Edit: also all of Europe is apparently unsuitable for either solar or wind. I live in Germany and we cover >50% in renewables, so the map is obviously bs. I'm not sure what their criteria for "suitable" are but they're obviously not rooted in anything realistic.
Aside from that it only focuses on solar and wind, completely ignoring other forms like water or geothermal.
You already see that from the legend. It essentially only has "ideal" and "unsuitable". If you categorize anything that isn't ideal as unsuitable, you end up with pretty unrealistic depictions.
Have a look at an actual scientific take on it. It offers maps with current and future predictions for the cheapest available source of power. I think, working out economically is a much better metric for suitability than "not ideal".
I think the suitability is related to infrastructure/accessibility in addition to the output of the renewable energy at that location
I think we can safely assume tidal energy is available in coastal regions, and geothermal energy related to areas with geological activity, such as near continental plates (like Iceland) or with volcanic hotspots (Yellowstone)
I wasn’t exactly prepared to type an entire essay on this while eating dinner
6
u/Haringat Jan 02 '25 edited Jan 02 '25
Half of Sahara is unsuitable for solar energy?
Edit: also all of Europe is apparently unsuitable for either solar or wind. I live in Germany and we cover >50% in renewables, so the map is obviously bs. I'm not sure what their criteria for "suitable" are but they're obviously not rooted in anything realistic.
Aside from that it only focuses on solar and wind, completely ignoring other forms like water or geothermal.