| IMPACTS ON HABITAT - Nuclear and Renewable Power Compared |
2: MARYLAND’S ELECTRICITY CONSUMPTION
The Power Plant Research Program (PPRP) is an agency of Maryland which “...
provides a continuing program for evaluating electric generation issues and
recommending responsible, long-term solutions.” It posts a useful web page on
Maryland's electricity industry (3). According to the US Energy Information Agency,
the yearly total amount of electricity used by the average household in Maryland
during 2005 was 13.4 MWh (3a - open the "Table 1" tab in the spreadsheet) (see
Sidebar for electrical units) while the entire State used 63.2 million MWh (3b - see
the column "Retail Electricity Sales"). The latter is the total amount used by private
consumers, industrial plants, and commercial operations such as office buildings,
stores, etc. during 2005.
3: THE NEW CALVERT CLIFFS REACTOR
The reactor proposed for Calvert Cliffs will have a maximum output of 1600
megawatts of electrical power, and its capacity factor (see Sidebar on Capacity
Factor) will be about 90% (4). Thus, the actual annual average power output of the
reactor is expected to be 1440 megawatts; this will be referred to as 1 Reactor
Equivalent of electric Power (1 REqP). The annual energy output of the reactor will
be 12.6 million megawatt-hours per year (5). We will refer to this amount of electric
energy as 1 Reactor Equivalent of electric Energy or 1 REqE).
The land occupied by the installation will be about 300 acres. The reactor is
designed to have a working life of 60 years; it will use existing transmission lines,
eliminating the need for additional land; and its newly designed cooling system will
use only 2% of the water needed by the two older reactors on the site. Its estimated
construction cost is from $6.5 to $8.6 billion.
From the PPRP data above we see that the proposed reactor will provide the
electricity used annually by about 940,000 homes. To supply the State’s total
electricity consumption from within (residential, commercial, and industrial) would
require about 6 such reactors (note that a significant fraction of Maryland's
electricity is presently generated out of state).
4: WIND POWER ON LAND IN MARYLAND
Wind power is receiving a lot of attention in the news media as a source of “clean”
electricity. But is it effective? That is, can it meet a significant portion of the
electricity consumed in the region without occupying a large area of important
habitat and at a competitive cost?
Turbines require winds of a defined range of speed. For the type now being used in
the Appalachian Mountains, the wind must be at least 9 mph and no more than 56
mph. There is limited amount of land in Maryland with wind of suitable speed, and
all of it is in the western mountains where the turbines will be erected on undisturbed
forest (see Biological Effects below). The turbines recently installed in Pennsylvania
and West Virginia have a maximum generating capacity of about 2 megawatts, so if
you assume that they would produce power consistently at this capacity (i.e.,
capacity factor = 100%), which they don’t, you would need 720 of them to produce 1
ReqE, probably too many for the land with suitable wind speed. Keep in mind that
this is the number required to substitute for only one nuclear reactor.
Throughout the US, wind energy is at its least in the summer–when demand for
electricity is highest. Figure 1 shows the monthly capacity factors of two wind
installations in Pennsylvania. Note that they were just over 10% in the summer; never
exceeded 50% at any time during the year; and the yearly averages were below 30%.
The managers of the PJM grid (the grid that transmits Maryland's electricity) have
assigned an "effective class average Capacity Factor" of only 13% to the wind plants in
its region (6). As another example of low productivity at critical times, the large
wind installations in California operated at about 5% of their capacity during a hot
spell in 2005. The average annual capacity factors from Denmark and Germany are
24 and 16 percent respectively (7).
So, if we calculate the number of turbines needed to substitute for the reactor from
the yearly average 30% capacity factor of the two Pennsylvania plants (Figure 1), it
increases from 720 to 2400, a number far beyond that which can be accommodated.
When the Capacity Factor of 13% is used, 5,500 turbines would be needed, if they were
intended to supply electricity during the summer, which is when demand is highest
(Table 1). Installing 5,500 turbines, if it were even possible, would require clearing
something like 18,500 acres of forest (including a modest 3 acres per pad plus the
land needed for service roads and transmission lines) and they would occupy over
700 miles of ridge line if the turbines were spaced at 7 per mile.
The Power Plant Research Program (PPRP) is an agency of Maryland which “...
provides a continuing program for evaluating electric generation issues and
recommending responsible, long-term solutions.” It posts a useful web page on
Maryland's electricity industry (3). According to the US Energy Information Agency,
the yearly total amount of electricity used by the average household in Maryland
during 2005 was 13.4 MWh (3a - open the "Table 1" tab in the spreadsheet) (see
Sidebar for electrical units) while the entire State used 63.2 million MWh (3b - see
the column "Retail Electricity Sales"). The latter is the total amount used by private
consumers, industrial plants, and commercial operations such as office buildings,
stores, etc. during 2005.
3: THE NEW CALVERT CLIFFS REACTOR
The reactor proposed for Calvert Cliffs will have a maximum output of 1600
megawatts of electrical power, and its capacity factor (see Sidebar on Capacity
Factor) will be about 90% (4). Thus, the actual annual average power output of the
reactor is expected to be 1440 megawatts; this will be referred to as 1 Reactor
Equivalent of electric Power (1 REqP). The annual energy output of the reactor will
be 12.6 million megawatt-hours per year (5). We will refer to this amount of electric
energy as 1 Reactor Equivalent of electric Energy or 1 REqE).
The land occupied by the installation will be about 300 acres. The reactor is
designed to have a working life of 60 years; it will use existing transmission lines,
eliminating the need for additional land; and its newly designed cooling system will
use only 2% of the water needed by the two older reactors on the site. Its estimated
construction cost is from $6.5 to $8.6 billion.
From the PPRP data above we see that the proposed reactor will provide the
electricity used annually by about 940,000 homes. To supply the State’s total
electricity consumption from within (residential, commercial, and industrial) would
require about 6 such reactors (note that a significant fraction of Maryland's
electricity is presently generated out of state).
4: WIND POWER ON LAND IN MARYLAND
Wind power is receiving a lot of attention in the news media as a source of “clean”
electricity. But is it effective? That is, can it meet a significant portion of the
electricity consumed in the region without occupying a large area of important
habitat and at a competitive cost?
Turbines require winds of a defined range of speed. For the type now being used in
the Appalachian Mountains, the wind must be at least 9 mph and no more than 56
mph. There is limited amount of land in Maryland with wind of suitable speed, and
all of it is in the western mountains where the turbines will be erected on undisturbed
forest (see Biological Effects below). The turbines recently installed in Pennsylvania
and West Virginia have a maximum generating capacity of about 2 megawatts, so if
you assume that they would produce power consistently at this capacity (i.e.,
capacity factor = 100%), which they don’t, you would need 720 of them to produce 1
ReqE, probably too many for the land with suitable wind speed. Keep in mind that
this is the number required to substitute for only one nuclear reactor.
Throughout the US, wind energy is at its least in the summer–when demand for
electricity is highest. Figure 1 shows the monthly capacity factors of two wind
installations in Pennsylvania. Note that they were just over 10% in the summer; never
exceeded 50% at any time during the year; and the yearly averages were below 30%.
The managers of the PJM grid (the grid that transmits Maryland's electricity) have
assigned an "effective class average Capacity Factor" of only 13% to the wind plants in
its region (6). As another example of low productivity at critical times, the large
wind installations in California operated at about 5% of their capacity during a hot
spell in 2005. The average annual capacity factors from Denmark and Germany are
24 and 16 percent respectively (7).
So, if we calculate the number of turbines needed to substitute for the reactor from
the yearly average 30% capacity factor of the two Pennsylvania plants (Figure 1), it
increases from 720 to 2400, a number far beyond that which can be accommodated.
When the Capacity Factor of 13% is used, 5,500 turbines would be needed, if they were
intended to supply electricity during the summer, which is when demand is highest
(Table 1). Installing 5,500 turbines, if it were even possible, would require clearing
something like 18,500 acres of forest (including a modest 3 acres per pad plus the
land needed for service roads and transmission lines) and they would occupy over
700 miles of ridge line if the turbines were spaced at 7 per mile.
No generator of electricity can
run 100% of the time, and
none, when running, is able to
produce power constantly
throughout a year at its
maximum designed rate (i.e.,
at its "nameplate" generating
capacity). To indicate the
effective performance of any
power plant, the term
"capacity factor" is used. It
represents the actual power
output during a given time
interval divided by the
maximum potential output
assuming continuous
operation, with no
maintenance or other
shut-downs, and no loss of
"fuel", e.g. fossil fuels, wind,
or sunlight. Capacity factor is
expressed as a percentage
over a stipulated time period.
The managers of the PJM grid
define the "Capacity Factor"
of a generator as the average
of the last three years'
capacity factors that are
obtained only during the peak
demand periods of from 2 PM
to 6 PM in the months of June
through September.
When wind and solar power
installations are mentioned in
the news media, their output
is often stated as their
maximum generating capacity
(i.e., "nameplate capacity") as
opposed to citing the effective
generating capacity of these
intermittent sources of
electricity. For example, 500
2-MW wind turbines (i.e., 1,000
MW of nameplate capacity)
would have an effective
generating capacity of only
300 MW if these wind turbines
operated annually with a
typical average capacity
factor of 30%. This practice
makes wind and solar
technology appear more
effective and less expensive
than they are in reality.
run 100% of the time, and
none, when running, is able to
produce power constantly
throughout a year at its
maximum designed rate (i.e.,
at its "nameplate" generating
capacity). To indicate the
effective performance of any
power plant, the term
"capacity factor" is used. It
represents the actual power
output during a given time
interval divided by the
maximum potential output
assuming continuous
operation, with no
maintenance or other
shut-downs, and no loss of
"fuel", e.g. fossil fuels, wind,
or sunlight. Capacity factor is
expressed as a percentage
over a stipulated time period.
The managers of the PJM grid
define the "Capacity Factor"
of a generator as the average
of the last three years'
capacity factors that are
obtained only during the peak
demand periods of from 2 PM
to 6 PM in the months of June
through September.
When wind and solar power
installations are mentioned in
the news media, their output
is often stated as their
maximum generating capacity
(i.e., "nameplate capacity") as
opposed to citing the effective
generating capacity of these
intermittent sources of
electricity. For example, 500
2-MW wind turbines (i.e., 1,000
MW of nameplate capacity)
would have an effective
generating capacity of only
300 MW if these wind turbines
operated annually with a
typical average capacity
factor of 30%. This practice
makes wind and solar
technology appear more
effective and less expensive
than they are in reality.
| The CAPACITY FACTOR - a CRITICAL FACTOR |
| THERMODYNAMIC EFFICIENCY |
Thermodynamic efficiency is
the ratio of useful energy
obtained from a machine or
process divided by the
amount of energy put into the
machine or process. It is
expressed as a decimal
(always less than 1), or as a
percentage (always less than
100).
the ratio of useful energy
obtained from a machine or
process divided by the
amount of energy put into the
machine or process. It is
expressed as a decimal
(always less than 1), or as a
percentage (always less than
100).
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
CONTENTS OF THIS PAGE:
1: COMPARING RENEWABLE AND NUCLEAR ENERGY
2: MARYLAND’S ELECTRICITY CONSUMPTION
3: THE NEW CALVERT CLIFFS REACTOR
4: WIND POWER ON LAND IN MARYLAND
5: WIND POWER OFFSHORE IN MARYLAND
6: SOLAR POWER
7: AUXILIARY POWER AND ENERGY STORAGE
8: BIOMASS
9: HOW TO READ THE NEWSPAPERS
10: AN ESSENTIAL CONCERN: EFFECTS ON THE WORLD OF
BIOLOGY
11: ENDNOTES PAGE (The individual reference numbers in the text
also link to this page.)
12: TABLES-IMPACTS (Here, the tables in the text are placed on a
separate page for printing. The links in the text also go to this page.)
Please note that our web pages are correctly formatted for printing by Internet
Explorer but not by Mozilla Firefox (we have not tested other browsers). We will
try to address this problem. Thank you for your patience.
1: COMPARING RENEWABLE AND NUCLEAR ENERGY
2: MARYLAND’S ELECTRICITY CONSUMPTION
3: THE NEW CALVERT CLIFFS REACTOR
4: WIND POWER ON LAND IN MARYLAND
5: WIND POWER OFFSHORE IN MARYLAND
6: SOLAR POWER
7: AUXILIARY POWER AND ENERGY STORAGE
8: BIOMASS
9: HOW TO READ THE NEWSPAPERS
10: AN ESSENTIAL CONCERN: EFFECTS ON THE WORLD OF
BIOLOGY
11: ENDNOTES PAGE (The individual reference numbers in the text
also link to this page.)
12: TABLES-IMPACTS (Here, the tables in the text are placed on a
separate page for printing. The links in the text also go to this page.)
Please note that our web pages are correctly formatted for printing by Internet
Explorer but not by Mozilla Firefox (we have not tested other browsers). We will
try to address this problem. Thank you for your patience.
1: COMPARING RENEWABLE AND NUCLEAR ENERGY: THEIR IMPACTS ON THE WORLD OF BIOLOGY AND THEIR
COST TO SOCIETY
Comparing the effectiveness, cost, and environmental impact of different technologies for electricity generation may
involve several factors, including different geographic regions; commercial, industrial, and consumer demand
considered either together or separately; and increases in efficiency, reductions in use per capita, and shift of demand
to off-peak hours. But analyzing larger areas, more classes of users, and changing demand make comparisons complex
and can obscure the relative effectiveness of competing technologies (1).
Impacts on habitat and biological diversity are of paramount importance to the MCC, while many comparisons ignore,
downplay, or even dismiss them. Our analysis is based on estimating the costs of generating an amount of electric
energy equal to that produced by the proposed reactor throughout a year. This approach gives a clearer picture of the
relative effectiveness and monetary cost of the different technologies because it includes the parameters that affect
production by different technologies at different times of the year. We recognize that there are no proposals to replace
fossil fuels with a single renewable technology (1); our intent is to show clearly how each of the competing technologies
compares to nuclear in monetary cost and degree of intrusion on the natural world. We want the reader to understand
what the costs of producing electricity will be when its production cannot be avoided through conservation or
increased efficiency.
Nuclear reactors produce electricity summer and winter, day and night, and in good weather or bad, while some
renewables work only when certain conditions are met, for instance when the wind has a certain speed or when the sun
is shining.
Tables 1 and 2 summarize the data showing that renewables are both more damaging to habitat and more expensive
than nuclear power. The text describes how the data were obtained and it ends with a discussion of the environmental
consequences of large scale implementation of renewables and how their performance has been overestimated to the
public.
COST TO SOCIETY
Comparing the effectiveness, cost, and environmental impact of different technologies for electricity generation may
involve several factors, including different geographic regions; commercial, industrial, and consumer demand
considered either together or separately; and increases in efficiency, reductions in use per capita, and shift of demand
to off-peak hours. But analyzing larger areas, more classes of users, and changing demand make comparisons complex
and can obscure the relative effectiveness of competing technologies (1).
Impacts on habitat and biological diversity are of paramount importance to the MCC, while many comparisons ignore,
downplay, or even dismiss them. Our analysis is based on estimating the costs of generating an amount of electric
energy equal to that produced by the proposed reactor throughout a year. This approach gives a clearer picture of the
relative effectiveness and monetary cost of the different technologies because it includes the parameters that affect
production by different technologies at different times of the year. We recognize that there are no proposals to replace
fossil fuels with a single renewable technology (1); our intent is to show clearly how each of the competing technologies
compares to nuclear in monetary cost and degree of intrusion on the natural world. We want the reader to understand
what the costs of producing electricity will be when its production cannot be avoided through conservation or
increased efficiency.
Nuclear reactors produce electricity summer and winter, day and night, and in good weather or bad, while some
renewables work only when certain conditions are met, for instance when the wind has a certain speed or when the sun
is shining.
Tables 1 and 2 summarize the data showing that renewables are both more damaging to habitat and more expensive
than nuclear power. The text describes how the data were obtained and it ends with a discussion of the environmental
consequences of large scale implementation of renewables and how their performance has been overestimated to the
public.
It’s clear that onshore wind, in Maryland, cannot provide anywhere close to the amount of electricity made by a single,
modern nuclear reactor, and remember that the State requires much more power than the output of a single reactor.
Accounts in the news media and from some proponents of wind power rarely state clearly what capacity factor is being
used to make claims for their installations, either existing or proposed. Sometimes it is clear that the measure is the
“nameplate” capacity, which creates the misleading conclusion that turbines operate with a capacity factor of 100%.
The annual average value is used occasionally, but the low values characteristic of the summer are almost never
mentioned. These practices badly overestimate the ability of wind to produce electricity during the summer, and
create an illusion about its effectiveness and cost.
The actual cost of installing a 2 MW turbine is presently at least $4 million, so 5,500 turbines would cost over $22
billion, compared to about $6.5 to 8.6 billion for the reactor (Table 2). That is, if you had enough suitably windy land to
erect them. The expected working life of wind turbines is about 25 years; the cost of replacing a facility would perhaps
be less than building it anew, but would still be significant. The proposed nuclear reactor has a design life of 60 years.
5: WIND POWER OFFSHORE IN MARYLAND
Winds over the Chesapeake Bay and off the coast are stronger and more reliable than the wind in the mountains (8).
Capacity factors for offshore installations are not readily available (there are none in the US), but values of 45% for the
yearly average and 25% for summertime are reasonable. The turbines can be larger; the recently announced offshore
plant in Delaware will use 3 megawatt turbines (9), but they are also more expensive (10). The number of such
turbines needed to equal the output of the single proposed nuclear reactor is 1070 if the yearly average capacity factor
of 45% is used, but the number increases to 1920 if the power demand in the summer is to be met (Table 1).
The largest offshore installation in the world is in Denmark. Each 2 MW turbine cost about €3.4 million to install in
2002 and its capacity factor is 43% (10). These turbines can use wind of from 9 mph to 56 mph (10). If the
summertime capacity factor is assumed to be 25%, then using the 2002 prices, a turbine installation capable of
producing an annual average of 1 REqE would require about 2,900 such turbines and would cost (assuming 1 € = $1.40)
about $14 billion (Table 2). The working life of marine turbines is similar to that of the land turbines.
6: SOLAR POWER
The MCC believes that solar power offers an acceptable alternative to fossil fuels, but only if installed on existing
buildings or other structures where it will not disturb land.
Currently, the generating capacity of thin film solar photovoltaic panels is about 1kW/ 100 square feet (11); the annual
capacity factor in an area like Maryland is about 13% (it ranges from 9% in cloudy to 19% in sunny climates) (11, 12,
13). Another measure of the poor effectiveness of solar installations in Maryland is the fact that the PJM grid
managers assigned solar installations an "expected class average capacity factor" of only 38% (6); this capacity factor
is derived from performance during afternoons in the summer, at time period when there is no darkness, and the
capacity factor might be expected to be close to 100%. Therefore, about 11,100 megawatts of solar panels would have
to be installed to produce 1 REqE and these would cover about 110 square miles (Table 1). There may be this much
rooftop and parking lot available, but the installed cost is presently about $8 million per Megawatt so the total cost
would be $89 billion (Table 2) (12). Large commercial arrays now cost about $4 per installed watt, but they must be
located in deserts and require long and costly transmission lines to bring their power to population centers.
A recent article in the Washington Post (14) reported on two home installations that cost more than $20,000 each.
There is little likelihood that many residents would, or could, willingly pay for such expensive devices, even if partially
offset by government grants. Prices will have to come down considerably.
There is reason to expect that solar devices will be developed that will have a higher generating capacity than current
ones. The thermodynamic efficiency (see sidebar) of these devices is currently about 10% (15). Increases in
thermodynamic efficiency will reduce the area required to produce a given amount of electricity, but the cost of
devices with improved efficiency is not known.
Currently, residential solar panels have shorter working lives than the nuclear plant. Silicon solar cells have a life in
excess of 20 years, but their generating capacity may fall by as much as 20% over its useful life (11, 15). The payback
period of residential installations is estimated at about 20 years (16), which means that they will have to be replaced
at about the time that they begin to pay off the initial investment.
7: AUXILIARY POWER AND ENERGY STORAGE
Neither wind nor sunlight is available continually. This intermittence is presently dealt with by conventional power
plants of various types. Since wind and solar power supply such a small proportion of the demand at present, some of
the auxiliary generators were built as peakers (5). But if solar and wind were to produce a significant portion of the
electricity supply, then conventional plants will have to be dedicated to compensate for the intermittence, so when the
renewables fail to generate electricity, carbon dioxide will be produced. The cost of these plants must be added to the
cost of the wind or solar installations which they back-up (17).
Storage technologies proposed to compensate for intermittence include pumping water into elevated reservoirs,
compressing air into large caverns, or batteries. Batteries are very expensive. Reservoirs displace habitat. Although
the authors of a recent paper on solar power propose that nighttime generation of electricity can be supported by
compressing and storing air in caverns during sunlight hours (15), the availability of sufficient cavern volume is
questionable (18), and the practicability of the idea on larger than demonstration scale is not established.
An article in a recent issue of Science and Technology provides a thorough analysis of the availability and costs of
auxiliary power and/or energy storage technologies needed to offset the intermittence of wind and solar power, a
subject not always mentioned in literature on renewables (19).
8: BIOMASS
Biomass, often mentioned as a source of automotive fuel, is now being proposed as a source of heat to produce
electricity, a use for which it is remarkably ineffective. Because both woody and non-woody material have similar heat
content, the following calculation is based on switch grass (20). It would require about 7.2 million metric tons of dry
switch grass a year to fire a boiler capable of producing 1 REqE of electricity. (It would take about 6.5 million tons of
coal.) The per acre yield of any crop is variable; but assuming a yield of 10 metric tons of dry switch grass per hectare
per year ( higher than the current average yield) leads to the conclusion that 2,700 square miles of land would have to
be planted in the grass to supply a 1440 MW boiler for a single year! If the average yield of grass is used, the required
land area would be even larger (Table 1). Keep in mind that this refers to only the one reactor proposed for Calvert
Cliffs, Maryland now uses an amount of electricity that is the equivalent to the output of 6 such reactors (5); biomass
can supply only a trivial amount of electricity at an enormous cost to the environment.
9: HOW TO READ THE NEWSPAPERS
The data shown above might be surprising because both the amount of land required by renewables and their cost is so
much larger than the values usually seen in the news media. The reason for the discrepancy lies in the choice of the
capacity factor used to calculate the land needed and cost. Some articles appear to use a 100% capacity factor because
they mention what is either explicitly or probably the “nameplate” capacity. Sometimes a yearly average capacity
factor is used, but capacity factors characteristic of the unavoidable minima in production (e.g. weak wind or clouds)
are almost never mentioned. The latter severely limit the effectiveness of wind and solar technology. Low Capacity
Factors force you to install a lot of generating capacity to be able to meet demand under the least favorable
circumstances.
Again we are not implying that there are any proposals to replace fossil fuels with just one renewable technology. Our
intent is to show that all of the renewable technologies are inferior to nuclear reactors in terms of the amount of
electricity they can produce on a given land area and also that they are much more costly. Apples-to-apples
comparisons are clearer; evaluating complex mixes of technologies that also include changes in per capita
consumption doesn’t provide a clear view of relative effectiveness or cost. We are describing the monetary costs and
environmental impacts to be expected if each renewable technology were to replace the nuclear reactor throughout the
year.
Whenever you see a report, note whether the capacity factors of the devices–and the time of year to which they apply–
are clearly stated. If they are not, you are not being given the information needed to evaluate the effectiveness of the
proposal.
A common practice is to report the number of households that a proposed installation, like a wind plant, will supply
and the amount of carbon dioxide production that it will prevent; these numbers are intended to make the proposal
seem very effective. These numbers are frequently misleading. Data from the Power Plant Research Program state that
each household in Maryland consumes 13.4 MWh of electric energy per year (3). When there is enough information to
calculate the consumption per household, the claims frequently appear to have been based on much less than 13.4
MWh per household per year. The amount of carbon dioxide that a proposed project is stated to prevent should be
weighed against the total amount that is now produced; that is, is it a reduction significant enough to be worth the
environmental damage? According to the Environmental Protection Agency (21) electricity production in Maryland
released 33.7 million tons of carbon dioxide in 2004 (67.4 billion pounds). This enormous quantity does not take into
account the amount of carbon dioxide released from electricity produced in other states that export electricity to
Maryland. An remember that the claim of carbon dioxide emissions prevented may be based on an overestimate of the
amount of electricity that will actually be produced.
Getting back to households, it’s telling that the actual number of households in our State is never shown in literature
that supports renewables. According to the US Census Bureau there were 2,089,000 occupied housing units in
Maryland in 2006 (22). So, when the number of households supposedly supplied by a wind installation is compared to
the total, the usefulness of the renewables seems less significant. Finally, keep in mind that the total amount of
electricity used by each person is much larger than the amount that they use in their home; the electricity used by the
stores they shop in, by their workplaces, and by the industries that make the things they use is about 2.5 times the
amount that they use in their homes (3).
A comprehensive analysis of the capabilities, costs, and needed engineering advances associated with providing a
higher proportion of electricity with renewables is presented in a recent issue of Science and Technology, a magazine
supported by the National Academies (19). The authors (all from Carnegie Mellon University) represent themselves as
supporters of renewable energy–they mention nuclear power only in passing.
10: AN ESSENTIAL CONCERN: EFFECTS ON THE WORLD OF BIOLOGY
From MCC’s perspective the amount of habitat negatively affected by renewable technologies is paramount. Intense
popular support for renewable energy sources is based largely on the premise that they are the only means of supplying
electricity without the production of green house gases. The MCC, however, has concluded that nuclear power can
achieve the same goal, and we present data that will dispel the belief that nuclear power is a significant hazard to
health on another page of this web site. Here we have shown that nuclear power is far more benign to the natural world
than renewables. Both facts are central to our support for nuclear power. The renewable sources of energy, wind
power, solar power, and biomass, if employed to replace a significant portion of our demand for electricity, will have
far reaching effects on a biological world that is already under inordinate stress from habitat displacement,
encroachment by invasive species, the spread of pollution, and a global climate that will continue to change no matter
what measures are taken now.
The damaging effects of renewables include direct mortality from turbines which kill birds and bats. The extent of the
harm has not been measured accurately because the owners of wind plants have obdurately resisted attempts to do
research on their property. While offshore turbines are being promoted as a source of reliable wind energy,
determining the effect of offshore turbines on bird mortality will be almost impossible because it is unlikely that any
carcasses will be found. A detailed account, produced by Dan Boone, of the impact of wind turbines on forest ecology
can be found at (23).
The effects of the unnatural sound and vibration from turbines on both terrestrial and aquatic environments is rarely
mentioned, let alone studied. Many creatures live or nest in the ground, and many organisms, horseshoe crabs for
example, don’t mature reproductively for a decade or more. Long term studies of the effects of turbine noise are
necessary but will be difficult, time consuming, and costly. Properly designed research must include at least several
years of surveying before turbines are installed. For the most part, we don’t even know what to look for. One has to
question why the needed research has not been done and why organizations that endorse these facilities don’t demand
such research in return for their support.
Extensive installations of wind turbines in the Midwest or solar panels in the Southwest will require the construction
of large transmission lines to the Coasts where the bulk of the population lives (24). It is likely that attempts will be
made to locate these lines on publicly owned land because that would eliminate legal struggles with large numbers of
private land owners. Public lands are facing increasing pressures from growing population. There was a recent
attempt to ask the Maryland DNR to lease land in a State Forest for a wind plant. The growing stampede toward
renewables will make these inroads harder to resist.
The most damaging effect of renewables is the direct destruction of habitat. Land proposed for biomass production is
often referred to as “marginal”; solar installations in the southwestern deserts are to be placed on “barren” land. From
the perspective of the biologist, or conservationist–or almost anyone interested in the outdoors–all land and water is
habitat, none of it is “marginal” or “barren.” Ecosystems differ in their species diversity and their attractiveness to
tourists, but they are all challenges that far exceed our ability to understand scientifically. The region in which
humanity evolved from ape-like ancestors is not particularly species rich when compared to rain forests or coral reefs,
and except for the occurrence of "charismatic megafauna" would not be a big tourist attraction. Even the driest areas
of Antarctica support an array of microbial life. There is beauty in and much of practical value to be learned from the
organisms that thrive in challenging circumstances.
To produce a significant amount of electricity from biomass, enormous areas of habitat will have to be converted to
agriculture, replacing biological diversity with monocrops. Another proposal involving biomass appeared in a recent
report the Maryland Commission on Climate Change (25) proposed the use of “slash” from commercial timbering
operations for the production of both electricity and heat. If this proposal is effected it will have several destructive
effects on our forests. First, it will result in the removal of organic matter (the “slash’) that would and should be
allowed to be returned to the soil as compost, clear cutting is bad enough; this will make it even worse. Although the
Commission suggests that this material be removed in a “sustainable” manner, the determination of sustainablity will
be made, in part, by parties interested in maximizing the monetary return from timbering operations. Second, it will
create pressure to reduce the length of the rotation period in all forests to maximize the production of this so-called
“clean” energy. Third, it will increase demand for timbering on State Forests, rather than reducing or eliminating it,
as all conservationists believe should be done.
We conclude by reemphasizing a point of major importance to the MCC: Renewables are far more damaging to the
biology of the earth than nuclear power is.
Last revised 7/7/09, 7:30 PM
modern nuclear reactor, and remember that the State requires much more power than the output of a single reactor.
Accounts in the news media and from some proponents of wind power rarely state clearly what capacity factor is being
used to make claims for their installations, either existing or proposed. Sometimes it is clear that the measure is the
“nameplate” capacity, which creates the misleading conclusion that turbines operate with a capacity factor of 100%.
The annual average value is used occasionally, but the low values characteristic of the summer are almost never
mentioned. These practices badly overestimate the ability of wind to produce electricity during the summer, and
create an illusion about its effectiveness and cost.
The actual cost of installing a 2 MW turbine is presently at least $4 million, so 5,500 turbines would cost over $22
billion, compared to about $6.5 to 8.6 billion for the reactor (Table 2). That is, if you had enough suitably windy land to
erect them. The expected working life of wind turbines is about 25 years; the cost of replacing a facility would perhaps
be less than building it anew, but would still be significant. The proposed nuclear reactor has a design life of 60 years.
5: WIND POWER OFFSHORE IN MARYLAND
Winds over the Chesapeake Bay and off the coast are stronger and more reliable than the wind in the mountains (8).
Capacity factors for offshore installations are not readily available (there are none in the US), but values of 45% for the
yearly average and 25% for summertime are reasonable. The turbines can be larger; the recently announced offshore
plant in Delaware will use 3 megawatt turbines (9), but they are also more expensive (10). The number of such
turbines needed to equal the output of the single proposed nuclear reactor is 1070 if the yearly average capacity factor
of 45% is used, but the number increases to 1920 if the power demand in the summer is to be met (Table 1).
The largest offshore installation in the world is in Denmark. Each 2 MW turbine cost about €3.4 million to install in
2002 and its capacity factor is 43% (10). These turbines can use wind of from 9 mph to 56 mph (10). If the
summertime capacity factor is assumed to be 25%, then using the 2002 prices, a turbine installation capable of
producing an annual average of 1 REqE would require about 2,900 such turbines and would cost (assuming 1 € = $1.40)
about $14 billion (Table 2). The working life of marine turbines is similar to that of the land turbines.
6: SOLAR POWER
The MCC believes that solar power offers an acceptable alternative to fossil fuels, but only if installed on existing
buildings or other structures where it will not disturb land.
Currently, the generating capacity of thin film solar photovoltaic panels is about 1kW/ 100 square feet (11); the annual
capacity factor in an area like Maryland is about 13% (it ranges from 9% in cloudy to 19% in sunny climates) (11, 12,
13). Another measure of the poor effectiveness of solar installations in Maryland is the fact that the PJM grid
managers assigned solar installations an "expected class average capacity factor" of only 38% (6); this capacity factor
is derived from performance during afternoons in the summer, at time period when there is no darkness, and the
capacity factor might be expected to be close to 100%. Therefore, about 11,100 megawatts of solar panels would have
to be installed to produce 1 REqE and these would cover about 110 square miles (Table 1). There may be this much
rooftop and parking lot available, but the installed cost is presently about $8 million per Megawatt so the total cost
would be $89 billion (Table 2) (12). Large commercial arrays now cost about $4 per installed watt, but they must be
located in deserts and require long and costly transmission lines to bring their power to population centers.
A recent article in the Washington Post (14) reported on two home installations that cost more than $20,000 each.
There is little likelihood that many residents would, or could, willingly pay for such expensive devices, even if partially
offset by government grants. Prices will have to come down considerably.
There is reason to expect that solar devices will be developed that will have a higher generating capacity than current
ones. The thermodynamic efficiency (see sidebar) of these devices is currently about 10% (15). Increases in
thermodynamic efficiency will reduce the area required to produce a given amount of electricity, but the cost of
devices with improved efficiency is not known.
Currently, residential solar panels have shorter working lives than the nuclear plant. Silicon solar cells have a life in
excess of 20 years, but their generating capacity may fall by as much as 20% over its useful life (11, 15). The payback
period of residential installations is estimated at about 20 years (16), which means that they will have to be replaced
at about the time that they begin to pay off the initial investment.
7: AUXILIARY POWER AND ENERGY STORAGE
Neither wind nor sunlight is available continually. This intermittence is presently dealt with by conventional power
plants of various types. Since wind and solar power supply such a small proportion of the demand at present, some of
the auxiliary generators were built as peakers (5). But if solar and wind were to produce a significant portion of the
electricity supply, then conventional plants will have to be dedicated to compensate for the intermittence, so when the
renewables fail to generate electricity, carbon dioxide will be produced. The cost of these plants must be added to the
cost of the wind or solar installations which they back-up (17).
Storage technologies proposed to compensate for intermittence include pumping water into elevated reservoirs,
compressing air into large caverns, or batteries. Batteries are very expensive. Reservoirs displace habitat. Although
the authors of a recent paper on solar power propose that nighttime generation of electricity can be supported by
compressing and storing air in caverns during sunlight hours (15), the availability of sufficient cavern volume is
questionable (18), and the practicability of the idea on larger than demonstration scale is not established.
An article in a recent issue of Science and Technology provides a thorough analysis of the availability and costs of
auxiliary power and/or energy storage technologies needed to offset the intermittence of wind and solar power, a
subject not always mentioned in literature on renewables (19).
8: BIOMASS
Biomass, often mentioned as a source of automotive fuel, is now being proposed as a source of heat to produce
electricity, a use for which it is remarkably ineffective. Because both woody and non-woody material have similar heat
content, the following calculation is based on switch grass (20). It would require about 7.2 million metric tons of dry
switch grass a year to fire a boiler capable of producing 1 REqE of electricity. (It would take about 6.5 million tons of
coal.) The per acre yield of any crop is variable; but assuming a yield of 10 metric tons of dry switch grass per hectare
per year ( higher than the current average yield) leads to the conclusion that 2,700 square miles of land would have to
be planted in the grass to supply a 1440 MW boiler for a single year! If the average yield of grass is used, the required
land area would be even larger (Table 1). Keep in mind that this refers to only the one reactor proposed for Calvert
Cliffs, Maryland now uses an amount of electricity that is the equivalent to the output of 6 such reactors (5); biomass
can supply only a trivial amount of electricity at an enormous cost to the environment.
9: HOW TO READ THE NEWSPAPERS
The data shown above might be surprising because both the amount of land required by renewables and their cost is so
much larger than the values usually seen in the news media. The reason for the discrepancy lies in the choice of the
capacity factor used to calculate the land needed and cost. Some articles appear to use a 100% capacity factor because
they mention what is either explicitly or probably the “nameplate” capacity. Sometimes a yearly average capacity
factor is used, but capacity factors characteristic of the unavoidable minima in production (e.g. weak wind or clouds)
are almost never mentioned. The latter severely limit the effectiveness of wind and solar technology. Low Capacity
Factors force you to install a lot of generating capacity to be able to meet demand under the least favorable
circumstances.
Again we are not implying that there are any proposals to replace fossil fuels with just one renewable technology. Our
intent is to show that all of the renewable technologies are inferior to nuclear reactors in terms of the amount of
electricity they can produce on a given land area and also that they are much more costly. Apples-to-apples
comparisons are clearer; evaluating complex mixes of technologies that also include changes in per capita
consumption doesn’t provide a clear view of relative effectiveness or cost. We are describing the monetary costs and
environmental impacts to be expected if each renewable technology were to replace the nuclear reactor throughout the
year.
Whenever you see a report, note whether the capacity factors of the devices–and the time of year to which they apply–
are clearly stated. If they are not, you are not being given the information needed to evaluate the effectiveness of the
proposal.
A common practice is to report the number of households that a proposed installation, like a wind plant, will supply
and the amount of carbon dioxide production that it will prevent; these numbers are intended to make the proposal
seem very effective. These numbers are frequently misleading. Data from the Power Plant Research Program state that
each household in Maryland consumes 13.4 MWh of electric energy per year (3). When there is enough information to
calculate the consumption per household, the claims frequently appear to have been based on much less than 13.4
MWh per household per year. The amount of carbon dioxide that a proposed project is stated to prevent should be
weighed against the total amount that is now produced; that is, is it a reduction significant enough to be worth the
environmental damage? According to the Environmental Protection Agency (21) electricity production in Maryland
released 33.7 million tons of carbon dioxide in 2004 (67.4 billion pounds). This enormous quantity does not take into
account the amount of carbon dioxide released from electricity produced in other states that export electricity to
Maryland. An remember that the claim of carbon dioxide emissions prevented may be based on an overestimate of the
amount of electricity that will actually be produced.
Getting back to households, it’s telling that the actual number of households in our State is never shown in literature
that supports renewables. According to the US Census Bureau there were 2,089,000 occupied housing units in
Maryland in 2006 (22). So, when the number of households supposedly supplied by a wind installation is compared to
the total, the usefulness of the renewables seems less significant. Finally, keep in mind that the total amount of
electricity used by each person is much larger than the amount that they use in their home; the electricity used by the
stores they shop in, by their workplaces, and by the industries that make the things they use is about 2.5 times the
amount that they use in their homes (3).
A comprehensive analysis of the capabilities, costs, and needed engineering advances associated with providing a
higher proportion of electricity with renewables is presented in a recent issue of Science and Technology, a magazine
supported by the National Academies (19). The authors (all from Carnegie Mellon University) represent themselves as
supporters of renewable energy–they mention nuclear power only in passing.
10: AN ESSENTIAL CONCERN: EFFECTS ON THE WORLD OF BIOLOGY
From MCC’s perspective the amount of habitat negatively affected by renewable technologies is paramount. Intense
popular support for renewable energy sources is based largely on the premise that they are the only means of supplying
electricity without the production of green house gases. The MCC, however, has concluded that nuclear power can
achieve the same goal, and we present data that will dispel the belief that nuclear power is a significant hazard to
health on another page of this web site. Here we have shown that nuclear power is far more benign to the natural world
than renewables. Both facts are central to our support for nuclear power. The renewable sources of energy, wind
power, solar power, and biomass, if employed to replace a significant portion of our demand for electricity, will have
far reaching effects on a biological world that is already under inordinate stress from habitat displacement,
encroachment by invasive species, the spread of pollution, and a global climate that will continue to change no matter
what measures are taken now.
The damaging effects of renewables include direct mortality from turbines which kill birds and bats. The extent of the
harm has not been measured accurately because the owners of wind plants have obdurately resisted attempts to do
research on their property. While offshore turbines are being promoted as a source of reliable wind energy,
determining the effect of offshore turbines on bird mortality will be almost impossible because it is unlikely that any
carcasses will be found. A detailed account, produced by Dan Boone, of the impact of wind turbines on forest ecology
can be found at (23).
The effects of the unnatural sound and vibration from turbines on both terrestrial and aquatic environments is rarely
mentioned, let alone studied. Many creatures live or nest in the ground, and many organisms, horseshoe crabs for
example, don’t mature reproductively for a decade or more. Long term studies of the effects of turbine noise are
necessary but will be difficult, time consuming, and costly. Properly designed research must include at least several
years of surveying before turbines are installed. For the most part, we don’t even know what to look for. One has to
question why the needed research has not been done and why organizations that endorse these facilities don’t demand
such research in return for their support.
Extensive installations of wind turbines in the Midwest or solar panels in the Southwest will require the construction
of large transmission lines to the Coasts where the bulk of the population lives (24). It is likely that attempts will be
made to locate these lines on publicly owned land because that would eliminate legal struggles with large numbers of
private land owners. Public lands are facing increasing pressures from growing population. There was a recent
attempt to ask the Maryland DNR to lease land in a State Forest for a wind plant. The growing stampede toward
renewables will make these inroads harder to resist.
The most damaging effect of renewables is the direct destruction of habitat. Land proposed for biomass production is
often referred to as “marginal”; solar installations in the southwestern deserts are to be placed on “barren” land. From
the perspective of the biologist, or conservationist–or almost anyone interested in the outdoors–all land and water is
habitat, none of it is “marginal” or “barren.” Ecosystems differ in their species diversity and their attractiveness to
tourists, but they are all challenges that far exceed our ability to understand scientifically. The region in which
humanity evolved from ape-like ancestors is not particularly species rich when compared to rain forests or coral reefs,
and except for the occurrence of "charismatic megafauna" would not be a big tourist attraction. Even the driest areas
of Antarctica support an array of microbial life. There is beauty in and much of practical value to be learned from the
organisms that thrive in challenging circumstances.
To produce a significant amount of electricity from biomass, enormous areas of habitat will have to be converted to
agriculture, replacing biological diversity with monocrops. Another proposal involving biomass appeared in a recent
report the Maryland Commission on Climate Change (25) proposed the use of “slash” from commercial timbering
operations for the production of both electricity and heat. If this proposal is effected it will have several destructive
effects on our forests. First, it will result in the removal of organic matter (the “slash’) that would and should be
allowed to be returned to the soil as compost, clear cutting is bad enough; this will make it even worse. Although the
Commission suggests that this material be removed in a “sustainable” manner, the determination of sustainablity will
be made, in part, by parties interested in maximizing the monetary return from timbering operations. Second, it will
create pressure to reduce the length of the rotation period in all forests to maximize the production of this so-called
“clean” energy. Third, it will increase demand for timbering on State Forests, rather than reducing or eliminating it,
as all conservationists believe should be done.
We conclude by reemphasizing a point of major importance to the MCC: Renewables are far more damaging to the
biology of the earth than nuclear power is.
Last revised 7/7/09, 7:30 PM
| ELECTRICAL UNITS |
A watt is a unit of power (the
amount of energy produced,
or consumed, per unit time).
When applied to sources of
electricity this is called
“generating capacity.”
A watt-hour is a unit of energy,
either produced or
consumed. When applied to
sources of electricity, this is
called “generation.” You pay
the electric company for the
energy that you use. Burning
a 100 watt light bulb for 10
hours consumes 1kWh
(kilowatt-hour) of electricity.
The international standard (SI)
prefixes and their
abbreviations: kilo(k) =
thousand; mega(M) = million;
Giga(G) = billion; Terra (T) =
trillion; peta (P) = quadrillion
amount of energy produced,
or consumed, per unit time).
When applied to sources of
electricity this is called
“generating capacity.”
A watt-hour is a unit of energy,
either produced or
consumed. When applied to
sources of electricity, this is
called “generation.” You pay
the electric company for the
energy that you use. Burning
a 100 watt light bulb for 10
hours consumes 1kWh
(kilowatt-hour) of electricity.
The international standard (SI)
prefixes and their
abbreviations: kilo(k) =
thousand; mega(M) = million;
Giga(G) = billion; Terra (T) =
trillion; peta (P) = quadrillion
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Many of the numerical values used to calculate these estimates can be varied.
Examples are: the area cleared for the pads and roads needed to install wind
turbines, the size of the turbines themselves, the per acre yield of switch grass, and so
on (2); impacts on habitat will be larger or smaller if different values are chosen.
Table 1 summarizes what we consider to be the likely effects based on current
parameters. You will see that the renewable technologies require so much more land,
that choosing different values will not alter the conclusion that nuclear power is by
far more benign toward biological diversity. The same applies to relative cost, which
is summarized in Table 2.
Examples are: the area cleared for the pads and roads needed to install wind
turbines, the size of the turbines themselves, the per acre yield of switch grass, and so
on (2); impacts on habitat will be larger or smaller if different values are chosen.
Table 1 summarizes what we consider to be the likely effects based on current
parameters. You will see that the renewable technologies require so much more land,
that choosing different values will not alter the conclusion that nuclear power is by
far more benign toward biological diversity. The same applies to relative cost, which
is summarized in Table 2.
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NAVIGATION BAR:
SIDEBAR