Fast Fission Podcast #12 – MP3 File
I recently came across a fascinating study that was done by five researchers from The Nature Conservancy. If you have not heard of them before, the Nature Conservancy is
the leading conservation organization working around the world to protect ecologically important lands and waters for nature and people
The study compares the impact to natural habitats in the United States of various types of new energy development. They refer to this as the “land use intensity” of energy, and it is measured in energy produced for a given land area. Specifically, they estimated the amount of land that will be needed for the USA to meet energy demands by the year 2030 for various energy sources. The group is concerned that the build out of new energy sources to meet growing demand and combat climate change could cause what they refer to as “energy sprawl” with detrimental impact to natural habitats. It turns out, there is a lot to worry about!
The results? It takes on average 72 square kilometers of land to provide one megawatt of energy for one year when wind turbines are used. Solar energy is better at 15 to 37 square kilometers, depending on the technology used. Nuclear energy has the lowest impact on land use of ANY energy source. In fact, nuclear energy has about one sixth the impact of solar thermal generation, and one thirtieth the impact of wind generation.
It takes just 2.4 square KM, or about one square mile to provide one megawatt of electricity for one year when that energy is derived from nuclear energy. This is a great example of how the incredible energy density of nuclear energy provides benefits to society.
#1 by Chris - November 2nd, 2009 at 18:46
What about the land destruction and land use for uranium mining. C’mon…
#2 by John - November 2nd, 2009 at 21:45
Great question! Actually, I wondered about that myself. I checked the background info of the study and found they included the impact of uranium mining. In “table S1″ they state “Capacity factor based on EIA Reference scenario, 2030 value. Values for plant area, mining requirements per KW-hr, and waste storage requirements per KW-hr are based on Spitzley, and Keoleian [6].”
Reference [6] is Spitzley DV, Keoleian GA (2004) Life cycle environmental and economic assessment of willow biomass electricity: A comparison with other renewable and non-renewable sources. Ann Arbor, MI: Center for Sustainable Systems, University of Michigan
Neither The Nature Conservancy nor the University of Michigan are viewed as pro-nuclear, so I have a high degree of confidence that they applied sound methods.
Uranium is thousands of times more energy dense than any fossil fuel and that translates into much less volume of ore that must be removed from the earth to generate an equivalent amount of energy.
Thanks!
John