The Washington Post looks at a new study co-authored by Nels Johnson, senior practice adviser for renewable energy development at the Nature Conservancy nonprofit. Its underlying point: the current way of building renewables will not work. "If we take the business-as-usual approach, land conflicts will probably prevent us from getting to these ambitious clean energy targets," said Jason Albritton, director of the Nature Conservancy's North American climate mitigation program and one of Johnson's co-authors... In its report, the Nature Conservancy describes two different futures in which the United States achieves net-zero carbon emissions by 2050. In one future — call it "business as usual" — wind and solar farms are built haphazardly, with little consideration for land impacts. In the other future, developers use land more efficiently. Business as usual would require 266,410 square miles — an area around the size of Texas — to fit all the solar panels and wind turbines, plus batteries to store electricity when sunlight and wind are unavailable and long-distance transmission lines to bring power from rural areas to towns and cities. The researchers used a statistical model to discover the suite of technologies that would minimize land impacts. A smarter strategy, they found, could slash that footprint by more than half, to 114,642 square miles — a little bigger than Arizona. That's still a lot of land, but it would reduce the opportunities for conflict, the researchers said. The model recommends building more solar and less wind, since photovoltaics produce more power with less land than turbines do... The study sees rooftop solar generating far less power than large solar farms. If one in three rooftops have solar panels by 2050 — a high-end assumption — rooftop solar would contribute 15 percent of U.S. solar power, according to the researchers. "It's an important part of the picture, but it will not ever be totally sufficient," Johnson said. The researchers also found land savings by avoiding productive farmland and instead building on abandoned fields or rehabilitated mines, landfills and hazardous waste sites known as brownfields.

Read more of this story at Slashdot.