Fatally flawed attack on renewables by Jesse Ausubel

Forthwith debunked

Posted by Joseph Romm (Guest Contributor) at 9:26 AM on 26 Jul 2007

Read more about: energy | climate | renewable energy

Every silver lining has a cloud -- or so we are told.

Climate analyst Jesse Ausubel is getting a lot of press with his new, controversial, deeply flawed study, "Renewable and nuclear heresies" (available here with subscription, but you can get the main points from this 2005 Canadian Nuclear Association talk and the accompanying PPT presentation).

He says ramping up renewables would lead to the "rape of nature." His study concludes:

Renewables are not green. To reach the scale at which they would contribute importantly to meeting global energy demand, renewable sources of energy, such as wind, water and biomass, cause serious environmental harm. Measuring renewables in watts per square metre that each source could produce smashes these environmental idols. Nuclear energy is green. However, in order to grow, the nuclear industry must ... form alliances with the methane industry to introduce more hydrogen into energy markets, and start making hydrogen itself ... Considered in watts per square metre, nuclear has astronomical advantages over its competitors.

Uh, no, no, and no. Jesse popularized the notion that the economy has been decarbonizing for many decades (see Figure 2 of the PPT). This has led him to make a bunch of serious mistakes.

First, he basically thinks decarbonizing is all but inevitable with some effort on our part (i.e. pushing nukes and hydrogen hard). But if you look closely at Figure 3, you'll see that in the last few years we've been "recarbonizing" -- coal use has been soaring while natural gas use has stalled. (Also, even Ausubel's historical decarbonization was an essentially meaningless trend, since it did not stop absolute carbon levels from soaring dangerously in recent decades.)

Second, if decarbonization is all but inevitable, then global warming will mostly take care of itself. He doesn't come out and say this, but his talk never discusses the threat of climate change, which is much more likely to rape nature than renewables.

Third, he thinks hydrogen is the inevitable future. In fact it is a dead end -- the energy carrier of the future is electricity (PDF), hopefully with cellulosic ethanol. Sorry, Jesse, no one in their right mind would use nuclear power to make hydrogen, especially since fuel cells just convert the hydrogen back to electricity -- wasting some 75% of the original electricity and requiring you to buy expensive electrolyzers, hydrogen infrastructure, and fuel cells.

His fourth mistake, the land analysis, which got all the recent attention -- "Renewable energy projects will devour huge amounts of land, warns researcher" -- is the most serious, I think.

First, off, the most important type of new renewable energy is wind power. The key point with wind is that the vast majority of land covered by the wind turbine is still usable for farming or other purposes. As John Turner of the National Renewable Energy Laboratory points out, "The footprint for wind is only 5% of the land that it covers." Some wind turbines can also be placed at sea, where "land" is plentiful.

Second, just as wind power allows dual use (you can still farm around it), so does solar -- you can put photovoltaic panels on roofs. Not sure what you can do at a nuclear plant besides make power (unless you're Homer Simpson).

Third, yes land is a problem for biofuels, but even then the most serious biofuels researchers are pursuing multiple uses for biomass -- biorefineries that make electricity, liquid fuel, and feedstocks for industry. I doubt bioenergy will be more than 10% to 20% of the total global solution to climate change, unless someone cracks the micro-algae puzzle.

Fourth, Ausubel fails to distinguish between the United States and the world as a whole. We are one of the few countries with a large amount of excess arable land -- so we can probably get more fuel and power from bioenergy than most other countries. Here is what one study (PDF) finds:

We have about 450 million acres of cropland in the United States with approximately another 580 million acres of grassland pasture and range. Forest use land totals about 640 million acres, for a total of nearly 1700 million acres of land potentially available to produce feedstocks for ethanol production. Approximately 40 million of these acres are in the Conservation Reserve Program, a government program designed to take more fragile lands out of conventional grain or oilseed production. If we devote only 100 million acres to energy crop production and obtain an average of 15 tons of biomass per acre per year on that acreage and then convert that biomass to ethanol at 100 gallons per ton (approximately 85 percent of the theoretical maximum yield), we will produce 150 billion gallons of ethanol per year. This is equivalent to about 75 percent of the gasoline we currently use, taking into account ethanol's lower energy content per gallon.

Finally, Jesse never talks about the constraints to nuclear power, but in fact, there ain't enough uranium for nuclear to be the dominant solution to global warming -- indeed, even one "wedge" of nuclear would be monumentally difficult, as I have previously noted. The Keystone Center Report, "Nuclear Power Joint Fact-Finding (PDF)," finds that one wedge requires building "14 plants each year for the next 50 years, all the while building an average of 7.4 plants to replace those that will be retired," and on top of that:

For nuclear power to be even one wedge we would need 10 Yucca Mountains to store the waste.

We would have all of the proliferation risks associated with spreading nuclear power across the planet.

And the power isn't cheap: 8.3 to 11.1 cents per kilo-watt hour.

And we need 8 to 10 wedges to avoid climate catastrophe -- so it's silly to say any one power source is the solution. At best, if we tried incredibly hard, nuclear might -- might -- be close to one wedge. Wind might be a wedge or more. Other renewables might will comprise a wedge. Energy efficiency could be three or more wedges. Carbon capture and storage is probably at most one wedge. I lay out my scenario in Hell and High Water.

Avoiding catastrophic global warming is the most serious problem of our times. If current "decarbonization" trends continue, we will rape the planet. Jesse Ausubel's flawed and contentious analysis does not advance the discussion, but rather throws smoke in people's eyes. It will no doubt be widely quoted by Global Warming Denyers and even more by Delayers -- those who argue we must wait for new technology before acting. In that sense, the analysis is now part of the problem, not the solution.

This post was created for ClimateProgress.org, a project of the Center for American Progress Action Fund.

For story: Fatally flawed attack on renewables by Jesse Ausubel
12 Comments | Post a Comment

Sorry

Your biomass numbers are quite fatally flawed as well.

Tell me how you can average 15 tons of biomass per acre on a hundred million acres? This sounds like a hell of yield. Maybe on the best land, but you are talking about a lot of marginal land and also western, arid land. And what forests are you willing to sacrifice to convert into energy fields?

And 100 gallons of ethanol per ton? What is the net yield per ton?

The wildest projections of ethanol production in this country do not come anywhere close to replacing 75% of the gas we currently use, let alone what will be needed 20 years from now if growth projections occur.

by justlou at 10:00 AM on 26 Jul 2007

ethanol land use

Ausubel's study is so flawed, and shows such a total lack of imagination and understanding -- treating wind and solar installations like traditional centralized generation, which necessarily preclude other uses -- that I have to wonder if he's been taking kickbacks from the nuke boosters.

That said, I think he's right about biofuels in particular. They are NOT green: not only would they monopolize lots of land, but they also require substantial inputs of energy and fertilizer.

I want to particularly highlight how overly optimistic the ethanol study cited above is.

If we ... obtain an average of 15 tons of biomass per acre per year on that acreage and then convert that biomass to ethanol at 100 gallons per ton (approximately 85 percent of the theoretical maximum yield)

In reality, 15 tons/acre is a really high yield to take as an average. Miscanthus, one of the favored cellulose crops, yields up to the equivalent of 10 tons per acre in small plots, but under conventional agricultural practice is expected to yield more like 3 tons per acre according to this study.

Similarly (but even worse), 85% conversion of biomass to ethanol is science fiction compared to what we are currently achieving. Iogen is getting about a 6% yield. The barriers to improvement are substantial, and are notably not just a matter of refining existing techniques. In order to reach 85%, we would need to efficiently convert hemicellulose and lignin, which are much more challenging than cellulose. (Lignin, particularly, is considered intractable by current researchers.) This is even more true if we want to be able to use a wide variety of feedstocks like wood waste (as the citation presumes) rather than restricting ourselves to specially-chosen low-lignin crops.

There are also the issues of efficiently transporting large volumes of low-energy-density feedstocks to the ethanol plant, and effectively distributing the resulting ethanol (do we really want to totally re-tool our liquid fuels infrastructure?).

At least they acknowledge ethanol's lower energy content.

by GreenEngineer at 10:03 AM on 26 Jul 2007

One quick correction

The 85% figure quoted is 85% of the theoretical maximum ethanol yield. In Robert Rapier's article that you quote, Iogen gives that theoretical maximum as 114 gallon per ton. 100 gallons per ton is 85% of that number, so Iogen's claimed yield of 70 gallons per ton is about 60% of that theoretical maximum, not the 6% (presumably 6% of the total input biomass) in your calculation.

My big fundamental problems with cellulosic biofuels are still topsoil depletion, water requirements and low net energy. My other objection is that the commercial immaturity of the process means it won't be ready by the time we will probably need it, which may be within 5 to 10 years.

by GliderGuider at 10:44 AM on 26 Jul 2007
[ Parent ]

whoops

Yeah, I slipped a decimal place. That's what I get for trying to do this at work, and in a hurry.

by GreenEngineer at 11:32 AM on 26 Jul 2007

Wind and solar don't take up much land...

...according to The renewable path to energy security", page 20. I also believe Ausubel is talking about replacing all energy, not just current electricity; supplying the automobile/truck/airplane fleets considerably adds to the "land" required, if electricity is even possible; and even translating current vehicle-miles into more efficient rail transport would overstate the problem, because land-use (eg. sprawl) would probably have to change, in the long-term, as well. So any study that talks about replacing all energy sources should be taken with a grain of salt, studies should differentiate between electricity and fuels.

by Jon Rynn at 12:10 PM on 26 Jul 2007

You knew something was up...

The whole thing looked strange as soon as I started to read the Guardian article. The fact that the guy seems to love nukes was never in doubt, but there are a whole load of strawmen, strange assumptions and dogs that don't bark.

I love the factoid that if you wanted to power NY City using solar,you would need '12,000 square kilometres, about the size of Connecticut'. A quick look at the Wiki page for NY state shows that although the city itself is only about a tenth of that area, the state as a whole is 141,000 square km. No mention of energy efficiency, or simply putting solar panels (which are becoming increasingly efficient) on roofs, or of co-generation and local power grids.

There's also the fact that I cant think of any 'green' who supports large scale dams; but there was no mention of wave and tidal micropower.

And windpower apparently means you cant grow crops or graze livestock near turbines, which is strange since everyone seems to do it.

How did this get through even the most basic of peer revue?

by MikeB at 6:35 AM on 27 Jul 2007

Nuke Shillery

If the article has had peer review, then the peers were chosen to match Ausubel's integrity.

What stikes me about this is the fact that we long ago got sold the strawman of "Renewable Energy"
which was never more than a smokescreen to avoid categorizing energy resources
by the degree of their potential sustainability.

As supporters of "Renewables," who among Grist posters
would like to speak up for that abuse of Canis' relatives,
namely Battery Chicken Dung Power,
or for Mega-Hydro,
or for Agribusiness Biofuels ?

Isn't it time we simply disowned the term "Renewable"
before the Nuclear industry's shills make further hay by further discrediting it ?

Sustainable Energy is what I'm interested in developing.

Regards,

Bill

by Billhook at 7:44 AM on 27 Jul 2007
[ Parent ]

Where Is It?

In 1980 there were almost no personal computers (well, Timex Sinclair).

In 1985 they were going on every business desktop.

In 1990 they were headed into the home, never to stop.

The technology was at the right price point and the demand was such that it was unstoppable. No one had to "pay you" to buy a PC or Mac -- you wanted it.

How about solar? I mean, at some point, this technology should be so obvious and attractive, in the same way that the PC let you "get off the mainframe" and so right priced, that people will just tell the prognosticators to go to hell and start installing sheets of cells like TV antennas on fifties suburban ranch homes.

Texeme.Construct(function(x)=Participation(x))

by jabailo at 10:13 AM on 27 Jul 2007

Wow, John

For once I agree with you :) In the end the prognosticators will find that, for the right price and with enough information, many people will opt for alternative and localized forms of energy such as solar. And for many the environment will not be the primary motivator. As with the PC and the internet -- freedom will be a big motivator. I don't know anyone who doesn't complain about utility companies -- and many fatacize about not having to pay them. If they can instead force the utilities to buy their home-grown excess electricity -- well, they'd be thrilled.

"We must be the change we wish to see in the world." -- Mahatma Ghandi

by Green Granny at 5:15 PM on 27 Jul 2007
[ Parent ]

Computer chips vs. solar

Something happened with computer chips that did not happen with solar - huge government purchases, massive government development for the DOD and for the space program. Compare the money poured into the two industries, and you will see the different result explained. Mind you even with much smaller government subsidies solar cells dropped in price from $100+ per watt to $5.00+ per watt. (Higher in panels of course.) Wind managed to drop to the point where it is close in price to fossil fuels.

Barry Commoner back 1976 suggested a very simple rule to add to government purchasing. In any case where solar energy can be installed in a Federally financed project at the same cost (or a savings) over the lifetime of not using installing, it would have to be installed. That would have applied to a lot of remote outposts, chargers for naval vessel batteries, various niche applications where solar cells would have paid for themselves even then. One estimate is that this would have added 100 million in purchases of solar cells per year since 1976 - perhaps more if DOD applications had been include. Don't know if those purchases alone would have given us $1 a watt cells, but they might have.

by Gar Lipow at 6:01 PM on 27 Jul 2007

They ignore the Geothermal Wedge

US geothermal and geo-exchange resources far exceed our present useage. Since much of the current energy production supplies simple climate control services for businesses and residences simple conversions to geo-exchange HVAC are feasible.

If you can drill a vertical well on the site you can convert it's current heating/AC system to geo-exchange. That's a no footprint conversion of fossil fuels to renewables.

In addition there is plenty of hot rock geothermal in the west that is unused and even someo on the eastern seaboard. Hot Springs AK, should ring a few bells.

http://www1.eere.energy.gov/geothermal/
http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2007/geothermal.html
http://www.cnesolarstore.com/geo.htm
Combined geothermal/desalination plants-http://tinyurl.com/2jq74c (that's fresh water AND power)

Put the Carbon Back

by Pangolin at 4:14 AM on 28 Jul 2007

Is there a Dilbert in the house?

I really wonder if the "experts" are even part of this discussion.

One says solar is the way to go, another says no, the watt/meter yield is too low and the cost too high. Who wants a 3lb solar panel for a 3 oz IPOD. One person says nuclear another says no, there's not enough Uranium on Uranus to go nuclear. One person says stop producing CO2, another says, human production only accounts for 6% of CO2 globally. One person says hydrogen, another says how can you produce it without using more electricity than it saves you. One person says Wind, another says what do you do if the wind stops blowing. One person says Coal, another says it's too dirty. One person says biomass, another says what will that do to the price of vegetables. One says natural gas, another says, are you kidding, my gas bill has already doubled since they put in all those gas units. One says oil, another says the Saudi's already own enough Mercedes' and it's dirty too.

Unfortunately the solutions should probably come from the Dilbert's of the world. Not global warming scientists or, politicians serving a constituency. And the solutions will be as cheap and dirty or as expensive and clean as you're willing to pay for.

Unless of course what we are all proposing is to stop letting economics and engineering drive this issue and start letting scientist and politicians dictate the technology, no matter the cost. In that case, get out your wallets. Because what engineers consider the best available technology is not what the scientist dream of, and not what the politicians want to sell to their constituents.

by MikeB68 at 4:18 PM on 01 Aug 2007

ADVERTISING POLICY

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.