Clean Energy Must Use Less Land

If humanity truly aims to build a sustainable world, the transition to clean energy cannot ignore land use. Nature and agriculture take up most of our planet’s land, yet both require expansion to support population growth over the coming decades. A land squeeze is imminent, and the clean energy choices we make today will affect the future of life on Earth for many generations to come. How much space our societal infrastructure, particularly energy production, ought to occupy becomes a fundamental question.

The main slate of renewable energy sources, though, would blow the land budget out of proportion. Heavy integration of wind and solar on a global scale, and their required transmission and storage paraphernalia, requires an additional land footprint up to the size of Australia.

A truly sustainable energy transition not only eliminates emissions but also reduces the physical footprint of our energy system, allowing further preservation of natural habitats without compromising the nutritional needs of a growing world. Deep geothermal and nuclear technologies are the best sources to maximize energy output and minimize land use; doing more with less.

But to understand why deep geothermal and nuclear are top solutions, we must first understand the land priorities of today and tomorrow.

The planet’s habitable land is currently divided into three main categories: nature, agriculture, and the built environment. Nature and agriculture already account for 99% of all habitable land on Earth, and they will compete over that finite lot for years to come. The mere 1% already used for our built environment must remain stable or become more efficient to ensure human prosperity and biodiversity.

Looking into the future, a comprehensive study from Cornell University outlines the space required to protect the world’s critical biodiversity. It echoes a report from 2022 with similar findings: roughly half of all global land must be protected to maintain the fragile ecosystems supporting human life. What’s more, less than a fifth of the necessary land is adequately protected today, leaving the rest vulnerable to destruction.

Additionally, as populations and incomes rise over the next few decades, the World Resources Institute estimates food demand will increase by 50% and animal-based food by roughly 70%. That adds up to an extra area about the size of the Amazon rainforest, or almost twice the size of India, to adequately feed humanity by 2050.

The world is also increasingly urban. Up to seven in ten people could live in cities by 2050, resulting in further land pressure. To accommodate everyone and meet their needs, additional urban land with a footprint of Ukraine or as sizeable as Algeria will be necessary.

Which leaves us with energy. Our modern energy system doesn’t occupy much land because the primary sources of energy today, mostly fossil fuels, have been power-dense; they produce a lot of power on a small portion of land.

Wind and solar, meanwhile, are intermittent and diffuse, requiring large tracts of land. Some estimates suggest wind and solar need at least 10x more land than coal and natural gas per unit of power produced.

When researchers model how much land will be needed to power civilization in the foreseeable future, the mix of sources and scenarios results in vastly different outcomes. The land gap, or how much extra area we’ll need for future energy infrastructure, ranges from plots roughly the size of Italy on the low end to Australia on the high end. In other words, our energy choices amount to sacrificing additional land anywhere from the size of a small country to a whole continent.

The models with more fossil fuels and nuclear underscore lower land gaps, whereas the models with more wind and solar highlight larger land gaps. It all boils down to this: we need dramatically more land for wind and solar to create the same amount of energy as other sources, and our land budget simply cannot afford it. When considering land use in building a new global energy system, we dare say that wind and solar cannot provide for a truly sustainable transition.

Thus, a clean and power-dense replacement for fossil fuels is paramount. Nuclear is one option, but it is limited by cost and geopolitics. The only renewable that fits the bill is geothermal. Traditional geothermal, however, has long been limited by geography. But deep geothermal energy, otherwise known as superhot rock (SHR) geothermal, changes the game.

SHR geothermal is up to 10x more powerful than traditional geothermal, thanks to temperatures ranging from 300-500℃, making it incredibly power-dense. Models even show its power density rivaling heavy hitters like oil and gas. And, by using new drilling technology, we can significantly expand accessibility worldwide. That gives deep geothermal many of the benefits of fossil fuels without any of the baggage.

SHR geothermal conserves the most land to protect our ecosystems and feed a growing population. The reason why is simple: hotter temperatures mean more power on less land, and deeper drilling means a clean energy solution for all. A truly sustainable energy transition on a global scale requires SHR geothermal.

Energy is everything. At Quaise, we look at the big picture to see where the world is and where it needs to go. Today, fossil fuels still dominate global energy by a long shot. A smoother transition to clean energy requires a bold new vision grounded in science, scale, and speed. Join us as we explore the future of energy and the power of deep geothermal.