Renewable energy wrecks environment, scientist claims
Posted on Thursday, July 26, 2007 @ 22:28:50 UTC by vlad
|
|
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."
Source: Inderscience Publishers
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."
Source: Inderscience Publishers
Via: http://www.physorg.com/news104509955.html
|
| |
|
Don't have an account yet? You can create one. As a registered user you have some advantages like theme manager, comments configuration and post comments with your name.
| |
|
