Quote:
Originally Posted by bizaro86
Iirc the oilsands produce enough energy for like 2-3% of the entire earth's transport. The same land disturbance in solar would produce much less energy.
The answer here is almost certainly both.
|
You're right it's not apples to apples.
When I was doing research on the foot print of renewables vs o and g they made the point that intensity and life span were more important factors than acreage.
Wind and solar make land unusable for buildings, and crop land, but it leaves bio diversity and stock farming basically undisturbed. Moreover in 80 years when it is not functional or whenever it would be there is zero impact on buildings or crop land.
However O & G and coal have much more intense impacts. Only something like 3% of the oil sands no longer in use have returned to state of bio diversity comparable to what is "natural" sure lots more has been reclaimed but it is still basically unusable for most plants and animals let alone people. And let's not forget we have to pay for it because we don't hold corporations accountable.
https://www.researchgate.net/publica...rgy_in_Alberta