According to new research by Jesse Ausubel at the Rockefeller University in New York, renewable energy sources could wreck the environment. The research looked into how much land it would take to generate electricity from renewable sources to make a large difference in global energy demands and concluded that building enough wind farms, damming enough rivers and growing enough biomass would mean a huge invasion of nature.

The results are startling – to meet the 2005 US electricity demand, an area the size of Texas would need to be covered in wind turbines, running 24/7. New York would need a wind farm the size of Connecticut to meet it’s demand for electricity. To put this into more perspective – biomass and wind farms produce around one or two watts per square metre.

Disagreement

Not all scientists agree with the research however with John A. Turner from the US National Renewable Energy Laboratory pointing out that this simplistic view of energy density does not capture the full picture. An example of this is solar power – there are 3.7 million square miles of land in the US. If part of the United States were to be covered in 10% efficient solar panels, an area of 10,000 square miles would be needed in a sunny area (such as Arizona or Nevada). In the overall scheme of things, this land amount needed is tiny, particularly if the solar farms are split into mini farms and spread across the country.

Double Usage

It is also important to realise that the land covered by solar panels does not need to be exclusively used for energy generation. Existing infrastructure can be used – for example rooftops of buildings and homes can have solar panels placed on them. Turner estimates that if all property had a solar panel on it, 25% of energy demand would be met by the solar cells.

Turner also points out that wind farms can have dual purposes too – the actual wind turbines only take up about 5% of the land they cover. The rest can be used for farming, so in reality, the impact on land-use is not that great.

Nuclear Power

Ausubel believes nuclear is the logical way forward, rather than renewable energy sources. “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.”
Of course the waste associated with nuclear power stations is one of the primary concerns. Nuclear waste has to be stored for hundreds of thousands of years in a secure place and leaks can causes huge damage to the local environment.

As with most things, it seems that the issues surrounding renewable energy and the alternatives are still not clear-cut and there is no definitive ‘best’ solution. Making broad statements such as ‘renewables are not green’ or ‘nuclear is green’ is painting an over-simplistic picture that does not take a lot of subtleties or factors into account. More debate and research needs to be taken in all directions. We only have a finite amount of time, energy and money and we need to take care over the choices we make because the options we choose today may have implications for many generations to come.

Popularity: 18% [?]