“Renewable energy could ‘rape’ nature”
No, really? So says Jesse Ausubel, a conservation biologist and climate researcher, in the latest International Journal of Nuclear Governance, Economy and Ecology. Sadly, the full text is only available to subscribers, but New Scientist cites the piece:
Renewables are “boutique fuels” says Ausubel, of Rockefeller University in New York, US. “They look attractive when they are quite small. But if we start producing renewable energy on a large scale, the fallout is going to be horrible.”
Instead, Ausubel argues for renewed development of nuclear. “If we want to minimise the rape of nature, the best energy solution is increased efficiency, natural gas with carbon capture, and nuclear power.”
Most of us share a desire for a low-pollution world. I think it would be both pleasant and productive. Environmentalists believe it will reduce, reverse, correct or otherwise change the climate and placate Gaia. If we’re only prepared to use the crude tools of mandated limits on energy use or enforcing inefficient alternatives, instead of relying on technological progress and human innovation, achieving this desire will come at a tremendous cost, both to the environment and to human quality of life. It’s nice to see a climate scientist and conservationist agree.
But wait. Ausubel is “setting himself up as a demagogue with this heretical stuff”, says John Turner of the US government’s National Renewable Energy Laboratory. Should have guessed.
Over forty people have died as a direct cause of wind turbines so far. One was a sky-diver, but most were killed during construction. This compares to the deaths directly attributable to Chernobyl which was a poorly designed, and extremely poorly operated nuclear power station.
If you divide the deaths by the amount of energy produced, nuclear power is far more friendly to humans (and Earth/Gaia) than any other form of electricity generation.
Couldn’t agree more. No risk is ever zero, but one has to remember that Chernobyl was an old design, was probably underfunded and badly maintained, and was pushed way beyond its safe operating margin. There’s no reason to believe that anything remotely as severe as Chernobyl would - or could - happen with a modern nuclear power station.
Even supposedly rapacious private operators would be stupid to be careless. You don’t kill a golden goose.
Jesse Ausubel is a nutcase. Calling solar power, wind power, geothermal power etc a ’boutique fuel’ can only mean one thing: He’s been bought out by the nuclear folks. In the U.S., there still is no agreement on what to do with nuclear waste. Please read this: http://snipurl.com/1ow5w [goes to http://www.latimes.com/ — Ivo]
By “nutcase”, do you mean you disagree with him? And when you say he’s been “bought out”, I assume you have evidence of this fact? Considering the huge vested interests - in panhandling for subsidies and legislated demand - of the solar, wind and ethanol lobbies, would it be fair of me to accuse you of having been “bought out” by them? And even if you had, would that in any way address your actual arguments?
I disagree with Ausubel too, on a number of issues. And though I’m broadly in favour of nuclear power, I’m not convinced problems such as weapons non-proliferation and public perceptions about waste have been adequately addressed by the industry.
But that wasn’t the point. I’m just pleased to see a climate scientist - who does believe climate change is a crisis - break with the regimented orthodoxy and institutional myopia of the green movement, in which mandatory energy rationing and subsidising a very limited set of inefficient alternatives seem to be the only policy options, to be enforced on rich and poor countries alike.
I’d prefer to see solar, wind, wave, geothermal, biofuel, hydro, fossil, nuclear and whatever else innovators can conceive compete on a commercial basis. I’d like to see markets, rather than bureaucrats, determine their benefits, costs, drawbacks, risks and ultimate value. Ausubel, in my opinion, contributes to this debate.
Daniel, you say “Jesse Ausubel is a nutcase. Calling solar power, wind power, geothermal power etc a ’boutique fuel’ can only mean one thing: He’s been bought out by the nuclear folks.” You’re an idiot. My statement has no more proof behind it than your claim against Ausbel - by which I mean that both are probably BS.
I agree with Ausbel and I haven’t received a cent from any power utility, ever. I’m just a socially and environmentally conscious doctor of Chemical Engineering. Do you know the stats? Do you have any idea what you’re talking about while throwing around useless labels and undermining someones credibility with no proof other than your own certainty that you’re right?
Get real, man. The world needs power. Lots of it. If you understood the first thing about energy and thermodynamics you’d know that Ausbel is 100% right. The longer people spend in cloud cuckoo land hoping that some feel-good power source like wind or geothermal is going to solve the power generation problem in a real way (I mean in serious MW), the longer coal companies are going to rape the land and pollute the air.
It’s realism time, and that means lesser of two evils time - if you think that nuclear is evil, which I don’t. No more evil than hydroelectric, which has trashed the Nile delta, or wind which kills endangered birds (and people) or solar which uses just as environmentally hazardous materials as nuclear does.
Once everyone gets over their preconceived certainty the world may just have a hope.