Renewable Energy
Could Rape Nature

PHIL McKENNA / New Scientist 25jul2007

Ramping up the use of renewable energy would lead to the "rape of nature", meaning nuclear power should be developed instead. So argues noted conservation biologist and climate change researcher Jesse Ausubel in an opinion piece based on his and others' research.

Ausubel says the key renewable energy sources, including sun, wind, and biomass, would all require vast amounts of land if developed up to large scale production – unlike nuclear power. That land would be far better left alone, he says.

Renewables are "boutique fuels" says Ausubel, of Rockefeller University in New York, US. "They look attractive when they are quite small. But if we start producing renewable energy on a large scale, the fallout is going to be horrible."

Instead, Ausubel argues for renewed development of nuclear. "If we want to minimise the rape of nature, the best energy solution is increased efficiency, natural gas with carbon capture, and nuclear power."

'Massive infrastructure' Ausubel draws his conclusions by analysing the amount of energy renewables, natural gas, and nuclear can produce in terms of power per square metre of land used. Moreover, he claims that as renewable energy use increases, this measure of efficiency will decrease as the best land for wind, biomass, and solar power gets used up.

Using biofuels to obtain the same amount of energy as a 1000 megawatt nuclear power plant would require 2500 square kilometres of prime Midwestern farm land, Ausubel says. "We should be sparing land for nature, not using it as pasture for cars and trucks," he adds.

Solar power is much more efficient than biofuel in terms of the area of land used, but it would still require 150 square kilometres of photovoltaic cells to match the energy production of the 1000 MW nuclear plant. In another example, he says meeting the 2005 US electricity demand via wind power alone would need 780,000 square kilometres, an area the size of Texas.

Part of the land used in Ausubel's calculations is for storage and transportation: "Any renewable energy supply needs a massive infrastructure, including steel, metal, pipes, cables, concrete, and access roads."

Heretical demigod

However, other experts who have seen Ausubel’s study are highly critical, both of its conclusions and its inflammatory rhetoric.

"To have a debate on the various issues is good, but setting himself up as a demagogue with this heretical stuff, takes away from the focus and value of the debate," says John Turner of the US government’s National Renewable Energy Laboratory.

Turner says that even if the US got all of its power from solar energy, it would still need less than half the amount of land that has been paved over for highways. Further, it need not take up additional land. “We could get a quarter of our energy just from covering rooftops of existing buildings,” he says.

The same "dual use" also applies to wind power. "The footprint for wind is only 5% of the land that it covers," says Turner. "Farmers can still farm the land that the turbines are on."

Turner says looking solely at land use is an oversimplification of the issue. "I’m not sure I’d want to build one of these nuclear plants in Afghanistan, but we could certainly put in wind and solar power," he adds.

Taboo subject

Turner also highlights the risks of nuclear waste storage. "It has to be safely stored for 100,000 years," says Turner. "To dismiss that as a simple waiting game is totally irresponsible."

However, public perceptions of nuclear energy are changing. A new study by researchers at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, found that 35% of the US population wants to increase nuclear power use. The figure has risen from 28% in 2002.

And not everyone disagrees entirely with Ausubel. The land argument is valid, says David Keith, of the University of Calgary in Alberta, Canada.

“I think the argument is crucial and correct and something the environmental community hasn’t wrapped its head around,” Keith says. “I don’t see any scenario where we won’t have an environmental holocaust from biomass if we rely on it for more than a third of global energy production. But this doesn’t apply to all renewables.”

Keith notes that solar power has 10 times the energy density of biomass and its cost is likely to drop as the technology advances.

Ausubel thinks he represents a silent majority of scientists concerned about renewables. “I think I’m saying what many of my colleagues know, but have felt its taboo to say,” he says.

Journal reference: International Journal of Nuclear Governance, Economy and Ecology (vol 1, p 229)

source: 25jul2007