From Science Daily
Renewable Energy Wrecks Environment, According To Researcher
Science Daily —
Renewable does not mean green. That is the claim of Jesse Ausubel of
the Rockefeller University in New York. Writing in Inderscience's
International Journal of Nuclear Governance, Economy and Ecology,
Ausubel explains that building enough wind farms, damming enough
rivers, and growing enough biomass to meet global energy demands will
wreck the environment.
Ausubel has analyzed the amount of energy that each so-called renewable
source can produce in terms of Watts of power output per square meter
of land disturbed. He also compares the destruction of nature by
renewables with the demand for space of nuclear power. "Nuclear energy
is green," he claims, "Considered in Watts per square meter, nuclear
has astronomical advantages over its competitors."
On this basis, he argues that technologies succeed when economies of
scale form part of their evolution. No economies of scale benefit
renewables. More renewable kilowatts require more land in a constant or
even worsening ratio, because land good for wind, hydropower, biomass,
or solar power may get used first.
A consideration of each so-called renewable in turn, paints a grim
picture of the environmental impact of renewables. Hypothetically
flooding the entire province of Ontario, Canada, about 900,000 square
km, with its entire 680,000 billion liters of rainfall, and storing it
behind a 60 meter dam would only generate 80% of the total power output
of Canada's 25 nuclear power stations, he explains. Put another way,
each square kilometer of dammed land would provide the electricity for
just 12 Canadians.
Biomass energy is also horribly inefficient and destructive of nature.
To power a large proportion of the USA, vast areas would need to be
shaved or harvested annually. To obtain the same electricity from
biomass as from a single nuclear power plant would require 2500 square
kilometers of prime Iowa land. "Increased use of biomass fuel in any
form is criminal," remarks Ausubel. "Humans must spare land for nature.
Every automobile would require a pasture of 1-2 hectares."
Turning to wind Ausubel points out that while wind farms are between
three to ten times more compact than a biomass farm, a 770 square
kilometer area is needed to produce as much energy as one 1000 Megawatt
electric (MWe) nuclear plant. To meet 2005 US electricity demand and
assuming round-the-clock wind at the right speed, an area the size of
Texas, approximately 780,000 square kilometers, would need to be
covered with structures to extract, store, and transport the energy.
One hundred windy square meters, a good size for a Manhattan apartment,
could power an electric lamp or two, but not the laundry equipment,
microwave oven, plasma TV, and computer. New York City would require
every square meter of Connecticut to become a wind farm to fully power
all its electrical equipment and gadgets.
Solar power also comes in for criticism. A photovoltaic solar cell
plant would require painting black about than 150 square kilometers
plus land for storage and retrieval to equal a 1000 MWe nuclear plant.
Moreover, every form of renewable energy involves vast infrastructure,
such as concrete, steel, and access roads. "As a Green, one of my
credos is 'no new structures' but renewables all involve ten times or
more stuff per kilowatt as natural gas or nuclear," Ausubel says.
While the full footprint of uranium mining might add a few hundred
square kilometers and there are considerations of waste storage, safety
and security, the dense heart of the atom offers far the smallest
footprint in nature of any energy source. Benefiting from economies of
scale, nuclear energy could multiply its power output and even shrink
the energy system, in the same way that computers have become both more
powerful and smaller.
"Renewables may be renewable but they are not green," asserts Ausubel",
If we want to minimize new structures and the rape of nature, nuclear
energy is the best option."
Note: This story has been adapted from a news release issued by Inderscience Publishers.
Copyright © 1995-2007 ScienceDaily LLC — All rights reserved — Contact: editor@removeme.sciencedaily.com
