Renewable energy could 'rape' nature

NewScientist.com news service ^ | 25 July 2007 | Phil McKenna

[T Ruth]

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 (who New Scientist interviewed in 2006) 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.

* * *

'Heretical demagogue'

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

* * *

[T Ruth]

Interesting point of view from "New Scientist."

[wastedyears]

Hooray for nuclear power.

[Army Air Corps]

If it brings folks onto the Nuclear Power bandwagon, then fine by me.

[SatinDoll]

“Hooray for nuclear power.”

Agreed. But when it comes to individual homes and solar power he is wrong. Solar can have a great deal to offer in offsetting electrical power usage, and if enough people go that route it can significantly lower the demand on power grids, even if for only part of the year.

[businessprofessor]

Nature to rats: you are raping me. Unfortunately, the rats protect their rapists so shaming them does not matter.

[businessprofessor]

If solar is cost effective, why is the pay back period so high? Why are subsidies needed to encourage solar panel usage? Your assertion seems to conflict with the economics of solar power except for those off the grid.

[robomatik]

bacon good, bacon bad
eggs bad, eggs good
good cholesterol, bad cholesterol
three mile island/china syndrome (oh the horror)

now nuclear power is good. fine with me (albeit 30 years too late to start building.

recently read an article by one of the founders of greenpeace. he said that we should cut down all the old growth forests to replace with young trees.

he postulated, i think correctly, that young rapidly growing trees uptake much more C02 than older, dying, trees.

in other words, even if gloobal worming is manmade, who cares. cut down the rainforests in brazil and help to solve the "problem."

another side issue.
if "global warming" is occuring, we, as a species, would have more temperate regions to grow crops to feed the "starving children" of the world.

perhaps, "for the children" we as good "stewards" of the earth should do everything in our power to speed up the effects of "global warming."

buy an SUV "for the children."
/sarc>

[Brad from Tennessee]

Before coal is dismissed as too dirty to burn in the 21st Century people should contemplate its vast abundance:
Wikepedia:

[The United States Department of Energy uses estimates of coal reserves in the region of 1,081,279 million short tons (9.81 × 1014 kg), which is about 4,786 BBOE (billion barrels of oil equivalent). The amount of coal burned during 2001 was calculated as 2.337 GTOE (gigatonnes of oil equivalent), which is about 46 million barrels of oil equivalent per day. Were consumption to continue at that rate those reserves would last about 285 years. As a comparison, natural gas provided 51 million barrels (oil equivalent), and oil 76 million barrels, per day during 2001.]

Nuclear is fine by me but if the same collective genius that developed modern nuclear power were applied to developing clean burning coal plants a solution could be found. The U.S. owns the largest reserve in the world.

[robomatik]

good point!

[Navy Patriot]

I wonder if the environazis, peaceniks, radical lefties, and pantywaists will ever realize how much they have screwed themselves.

[SatinDoll]

I know what you’re talking about, as the old solar panels were really inefficient. There’s been recent improvements in technology, particularly with photovoltaic cells, that could allow homeowners to replace part of their present electrical load.

I’ll be looking into it when I tear down this 40 year old monster ranch house I presently live in and rebuild. Since I live in the Pacific Northwest it will have to be limited to “sunshine months”, but for what I want to do - run low power motors to pump water out of cisterns and drip irrigate my garden at night - this seems better than using the local PUCs juice. Obviously I’ll have to use battery stored power.

[Paperdoll]

Pshaw!

[SatinDoll]

Dirt burners! Coal can never be truly “clean”.

The reason a coal plant and a nuclear plant should never be co-located is that the amount of radiation produced by burning coal will set off all the alarms in the nuke plant.

[Navy Patriot]

the same collective genius that developed modern nuclear power were applied to developing clean burning coal plants a solution could be found.

This is true, but it is unnecessary.

Perfectly clean nuclear, without CO2, is available now, and is far, far, far less expensive than similar coal. Additionally with breeder reactors and thorium we will NEVER run out of fuel.

[Robert A Cook PE]

Bummer.

See, today’s increased levels of CO2 (right now, that is, today’s levels) have already meant greatly increased crop and feed/food production levels (increases from 10 to 23% higher!) than those possible earlier last century.

Add increased CO2 to very slightly higher temperatures (of only 1/2 of one degree) that allow slightly longer growing seasons, and you can support more people with less land.

At increased CO2 levels, plants can (on average) keep growing through periods of less rain as well.

So now this “environmentalist” wants to increase energy production and NOT increase CO2 levels. Darn.

[Robert A Cook PE]

Additionally with breeder reactors and thorium we will NEVER run out of fuel.

Breeders are neede - but where is fusion is the enviro’s 200 year predictions of gloom and doom?

[Navy Patriot]

but where is fusion is the enviro’s 200 year predictions of gloom and doom?

I'm so confused with all the DIFFERENT envirowacko's predictions of disaster, which one was it, we freeze, we bake, we're irradiated by ultraviolet, we're irradiated by nuclear waste, the reform school kids get plutonium from fuel rods?

[weegee]

The Left is breaking it to us slowly. While they talk about “alternate fuels” they are also talking about environmental impact and how we simply must change our way of life. No more personal cars, public transportation only, etc.

You can’t handle the truth so the Stalinists play their “We’ll see...” game.

[weegee]

It is about CONTROL. Nothing else. We are DOOMED no matter what we do, so listen to them at all costs. Our Socialist Utopian gods know the TRUE way to salvation.

[Hunterite]

recently read an article by one of the founders of greenpeace. he said that we should cut down all the old growth forests to replace with young trees. he postulated, i think correctly, that young rapidly growing trees uptake much more C02 than older, dying, trees. Jesus. What a bunch of socialist nuts.