Renewable energy projects will devour huge amounts of land, warns researcher

[phantom power]

It would be interesting to read Ausubel's report.

Large-scale renewable energy projects will cause widespread environmental damage by industrialising vast swaths of countryside, a leading scientist claims today. The warning follows an analysis of the amount of land that renewable energy resources, including wind farms, biofuel crops and photovoltaic solar cells, require to produce substantial amounts of power.

Jesse Ausubel, a professor of environmental science and director of the Human Environment programme at Rockefeller University in New York, found that enormous stretches of countryside would have to be converted into intensive farmland or developed with buildings and access roads for renewable energy plants to make a significant contribution to global energy demands.

Prof Ausubel reached his conclusions by ranking renewable energies according to the amount of power they produce for each square metre of land. The assessment allows direct comparison between the different approaches, based on the impact they will have on the surrounding landscape.

...The report breaks what Prof Ausubel calls the "taboo of talking about the strong negative aspects of renewables", by focusing on examples that highlight their limitations. "When most people think of renewables and their impact, they're mistaking pleasant landscaping with what would be a massive industrial transformation of the landscape," he said.

http://www.energybulletin.net/32566.html

[HeraldSquare212]

1. Already happened

The landscape has already undergone a massive industrial transformation via the waste products of industrialism.

[NV Whino]

2. Oy vey!

Certainly the negative aspects have to be accounted for. But what would you rather have, renewable clean energy or nonrenewable energy sources that pollute the land and seas with oil spills, carbon and what have you?

[phantom power]

9. What I'd rather have is a policy that included a lot of nuclear energy.

Fossil fuels are over. The only tragedy is that they won't run out before they kill us all. Coincidentally, that's one of the chief reasons I advocate nuclear: to displace fossil fuels (most especially coal) as quickly as humanly possible.

[kestrel91316]

3. This is why CONSERVATION via LIFESTYLE CHANGE

is going to be the most important thing people can do to cut GHG emissions. We are VERY wasteful.

Note to Unka Dickhead and all his ilk: The "American way of life" damned well BETTER be negotiable, or it is going to cease altogether.

[jpak]

4. Ugh - this was posted here a few weeks ago and discussed (and trashed)

Asubel's methods and conclusions were severely criticized by his peers in the same journal volume.

and previous analyses have concluded that wind, solar and biomass would NOT require large amounts of land...

[phantom power]

5. This is a dupe? I can't believe I missed it.

[jpak]

6. You posted several times in that thread - you're losing it PP!!!11

:evilgrin:

including a response to this...

<snip>

**yawn**

and nonsense

http://www1.eere.energy.gov/solar/myths.html

Myth 1: Solar electricity cannot serve any significant fraction of U.S. or world electricity needs.

PV technology can meet electricity demand on any scale. The solar energy resource in a 100-mile-square area of Nevada could supply the United States with all its electricity (about 800 gigawatts) using modestly efficient (10%) commercial PV modules.

A more realistic scenario involves distributing these same PV systems throughout the 50 states. Currently available sites—such as vacant land, parking lots, and rooftops—could be used. The land requirement to produce 800 gigawatts would average out to be about 17 x 17 miles per state. Alternatively, PV systems built in the "brownfields"—the estimated 5 million acres of abandoned industrial sites in our nation's cities—could supply 90% of America's current electricity.

These hypothetical cases emphasize that PV is not "area-impaired" in delivering electricity. The critical point is that PV does not have to compete with baseload power. Its strength is in providing electricity when and where energy is most limited and most expensive. It does not simply replace some fraction of generation. Rather, it displaces the right portion of the load, shaving peak demand during periods when energy is most constrained and expensive.

In the long run, the U.S. PV Industry Roadmap does expect PV to provide a "significant fraction of U.S. electricity needs." This adds up to at least 15% of new added electricity capacity in 2020, and then 10 years later, at least 10% of the nation's total electricity

<more>

edit: the above assumes PV modules with 10% conversion efficiencies. Most PV modules on the market today have efficienies of 10-22% and concentrating PV systems have efficiencies of 40% - this will dramatically reduce the area required for PV arrays...


Only 4% of the US would be required to produce 100% of the nation's electricity with wind turbines.

http://www.eere.energy.gov/states/alternatives/wind.cfm

<snip>

The wind energy resource in the United States is plentiful. Good wind areas, which cover 6% of the contiguous U.S. land area, could supply more than 1.5 times the 1993 electricity consumption of the entire country.

<more>

Does this jog the old bean???

[phantom power]

7. Believe it or not... no. Hazard of having the same argument a thousand times...

it all blurs together after that 999th time.

[GliderGuider]

8. Ahem.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=115&topic_id=105603

Quite an active little sucker too, with over 100 responses...

[phantom power]

10. Yep, spaced out on that one.

[Trillo]

11. Atlas Corporation's storage "worked" so well....

"The good news about nuclear is that over the past 50 years all of the forms of waste storage seem to have worked."

Have the producers ever cleaned up the uranium waste on the Colorado River?
http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/apr2004/2004-04-14-01.asp

More:
http://www.coloradocollege.edu/Dept/EC/Faculty/Hecox/CPwebpage/issuespageAtlasmine.htm

Will it ever be cleaned up? Who pays? Who profited?

This is but one example of corporations socializing costs, and privatizing profits.

[phantom power]

13. I have an environment and energy riddle for us all to ponder...

I don't think it's an easy riddle to solve, and the only group that I'm aware of who has made a truly comprehensive attempt to solve it is the ExternE people, and yet the consequences of guessing the answer wrongly are obviously enormous:

So anyway, here's the riddle: Which will cause the least damage:

1) the amount of nuclear (and other) waste likely to enter the environment if we build a few thousand nuclear reactors

2) the amount of industrial waste likely to enter the environment if we build a few million wind turbines (and grid storage)

3) the amount of industrial waste likely to enter the environment if we build a few million hectares of PV panels (and grid storage)

4) insert your favorite unnamed alternative here, properly scaled up to provide 100 exajoules per year, more or less.


Note the use of "likely," since we are discussing the future, and dealing with various uncertainties.

The ExternE data suggest that the answer to is (1). I assume that being a group of human beings, they aren't the infallible repository of all possible wisdom, but then again there isn't exactly a long list of people doing the difficult work of compiling a comprehensive answer to this super-important problem. I have no specific reason to critique their results. To my knowlege, they aren't being secretly paid by anybody in the nuclear industry to sucker in people like me. Nor are they paid by anybody in the wind industry, in spite of the fact that wind power also weighs in at a low fully-externalized cost in their report.

That first riddle is tricky enough. And yet it is only part of the real question, since we also need to ponder such questions as:

how do we eliminate fossil GHG emissions as fast as possible?
how do we replace disappearing fossil energy as fast as possible?
how do we do it all as cheaply as possible, since the world's economy is a house of cards and it's arguable how much economic activity can be devoted to this project.

Whichever variety of solutions we eventually choose, who cleans up? Who pays? Who profits?

[GliderGuider]

14. La la la la la la la la

Nuclear????????????

[Ready4Change]

15. My regretful answer: All of the Above.

In my relatively short life I see no reason to believe that we, as a species, won't create ALL of those problems, and in a relatively shorter time span than many are imagining. I think will will consume all of the above resources, and that we will create waste and poisons at ANY time when not doing so would cost money.

And when the oil, coal, NG and radioactives are gone, we still won't have the renewable capacity to handle todays population, not to mention the masses who will be added to our number in the coming 1-200 years.

I hope it won't come to that. I have hope that we can apply ourselves to the problem and find the multiple solutions that will be required.

But then I look at recent history. People who, faced with a war over oil and scientific studies clearly indicating global warming, consciously choose to say 'To hell with it, I'm gonna get mine" and go out and buy Hummers. And are proud of doing so.

To me, the only question is this: When do people start dying?

[phantom power]

18. The dying has already started, it seems.

:(

[losthills]

17. Get real.

[Nihil]

21. FFS, will you *please* grow up a bit?

Did you even bother to read the post that you replied to with a trite "Get real"?

If you think it isn't "real" then why not suggest the reason(s) WHY you
don't consider it "real"?

What isn't "real" about nuclear power stations?

What isn't "real" about renewable power stations?

What isn't "real" about fossil fuel power stations?

If you don't know enough about something, find out or ask here.

If you couldn't be bothered to put words in a reply to explain what
you mean then please do us all a favour and save the effort of the
extra two words in your title.

[losthills]

23. Attempting to compare

the "waste" produced from wind turbines and solar panels to the waste produced from nuclear reactors is too ridiculous for words.

I think it's obvious who needs to "grow up...."

[Dead_Parrot]

26. Yes, it is

Joule for Joule, The toxic waste from solar panels is much greater, uncontained and lasts forever.

Glad to see you're catching on. :)

[losthills]

27. What?

[Dead_Parrot]

28. I SAID:

JOULE FOR JOULE, THE TOXIC WASTE FROM SOLAR PANELS IS GREATER, UNCONTAINED AND LASTS FOREVER, GLAD TO SEE YOU'RE CATCHING ON.

Did you loose your glasses, or something?

Or, if you meant to say "please supply some data to back that up", click here.

[sinkingfeeling]

12. Oh, for heaven's sake! Save all that land for the 'big box' stores and more gated

communities!

[Ready4Change]

16. Having flown private aircraft over cities and suburbs

I can tell you that there are vast stretches of surfaces that could not only be put to good use producing solar power, but which would also benefit from the shade the panels would provide.

Such would also lighten the burden on the grid.

Further, the dire predictions of the needs of fuel crops pushing us all into the ocean were debunked long ago and by other people than me.

[Petrushka]

20. Hm-m . . . maybe those barren mountaintop removal mine-sites could be put to a beneficial use. (eom)

[Ready4Change]

22. Actually I was referring to the roofs of existing buildings.

When I look down at all those rooftops I think of how much solar energy is being squandered there.

Having worked on a roof a few weekends ago I can say for sure there is a LOT of energy potential there. Damned hot. It was hard to sit, kneel or brace myself with a palm on that roof due to the heat. Not only is there a lot of energy available to be gathered there, but, in the process, you'd be keeping that energy from soaking in the attic, and thus DECREASING the need for AC use. Double benefits.

There are hundreds of millions of such roofs across out country. A tremendous, untapped resource.

[Dogmudgeon]

19. Why is this such an unbelievable, scandalous idea?

There is no such thing as a zero-impact technology.

Never has been. Never will be.

The alt-energy proponents will have to deal with the fact that resource renewability is by its nature space-intensive. There should be no evasion of the reality of this. In order to avoid CO2 emission, chemical pollution, and the distasteful need to use radioactive material, you have to have a large active surface with which to seize the energy. For solar PV, toxic metals and other poisons are required in the manufacturing cycle, and must be controlled as strictly as radionuclides. For biofuel, agricultural concerns that are forgotten are paid for in hunger.

We ought not to be talking about, or looking for, magic. The pro-nuclearists, with whom I am most identified, first came to that sobering moment over half a century ago, and have required several repetitions of the lesson. Looking for the dark cloud behind the golden lining should be the FIRST thing we do -- every time.

There has already been unpleasant blow-back from renewable energy. Biofuel development has caused a rapid inflation in food prices and real hardship for poor people. Falls during construction of wind towers are distressingly common, and a thousand tons or more of concrete leaves a deep hole at the quarry. The development of a couple of wind farms has already been completely botched. Many people have died in semiconductor manufacture from chemical exposure accidents. Hydroelectric power has its own long history and field of gravestones to honor the men and women whose (avoidable) sacrifices contributed to the relief of the Great Depression and several generations of affluence. Any number of scientists have given their lives in the pursuit of understanding nature and building better machines. There will always be costs to be borne. Can we accept them?

Unintelligent optimism and willful failure to deal with risks and downsides has led us to this era of crisis. We should put every effort we can spare into making sure that it does NOT happen again. Only then will the technological work of the 21st century shape an era of progress, not regret.

--p!

[Odin2005]

24. "Why is this such an unbelievable, scandalous idea?"

Because it goes against the dogma of the "wind and solar is a panacea" people.

Lets face it, we need BOTH renewables AND nuclear.

[Dead_Parrot]

25. Some things aren't meant to be questioned

A while back, a posted a article from the BBC's 'Green room', which mused that "food miles" may not be the be-all and end-all of how to choose your food. The premise was that certain crops are suited to certain soils, and that growing the wrong crop may upset the soils micro-organisms to the point that they release more GHG's than transporting the same goods a few hundred miles - and in either case, cooking the food is much more energy-intensive.

I posted it up thinking was a thought-provoking idea, which underlined how little we know about that branch of science, but the thread went down like the Hindenburg. Apparently I had dared to question the Sacred Cow of Food Miles, and was therefore evil incarnate, and a shill for various trucking companies and/or Big Agribusiness. I don't think anyone responded with "That's an interesting idea", which was what I was after.

Most people like simple one-liners to tell them what to think.

"Solar Good, Food Miles Bad" is be a nice example.

"Solar Good so long as you've reduced the environmental impact of manufacturing, transport and installation to less than any other form of energy and you have a realistic method of energy storage and/or on-demand power that likewise have minimal environmental impact from manufacturing, transport, installation and operation, Food Miles Bad provided you have checked the environmental impact of each crop as produced by your local grower and compared it to the environmental impact of the same crop grown by all other growers whose goods are available from local outlets and summed up the emissions from microflora, microfauna, harvesting, packaging, storage and transportation (of both the crop to the outlet, and for you to get to the outlet and back)to establish the goods with the minimal impact and for pity's sake don't boil the carrots for too long" is not so good, it's hard work.

That people just don't realise the complexities of any one aspect of life is unsurprising: There's centuries of research in any field, and you can't know it all.

What has surprised me is the resistance to the mere idea that life might be more complicated than the one liners: That, say, the phrase "Nuclear Bad" does not fully represent the sum of our knowledge in material science, physics, chemistry & biochemistry, oceanography, meteorology, geophysics, logistics, and engineering.

There's a meme floating around RW websites that environmentalism is a religion. I have to admit they have a point, although not for the reasons they give: There is a fair chunk of environmentalists that have a fundamentalist mindset when it comes to science. If it doesn't fit into what they already believe, it's simply ignored: Trying to get some DUer's to look at the ExternE data is like trying to get a Young-Earth-Creationist to look at the trigonometry of SN1987A

They just don't want to know.