 |
"Long
before it's in the papers"
August 03, 2010
RETURN TO THE WORLD SCIENCE HOME PAGE
Renewable energy wrecks environment, scientist claims
July 24, 2007
Special to World Science
Updated July 25
“Renewable” energy isn’t green. That’s the claim of a prominent scientist with Rockefeller University in New York, who played an early role in bringing the issue of
global warming to public attention. The sun sets behind a wind farm near Montezuma,
Kansas. (Image courtesy U.S. Int’l Information Programs)
Writing in a scholarly journal, Jesse Ausubel, director of the university’s Program for the Human Environment, has now issued a scathing reassessment of the “renewable” energy sources that are supposed to save humanity from pollution and global warming.
The climate change is believed to be caused by emissions of heat-trapping gases from
use of traditional energy sources.
Meeting global energy demands through so-called renewable sources—building enough wind farms, damming enough rivers, and growing enough biomass—will wreck the environment,
Ausubel argues. Biomass consists of plants and animal wastes used as fuel.
The solution? “If we want to minimize new structures and the rape of nature, nuclear energy is the best option,”
Ausubel said. But longtime renewable-energy advocates are skeptical.
Ausubel’s paper appears in the current issue of the International Journal of Nuclear Governance, Economy and Ecology, a journal that publishes many pro-nuclear power papers.
Ausubel analysed the amount of energy that each so-called renewable source can produce. He also compared the
strain on nature caused by renewables with the demand for space of nuclear power. “Nuclear energy is green,” he wrote.
Considered in terms of power produced per amount of land used, “nuclear has astronomical advantages over its competitors.”
Technologies succeed, he wrote, when they enjoy economies of
scale—situations in which larger-scale production leads to more efficient production. But renewables
don’t work that way,
he added.
Jim Pierobon, director of communications for the American Council on Renewable Energy based in Washington, D.C., said Ausubel’s claims shouldn’t be accepted at face value.
There are valid critiques of some specific renewable energy sources, “relatively credible arguments,” he said.
But a blanket criticism such as Ausubel’s “begs for a more thorough discussion,”
he added. “We think the positives [of renewable energy] stand up very well.”
Ausubel’s research focuses on a mix of environmental and industrial themes. He was an organizer of the first
U.N. World Climate Conference in 1979, which played a key role in calling attention to global warming. He was also an originator of the field of industrial ecology, the science of interactions between industrial processes.
Ausubel said a consideration of each so-called renewable paints a grim picture of the environmental impact of renewables.
Hypothetically flooding the entire province of Ontario, Canada, and damming the water would only generate 80 percent of the total power output of Canada’s 25 nuclear power stations, he explains. Put another way, each square kilometre (247 acres) of dammed land would provide the electricity for just 12 Canadians.
Biomass energy is also horribly inefficient and destructive, he continued. To power
much of the United States, vast areas would need to be shaved or harvested annually. To
get the same electricity from biomass as from one nuclear plant would require 2,500 square km (618,000 acres) of prime Iowa land. “Increased use of biomass fuel in any form is criminal,” said Ausubel, adding that every automobile would require a pasture of one to two hectares (2.5 to five acres.) “Humans must spare land for nature.”
Wind and solar energy come in for similar criticisms under Ausubel’s
pen, but he praises nuclear energy.
The full footprint of uranium mining might add a few hundred square kilometres and there are considerations of waste storage, safety and security,
he admitted. Yet the dense heart of the atom offers far the smallest footprint in nature of any energy
source, he said; nuclear energy, enjoying from economies of
scale, could multiply its power output and even shrink the energy system.
“Renewables may be renewable but they are not green,” he said.
* * *
Send us a comment on this story, or send it to a friend
|
||||
|
“Renewable” energy isn’t green. That’s the claim of a prominent scientist with Rockefeller University in New York, who played an early role in bringing the issue of global warming to public attention. Writing in a scholarly journal, Jesse Ausubel, director of the university’s Program for the Human Environment, has now issued a scathing reassessment of the “renewable” energy sources that are supposed to save humanity from pollution and global warming. The climate change is believed to be caused by emissions of heat-trapping gases from current energy sources. Meeting global energy demands through so-called renewable sources—building enough wind farms, damming enough rivers, and growing enough biomass—will wreck the environment, Ausubel argues. Biomass consists of plants and animal wastes used as fuel. The solution? Nuclear energy, Ausubel declares. But longtime renewable-energy advocates are skeptical. Ausubel’s paper appears in the current issue of the International Journal of Nuclear Governance, Economy and Ecology, a journal that publishes many pro-nuclear power papers. Ausubel analysed the amount of energy that each so-called renewable source can produce in terms of Watts of power output per square metre of land disturbed. He also compared the destruction of nature by renewables with the demand for space of nuclear power. “Nuclear energy is green,” he wrote. “Considered in Watts per square metre, nuclear has astronomical advantages over its competitors.” On this basis, he argued 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. Jim Pierobon, Director of Communications for the American Council on Renewable Energy based in Washington, D.C., said Ausubel’s claims shouldn’t be accepted at face value. There are valid critiques of some specific renewable energy sources, “relatively credible arguments,” he said. “But to say as a blanket statement” that renewable energy is harmful, “begs for a more thorough discussion.” Pierobon acknowledged that he hadn’t read Ausubel’s paper yet, and that he would need more information to offer more complete comments. Ausubel’s research focuses on a mix of environmental and industrial themes. He was an organizer of the first UN World Climate Conference in 1979, which played a key role in calling attention to global warming. He was also an originator of the field of industrial ecology, the science of interactions between industrial processes. Ausubel said a consideration of each so-called renewable paints a grim picture of the environmental impact of renewables. Hypothetically flooding the entire province of Ontario, Canada, and damming the water would only generate 80% of the total power output of Canada’s 25 nuclear power stations, he explains. Put another way, each square kilometre (247 acres) of dammed land would provide the electricity for just 12 Canadians. Biomass energy is also horribly inefficient and destructive, he continued. To power a large proportion of the United States, 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 2,500 square km (618,000 acres) of prime Iowa land. “Increased use of biomass fuel in any form is criminal,” said Ausubel, adding that every automobile would require a pasture of one to two hectares (2.5 to five acres.) “Humans must spare land for nature.” 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-kilometre (190,000-acre) area is needed to produce as much energy as one 1,000 Megawatt electric 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 kilometres, would need to be covered with structures to extract, store, and transport the energy. One hundred windy square metres, 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 metre 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 kilometres plus land for storage and retrieval to equal a 1,000 Megawatt electric 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 said. While the full footprint of uranium mining might add a few hundred square kilometres 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.”