posted by
elusiveat at 08:20am on 09/07/2011
Article: Renewable energy tops nuclear power in the US
http://arstechnica.com/science/news/201 1/07/renewable-power-booms-in-developing-w orld-as-it-tops-nuclear-in-the-us.ars?co mments=1#comments-bar
It sounds exciting, but after a careful read, I'm less optimistic.
[Emphasis added]
While in principle biomass could be renewable, that really depends on how it is managed. I'd be really curious to see how the accounting was done. Does this include corn biproducts? How was the energy required to produce biomass in the first place factored into these calculations, if at all?
Serious biologists talk about getting meaningful energy out of specific high-productivity organisms, notably poplars, tall grasses, and algae. But research projects to evaluate biomass energy sources for policy recommendations often still look at corn as an energy source because of the political importance of corn. This is unfortunate because the scientific consensus has been clear for at least a decade that corn is simply not going to pay off as an energy source.
I'll let you know if I can find out more about how the accounting was done in this case.
* * *
As a side remark, a bunch of the commenters responded by saying "This just proves we need more nuclear." I am absolutely not opposed to considering nuclear as an energy source, especially if we can set up facilities that reuse the spent fuel. But I am quite troubled by this obsession with a single technology to solve our problems.
So you've heard a good case for nuclear. That's fine. It may well be a solution to the question of how to obtain clean energy. But when we start to treat any technology as *the* solution to the point of dismissing other energy sources, we set ourselves up for inflexible practices in the future.
Original entry at dreamwidth.org. I'd be delighted if you could post your comments there (Count=
). But please feel free to comment below if you prefer.
http://arstechnica.com/science/news/201
It sounds exciting, but after a careful read, I'm less optimistic.
Electricity generated by nuclear plants has held steady at about 8,400 quadrillion BTUs for the last several years, while renewables have experienced strong growth, reaching just over 8,000 Quads last year.
This figure includes biomass, which has seen significant growth over the last decade, as has wind. So far, solar is barely registering, but several major utility-scale projects are in the works, both photovoltaic and concentrated solar, so that may change before too long.
[Emphasis added]
While in principle biomass could be renewable, that really depends on how it is managed. I'd be really curious to see how the accounting was done. Does this include corn biproducts? How was the energy required to produce biomass in the first place factored into these calculations, if at all?
Serious biologists talk about getting meaningful energy out of specific high-productivity organisms, notably poplars, tall grasses, and algae. But research projects to evaluate biomass energy sources for policy recommendations often still look at corn as an energy source because of the political importance of corn. This is unfortunate because the scientific consensus has been clear for at least a decade that corn is simply not going to pay off as an energy source.
I'll let you know if I can find out more about how the accounting was done in this case.
* * *
As a side remark, a bunch of the commenters responded by saying "This just proves we need more nuclear." I am absolutely not opposed to considering nuclear as an energy source, especially if we can set up facilities that reuse the spent fuel. But I am quite troubled by this obsession with a single technology to solve our problems.
So you've heard a good case for nuclear. That's fine. It may well be a solution to the question of how to obtain clean energy. But when we start to treat any technology as *the* solution to the point of dismissing other energy sources, we set ourselves up for inflexible practices in the future.
Original entry at dreamwidth.org. I'd be delighted if you could post your comments there (Count=
There are no comments on this entry. (Reply.)