Biden Lowballed Acreage Needed For ‘Green’ Energy. It’s Jaw-Dropping

Written by James Varney on September 19, 2023. Posted in Current News

The Biden administration is misleading the country about the amount of land that will be required to meet its ambitious ‘renewable’ energy goals, RealClearInvestigations has found

The Department of Energy’s official line – echoed by many environmental activists and academics – is that the vast array of solar panels and wind turbines required to meet Biden’s goal of “100 percent ‘clean’ electricity” by 2035 will require “less than one-half of one percent of the contiguous U.S. land area.”

This topline number translates into 15,000 of the lower 48’s roughly three million square miles.

However, the government report that furnished those estimates also notes that the wind farm footprint alone could require an expanse nine times as large: 134,000 square miles.

Even that figure is misleading because it does not include land for the new transmission systems that would connect the energy, created by the solar panels carpeting the ground and skyscraper-tall wind turbines filling the horizons, to American businesses and homes.

“It’s hundreds of thousands of acres if not millions for transmissions alone,” said David Blackmon, an energy consultant and writer based in Texas. “The wind and solar farms will take enormous swaths of land all over the country and no one is talking about that.”

These vast plots, along with the chains of transmission towers, do not include other aspects that would take up even more land: nationwide vehicle charging stations, mines for rare-earth minerals, maintenance space for huge propeller blades and panels, and so forth.

In addition, all projections increase substantially if the U.S. were to meet Biden’s larger goal of aligning the nation with a global plan, set by the International Energy Association and pushed by the World Economic Forum of Davos, dubbed “Net Zero 2050.”

Professor Jesse Jenkins at Princeton University, whose work is often cited by renewable energy advocates, did not respond to RCI’s questions, but he detailed the scope of the challenge in the May/June issue of progressive Mother Jones magazine.

He urged the U.S. to embark on a moon-shot level transformation of its energy sector, using hundreds of billions in taxpayer dollars that Biden provided for the renewable sector in the spending bill that Democrats named the Inflation Reduction Act.

“We’ll have to build as much new clean generation by 2035 as the total electricity produced by all sources today, then build the same amount again by 2050,” Jenkins wrote.

“This could ultimately require utility-scale solar projects that cover the size of Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Connecticut combined, and wind farms that span an area equal to that of Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, Kentucky, and Tennessee.”

Given the ambitious goals and tight time frames Biden has committed the nation to, it seems natural to assume there would be a master plan detailing where and when this renewable infrastructure will be built and come online.

Yet despite strong resistance by many communities across the country to serve as hosts for these massive projects, there has been no robust public debate about how all the necessary land will be acquired – and whether, for example, it will include the taking of private property through eminent domain or use of national park lands, an idea the government officially dismisses.

In fact, no such master plan exists. The closest thing to it, according to a spokesperson for the federal National Renewable Energy Laboratory, is a “long-term strategy” put out by Biden’s climate envoy John Kerry.

The optimistic, 65-page document does not, however, address the question of land use. The White House did not respond to questions from RCI.

Experts skeptical about Biden’s goals say the land requirements are so immense and problematic that such detail would likely reveal how unworkable the entire program is.

“Of course, it will never happen,” said William Smith, a professor of Earth, Environmental, and Planetary Sciences at Washington University in St. Louis and a member of the CO2 Coalition, a group of scientists who do not believe global warming is an apocalyptic development.

The “less than one-half of one percent” figure is fantasy, according to Smith.

“A lot more area is required.”

Instead of being the focus of vigorous debate regarding a crucial issue, the land requirements are routinely finessed or, most commonly, ignored by policymakers and environmentalists who promise that the radical transformation during the coming decades to the world of supposedly ‘clean’ electricity will have minimal impact on people’s lives and the landscape.

In reviewing government documents and speaking with experts, RCI found widespread disagreement and murkiness in part because the questions surrounding renewables are filled with so many dynamic variables and unknown factors.

The U.S. currently uses an estimated 126,562 square miles for energy production, a bit more than the combined land mass of Missouri and Florida, with by far the biggest chunk devoted to growing corn for heavily subsidized ethanol fuel.

In 2021, the last year for which figures are available, the U.S. got 2.8 percent of its energy from solar sources and 9.2 percent from some 72,000 wind turbines, according to government figures.

In theory, one should be able to easily determine the nation’s future energy needs by working backward – estimating the nation’s total need for electricity in 2030 or 2050 and then determining how many wind turbines and solar panels would be required to meet that demand.

From Federal Agencies, the Rosiest Picture

There is little agreement, however, on how much electricity the U.S. will need in 2035 or 2050 – and, hence, the number of solar installations and wind turbines – because that depends on a variety of lifestyle decisions, such as the type of cars people will drive and the size of the homes they will live in.

In addition, the power generation of those turbines and solar panels depends on where they are situated – which is also unknown – and their age.

These and other variables, in turn, can politicize an ostensibly scientific problem as the factors and assumptions one uses to ask key questions necessarily influence the answer.

The rosiest picture is presented by federal agencies, which rely on estimates from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory and environmental activists.

Alex Hobson, a senior vice president at the American Council on Renewable Energy (ACORE), a nonprofit that “represents all facets of the renewable energy marketplace,” echoed the Department of Energy (DOE) when she told RCI that the U.S. would need “less than one percent of the land in the contiguous United States to fully transition to a clean energy economy.”

All told the U.S. could hit the Biden administration’s target of a 50 percent reduction in emissions by 2030 by adding 19,000 square miles of renewables, a parcel roughly equal to Maryland and Vermont, Hobson said.

Although the National Renewable Energy Laboratory’s own work includes such projections, Hobson characterized estimates putting the square mile requirements for largely ‘carbon’ emissions-free energy in the hundreds of thousands as “a narrative often espoused by critics of renewable energy.”

Nevertheless, estimates by other outfits favorably disposed to Biden’s climate agenda offer larger projections.

An analysis by Bloomberg News, controlled by billionaire environmental activist Michael Bloomberg, concluded that “expanding wind and solar by 10 percent annually until 2030 would require a chunk of land equal to the state of South Dakota.”

South Dakota is roughly 77,000 square miles, or five times the “one-half of one percent” figure that federal officials like to tout.

Pushing the goal to a “Net Zero” future in 2050, Bloomberg reported, would “need up to four additional South Dakotas to develop enough ‘clean’ energy to run all the electric vehicles, factories and more.”

The different dates – a reduction by 2030 and “NetZero” by 2050 – are yet another set of many variables that contribute to the fuzzy math.

Spinning Turbines

Probably the greatest area of confusion surrounds the amount of land required by wind turbines.

In support of its claim that the U.S. will need only 15,000 square miles of land to meet Biden’s renewable goals by 2035, a DOE spokesperson told RCI that the country will need an estimated 5,800 to 11,200 square miles for solar installations and between 1,930 and 3,100 square miles for wind turbines by 2035.

But those numbers account for just the physical space required by each turbine – the stake in the ground, which is small – and not the broader area required by turbines, which must be spaced far apart from one other and require huge bases made from 2,500 tons of concrete.

Those who support renewables claim that almost all of the surrounding land can still be used for farming, ranching, or other purposes. Even here, however, the numbers do not align.

The Energy Department told RCI that “95 percent of the land” in wind farms remains untouched by the renewable energy apparatus, meaning the turbines would occupy but five percent of the land.

But the National Renewable Energy Laboratory lowers that figure further, claiming only two percent of the land is removed from circulation and, in parentheses in his Mother Jones piece, Jenkins marks it down to one percent.

Those who believe the emissions goals set for 2035 and beyond are unrealistic and unnecessary say those numbers are absurdly low, and characterize as false the notion that towering turbines – plus the construction needed to store and transmit energy that relies on fickle sources like sunshine and wind – will not eat up many thousands of additional square miles. 

When factors beyond sticks on the horizon are factored in – that is, the total parameters of wind farms – the plots needed get much bigger, as the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (134,000 square miles) and Jenkins (213,000 square miles) acknowledge in their studies.

Then, given that power weakens the further it must travel to the end user, a gigantic new transmission system will be needed, which will itself require large tracts of land.

See more here climatechangedispatch

Header image: Science News For Students

Please Donate Below To Support Our Ongoing Work To Defend The Scientific Method

PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX. 

Trackback from your site.