Nuke it

Lamar Alexander loves the earth too much to support solar and wind 12

Lamar AlexanderAlexander unveiled his nuclear plan in July.One of the few Congressional Republicans who talks about the need to address climate change, Sen. Lamar Alexander of Tennessee, made an interesting argument against wind and solar energy this week. He’s concerned about the amount of land required to produce energy from wind and solar, writing in the Wall Street Journal, “I fear we are going to destroy the environment in the name of saving the environment.”

He draws on a recent study by Nature Conservancy scientists who detail how much land is required to produce energy from different sources, an issue they dub “energy sprawl.” Alexander focuses on a small part of their findings—that wind and solar plants require a good deal more physical space than nuclear plants:

This “sprawl” has been missing from our energy discussions. In my home state of Tennessee, we just celebrated the 75th Anniversary of the Great Smoky Mountains National Park. Yet there are serious proposals by energy developers to cover mountains all along the Appalachian chain, from Maine to Georgia, with 50-story wind turbines because the wind blows strongest across mountaintops.

Let’s put this into perspective: We could line 300 miles of mountaintops from Chattanooga, Tenn., to Bristol, Va., with wind turbines and still produce only one-quarter the electricity we get from one reactor on one square mile at the Tennessee Valley Authority’s Watts Bar Nuclear Plant.

It’s a disingenuous argument, because the problem with nuclear power has never been land use. (See Radioactive Waste Disposal, Cost, and Security for more on the very difficult nuclear question.) I’m not arguing here that Alexander’s dead wrong in his long-standing love for nuclear energy, just that this is a thin argument for nuclear.

Oh, and Alexander says he won’t support a cap-and-trade climate bill unless it includes his personal wish for 100 new nuke plants.

Bonus second point: If you’re an environmentalist who cares about endangered species and wild places, you shouldn’t be concerned about wind farms or solar plants. You should worry about biofuels.

At least, I’m having a hard time avoiding that conclusion after looking at a key graphic from the energy sprawl report:

sprawl chartCourtesy PLoS ONE

The chart measures the land required per unit (terawatt-hour) of electricity from different sources. Note that the top five sources are all for biofuels, derived from different crops. Note how much less land wind, solar voltaic and solar thermal energy require in comparison.

I won’t rehash the economic and ecological problems with biofuels here, but this should cool off the notion that wind and solar won’t fly for land-use reasons. Of course some places are more sensitive than others, but if there’s room for mountaintop removal coal mining, we have room for wind and solar plants.

There’s a certain man-bites-dog appeal in stories about environmentalists who oppose clean energy projects because they disrupt wild places and endangered species. Take the conflict over solar panels and transmission lines in the Mojave Desert. Or the quarrel over the Cape Wind project at Nantucket Sound. Or the fight over wind turbines in the Flint Hills of Kansas.

These conflicts are intriguing, sure. But the sprawl study, which appeared in PLoS ONE, the online journal of the Public Library of Science, suggests that biofuels such as ethanol pose a far greater threat to open lands.

Jonathan Hiskes is a Grist staff writer. He reports, tweets, eats, asks questions, self-promotes, looks out windows, and wonders if it could be like this.

Related Stories

Advertisement
Advertisement

  1. Snowden Posted 10:38 am
    19 Sep 2009

    I don't think Sen Alexander's perspectives are as far off from the truth as portrayed here. James Lovelock makes a similar and convincing argument "against" wind and solar power in his latest book, and the basic idea is this: these renewable energies will still require a ton of energy and resources (plastics, cement, metals etc.) to transport and set up. And truthfully, as much as treehuggers- myself included- want us to transition to totally renewable energy sources, these sources just aren't there yet. Even if we put up huge numbers of turbines and solar panels, they won't supply us with the massive amounts of energy we need at a constant, steady rate- we'd still need power plants based on coal, gas, or nuclear to supplement their supply when needed.

    If we really want to break our addiction to fossil fuels, we can go two ways: 1.) evolve as a society and massively, massively cut our energy budgets (not going to happen) or 2.) rely at least partially on nuclear energy to feed our grids.

    PS. I am not funded by the nuclear energy lobby.

    Permalink

  2. mwildfire Posted 6:31 pm
    20 Sep 2009

    Yeah, Snowden, cutting our energy use is not going to happen, and setting up expensive nuclear plants with no acceptable place to put the waste is not going to happen--we'll just keep burning coal and oil till they're gone, or too expensive and impractical to collect--or until climate change hits the fan full force. We can't change our habits, it isn't realistic, so we'll just destroy the Earth. Our descendents will hate us with a burning passion such as humanity has never seen before--most generations actually revere their ancestors, but not our kids. But it's a price we'll pay, because we can't change our habits. For World War Two, we changed abruptly, but that's different--it was a war. This is merely the continuation of life on Earth--we can't change.
    I got a big question about that chart, though. I'm surprised at how low the footprint of coal is supposed to be. Are they taking into account the land permanently destroyed by removing coal from it, year after year as long as the plant runs? Or only the land the plant actually sits on, which would be absurd?

    Permalink

  3. chasingcleanair's avatar

    chasingcleanair Posted 9:03 pm
    20 Sep 2009

    Nuclear is not the answer. Leaks and meltdowns happen at nuclear power plants, and containers at Hanford Nuclear Facility have known leaks that contaminate the soil and Columbia River. No one wants to take existing or new nuclear waste. Nuclear power plants take a tremendous amount of water. Drought is rampant in U.S. Clearly, in my opinion, this Senator isn't educated enough on the risks and downsides of nuclear energy. Nothing is perfect. I say use less energy (everyone), and let's go for solar and wind. They're free and non-toxic. No one is going to say, "Get that sun's waste out of my backyard." Nuclear waste. Another story. Entirely. No one wants it in their backyard. If you're not sure, study what's going on at Hanford and Yucca Nuclear Waste Site.

    Permalink

  4. Javaman Posted 6:49 am
    21 Sep 2009

    Meh, Sen. Lamar Alexander has long been known to be a tool for the energy industry. So what else is new?

    Permalink

  5. Bill Hewitt's avatar

    Bill Hewitt Posted 6:53 am
    21 Sep 2009

    Lamar Alexander would rather cut off the tops of mountains for coal than site wind turbines on them. "Energy sprawl" is a specious argument anyway. It's like the argument against Cape Wind made by people like Bobby Kennedy, Jr. ("You don't understand. That's where I learned to sail." - See the excellent "Cape Wind" by Williams and Whitcomb.)

    You really can't get the total bang from renewables if you're still supporting nuclear power. (See my recent post at the FPA blog on climate change on nukes and a particularly good paper from David Elliot - http://climatechange.foreignpolicyblogs.com/2009/09/19/another-note-on-nuclear-power/) As to the availability and reliability of renewables: It's not even close. We are in a revolution. It's happening all around us, all over the world, now. The only question is to what extent the oil, coal and nuclear interests will continue to hold back the tide. (Oh yeah, there's plenty of energy in the ocean too.)

    Permalink

  6. juliejohns's avatar

    juliejohns Posted 7:02 am
    21 Sep 2009

    There's always someone who will object to something, even if it will help fight climate change - 'Those wind turbines spoil my view'. Green technology is coming on in leaps and bounds, with luck at least some of it will become a viable alternative to fossil fuels, but we have to change our habits.

    Permalink

  7. skitters Posted 8:12 am
    21 Sep 2009

    im pretty sure that he argued against bio-fuels in the article.

    Permalink

  8. Howell Haus's avatar

    Howell Haus Posted 12:17 pm
    21 Sep 2009

    Weatherization, Conservation, Reduction - first and foremost. Our level of consumption is not sustainable, in many, many professional opinions - based on scientific evidence and fact. Renewables are great, but they don't solve the problem of baseload, which is why some arguments for nuclear seem reasonable as a bridge to the future. Another group is interested in liquid flouride thorium reactors, which only requires that we farm the bottom of the ocean... which takes me back to weatherization, conservation, reduction - first and foremost.

    I read today that the US has seen a 9% reduction in energy usage over the past two years due to the spike in petroleum, and now an economic decline. Seems that an extended depression might be what the planet needs. On top of that is population growth. If world population continues to grow exponentially and each humans energy usage continues to rise, then there is no solution. Why not focus more on education and add population control to the list of weatherization, conservation, reduction. Then, in fifty years when our grandchildren are standing where we're standing, they'll know we took the right steps and made the right decisions for them to be where they're at - when they're grandparents (or possibly, just elderly people without a follow-on lineage).

    It comes down to critical thinking, long-term decision making, leadership with wisdom (and without constituencies) and each individual making choices with their earnings that are part of the solution - rather than part of the problem. As for me and mine, we'll see you out there on our bikes, of course...

    Permalink

  9. Bill Hewitt's avatar

    Bill Hewitt Posted 12:45 pm
    21 Sep 2009

    Nuclear - and fossil fuel - advocates like to perpetuate the myth of the "intermittency" of renewables. In May I cited an ass-kicking, myth-busting initiative in Europe in which it was demonstrated that “…renewable power can produce baseload electricity in a secure and reliable manner without help from conventional power.” (See http://climatechange.foreignpolicyblogs.com/2009/05/26/renewables-in-the-picture-at-the-ft/)

    Permalink

  10. Howell Haus's avatar

    Howell Haus Posted 1:48 pm
    21 Sep 2009

    Mr. Hewitt, I am neither an advocate of nuclear or fossil fuels. I see myself as a realist and happen to be a commercial solar consultant in a landmine of incentives, risk, 3rd party investors, schemes and huge lack of continuity within leadership and industry. My entire comment concerns reduction, living sustainably, within what nature can restore - not just survive. Having read a plethora of books on the subject, blogs, articles and viewing my own experiences - there's only one solution, a whole lot of less, less, less. A return to more durable goods, economies in a more localized venue, participation on a global scale. Heck, I can't even find a good pair of leather hiking boots that can be resoled unless I want them to come from the Dolomites...?

    While there is work on distributed generation, that requires adoption, which requires leadership, which is where we've been lacking forever. I'd start by dissolving the senate altogether. They're nothing more than a representation of corporate constituencies, existing in the name of jobs, economic security and whatever other fleece they require to hide under. Don't get me wrong, there are certainly good leaders on each side of the aisle, but based on the watered-down climate bill that's going through the house right now - our leaders don't get it, and no amount of storage solutions described in blogs is going to create a leadership that brings us there.

    If there's a solution, it needs to become mainstream, needs widespread adoption, and more than likely, requires all of the available technologies to bridge us there. After all, most solar panels, inverters, wiring, mounts, racking, turbine blades, steel, etc., are being made with energy from coal, nuclear, hydro and natural gas (I said most, not all). Until we're producing the entire product (every material in the value chain) from renewables, then we haven't arrived. And, if we don't have enough materials of a given solution to provide them to every household on the planet, then we're still not there.

    When someone figures out a way to power a home from a giant tree on the south side of their home (northern hemisphere), then I'll believe we truly get it. But while companies like Audi are revealing their 230kW, 0-60 mph in just over 4 seconds 'solutions', I'll continue to believe that we're nowhere close to widespread adoption. And that's why it's up to each and every one of us and our own individual buying decisions to make the needed change. As a democratic society, it's pretty certain that we're going to fight for the last drop of oil, last lump of coal, more nukes, and whatever else someone can make a buck off of. In the meantime, we'll see you out there on our bikes, of course... JD Howell, Eugene, OR

    Permalink

  11. Bill Hewitt's avatar

    Bill Hewitt Posted 6:20 am
    22 Sep 2009

    JD - First of all, good on 'ya for being in the business you're in. You are on the cutting edge. Second, you are definitely preaching to the choir here when it comes to the US Senate. See SPQR from my blog. Finally, as to changing our consumption patterns, I am also definitely with you. I've written about that a number of times, including in a post titled "Galloping Consumption." Bill

    Permalink

  12. Footle Posted 10:03 pm
    30 Sep 2009

    Much of the sprawl issue can be bypassed. This study covers the technical potential of photovoltaic systems on buildings.

    http://www.iea-pvps.org/products/download/rep7_04.pdf

    Permalink

Add a Comment

You are not logged in. Thus, you cannot post a comment. If you have an account, log in. If you don't have an account, well, by all means go make one! Meet you back here in five.

Hello, Visitor!    Why not register?

Viewed
More
Commented
More
Advertisement