A mass take up of renewable energy could lead to the “rape of nature” according to a leading US scientist.
Interviewed by New Scientist magazine, Jesse Ausubel of the Rockefeller University in New York, claims that renewable fuel sources – namely sun, wind and biomass – are simply “boutique fuels” that require huge areas of land in their production compared with nuclear power facilities.
“If we want to minimise the rape of nature, the best energy solution is increased efficiency, natural gas with carbon capture, and nuclear power,” suggests the conservation biologist and climate change researcher.
According to Ausubel, to generate the same amount of energy as a 1,000 megawatt nuclear power plant using biofuels, 2,500 square kms of prime Midwestern farm land would be required. Although considerably less land intensive, solar would still take up to 150 square kms of photovoltaic cells to produce the equivalent amount of power. Ausubel also claims that an area the size of Texas (780,000 square kms) would be needed to meet North America’s electricity demands via wind power.
Countering Ausubel claims is John Turner of the US government’s National Renewable Energy Laboratory. Turner says that even if the US was solely reliant on solar energy, the land mass required would be less than half the amount of land that has been paved over for highways.
“We could get a quarter of our energy just from covering rooftops of existing buildings,” added the government scientist.
With regard to Jesse Ausubel, and anyone else’s comments that seem to fly in the face of common sense, the question that always needs to be asked is ‘Who is funding their research?’
99 times out of a hundred, it’s someone who is profiting from the way the world is at the moment, and are desperate to keep things that way. So yes, you’ll probably find that the funding trail leads straight back to an oil company.
Comment by Mick Lynch — July 27, 2007 @ 6:29 pm
A balance is needed. Where we get lots of sunshine and not much wind, lean heavily solar. If it’s windie like in the midwest, drop in the wind mills. You can farm around them. We still need nuclear and fossil fuel plants as backups. At some point, we are going to experience a “500-year cloudy/windless” weather event that last for weeks. Consumers aren’t going to put up with that.
But what’s missing is funding. We need to temporarily switch our consumption from cheeseburgers and iPhones to creating additional capacity to make green energy. (i.e. taxes on fossil fuels with additional revenues funneled to tax credits for establishing green sources of energy….until such time as a balance is reached.
Comment by scott ehredt — July 31, 2007 @ 1:39 pm
Nuclear power may have its advantages of high energy/ land mass concentration but the dangers of storage of radioactive material is huge. Maybe with the possibility of solar power space stations and higher efficiency wind farms Ms Ausubel may reconsider her opinions.
Raping the land? Come on! What do you think about radioactive contamination? Or maybe solar/ wind power isn’t as exciting as the technologies don’t have the same bomb making potential.
Scott is right, a balance is needed. It will probably require the cooperation of countries sharing international grids, but once again this would mean big powers like US and China will need to become more conscious of worldly concerns rather than their own financial targets.
Comment by Xialun Tan — February 3, 2008 @ 6:59 pm