Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
peejay

Study: Renewable Energy Not Green

4 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Study: Renewable Energy Not Green

Special to LiveScience

LiveScience.com

Thu Jul 26, 8:35 AM ET

Renewable energy could wreck the environment, according to a study that examined how much land it would take to generate the renewable resources that would make a difference in the global energy system.

Building enough wind farms, damming adequate number of rivers and growing sufficient biomass to produce ample kilowatts to make a difference in meeting global energy demands would involve a huge invasion of nature, according to Jesse Ausubel, a researcher at the Rockefeller University in New York.

Ausubel came to this conclusion by calculating the amount of energy that each renewable source can produce in terms of area of land disturbed.

“We looked at the different major alternatives for renewable energies and we measured [the power output] for each of them and how much land it will rape,” Ausubel told LiveScience.

Land grab for energy

The results, published in the current issue of International Journal of Nuclear Governance, Economy and Ecology, paint a grim picture for the environment. For example, according to the study, in order to meet the 2005 electricity demand for the United States, an area the size of Texas would need to be covered with wind structures running round the clock to extract, store and transport the energy.

New York City would require the entire area of Connecticut to become a wind farm to fully power all its electrical equipment and gadgets.

You can convert every kilowatt generated directly into land area disturbed, Ausubel said. “The biomass or wind will produce one or two watts per square meter. So every watt or kilowatt you want for light bulbs in your house can be translated into your hand reaching out into nature taking land.”

Small dent in landmass

Other scientists are not on board with Ausubel’s analysis and say that his use of energy density—the amount of energy produced per each area of land—as the only metric may not be the correct way to calculate the impact of energy from renewable resources on the environment.

“In general, I would say his use of energy density just does not capture the entire scope of issues and capabilities for all the different resources,” said John A. Turner, a principal scientist at the U.S. National Renewable Energy Laboratory, who was not involved in the study.

Turner explains that if the entire United States were to be powered by solar cells with 10 percent efficiency, an area about 10,000 square miles would have to be covered by solar panels in a sunny place such as Arizona or Nevada.

“Now there’s 3.7 million square miles of area for the continental U.S.” Turner told LiveScience. “This represents a very, very tiny area. And that’s just one technology.”

“If you look at how much land area we’ve covered with roads, it’s more than double that. So yeah, it’s a large area, 100 miles by 100 miles, if you pack it into one thing, but if you scatter it across the country and compare it to all the other things we’ve already covered, it’s not an egregious area.”

Double use of land

Ausubel’s analysis concludes that other renewable sources such as solar power and biomass are “un-green”. According to his findings, to obtain power for a large proportion of the country from biomass would require 965 square miles of prime Iowa land. A photovoltaic solar cell plant would require painting black about 58 square miles, plus land for storage and retrieval to equal a 1,000-megawatt electric nuclear plant, a more environmentally friendly choice, Ausubel wrote.

However, new land doesn’t have to be put into use just for a solar plant. Some scientists say already existing infrastructures could be doubled up for use to cover such an area.

“We could do with just rooftops of buildings and homes, land area we’ve already covered,” Turner said. “We could meet 25 percent of our annual electrical demand by just putting solar panels on already existing rooftops of homes and businesses.”

“Similarly, wind farms use up a lot of land area but they only really take up 5 percent of the land they cover,” he explained. “The rest of it can be used for farming so it doesn’t really impact the land area that much.”

Going nuclear

Ausubel thinks that a better alternative to renewable energy resources would be nuclear power, which would leave behind far less waste than other alternatives

“There are three legs to the stool of environmentally sound energy policy—one is improved efficiency, second is increased reliance on natural gas with carbon capture and sequestration and the third is nuclear power,” he explained.

“Nuclear power has the proliferation issues, which are serious but the environmental issues are small. With nuclear energy the issue is to contain radioactivity, which has been successfully done.”

Turner agrees that nuclear power leaves a smaller carbon footprint, but he thinks that the waste issue associated with this technology is very serious.

“It’s unconscionable to dismiss the issue of nuclear waste," Turner said, “because you have to store that waste for hundreds of thousands of years and nuclear wastes are particularly damaging to the environment and have social impacts also.”

Similarly, Gregory A. Keoleian, co-Director for the Center for Sustainable Systems at the University of Michigan, thinks more in-depth analyses are needed before dismissing renewables and considering nuclear power as a viable option.

“I think the characterizations made that ‘renewables are not green’ and ‘nuclear is green’ sound provocative, but they do not accurately represent these technologies with respect to a comprehensive set of sustainability criteria and analysis,” Keoleian told LiveScience. “The treatment of renewable technologies [in this study] is shallow and the coverage of the nuclear fuel cycle is incomplete."

To capture the entire scope of issues and capabilities for all the different resources, scientists believe there need to be more studies and discussions.

“We have a finite amount of time, a finite amount of money and a finite amount of energy, and we need to be very careful about the choices we make as we build this new energy infrastructure,” Turner said. “I’d like to see something that will last for millennia and certainly solar, wind and biomass will last as long as the sun shines. “

http://news.yahoo.com/s/livescience/200707...eenergynotgreen

Edited by peejay

"Credibility in immigration policy can be summed up in one sentence: Those who should get in, get in; those who should be kept out, are kept out; and those who should not be here will be required to leave."

"...for the system to be credible, people actually have to be deported at the end of the process."

US Congresswoman Barbara Jordan (D-TX)

Testimony to the House Immigration Subcommittee, February 24, 1995

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How'd I miss this one?


"The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. Government can’t pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government’s reckless fiscal policies."

Senator Barack Obama
Senate Floor Speech on Public Debt
March 16, 2006



barack-cowboy-hat.jpg
90f.JPG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

caught part of an episode of This Old House last night. apparently they were doing a segment on "green" stuff. part of it was visitng a wind farm out in texas. the number pegged was 2%, the energey produced by the wind farm for the texas energy grid. i think it was theowner who went on to say that it would never be the sole source; that it is to be cosidered a piece of the puzzle.

That is the way I look at these alternative energy sources. heck, we can continue using petro, but at a much smaller percentage. just another piece of the puzzle.

Daniel

:energetic:


Ana (Mexico) ------ Daniel (California)(me)

---------------------------------------------

Sept. 11, 2004: Got married (civil), in Mexico :D

July 23, 2005: Church wedding

===============================

K3(I-129F):

Oct. 28, 2004: Mailed I-129F.

~USPS, First-Class, Certified Mail, Rtn Recpt ($5.80)

Nov. 3, 2004: NOA1!!!!

Nov. 5, 2004: Check Cashed!!

zzzz deep hibernationn zzzz

May 12, 2005 NOA2!!!! #######!!! huh???

off to NVC.

May 26, 2005: NVC approves I129F.

CR1(I-130):

Oct. 6, 2004: Mailed I-130.

~USPS, First-Class, Certified Mail, Rtn Recpt ($5.80)

Oct. 8, 2004: I-130 Delivered to CSC in Laguna Niguel.

~Per USPS website's tracking tool.

Oct. 12, 2004 BCIS-CSC Signs for I-130 packet.

Oct. 21, 2004 Check cashed!

Oct. 25, 2004 NOA1 (I-130) Go CSC!!

Jan. 05, 2005 Approved!!!! Off to NVC!!!!

===============================

NVC:

Jan. 05, 2005 ---> in route from CSC

Jan. 12, 2005 Case entered system

Jan. 29, 2005 Received I-864 Bill

Jan. 31, 2005 Sent Payment to St. Louis(I864)

Feb. 01, 2005 Wife received DS3032(Choice of Agent)

Feb. 05, 2005 Payment Received in St. Louis(I864)

Feb. 08, 2005 Sent DS3032 to Portsmouth NH

Feb. 12, 2005 DS3032 Received by NVC

Mar. 04, 2005 Received IV Bill

Mar. 04, 2005 Sent IV Bill Payment

Mar. 08, 2005 Received I864

Mar. 19, 2005 Sent I864

Mar. 21, 2005 I864 Received my NVC

Apr. 18, 2005 Received DS230

Apr. 19, 2005 Sent DS230

Apr. 20, 2005 DS230 received by NVC (signed by S Merfeld)

Apr. 22, 2005 DS230 entered NVC system

Apr. 27, 2005 CASE COMPLETE

May 10, 2005 CASE SENT TO JUAREZ

Off to Cd. Juarez! :D

calls to NVC: 6

===============================

CIUDAD JUAREZ, American Consulate:

Apr. 27, 2005 case completed at NVC.

May 10, 2005 in route to Juarez.

May 25, 2005 Case at consulate.

===============================

-- Legal Disclaimer:What I say is only a reflection of what I did, going to do, or may do; it may also reflect what I have read others did, are going to do, or may do. What you do or may do is what you do or may do. You do so or may do so strictly out of your on voilition; or follow what a lawyer advised you to do, or may do. Having said that: have a nice day!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
- Back to Top -


Important Disclaimer: Please read carefully the Visajourney.com Terms of Service. If you do not agree to the Terms of Service you should not access or view any page (including this page) on VisaJourney.com. Answers and comments provided on Visajourney.com Forums are general information, and are not intended to substitute for informed professional medical, psychiatric, psychological, tax, legal, investment, accounting, or other professional advice. Visajourney.com does not endorse, and expressly disclaims liability for any product, manufacturer, distributor, service or service provider mentioned or any opinion expressed in answers or comments. VisaJourney.com does not condone immigration fraud in any way, shape or manner. VisaJourney.com recommends that if any member or user knows directly of someone involved in fraudulent or illegal activity, that they report such activity directly to the Department of Homeland Security, Immigration and Customs Enforcement. You can contact ICE via email at Immigration.Reply@dhs.gov or you can telephone ICE at 1-866-347-2423. All reported threads/posts containing reference to immigration fraud or illegal activities will be removed from this board. If you feel that you have found inappropriate content, please let us know by contacting us here with a url link to that content. Thank you.
×