Several pundits have discussed this Jesse Ausubel opinion piece that flatly denounces several flavors of renewable energy systems and proposes increased use of nuclear power instead. This article is an example.

Ausubel . . . says the key renewable energy sources, including sun, wind, and biomass, would all require vast amounts of land if developed up to large scale production – unlike nuclear power. That land would be far better left alone, he says.

Renewables are "boutique fuels" says Ausubel, of Rockefeller University in New York, US. "They look attractive when they are quite small. But if we start producing renewable energy on a large scale, the fallout is going to be horrible."

Instead, Ausubel argues for renewed development of nuclear. "If we want to minimise the rape of nature, the best energy solution is increased efficiency, natural gas with carbon capture, and nuclear power."

Critics point out that there are some misleading assumptions in Ausubel's analysis.

John Turner of the US government’s National Renewable Energy Laboratory. . . says that even if the US got all of its power from solar energy, it would still need less than half the amount of land that has been paved over for highways. Further, it need not take up additional land. “We could get a quarter of our energy just from covering rooftops of existing buildings,” he says.

The same "dual use" also applies to wind power. "The footprint for wind is only 5% of the land that it covers," says Turner. "Farmers can still farm the land that the turbines are on."

This, too, is misleading in that wind farms are placed in windy places rather than farm land. There is some windy farm land, but that hasn't been a top choice for wind farms to date. Mountain passes and such get more attention.

The rooftop solar assertions seem misleading too. Only a fraction of rooftops are oriented to the sun to make effective use of solar, and of those some are shaded parts of the day. The efficiency of the solar cells would be affected. Worse, I think, this is a rapidly evolving technology that should not be applied in its current state except in boutique applications.

Perhaps as importantly, the problem of energy storage for both wind and solar is a very, very open issue. Many look to evolution of battery technology to help.

Turner also highlights the risks of nuclear waste storage. "It has to be safely stored for 100,000 years," says Turner. "To dismiss that as a simple waiting game is totally irresponsible."

This is foolish. It makes no sense at all to talk about a need to make decisions now that target 100,000 years of future. It is more likely that such problems will be trivial for humans in 100 years, or less. If we had storage facilities that we trusted to last 1,000 years that would be a massive safety margin. This 100,000 years stuff is mindless FUD.

The significance of Ausubel's critique of renewable energy systems isn't only the specific problems he cites, it is also that he spoke up. He has support, perhaps more than is known.

Not everyone disagrees entirely with Ausubel. The land argument is valid, says David Keith, of the University of Calgary in Alberta, Canada.

“I think the argument is crucial and correct and something the environmental community hasn’t wrapped its head around,” Keith says. “I don’t see any scenario where we won’t have an environmental holocaust from biomass if we rely on it for more than a third of global energy production.

Ausubel thinks he represents a silent majority of scientists concerned about renewables. “I think I’m saying what many of my colleagues know, but have felt its taboo to say”.

When I hear talk of scientific consensus I always suspect this sort of coercion. When it is a politician or activist (same thing) claiming consensus for their policies it is true more often than not that truth is quite the opposite. Opposition to nuclear power is an example of this since failure to develop that energy system is responsible for much of the climate trouble we have today. In future, while dealing with the trivial problem of nuclear wastes, people will look back on these decades and find that the environmental movement was the single greatest cause of environmental degradation. The heirs of that movement (you didn't expect them to go away did you?) will excuse the damages claiming that they meant well.

Update: An example of inadvertent destruction

Embarrassingly, for those of us who have scorned the idea of corporate social responsibility, some of these companies now claim to be setting higher standards than any government would dare to impose on them. For example, Marks and Spencer (one of the largest clothing retailers and a multi-billion-pound food retailer in the U.K.) has promised to become carbon neutral, to cease sending waste to landfill by 2012, and to stop stocking any fish, wood, or paper which has not been sustainably sourced. Tesco (the world's third-largest grocery retailer) promises to attach a carbon label to all its goods. Wal-Mart now says it will run its U.S. stores entirely on renewable energy.

These standards, moreover, are rather higher than those the British or U.S. governments set for themselves. Could it be true, as the neoliberals insist, that markets can do more to change the world than governments? If so, it reflects democratic failure as much as market success.

It is also true to say that the Wal-Mart Effect is a real one. When a huge company changes course, the impacts are felt all over the world. One positive decision by the leviathan rumbles more widely than a thousand decisions by its smaller competitors.

But those of us who have fought for the environment and against big business have not yet become redundant. There is plenty to celebrate in the recent announcements and plenty to suspect.

A major contradiction has been overlooked by both the supermarkets and many of their critics. "The green movement," Tesco chief executive Sir Terry Leahy tells us, "must become a mass movement in green consumption." But what about consuming less? Less is the one thing the superstores cannot sell us. As further efficiencies become harder to extract, the superstores' growth will eventually outstrip all their reductions in the use of energy.

The big retailers are competing to convince us that they are greener than their rivals, and this should make us glad. But we still need governments, and we still need campaigners.

This is an amazing example of knowledge immunity. The poor fool clings to his failed ideas though they are shown to be false. Governments and campaigners can do no good though they can do harm. For the most part they are merely shills for whichever enterprise finds a way to profit from their misguided zeal.

Environmental care consists of doing our business as well as possible. We will do our business. Doing it poorly is more damaging. Doing it well, doing it profitably, will consume fewer resources and generate fewer wastes. Uses or markets will be found for the wastes to reduce disposal costs or create "found resources". Those who are concerned and wish to accelerate improvement can do so by understanding these imperatives and developing better techniques. Indulging in protest politics merely mungs up the works and wastes resources.

Environmental campaigners are part of the problem, not the solution. They are what we grass farmers call "shitters", like a barren cow that gives no milk or calves. They consume as much as any other cow but produce only manure.