NEW ENERGY V. ENVIRONMENT? NO

Renewable Energy Wrecks Environment, According Io Researcher
July 24, 2007 (Inderscience Publishers via Science Daily)
and
Renewable energy projects will devour huge amounts of land, warns researcher
Ian Sample, July 25, 2007 (UK Guardian)

Ausubel claims to have breached a “taboo” by talking about the “negatives” of renewables. Nobody ever said there are NO negatives associated with renewables. But since you want to talk about negatives, Professor Ausubel, how about these minor drawbacks to nuclear energy (the energy you advocate and call "green")?

(1) Seismic vulnerability (withness the recent episode in Japan);
(2) Flooding on the coasts and failure of adequate water supplies inland due to climate change (see CLIMATE CHANGE COULD SINK NUCLEAR);
(3) Random electrical and other equipment accidents leading to spills and leaks (see AFTER JAPAN NUKE PANIC, GERMAN NUKE COVERUP, CONSIDER WIND);
(4) Terrorist targeting;
(5) Weapons-grade nuclear materials proliferation;
(6) There is no safe place to dispose of nuclear waste. Yucca Mountain? How many square meters? And how many more square meters if those seismic cracks under it give?

NewEnergyNews acknowledges there will probably be a role for nuclear in the near-term energy equation, but is it really what is best to invest in, long-term?

Ausubel’s ideas add little of value to the crucial long-term debate.

WHO
Jesse Ausubel, Rockefeller University
Enormous potential (click to enlarge)

WHAT
Ausubel assessed power output per square meter of land used and concluded renewable energies, as he considered them, would do more environmental harm than good.

WHEN
Just made available.

WHERE
Article published in International Journal of Nuclear Governance, Economy and Ecology
Rapidly improving cost factors. (click to enlarge)

WHY
Ausubel’s calculations:
Hydroelectric: 0.1 watts/square meter
Biofuels: 250,000 hectares = one nuclear power station
Wind: 1.2 watts/square meter
Solar: 150,000 square kilometers = US electricity.

Even if these statistics were accurate, a dubious proposition, they correct themselves.

By using all forms of renewables, each one requires ¾ less land than Ausubel calculates.

Many solar installations are on building rooftops, many more can be (think of California's "Million Solar Roofs"), and Ausubel does not seem to have considered Concentrating Solar Photovoltaics (CSP), which dramatically increases the yield per meter, or Building Integrated Photovoltaics (BIPV), which will hugely expand the potential of solar in populated areas.

Hydro is mainly from existing dams so there is no need to dam up all of Ontario as Ausubel proposes.

The best and most commonly approved wind energy projects are on farmlands, in already developed terrain or offshore. And turbines are getting larger and more efficient, doubling current yields.

Biofuels come from farm crops, not undeveloped wilderness lands.

Ausubel says New York City would need all of Connecticut for its renewable energy but he reportedly does not even mention wave/tide/current energies, though New York City has already begun using East River tide energy.

The articles say nothing about geothermal.

And Ausubel apparently did not consider efficiency, a vital component in the discussion of renewables.

Also, could someone mention the term “distributed generation” to the professor?

QUOTES
-Ausubel: "Nuclear energy is green…Considered in Watts per square meter, nuclear has astronomical advantages over its competitors."
-Ausubel: "As a Green, one of my credos is 'no new structures' but renewables all involve ten times or more stuff per kilowatt as natural gas or nuclear…"
-Ausubel: "Renewables may be renewable but they are not green…If we want to minimize new structures and the rape of nature, nuclear energy is the best option."

FIRST, anybody who says what is or is not “green” is oversimplifying and probably propagandizing.

SECOND, anybody who begins a point with “As a green…” should not get to finish the point.

THIRD (and put this in the it-only-takes-one category), how many square meters did that radioactive cloud from Chernobyl drift?