Writing in a scholarly journal, Jesse Ausubel, director of the university’s Program for the Human Environment, has now issued a scathing reassessment of the “renewable” energy sources that are supposed to save humanity from pollution and global warming.I can hear the howls already.
The climate change is believed to be caused by emissions of heat-trapping gases from use of traditional energy sources.
Meeting global energy demands through so-called renewable sources—building enough wind farms, damming enough rivers, and growing enough biomass—will wreck the environment, Ausubel argues. Biomass consists of plants and animal wastes used as fuel.
The solution? “If we want to minimize new structures and the rape of nature, nuclear energy is the best option,” Ausubel said.
This story has been impacting all over the Web in a big way all day long. There's a hot discussion over at reddit, and the piece has been picked up by both Instapundit and FuturePundit.
Here are some sources that demonstrate what Ausubel is talking about:
Land Needed by Wind or Solar Energy to Match Annual Nuclear Energy Production InfoGraphic (2006)
U.S. Capacity Factors by Fuel Type (2006)
U.S. Nuclear Industry Capacity Factors (1971 - 2006)
Cumulative Capacity Additions at U.S. Nuclear Facilities (1977 - 2011)
U.S. Nuclear Expected Power Uprates
One of the canards that anti-nuclear advocates like to trot out is to ask just how many nuclear reactors we would have to build in order to generate all of America's electricity. This study is their comeuppance.