to the Grand Canyons environment from uranium mining, the nuclear energy industry opposes the prohibition announced today. Without scientific justification, the administrations decision prevents mining for some of the nations best high-grade uranium deposits.
This decision actually makes more challenging the difficult struggle to reduce Americas dependence on imported sources of energy. The land covered by this prohibition contains as much as 375 million pounds of uranium, seven times current U.S. annual demand. Our nations ability to realistically pursue energy independence hinges in part on our ability and willingness to produce uranium supplies domestically. Thirty years ago, reactors here used U.S.-mined uranium for all of our electricity production, but the level today is less than 10 percent.
[/font][/font]
OK, so (according to the nuclear power industry) setting aside one million acres (~1,500 square miles) of land around the Grand Canyon means giving up (maybe as much as) 7 years supply of uranium (remember, were talking about, some of the nations best high-grade uranium deposits.) Nuclear power provides about 20% of our electricity.
In comparison, the department of energy has long stated that a square, 100 miles on a side (i.e. 10,000 square miles) of desert would be sufficient to provide all of our electrical needs.
So, lets say, that to provide 20% of our electrical needs (i.e. to replace nuclear power) it would take 2,000 square miles of solar farms.
Heres the kicker: After providing 7 years of nuclear power, youre going to have to dig somewhere else.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
64 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
They aren't "sacrificing the desert" - the deserts are growing - because of global warming.
bananas
Feb 2012
#2
In the article it says that a land area as big as LA, Riverside, and San Bernardino counties
XemaSab
Feb 2012
#5
The historical Dust Bowl was due to a combination of drought and breaking up the topsoil
XemaSab
Feb 2012
#17
Hopelessly flailing against the very solution to the global warming problem still I see.
txlibdem
Feb 2012
#18
So we should destroy people's homes and livelihoods before relocating a turtle to another place?
txlibdem
Feb 2012
#33
It's too bad there aren't any big, flattish, unused, sunny surfaces in cities.
LeftyMom
Feb 2012
#35
That's why residents of those cities can put up solar panels... just don't bulldoze their homes
txlibdem
Feb 2012
#57
“…they represent but a pin prick compared to the scale of solar thermal plus solar PV that we need…”
OKIsItJustMe
Feb 2012
#54
The scale is massive, yes, but no more massive than other projects we have built
txlibdem
Feb 2012
#20
Yet even a small change to their environment will spell certain peril for their species
txlibdem
Feb 2012
#26
And how many square miles of land will be yielded uninhabitable by a solar accident?
OKIsItJustMe
Feb 2012
#27