<IHS Data Suggest Kuwaiti and Global Proved Oil Reserves Significantly Lower Than BP Estimates The Oil Drum Student Sustainability Competition>
<DrumBeat: November 17, 2006 DrumBeat DrumBeat: November 19, 2006>

115 comments on DrumBeat: November 18, 2006

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Show without comments | PDF version

Laurence Aurbach on November 18, 2006 - 1:16pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
So, let's assume your calculations are in the ballpark. Over a 30-year period, coal mining "uses" the same amount of land as a 1980s-era solar thermal plant. The SEGS plant has a 30-year delivery contract; it has been in operation for 20 years and 15 years additional working life is expected.

In addition, the company that manufactured the SEGS plant claims that its latest-generation technology is 50 percent more efficient than the SEGS technology. That would imply a proportional reduction in the acreage requirement for an equal amount of electricity generation.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Substrate on November 18, 2006 - 2:56pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
The tricky thing about that, is that after 30 years...the coal fired plant will continue to destroy land, whereas a solar plant will be fixed.  I also just did a "worst case" number crunch below and assuming an 18 inch coal seam would put the yearly land use at 1,568 acres per year as compared to 157 acres per year... or ten times as much.  So the coal plant may catch up to the land usage and begin surpassing that of the solar plant in as little as three years.
Comments can no longer be added to this story.

115 comments on DrumBeat: November 18, 2006

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Show without comments | PDF version