After the Fossil Age, nuclear power could supply the entire world with emission-free energy in an area half the size of Vermont, USA
A comprehensive analysis of 870 power plants worldwide shows that nuclear power is the clear winner in protecting ecosystems. Bioenergy is a definite loser.
The proverb, “Misfortune never comes alone,” is also the title of a 1903 French short silent film. The same is true of the climate crisis, which is closely linked to the environmental and energy crises. The three crises affect each other like parties in an irresolvable love triangle.
The world will need three times as much electricity by 2050 to make a successful green transition and meet climate goals. In order to generate enough electricity, we must have enough land to produce the necessary energy. But occupying land to produce energy damages ecosystems and exacerbates climate change.
How can we prevent this drama from unfolding on our planet?
NTNU, in collaboration with the Grenoble Institute of Technology, has undertaken a new study to conduct a systematic survey of land use for all energy solutions. We analyzed 870 power plants around the world, including solar, wind, hydro and nuclear power plants. The research was published in Scientific Reports, the world’s largest scientific journal owned by Nature Publishers.
If current energy policies are implemented, it will be impossible to solve the climate crisis without seriously undermining the environmental crisis.
One of the findings was that hydropower is the most land-use efficient renewable energy source in the world. This challenges the popular opinion that solar power is the most energy-dense renewable energy source.
The world of ecoglyphs
According to our research, global environmental pollution will increase sixfold by 2050, following the International Energy Agency’s (IEA) net zero emissions scenario. In other words, if current energy policies are implemented, it is impossible to solve the climate crisis without seriously exacerbating the environmental crisis.
Using current energy plans, global electricity production to 2050 would require an area 1.5 times larger than India, or as large as the entire EU.
place a higher value on the environment
Humanity is already spread across too many places on this planet. The United Nations Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) shows that nature must be protected to sustain the world’s biodiversity. Forests store her CO2 and provide good air to breathe. Greta Thunberg recently warned against burning forests for energy, saying the practice cannot be greenwashed as renewable.
All energy transitions throughout history have been characterized by the gradual production of more energy on ever-smaller land masses. In the old days, forests were our only source of energy. Forests had to be sacrificed for food and heat. We shifted from wood to coal to oil and gas.
The Industrial Revolution was a way out of the environmental crisis and deforestation of the time. Instead, protecting and enjoying the forest has become a priority. But today we are unfortunately degrading the environment and causing the same problems.
Using forests for fuel is the worst
The best answer to solving the climate, energy and environment trilemma is to keep looking for the most energy-dense solutions. Wherever the data lead, we need to track them, and new research offers an opportunity to do this.
“Among renewable energy sources, bioenergy, which involves burning forests as an energy source, is the worst, followed by onshore wind, offshore wind, wave power, solar power, and finally hydropower.
Among renewable energy sources, bioenergy, which involves burning forests as an energy source, is the worst. Using 878 square kilometers of space to generate one terawatt-hour would not supply more than a quarter of his needs in New York City, so the possibility of bioenergy being the most land-efficient solution was ruled out from the start. increase.
The next options are onshore wind, offshore wind, wave power and solar power, with hydropower being the most land-efficient renewable energy source. Bioenergy is a very rarefied form of energy, but studies have found that onshore wind power has some of the same problems.
“Although biomass is by far the leanest renewable energy source, a sample of 148 onshore wind farms found wind to be the second leanest source of power generation….”
Onshore wind power presents challenges
One of the arguments of wind farms is that the land occupied by wind farms can be used for multiple purposes, such as grazing, agriculture, and recreation. However, the very limited wind power resources found on land already used for other purposes also limits the potential for expanding wind power into the dominant energy solution globally.
Wind power also offers no chance to restore the damaged environment.
According to our research, specific power could easily increase by at least an order of magnitude if wind farm footprints were only considered tower footprints and access roads. However, this does not fully represent the large spacing between distributed energy sources in wind farms and their poor scalability in areas with limited space.
The spatial extent of nuclear power is 99.7% less than onshore wind power, in other words it uses 350 times less land area.
High land requirements also have a significant impact on the materials and infrastructure required to harvest energy from wind turbines. There are potential indirect impacts on wildlife and degradation of landscape quality, and the visual footprint is significant across the region.
Nuclear power wins
Considering all energy sources, nuclear power is the clear winner in terms of spatial energy density. Nuclear power, in an area half the size of Bayken County in Norway, or half the size of Vermont in the United States, could supply the entire world with emission-free energy after the fossil age.
A comparison of the numbers shows that the spatial extent of nuclear power is 99.7% smaller than that of onshore wind power. That is 1/350th of the land area used.
This data must be viewed in the light of the environmental crisis expected by 2050. An energy transition based solely on nuclear energy will save him 99.75% of the environmental impact in 2050. It can even eliminate most of the current environmental footprint we already cause.
Nimby or Inby?
Indeed, nuclear power has had a popularity problem over the years. Today, nuclear power is outside the definition of renewable energy, but it will probably be considered renewable energy in the long term. In the future, uranium, the fuel for nuclear power generation, will come from the sea, where uranium can be naturally replenished. Also, spent uranium will be able to be reused in new technologies. In that case, nuclear power would qualify as a renewable energy source.
As exemplified by the popular acronym NIMBY – Not In My Back Yard, space is a factor that is increasingly influencing the popularity of energy sources. This acronym is often used in connection with the development of wind and solar power that affects people, animals and nature.
Recent research indicates that nuclear power may be a desirable neighbor for many residents. This is so that communities can ensure safety for business development and employment. We are talking about the reverse NIMBY effect, or YIMBY – Yes, In My Back Yard.
Climate and environment must be solved together
Just as the three crises of climate, nature and energy are occurring at the same time, they must be resolved at the same time. For years there has been a focus on climate-friendly solutions, but less attention on green solutions.
Should we stop cutting down forests to make electricity?
We seem to have completely forgotten that the conservation and restoration of nature play an important role in mitigating the effects of climate.
Therefore, we need to focus on land use. The study in question, which focuses on land efficiency, addresses exactly this point. In such a race, nuclear power is the clear winner. Bioenergy is a loser and land needed will be the nail in the coffin. Should we stop cutting down forests to make electricity?
Original: Nuclear power is the least damaging to the environment
Than: Norwegian University of Science and Technology | Grenoble University of Technology
