Jul 24, 2007
Renewable Myths and Nuclear Heresies
Renewable does not mean green. That is the claim of Jesse Ausubel of the Rockefeller University in New York. He explains that building enough wind farms, tidal power stations, hydroelectric dams, and electric generators running on biomass to meet global energy demands will wreck the environment rather than save it.
Ausubel has analysed the amount of energy that each so-called renewable source can produce in terms of watts of power output per square metre and compared this with what might be possible using nuclear power instead. “Nuclear energy
is greenNuclear energy is green,” he claims, “Considered in watts per square metre, nuclear has astronomical advantages over its competitors.”
While vast sums of money are being invested in alternative energy sources based on wind, water, and biomass, nuclear industry expertise is being squandered. “In order to grow, the nuclear industry must extend beyond its niche of electric power generation,” says Ausubel. He suggests that the nuclear industry could form an alliance with methane suppliers to produce green power in the form of hydrogen for powering electricity-generating fuel cells, not only in vehicles but in other areas inaccessible to the conventional electricity grid. Such technologies will succeed when economies of scale form part of their conditions of evolution, Ausubel explains. In contrast, there are, he suggests no economies of scale involved in simply erecting more and more wind turbines.
Underpinning Ausubel’s argument is the need for “decarbonisation”, by which he means our reliance on producing energy by converting carbon compounds, coal, oil, and gas, into carbon dioxide and water. Hydrogen, in contrast, is as innocent as an element can be, ending combustion as water, with no carbon dioxide greenhouse gas emission. The intrinsic problem in developing a hydrogen-based power economy as opposed to one that relies on carbon compounds, is that energy is required to produce hydrogen. Hydrogen production could
be the
future role of
the nuclear
power industryHydrogen production could be the future role of the nuclear power industry, Ausubel explains - the use of its entirely renewable and almost endless energy supply in the production of hydrogen.
Ausubel considers each so-called renewable in turn. He points out that hypothetically flooding the entire province of Ontario, Canada, about 900,000 square km, with its entire 680,000 billion litres of rainfall, and storing it behind a 60 metre dam would only generate 80% of the total power output of Canada’s 25 nuclear power stations. Put another way, each square kilometre of dammed land would provide the electricity for just 12 people.
Similarly, biomass, which produces less than a fifth of the USA’s renewable energy, is almost as energy inefficient. Most biomass comes from the liquor of paper pulp mills, which is burned to economise the heat and power of paper factories. But, in terms of decarbonisation, this biomass, which initially comes from farmed trees, represents a 10 to 1 ratio of carbon atoms per hydrogen atom, which is less than oil at 1 to 2.
Some people would argue that the use of biomass would be carbon neutral because trees absorb carbon dioxide to grow. However, in order to fulfil the energy requirements of a large proportion of a nation based on biomass, a large proportion of the land area would have to be planted to biomass forest. To obtain the same electricity from biomass as from a single nuclear power plant would require 2500 square kilometres of land working at optimal efficiency. Growth, harvesting and collection are not 100% efficient, relying as they do on high yields and powered equipment and vehicles.
Turning to the issue of wind, Ausubel points out that while wind farms are between three to ten times more compact than a biomass farm, a 770 square kilometre area is needed to produce as much energy as one 1000 Megawatt electric (MWe) nuclear plant. Moreover, wind farms can only be operated at two of the four wind speed ranges. Calm air means no power, of course, but gales faster than 25 metres per second (about 90 kilometres per hour) also means shutting down the turbines to prevent serious damage. To meet 2005 US electricity demand and assuming round-the-clock wind at the right speed, an area the size of Texas, approximately 780,000 square kilometres, would be needed.
Economies of scale stop with wind. One hundred windy square metres, a good size for a Manhattan apartment, could power an electric lamp or two, but not the laundry equipment, microwave oven, plasma TV, and computer. New York City would require every square metre of Connecticut to become a wind farm to fully power all its electrical equipment and gadgets.
Ausubel gives short thrift to solar powerAusubel gives short thrift to solar power too, which he points out still operates at less than 10% efficiency despite three decades of research. A 1000 MWe photovoltaic solar cell plant would require about 150 square kilometres plus land for storage and retrieval.
The energy density of nuclear fuel is between 10,000 and 100,000 times as great as the most “efficient” carbon fuel, methane. While the full footprint of uranium mining might add a few hundred square kilometres and there are considerations of waste storage, safety and security, the dense heart of the atom has much more to offer than so-called renewables in terms of powering the world, Ausubel believes.
“My conviction is that our best energy doctrine is decarbonisation, and let us complete it within one hundred years or sooner,” he says, “this will happen only if we abandon wishful thoughts of a renewable Eden.
Ausubel, who is Director of the Program for the Human Environment and Senior Research Associate at The Rockefeller University in New York City, provides details of his analysis in Int. J. Nuclear Governance, Economy and Ecology, 2007, 1, 229-243
About David Bradley
Sciencebase FAQ
Click to contact me
Nature Reviews Drug Discovery
Add me on StumbleUpon
Poke me on Facebook
MyBlogLog Profile
View my Flickr photos
Pownce Page
Tumblr Newspage
BloggingZoom
Network with me on LinkedIn
Shout me on Digg
del.icio.us ne.ws
James Aach said,
July 24, 2007 at 8:53 pm
As an energy professional, I see the issue as twofold:
The first are the technical aspects. What are the various options, and what are the outcomes of each, good and bad? Prof. Ausubel’s addresses some of these issues, including the drain on resources that massive conversion to renewables could mean. I’ve seen this expressed before and I’m sure there’s ways of looking at it that are more positive for wind and solar, etc.
The second issue is in many ways the more critical: the educational aspects. Because most of the industrialized world lives under democracy or something close, decisions that effect the broad population can’t be made without the population’s consent. That consent is based on what the people understand of an issue and its solutions. Here in the US, at least, public understanding of energy issues is woefully inadequate at best. Prof. Ausubel touches on one point - just how much electric power is consumed. A general trend towards more wind turbines and solar panels will not replace the generation lost if fossil and nuclear plants are taken offline - but this is a common misconception that is rarely corrected by our media or esteemed politicians.
As you know, David, my own particular specialty is nuclear power, though I’m not convinced it (or any other power source) is the solution to our problems. What I can see is that even if a member of the general public wanted to understand the world of electric power generation and nuclear power in particular, the options are few and far between. So I wrote my insider novel of nuclear power “Rad Decision”, available at my website, RadDecision.blogspot.com or in paperback.
As an example of the current state of public debate on energy issues here in the US, the Los Angeles Times came out against nuclear power in an editorial yesterday, noting it was “extremely risky” - but providing no comparison to the risk of other options (CO2, coal particulate in the air, brownouts during summertime, etc.) Also mentioned was the “nearly limitless” potential of wind power, without regard to how it could be collected in mass quantities and the fact that electricity can’t be stored to any great degree. Fossil plant efficiency improvements were also noted, without mentioning that new, untried CO2 sequestration methods would need to be implemented on a massive scale to address that issue. As long as this level of analysis can pass as a thoughtful, considered opinion by a major newspaper, it’s unlikely the decisions made about the energy future in the US will be based on consideration of the actual pros and cons of power sources. (That’s not saying nuclear would win if that was done, as there are also issues such as proliferation and waste storage - which are mentioned in the LA Times piece - to be taken into account.)
noumenalself said,
July 24, 2007 at 10:16 pm
I’m all for nuclear. But David Bradley wrote:
“Hydrogen, in contrast, is as innocent as an element can be, ending combustion as water, with no carbon dioxide greenhouse gas emission.”
Yeah, burning hydrogen doesn’t produce C02, but isn’t water vapor itself a greenhouse gas?:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas#The_role_of_water_vapor
In fact, water vapor seems even more powerful of a greenhouse gas than C02:
http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/env99/env297.htm
Or are my sources incorrect? In that case, why would hydrogen cars be any better than petroleum-based ones?
NS
Jim Muckerheide said,
July 25, 2007 at 12:33 am
It would be more informative to use watt-hours rather than watts. For “round numbers,” US wind operates at a rough average of 30% cap factor, and solar (in good sun locations) about 20% ca factor.
Hydro power and biomass need to specify/assume the number of hours per year (or per day) that they are to operate. Are these to provide max watts? To use for peaking (optimized for high capacity to meet peak watts to meet peak demand), or to use for baseload power generation (max cap factor to effectively use all available water flow or biomass)?
Mike Oliver said,
July 25, 2007 at 4:05 am
In 1995, Dr. John Hospers (professor emeritus of USC) and issued a book entitled “Environmentalism Gone Berserk”, that made exactly the same analysis. Though endorsed by Dr. Frederick Seitz (past president of the Rockefeller University), no publisher accepted it and it sold mostly on the Internet.
Nice to see that this idea is finally catching on. But many lives were meanwhile lost due to the fact that we kept trying the renewables instead of nukes, while nearly our entire news media and Hollywood cheered this on. Yet the more we tried them the more we became chained to foreign oil thereby sending billions of our dollars to the worst terrorists the world has ever seen.
Mike Oliver
David Bradley said,
July 25, 2007 at 8:14 am
I’m glad this post is generating such an interesting discussion. It is certainly a controversial area, and yes, Prof Ausubel is not the first to make such a suggestion regarding whether or not renewables could ever be considered the “answer”.
As to Watt-hours as opposed to Watts. I quote values Ausubel provided in his paper. I presume he discusses them in this way as an average of 24h almost continual demand.
The issue of water vapor as a greenhouse gas has been addressed before. Yes, it is a potent greenhouse gas. Best place for a rationale discussion about water as opposed to CO2 can be found here. Fundamentally, the difference is in the “where” of apparent greenhouse gas production.
As I mentioned at the end of the article, I have a follow-up post on the issue of nuclear security.
DV82XL said,
July 25, 2007 at 4:19 pm
A breath of fresh air. (pun intended)
However I have to agree with James Aach, rational discussion on this matter is rare in broad public forums at this time. This is not being helped by fear-mongering from the so-called Greens, hollow promises from the snake-oil selling evangelists of the renewable sector, and the political might of Big Carbon.
Progress is however slowly being made and hopefully Ausubel’s book will turn a few more folks to the truth.
noumenalself said,
July 25, 2007 at 4:56 pm
Did you mean to provide a link in answer to the greenhouse gas question? None came through.
David Bradley said,
July 25, 2007 at 5:30 pm
Yes, the links there - anchored on the phrase “water as opposed to CO2″
Just to simplify though, this is the link http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/06/a-saturated-gassy-argument/#more-455
Mike Oliver said,
July 25, 2007 at 7:29 pm
Nuclear is best. The issue of proliferation will not be resolved by depending more on the phoney renewables, that result in the US buying increasing amounts of oil. It is a world commodity, and its price increases with demand no matter where we buy it. To reduce its price, we must simply provide more oil of our own, or replace it — and the best way to greatly reduce its use is to go nuclear. Meanwhile, we should realize that the more we try to use the renewables, the more we are forced to buy extra oil at ever increasing prices on world markets, thus, directly or indirectly vastly increasing the cash flow to the terrorists. Hostile nations use these funds also to develop and acquire nuclear weapons. Thus , the claim that use of our nuclear power plants cause proliferation of nuclear weapons is a red hearing pushed by green nazis. As a Lithuanian Jew and former imate of nazi concentration camps, I do not use this term lightly, but it is true.
Greens count on the big lie, helped by the LA Times and other so-called “liberal” news outlets, to spread their propaganda — all to the beneift of the terrorists who hate the Jews as much as Hitler did.
As to nuclear residues: much of its effect is resolved by recyling, as is already being done in France, but not in the U.S., again, due to propaganda of the greens. Moreover, the new reactors, such as being designed by GE and other companies, will use nearly all the actinides to produce energy — that is watt-hours, not the watts mentioned by greens to hide the horribly low capacity factors of their solar panels, windmills and other “alternatives” .
We should start NOW to construct pebble bed reactors, as is already being done in The Repubic of South Africa and China. Greens will have a fit if this is done, but let’s ignoe them, and let’s ignore their stooges in the news m dia and Hollywood.
They claim to be the undefudned champions of our planet, but , in reality, are supported by some of the wealthiest foundations, first estblished by the likes of Carnegie, now controlled by graduates fo Ivy League universities, where Marx is still regarded as the messiah. Thus, they have no lack of funds they use to sue everyone they like, with the blessings of the ACLU, another Marxist outfit.
Before we can defeat the terrorists, we must first neutratlize the effect of their most important helpers, — the greens who are doing all they can to insure that the funding of the terroists will continue, as wil the funding of hostile nations that sue our money to buy and/or develope nuclear weapons.
Lincoln said that no outside forces could defeat the U.S., but that it could be lost due to its internal foes. Presently, this means the greens.
Moses Olitzki
DV82XL said,
July 25, 2007 at 9:01 pm
The proliferation issue should be put out of the debate once and for all. Wake-up and smell the coffee: no country that has decided to develop nuclear weapons has been stopped from doing so, yet despite this none of these ‘rogue states’ has ever used a nuclear weapon in war.
If anyone is interested in an insider’s look at nuclear weapons and the policy imperatives they create there is no better treatment than Nuclear Warfare 101 found here:
http://homepage.mac.com/msb/163x/faqs/nuclear_warfare_101.html
It really should be required reading for those who wish to discuses the topic intelligently.
David Bradley said,
July 26, 2007 at 11:47 am
Just in from the UK government’s Department For Business, Enterprise And Regulatory Reform (BERR)
Ending gridlock on the grid, Connecting more renewables to Britain’s electricity network
“Delay in linking new wind farms and other forms of clean electricity to the national grid is one of the main obstacles to achieving the UK’s renewable energy aims”, Energy Minister Malcolm Wicks said today as he launched a joint BERR/Ofgem review of the issue.
The Transmission Access Review will recommend changes to the overall framework that will better deliver the connection of renewable generation, taking into account the potential for reduced carbon emissions, cost to the consumer and the impact on security of supply. The time needed to make the essential investments in infrastructure means that many schemes have projected connection dates years from now.
Energy Minister Malcolm Wicks said:
“There are currently around 12GW of projects seeking connection in Scotland along with many more in other parts of the UK. This is enough capacity to make a significant contribution toward the Governments aspiration of 20% of electricity coming from renewable sources by 2020.
“Getting more green electricity connected to the grid is essential if we are to burn less fossil fuels. This review will help us to ensure that renewable generators can supply more low carbon electricity as quickly as possible.”
etc etc etc
Charlie Foster said,
July 30, 2007 at 9:06 am
Fascinating article, David — adds some much-needed nuance and perspective to the alternative energy debate.
Professor matt said,
August 9, 2007 at 12:39 pm
I’ve just read this article about old nuclear weapons being used to make nuclear fuel for electricity. I’m not against renewables per se, but that article made a lot of good sense and turning weapons into electricity is yet another nuclear benefit.
David Bradley said,
December 17, 2007 at 11:29 am
In the light of the Bali agreement, does anyone have any further comments on this item about nuclear heresies and the environment?
db