I think the 100x100 reference was to demonstrate the idea that the area required isn't as large as you would think placing all of that in one place would be dumb
makes sense good answer
I asked Grok to rebut your answer lol
Below is a condensed 500-word rebuttal to the oil production expert’s critique of a proposed 100 mile by 100 mile (10,000 square mile) solar farm, addressing each point (A–F) with arguments for or against, grounded in data and practical considerations.---**A. Battery Size and Lithium Supply** *Claim:* Hundreds of massive batteries would exhaust global lithium supplies. *Response:* Lithium-ion batteries aren’t the only solution. Flow batteries, pumped hydro (90% of current grid storage), and emerging sodium-based batteries reduce lithium reliance. Global lithium reserves (98 million tons, USGS 2023) face pressure, but recycling and diversified storage make this manageable. While TWh-scale storage is a challenge, it’s not a dealbreaker with a mixed energy approach.**B. Environmental Hazards** *Claim:* Battery storage hazards (e.g., LA facility fire) outweigh current pollution. *Response:* Battery fires are rare and manageable with modern safety systems, unlike fossil fuel disasters (e.g., oil spills). Solar’s lifecycle impact is lower than coal or gas, which drive air pollution and climate change. Mining for batteries has costs, but sustainable practices mitigate this. Claiming batteries are worse than all pollution exaggerates their impact compared to fossil fuels’ ongoing harm.**C. Terawatt-Hour Storage Needs** *Claim:* The system requires TWh-scale storage. *Response:* This is accurate—US electricity demand (~4,000 TWh/year) demands massive storage for solar’s variability. Current global battery capacity (~45 GWh, 2023) is far short, but falling costs (lithium-ion down 90% since 2010) and alternatives like pumped hydro make it feasible over time. A diverse energy mix (wind, hydro) and demand-side management reduce storage needs, making this a hurdle, not a showstopper.**D. Natural Disaster Vulnerability** *Claim:* A storm or tornado hitting the farm would blackout the nation. *Response:* A single 10,000 square mile farm is vulnerable, but a distributed grid with smaller solar sites nationwide mitigates this. Solar panels withstand harsh weather (e.g., hail resistance), and grid redundancy with diverse sources ensures resilience. Fossil fuel plants face similar risks (e.g., hurricane-disrupted refineries). Proper design avoids single-point failures, countering the blackout concern.**E. Ecological Impact** *Claim:* No 10,000 square mile area is unoccupied; building sacrifices ecosystems or reservations. *Response:* Strategic siting on degraded lands, brownfields, or via agrivoltaics (solar with crops) minimizes ecological harm. Floating solar on reservoirs avoids land use. While large projects disrupt wildlife, impacts are less than fossil fuel extraction (e.g., coal mining). Careful planning avoids sensitive areas, making this a planning challenge, not an impossibility.**F. Grid Stability** *Claim:* Solar destabilizes the grid, citing wind inefficiencies and the 2003 blackout. *Response:* Variable renewables challenge stability, but smart grids, forecasting, and storage balance supply. The 2003 blackout stemmed from poor grid management, not renewables. Distributed solar enhances resilience, reducing reliance on vulnerable lines. Inefficiencies (e.g., NW wind) reflect policy issues, not solar’s limits. With upgrades, solar integrates effectively.---**Conclusion** The expert’s concerns highlight real challenges—storage scale, ecological trade-offs, grid integration—but overstate solar’s flaws. With diversified storage, smart siting, and grid modernization, a massive solar farm is viable within a broader energy mix, complementing other sources sustainably.
community for the discussion of real estate appraisal. Register a free account to be able to post and unlock additional forums and features.
is average temperature meaningful
