Posted by Kromey at 1:34pm Aug 1 '07I put this here because I'm sure it's going to get a lot of people really hot under the collar. I apologize for the poor spacing - it was copy/pasted out of an LJ post so that y'all could enjoy the full article without paying for the journal subscription.
Renewables fail environmental test
Renewabledoes not mean green. That is the claim of Jesse Ausubel of theRockefeller University in New York. Writing in Inderscience'sInternational Journal of Nuclear Governance, Economy and Ecology,Ausubel explains that building enough wind farms, damming enoughrivers, and growing enough biomass to meet global energy demands willwreck the environment.
Ausubel has analyzed the amount ofenergy that each so-called renewable source can produce in terms ofWatts of power output per square meter of land disturbed. He alsocompares the destruction of nature by renewables with the demand forspace of nuclear power. "Nuclear energy is green," he claims,"Considered in Watts per square meter, nuclear has astronomicaladvantages over its competitors."
On this basis, he arguesthat technologies succeed when economies of scale form part of theirevolution. No economies of scale benefit renewables. More renewablekilowatts require more land in a constant or even worsening ratio,because land good for wind, hydropower, biomass, or solar power may getused first.
A consideration of each so-called renewable inturn, paints a grim picture of the environmental impact of renewables.Hypothetically flooding the entire province of Ontario, Canada, about900,000 square km, with its entire 680,000 billion liters of rainfall,and storing it behind a 60 meter dam would only generate 80% of thetotal power output of Canada's 25 nuclear power stations, he explains.Put another way, each square kilometer of dammed land would provide theelectricity for just 12 Canadians.
Biomass energy is alsohorribly inefficient and destructive of nature. To power a largeproportion of the USA, vast areas would need to be shaved or harvestedannually. To obtain the same electricity from biomass as from a singlenuclear power plant would require 2500 square kilometers of prime Iowaland. "Increased use of biomass fuel in any form is criminal," remarksAusubel. "Humans must spare land for nature. Every automobile wouldrequire a pasture of 1-2 hectares."
Turning to wind Ausubelpoints out that while wind farms are between three to ten times morecompact than a biomass farm, a 770 square kilometer area is needed toproduce as much energy as one 1000 Megawatt electric (MWe) nuclearplant. To meet 2005 US electricity demand and assuming round-the-clockwind at the right speed, an area the size of Texas, approximately780,000 square kilometers, would need to be covered with structures toextract, store, and transport the energy.
One hundred windysquare meters, a good size for a Manhattan apartment, could power anelectric lamp or two, but not the laundry equipment, microwave oven,plasma TV, and computer. New York City would require every square meterof Connecticut to become a wind farm to fully power all its electricalequipment and gadgets.
Solar power also comes in forcriticism. A photovoltaic solar cell plant would require painting blackabout than 150 square kilometers plus land for storage and retrieval toequal a 1000 MWe nuclear plant. Moreover, every form of renewableenergy involves vast infrastructure, such as concrete, steel, andaccess roads. "As a Green, one of my credos is 'no new structures' butrenewables all involve ten times or more stuff per kilowatt as naturalgas or nuclear," Ausubel says.
While the full footprint ofuranium mining might add a few hundred square kilometers and there areconsiderations of waste storage, safety and security, the dense heartof the atom offers far the smallest footprint in nature of any energysource. Benefiting from economies of scale, nuclear energy couldmultiply its power output and even shrink the energy system, in thesame way that computers have become both more powerful and smaller.
"Renewablesmay be renewable but they are not green," asserts Ausubel", If we wantto minimize new structures and the rape of nature, nuclear energy isthe best option."
Renewables fail environmental test
Renewabledoes not mean green. That is the claim of Jesse Ausubel of theRockefeller University in New York. Writing in Inderscience'sInternational Journal of Nuclear Governance, Economy and Ecology,Ausubel explains that building enough wind farms, damming enoughrivers, and growing enough biomass to meet global energy demands willwreck the environment.
Ausubel has analyzed the amount ofenergy that each so-called renewable source can produce in terms ofWatts of power output per square meter of land disturbed. He alsocompares the destruction of nature by renewables with the demand forspace of nuclear power. "Nuclear energy is green," he claims,"Considered in Watts per square meter, nuclear has astronomicaladvantages over its competitors."
On this basis, he arguesthat technologies succeed when economies of scale form part of theirevolution. No economies of scale benefit renewables. More renewablekilowatts require more land in a constant or even worsening ratio,because land good for wind, hydropower, biomass, or solar power may getused first.
A consideration of each so-called renewable inturn, paints a grim picture of the environmental impact of renewables.Hypothetically flooding the entire province of Ontario, Canada, about900,000 square km, with its entire 680,000 billion liters of rainfall,and storing it behind a 60 meter dam would only generate 80% of thetotal power output of Canada's 25 nuclear power stations, he explains.Put another way, each square kilometer of dammed land would provide theelectricity for just 12 Canadians.
Biomass energy is alsohorribly inefficient and destructive of nature. To power a largeproportion of the USA, vast areas would need to be shaved or harvestedannually. To obtain the same electricity from biomass as from a singlenuclear power plant would require 2500 square kilometers of prime Iowaland. "Increased use of biomass fuel in any form is criminal," remarksAusubel. "Humans must spare land for nature. Every automobile wouldrequire a pasture of 1-2 hectares."
Turning to wind Ausubelpoints out that while wind farms are between three to ten times morecompact than a biomass farm, a 770 square kilometer area is needed toproduce as much energy as one 1000 Megawatt electric (MWe) nuclearplant. To meet 2005 US electricity demand and assuming round-the-clockwind at the right speed, an area the size of Texas, approximately780,000 square kilometers, would need to be covered with structures toextract, store, and transport the energy.
One hundred windysquare meters, a good size for a Manhattan apartment, could power anelectric lamp or two, but not the laundry equipment, microwave oven,plasma TV, and computer. New York City would require every square meterof Connecticut to become a wind farm to fully power all its electricalequipment and gadgets.
Solar power also comes in forcriticism. A photovoltaic solar cell plant would require painting blackabout than 150 square kilometers plus land for storage and retrieval toequal a 1000 MWe nuclear plant. Moreover, every form of renewableenergy involves vast infrastructure, such as concrete, steel, andaccess roads. "As a Green, one of my credos is 'no new structures' butrenewables all involve ten times or more stuff per kilowatt as naturalgas or nuclear," Ausubel says.
While the full footprint ofuranium mining might add a few hundred square kilometers and there areconsiderations of waste storage, safety and security, the dense heartof the atom offers far the smallest footprint in nature of any energysource. Benefiting from economies of scale, nuclear energy couldmultiply its power output and even shrink the energy system, in thesame way that computers have become both more powerful and smaller.
"Renewablesmay be renewable but they are not green," asserts Ausubel", If we wantto minimize new structures and the rape of nature, nuclear energy isthe best option."
Link: Article Abstract