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.
He does some ratios that people ought to consider and runs through the whole gauntlet of 'renewable' energy sources. One of the worst - *gasp*shock* - is biomass compared to nuclear power. All of them fall far short of what a nuclear power plant can do. This includes solar which he goes on to outline as needing 150 square kilometers of solar panels to replace a single nuclear reactor. The United States at this point has a total of 103 active power generating power plants. This means we need a total of 15,600 square kilometers of solar generating capacity: this is approximately an area of 125 miles by 125 miles for those of stuck on our own, anachronistic measurement system. Nuclear power only represents 20% of the electricity generating industry. To replace all the coal, natural gas, etc, plants you would need another four times the above (or more simply put, approximately 280 miles by 280 miles of solar panels to power the United States as is with nor growth). 280 miles is HUGE. It more than the distance between Las Cruces, New Mexico - almost on the border of Mexico - to Albuquerque, New Mexico! That's a vast piece of habitat wiped out.
It is truly too bad that the Greens are so adamantly, ridiculously opposed to nuclear power. It may in fact do the most damage to the environment because of it. It makes you wonder if there hadn't been the wild outcry during the 1970s what our power mix would be now and if the impact of green house gases might have been less.
Don't get me wrong. I support solar power. I think it would excellent as the secondary source of power for peak usage. After all, those times that solar happens to be the most effective are during the times that the highest demand is present (summer/daylight). That seems like a match made in heaven to me.
I am also not at all friendly to biomass, but that's another post for another time.
3 comments:
Solar power can and is installed on roof tops, parking structures (off the side and on top), and the side of buildings and not necessarily taking up 'new' space.
I was interested in developing power generating pavements and/or coatings to convert thermal energy to electric power. Imagine if the interstate system was developed into a solar power system. Or the parking lots surrounding a mall or sports stadium.
Solar power on rooftops is an option, yes. It's not a horrible one either. However, if you are trying to reduce the heat island of a city, that's probably not as good an idea: the green, foliated rooftops would be better.
While a damned kewl idea from an SFnal point of view, the power generating pavements would kill the road system: the whole thing is damned, damned expensive as is. If you even double the costs it might push it up and over the top. However, I suspect the difference in cost between what you are positing and what we do now is much more than double....and that would render it uneconomical.
alas.
still techno kewl though. :)
The road systems complicated because you don't want to zap anyone or animal walking on the surface. Embedding wires or fluid hoses is not possible. I was thinking along the lines of nanotechnology. Add conductive nano fibers to the asphalt emulsion. Polarize the fibers immediately after the stuff is applied. Draw off the energy at set intervals (like expansion joints) like a heat pump.
The low voltage and fibers will keep the system from burning itself out and allow the flexability to withstand thermal expansion and damage.
Post a Comment