See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/277636795

Comparing the sustainability parameters of renewable, nuclear and fossil fuel

electricity generation technologies

Conference Paper · September 2010

CITATIONS READS

20 2,091

3 authors, including:

Vladimir Strezov Tim J Evans

Macquarie University University of Missouri
218 PUBLICATIONS   8,466 CITATIONS    46 PUBLICATIONS   1,953 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

The 1st Latin American Conference on Sustainable Development of Energy, Water and Environment Systems – 1st LA SDEWES Rio de Janeiro View project

Sustainable and Economic waste management, Pyrometallurgical Process for Recycling of Valuable Materials and Waste Management: Valorisation Applications of
Blast Furnace Slags. View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Vladimir Strezov on 03 June 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Comparing the sustainability parameters of
renewable, nuclear and fossil fuel electricity
generation technologies
Annette Evans
Graduate School of the Environment, Faculty of Science, Macquarie University, NSW, Australia
2109
[email protected]

Assoc. Prof. Vladimir Strezov

Graduate School of the Environment, Faculty of Science, Macquarie University, NSW, Australia
2109
[email protected]

Dr. Tim Evans

Graduate School of the Environment, Faculty of Science, Macquarie University, NSW, Australia 2109
[email protected]

Abstract—The sustainability parameters of electricity generation have been evaluated by the

application of eight key indicators. Photovoltaics, wind, hydro, geothermal, biomass, natural gas, coal
and nuclear power have been assessed according to their price, greenhouse gas emissions, efficiency,
land use, water use, availability, limitations and social impacts on a per kilowatt hour basis. The
relevance of this information to the Australian context is discussed. Also included are the results of a
survey on Australian opinions regarding electricity generation, which found that Australian prefer solar
electricity above any other method and also support wind power, with over 90% support, however coal,
biomass and nuclear power have low acceptance rates at 30% or less. Most Australians, greater than
90%, believe that the government is not doing enough to support renewable electricity.

Keywords-electricity; sustainability; life cycle

I. INTRODUCTION

The generation of electricity worldwide is heavily dominated by the use of fossil fuels. The combustion
of these fuels releases large amounts of carbon dioxide and pollutants to the atmosphere. Fossil
resources are also ultimately limited, with finite amounts in existence. While coal reserves are still
abundant, the excessive consumption of coal by the electricity sector is responsible for the greatest share
of carbon dioxide emissions globally, as well as emitting large amounts of pollutants, such as NOx, SO2,
CO, particulate matter and air toxins to the environment.

World electricity production by fuel is shown in Figure 1 indicating coal and peat fuels contribute to
over 40% of the world electricity generation, with fossil fuels in total accounting for over 65% of the
electricity generated in 2006. Renewable energy sources are rapidly increasing in usage, however
current market shares, excluding hydropower, are so low that it will be some time before a significant
percentage of world electricity is produced by non-hydro renewable energy sources [1]. For example, in
2008 solar accounted for only 0.02% of the world’s electricity production [2], despite its 33% market
growth between 1997 and 2005 [3]. Similarly, wind power has undergone an annual growth rate of
nearly 50% between 1971 and 2004, yet only accounted for about 0.5% of the total world electricity
production in 2004, with over 82 TWh generated globally [4].

Other, 2.3%

Hydro, 16%

Coal/Peat, 41%

Nuclear, 14.8%

Oil, 5.8%

Gas, 20.1%

Figure 1 World electricity production by fuel 2006 [1]

Increased electricity demand strengthens the need for reduced impacts from electricity generation per
unit produced. Demand for electricity increased at an average of 1.8% per year between 1990 and 2004
[5]. IEA predictions show that, if the current coal dependence is not reduced, coal fired power stations in
developing countries alone will produce more greenhouse gas emissions than the entire OECD power
sector in the year 2030 [6]. The impacts of developing nations working to achieve better standards of
living, compounded by the number of people in these nations will cause electricity consumption rates to
keep increasing.

In order to meet increasing energy requirements with minimal environmental impact, changes to the
current energy generation practices are essential. Changes need to include increased energy efficiency
from fossil fuel combustion technologies through introduction of oxyfiring and IGCC technologies, as
well as increasing the share of alternative energy generation technologies, including hydropower, wind
energy, geothermal, biomass combustion and gasification, solar and tidal power. Renewable energy
sources provide freedom from the price fluctuations, trade and transport issues associated with uranium,
gas and coal, and can potentially improve energy security to countries deficient in mineral resources.
However, traditional coal and gas based technologies offer high reliability and low prices. Careful
evaluation of the sustainability of each technology is needed to direct future investment and policy.

This paper presents a sustainability assessment of electricity generation according to the sustainability
indicators of price, greenhouse gas emissions, efficiency, land use, water use, availability, limitations
and social impacts. Technologies are then compared and implications for electricity generation in
Australia are discussed. Following this are the results of a survey of Australian public attitudes towards
different methods of electricity generation.

A. The Sustainability Indicators

To assess the impacts of electricity generation, eight key sustainability indicators were selected that
together highlight the financial, environmental, engineering and social sustainability of each technology.

The cost is the first consideration in this study. Securing financial benefits is one of the key important
figures that allow sustainable development. Efficiency of energy transformation is considered because it
has a direct impact on cost and provides an indication of the maturity of the process with greater
efficiencies achieved as the process is further developed. Greenhouse gas emissions, including carbon
dioxide (CO2) and methane (CH4) determine the global warming potential of the technology. Carbon
accounting is now becoming the single key emission parameter that determines sustainability. Emissions
from criteria pollutants (SO2, NOx, CO, Pb, PM10 and O3) are not considered here because there is a
system in place controlling these emissions through policy and environmental compliance, which is
already resulting in declining emissions of criteria pollutants, while the greenhouse gas emissions are
showing an increasing global trend. Water use, as an indicator of sustainability, is particularly important
in arid climates, such as Australia. Availability and limitations account for the ability of each technology
to provide baseload electricity. Land use or the footprint is of most importance when technologies
compete for space with housing, agriculture or culturally significant sites. Social impacts are the
consideration of the direct and indirect affects on human health and quality of life, often not covered
adequately or at all in other categories.

B. Assessment Methods

An extensive literature review was performed to collect the data necessary to perform the sustainability
assessment. All assessments are performed over the life cycle of each unit, on a per kilowatt hour basis
where applicable.

A survey was conducted anonymously online, inviting members of the Australian community to share
their opinions on different methods of electricity generation. Participants were asked about their
preferred methods of electricity generation, nationally and locally, whether they support the idea of wind
farms, solar farms, hydropower, biomass, coal and nuclear power stations and whether they think the
government is doing enough to promote renewable technologies.

II. SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT

A. Price

The average electricity price for all technologies is shown in USA dollars per kilowatt hour, averaged
over the life cycle of the technology, as shown in Figure 2 [4][6-61].
 10

Price USD/kWh 1

0.1

0.01

0.001
ic

al
d

r
o

l
as

oa

a
in

as
r
ta

rm

le
yd

G
W

C
ol

om

uc
e
H
v

th

N
to

Bi
eo
o
Ph

Figure 2 Prices of electricity generation

Nuclear, coal and gas are the cheapest methods of electricity generation costing on average 4.3, 4.8 and
4.8 c/kWh, respectively. Hydro, wind, geothermal and biomass are slightly more expensive, at 5.1, 6.6,
6.8 and 7 c/kWh on average. The average cost of photovoltaics is quite prohibitive under normal
circumstances, at 24c/kWh. It is nearly 6 times more expensive than the average nuclear price.

There is significant variability within the results, particularly for the renewable energy sources.
Hydroelectricity has the largest data range and also the lowest possible cost at only 0.7c/kWh [29] and
all renewable energy sources, even photovoltaics, have the potential to be cheaper than coal and gas.
Electricity produced from hydro, geothermal and wind can also be cheaper than nuclear at their lowest
prices, while the lowest costs for photovoltaics and biomass are slightly higher than for nuclear. This
highlights the importance of careful site selection and planning. Electricity produced from coal and gas
show more stable price ranges, compared to renewable energy sources. This is primarily due to the
maturity of these technologies and the consistency of fuel products across the world.

B. Efficiency

The efficiency of conversion from the energy in the fuel source into electricity is an important parameter
which needs to be considered when assessing electricity production technologies. Efficiencies strongly
influence prices as well as sustainability, since the high levels of waste associated with an inefficient
process are unsustainable. However, there are diminishing returns in efficiency improvements.
Inefficient processes operating at 10% efficiency will significantly improve profits if a 1% improvement
is made, whereas in an efficient process, already achieving 50% efficiency, a 5% improvement is
necessary to achieve such gains. A summary of efficiencies for each power generation technology, as
found in literature, is shown in Table 1 [7][30][32][41][52][55][62-92].
 Table 1 Efficiencies of electricity generation

Technology Efficiency Range

Photovoltaic 4 - 22%
Wind 24 - 54%
Hydro >90%
Geothermal 10 - 20%
Biomass 16 - 43%
Gas 45 - 53%
Coal 32 - 45%
Nuclear 30 - 36%

Hydropower has the highest efficiency, from double to 5 times above the highest achieved in all other
technologies. In the correct location, with a quality wind resource, wind power is the second most
efficient technology, followed closely by gas. However, gas, as with coal and nuclear, has a small range
of efficiency, unlike wind, which if not placed correctly can halve its potential. Biomass also shows a
large data range and its highest efficiency is comparable with coal and higher than nuclear. At its lowest
efficiency the electricity produced from biomass is one of the least efficient choices. Lowest quoted
efficiencies are often for older technologies and methods. The large efficiency range for photovoltaics is
due to differing cell types, with amorphous silica cells showing the lowest efficiencies and crystalline
silica cells the highest. Geothermal efficiencies vary due to the temperature of the geothermal source;
hotter geothermal sources give greater efficiencies.

C. Greenhouse Gas Emissions

World electricity production resulted in the release of over 10 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide
equivalent to atmosphere, or 40% of the total CO2 emissions for 2004 [4]. This is an increase of 53%
since 1990. Renewable energy technologies are often seen as methods for reducing global greenhouse
gas emissions, however each renewable energy technology is not entirely greenhouse gas neutral. For
instance, although wind turbines and photovoltaic cells do not emit CO2 during operation, there are CO2
emissions associated with construction, installation and disposal/recycling of each system. Hydro dams
have greenhouse gas emissions during construction, but also during operation as a result of the decay of
organic material within the dam. Most of this occurs in anoxic zones within the dam, resulting in
anaerobic methane forming decay.

The results for greenhouse gas emissions for each technology are shown in Figure 3
[19][22][26][30][32][35][46][56][60][62][64-65][69-70][72-73][77][81][85][87][93-129], as carbon
dioxide equivalent, or ‘CO2e’. Nuclear has the lowest average (16 gCO2e/kWh), minimum (1.8
gCO2e/kWh) and maximum (65 gCO2e/kWh) of all the technologies. As enrichment of the ore has the
most significant impact on nuclear emissions, the higher values for nuclear would be associated with
uranium enrichment by diffusion, which is at least 30 times more energy intensive than enrichment by
centrifugation [81].
 10000

1000
CO2e/kWh

100

10

1
ic

al
d

r
o

l
as

oa

a
in

as
r
ta

rm

le
yd

G
W

C
ol

om

uc
e
H
v

th

N
to

Bi
eo
o
Ph

Figure 3 Greenhouse gas emissions from electricity generation

Wind and hydro can also have very low emissions, with averages of 25 and 41 gCO2e/kWh, and lows of
4 and 2 gCO2e/kWh, respectively. Most emissions from wind power are the result of turbine
manufacture. For hydro, it is dam construction that contributes most significantly to emissions of
greenhouse gases. Dam emissions are also affected by site specific variables, such as temperature,
rainfall, residence time, flooded terrain shape, etc. The greatest indication of emissions seems to be the
power density of the plant, or the capacity of the plant divided by the flooded area of the dam. Plants
with higher power densities showed the lowest emissions [130].

Greenhouse gas emissions for the production of wind turbines and solar cells vary according to the
country of production, primarily due to the differences in the electricity grid mix of the specific country.
Countries which are dependent on fossil fuels for electricity production have larger greenhouse gas
emissions associated with the production of wind turbines and photovoltaic cells. Therefore, a typical
electricity grid mix for the country of production should be defined for the emissions in question. For
instance, greenhouse gas emissions for a typical American electricity grid are over 30% higher than
European emissions. Australian photovoltaic emissions are also high as a result of almost exclusive
fossil-fuel based electricity generation. There have been few studies which analyse the use of only
renewable produced electricity to operate a factory producing wind turbines or photovoltaic cells. Pacca
et al. [115] found that using photovoltaic power to supply electricity for production of photovoltaic
modules reduced the total CO2 emissions of a thin film module by 82% to only 6.1 g CO2/kWh. Hence,
one of the potential strategies for the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions during production of solar
cells is promoting solar cell production in countries or regions that utilise renewable, low emission
energy sources for electricity.

D. Water Use

In an arid climate such as Australia, water is a vital resource that must be carefully conserved at every
opportunity. Many electricity generating methods require large quantities of water for cooling. Literature
values for water consumption and total withdrawal during electricity generation are shown in Table 2
[131-134]. Consumption is water that is evaporated, or lost from the system that cannot be returned to
the source. Withdrawal is the total amount required to operate the technology and includes water
available for recycling. At only 1g of water used per kilowatt hour, wind has negligible water use.
Photovoltaics also use very little water with only 10 g/kWh. Due to these extremely low values, wind
and photovoltaics are highly sustainable with respect to water consumption.

Table 2 Water consumption and withdrawal during electricity generation

Larson et al. Trewin Younos et al. Inhaber

Consumption kg water/kWh Withdrawal
Photovoltaics negligible 0.01
Wind 0.001
Hydropower 11 3,740* 0.26 20 13,600
Geothermal 0.3 - 1.6 1.7 12 - 300
Biomass Waste 3.2
Biomass Energy Crops 34
Gas 0.3 - 0.5 0.6 1.6 78
Coal 0.3 - 0.5 1.5 14 - 28 1.6 78
Nuclear 31 - 75 1.8 107

*Denotes withdrawal

The results by Inhaber [131] for geothermal differ markedly to the findings of Younos et al. [134], who
give a consumption of 1.7 kg/kWh. Water consumption for geothermal varies widely and depends on
water capture and recycling efficiency as well as the temperature of the geothermal resource. It is
possible to have a closed system with geothermal power generation that achieves the lower limits
shown. Gas and coal show the same water withdrawal, 78 kg water/kWh, as both use water in the same
way for cooling. Inhaber [131] states that water consumption for these technologies is 1.6 kg/kWh,
which is consistent with the Australian Bureau of Statistics findings of Trewin [133] for coal fired power
stations at 1.5 kg/kWh, but much less than the findings of Younos et al. [131] at 14 – 28 kg/kWh.
Trewin [133] gives a lower average for gas at 0.6 kg/kWh. Biomass water consumption is higher than
coal and gas, since biomass combustion consumes similar amount of water but there is also the added
water load of crop growth, collection and transportation of a low energy dense fuel and drying of a high
moisture fuel. Dedicated energy crops have a water requirement over ten times higher than waste
biomass. Nuclear power has a high requirement for cooling water in the reactors. Inhaber [131] states a
water consumption of 1.8 kg/kWh for electricity production from biomass, which is again much lower
than the findings of Younos et al. [134] at 31 – 75 kg/kWh.

As expected, hydropower has the largest water withdrawal, as it requires significant water storage
volumes. Storage in this way results in water losses by evaporation from the dam, the magnitude of
which is influenced by the total dam surface area and volume, local temperatures and geography.
Inhaber found the average water loss from hydro dams to be around 19 kg/kWh. Younos et al. [134]
found a much lower water loss of 0.26 kg/kWh, which would make hydro among the most sustainable
water users. Trewin [133] gives the highest average water withdrawal at 3740 kg/kWh across Australian
hydro sites, however it is also stated that nearly all of this water is used in-stream and not consumed.
E. Availability

The availability of a technology is the percentage of time spent operating out of the total time operation
was required. Hydropower has the highest availability of any generating source [135], providing there is
sufficient water in the dam. The flexibility of hydropower allows for fast changes in output to be made
in seconds. Due to response time capability, hydropower can supply both base and peak load where
sufficient water is available.

Coal, geothermal, biomass and nuclear are typically baseload technologies due to their reliably steady
operation and slow response times in changing output. Natural gas has the ability to provide both base
and peak power requirements. However due to its high flexibility and higher cost, it is often used
primarily for peak, except where supplies are abundant.

Photovoltaics and wind suffer from intermittency issues. The amount of time spent operational will
depend on how well the site was assessed prior to installation as well as unavoidable climatic and
seasonal variations. They have traditionally been used for peak power provision, however recent
research suggests possible base load application [136].

F. Limitations

Fossil fuels and nuclear power have finite reserves available that limit how long the technology can be
applied. Current estimates by Shafiee and Topal [137] for the time remaining until resources are
depleted are 107 years for coal and 35 years for gas. The World Nuclear Association [138] estimated 70
years of uranium reserves, based on current consumption rate of 66.5 kt uranium/year and known
resources of 4.7 Mt uranium.

High grade geothermal resources are available in over 80 countries around the world, with a potential
generating capacity of 11±1.3 PWh/year [139]. The feasible, currently economical potential is estimated
at 8.1 PWh/year, with a total theoretical potential of around 400 PWh/year [140]. This is much larger
than the current production level of 2.6 PWh/year.

Due to the inconsistent nature of wind speeds, there are limitations on potential of wind power at a
single site. No power is generated at wind speeds below 3-5 m/s and turbines must be stopped at high
wind speeds above 20-25 m/s to avoid damage [60]. Therefore, wind power can only be produced when
the wind speed is between this range. To overcome this problem a range of favourable sites should be
used which, between them, should smooth variation and supply a consistent amount of electricity. The
IEA [141] estimated a global wind potential of 40 PWh/year.

Energy from the sun is a virtually unlimited resource. The Earth intercepts a solar flux of over 170 PW
of sunlight every year [142]. In 2007, the world consumption of electricity was 5.5 TW [143]. Solar
intensity on Earth varies by season, latitude, weather and time of day. Averaged on an annual daily
basis, a good solar climate, such as Australia, receives about 5–6 kWh/m2/day with summer to winter
radiation levels varying by a factor of 2 to 1. A poor solar climate, such as Northern Europe, will receive
around 2–3 kWh/m2/day and has a greater seasonal variation [10]. The optimal climate for solar
collection is a desert, where in excess of 300 sunny days per year can be expected [10].
It has been estimated that the global potential for electricity production from biomass is as high as 200
EJ/year [144]. Kaygusuz [145] gave an estimated potential of 270 EJ on a basis of sustainability,
significantly higher than the sustainable potential of 100 EJ/year given by Parikka [146]. It must be
noted that even the lowest of these values, 100 EJ/year, still represents 30% of the global total energy
consumption for 2004. The CEC [147] calculated the long term potential of bagasse at 7.8 TW/year.

G. Land Use

Land occupation is a measure of the direct and indirect footprint area required. It is a measure of how
much land is required for a technology to operate. It does not convey the way in which the land is used,
for how long it is used or how much damage is done to the site as a result of the technology. Table 3
shows land occupation values taken from Fthenakis and Kim [101] and Bertani [148].

Table 3 Life cycle land occupation for electricity generation

-3
Technology Footprint m2/kWhx10
Photovoltaic 0.16 - 0.46
Wind 1.8 - 5.5
Hydro 4.1
Geothermal 1.8 - 7.4
Biomass 12.6
Gas 0.31
Coal 0.48
Nuclear 0.12

According to the results in Table 3, nuclear has the lowest land requirement of the technologies studied.
Coal and gas also have low land requirements. These 3 technologies appear the most sustainable with
regard to land use, although this conclusion ignores the damaging impact on the land over the life cycle.
Photovoltaic land use is also sustainable, however, this is the total land use for ground mounted
photovoltaic modules; building integration and rooftop mounting would significantly reduce this
footprint. Wind power land use is high, but this is the value for the entire wind farm. Actual turbine
occupation is typically only 1-10% of this area, with the remaining site used for grazing, agriculture or
recreation [101]. Hydropower land occupation is the second highest due to large dam requirements.
Biomass results are extremely high, over four times higher than the closest result for hydropower.

H. Social Impacts

The manufacture of solar cells involves the use of several toxic, carcinogenic, flammable and explosive
chemicals. With constantly reducing mass requirements during cell manufacture due to thinner cells,
masses involved and hence risks are reduced however, all chemicals must be carefully handled to ensure
minimal human and environmental contact. There are also toxic substances used during operation,
including antifreeze, rust inhibitors and heavy metals that leach from the system [149]. Glare from solar
panels is a hazard to eyesight and care must be taken where this is an issue.
Solar farm locations must be carefully selected to reduce competition with agriculture, soil erosion and
compaction, wind diversion, potential reductions in evaporation rates from soil and disruption of ground
and surface water flow [149].

The main impacts of wind power are typically noise, visual intrusion and bird strike. When operational,
wind farms generate some noise from the rotation of the blades and machinery noise from the gearbox
and generator. Public annoyance at the visual impact can be significant. Wolsink [150] found it to be the
most influential factor in public opposition to wind farms. Noise annoyance was more affected by visual
impact attitudes than by the actual sound pressure resulting from the turbines [151].

Several early wind farms were found to have a negative impact on birdlife due to bird contact with wind
turbines. In depth studies of the proposed area prior to construction ensure any bird flight patterns can be
accounted for in the design, to reduce the probability of bird strike. Bird kill by well designed, modern
wind farms is now rare [60].

Hydropower dams provide a means of flood control and irrigation as well as an area for recreational
water pursuits and conservation areas surrounding the dam. They may also form a tourist attraction. The
worst effect of dam installation is the displacement of communities within the flood area. These people
are often the poorest communities, living and farming the area for generations. Many studies have
shown the serious implications and trouble these people have adjusting after removal (e.g. [32][152]).
Dam inundation will usually also result in the loss of archaeologically and culturally significant sites as
well as disrupting fish migration patterns.

There are potential health risks to the community if dam contaminant levels are not carefully monitored.
Mailman [153] showed that people consuming fish out of hydro reservoirs have an increased risk for
accumulation of methyl mercury. Waterborne diseases also require attention, particularly in tropical
areas [32].

The likely adverse environmental impacts associated with geothermal power generation include surface
disturbances, physical effects, such as land subsidence caused by fluid withdrawal, noise, thermal
pollution and the release of offensive chemicals [149]. There are large variations from site to site that are
also technology dependent. Many geothermal systems have emission and waste free operation [41]. The
single location required for power production, avoids the need for mines, pipelines and waste
repositories. The reinjection of process water increases in the frequency, but not severity of seismic
activity [154]. This is less of a problem than the soil and waterway contamination and increased water
use if waste is not reinjected, since geothermal fluid contains significant amounts of hydrogen sulphide,
ammonia, mercury, radon, boron [155] cadmium, lead and arsenic [156]. Abbasi & Abbasi [149] found
highly mineralised water was carried from cooling towers, killing downwind vegetation in California.

Food competition is the key social issue with biomass. In many cases, energy crops compete with food
crops for valuable agricultural land. To avoid this competition, energy crops need to be grown only on
land not used for food crops. In poor communities, biomass removal may also remove fuel wood for
heating and cooking.

Along with agricultural land, forests are an essential site for biomass crop growth. The removal of wood
waste from forests is partially compensated by returning wood ash, rich in mineral nutrients and
counteracting acidification, however nitrogen and organic matter are lost, the effects of stump harvesting
and loss of biodiversity are not balanced [157]. The loss of habitat and biodiversity are key influences on
the lack of public acceptance and support for the use of native forest residues, which are the main
available biomass resource [158].

Direct labour inputs for wood biomass are two to three times greater per unit energy than for coal [149].
There is also an increased labour requirement for construction, operation and maintenance. More
occupational injuries and illnesses are associated with biomass in agriculture and forestry than with
underground coal mining, oil or gas extraction. Agriculture has 25% more injuries per man day than all
other private industries [149].

The social impacts of coal, gas and nuclear technologies are more widely understood. Mining for
mineral resources often occurs in delicate environments and alongside communities. Land occupation by
mining is highly invasive, removing large areas of vegetation and animal habitat and requiring
significant rehabilitation after use has ended. It may also irrevocably damage archaeologically and
culturally significant sites. Exhaust gases from thermal fuels are highly contaminated with pollutants,
such as sulphur, nitrous oxide, dioxins, particulates and heavy metals, which are then dispersed over
wide areas.

Nuclear power impacts the community through the mining, milling, transportation, fabrication,
enrichment and disposal of uranium, plant operation and decommissioning, uncontrolled leaks, mine
wastes and mill tailings, the health effects of low level radiation exposure on workers, the carcinogenic
effects of exposure and weapons proliferation [159]. Many researchers have found clusters of higher
than background childhood leukaemia incidence in areas surrounding nuclear power plants [160-163].

III. SOCIAL ACCEPTANCE OF ENERGY TECHNOLOGIES IN AUSTRALIA

A survey was conducted to assess social acceptance of energy technologies in Australia. A total of 282
responses were received in the survey. The results overwhelmingly showed community support
favouring solar power, with over 56% believing solar power is the best choice for Australia, as shown in
Figure 4 and over 49% for their local area, as shown in Figure 5. Over 96% of respondents would
consider or have already installed solar power in their home and over 95% support the idea of solar
farms. These results are consistent with the Australian climate and highlight the significance of local
conditions on public opinion. After solar, wind was viewed most favourably, particularly from a local
perspective, supported by 13% of respondents. The need for variety within the electricity grid mix was
acknowledged by at least 10% of respondents (typically those that selected ‘other’) with comments
regarding the necessity of several solutions, that there is no single right answer.
 No Response, Gas, 3.2%
Coal, 4.3%
3.2%
Geothermal,
3.2%
Other, 9.9%
Hydropower,
3.5%
Wind, 8.2%
Nuclear, 5.7%

Wave, 2.1%

Solar, 56.4%

Figure 4 Preferred national electricity choice

Biomass, 1.8%
No Response, Coal, 6.0%
5.7% Gas, 6.7%

Other, 4.6% Geothermal,

0.7%

Wind, 13.1% Hydropower,

4.3%

Nuclear, 3.9%
Wave, 3.5%

Solar, 49.6%

Figure 5 Preferred local electricity choice

The level of support for all non-solar technologies was significantly lower, with the exception of wind
power, as shown in Table 4. Wind was the only non-solar technology to receive over 90% of public
favour. Hydropower had strong support, but also strong and vocal opposition, with many concerned
about the damaging effects to wildlife and aquatic ecosystems as a result of dam inundation and
downstream water losses. Biomass power generation is not typically seen as renewable, receiving a
similar response to coal fired power stations. Nuclear power was the least favoured option, with almost
75% of respondents not supporting the installation of nuclear power in the currently nuclear free
Australian grid.

Table 4 Public support for different methods of electricity generation

Solar Farms Wind Farms Hydro Biomass Coal Nuclear

Support 95.7% 91.1% 70.6% 31.2% 30.1% 23.8%
Against 1.8% 6.4% 27.0% 66.0% 67.4% 74.8%
No Response 2.5% 2.5% 2.5% 2.8% 2.5% 1.4%

One of the strongest responses to the survey was that over 90% of respondents do not believe the
government is doing enough to support renewable energy technologies.

IV. CONCLUSION

The sustainability of electricity generation from photovoltaics, wind, hydro, geothermal, biomass,
coal, natural gas and nuclear fuels has been assessed according to eight key sustainability indicators.

On the basis of price of electricity, coal and nuclear had the best average prices, while hydro and
geothermal showed the lowest possible prices. Photovoltaics had both the highest average and
overall highest cost, but at the lowest limits it was cheaper than coal or gas and only slightly more
expensive than nuclear power. Hydropower shows the highest and photovoltaics the lowest
efficiency. Greenhouse gas emissions were low in all non-fossil fuels, with wind, hydro and nuclear
showing the lowest values. Coal had the highest emissions by a significant margin.

Water use was the lowest in photovoltaics and wind power and highest for dedicated biomass energy
crops. Hydro power has a very high water requirement, however most of this is returned to the
stream. Hydropower has the highest availability. Photovoltaics show the lowest availability, however
they also showed one of the lowest levels of limitations, due to the global abundance and distribution
of sunlight. Coal is also favourably low in limitations due to abundant and wide spread reserves.
Biomass shows the highest limitations.

Nuclear, photovoltaics and wind power have the smallest land use, with biomass the largest. With
respect to social impacts, wind and photovoltaics are the most sustainable, while all thermal
technologies had low sustainability in this area.

Applying this information to Australia, which is predominantly a sunny and dry climate with a
moderate mainly coastal population, the best option would be to employ both photovoltaic and wind
generation technologies. These offer low water consumption and social impacts, provide potential for
technology development which would result in cost reduction, increased efficiency and availability.
There is already significant public support for solar and wind power within the Australian
community. Notably, nuclear generation appears favourable in most sustainability categories,
however its social perception, waste management complexities and limited lifespan are major
obstacles.
 V. REFERENCES
[1] International Energy Agency. (2008) "Key World Energy Statistics 2008."
[2] Euromonitor International (2009). Global information database, Euromonitor International.
[3] Hoffmann, W. (2006). "PV solar electricity industry: Market growth and perspective." Solar Energy Materials
and Solar Cells 90(18-19): 3285-3311.
[4] International Energy Agency. (2007). Renewables in global energy supply.
[5] International Energy Agency, IEA, (2007). Findings of recent IEA work, IEA.
[6] International Energy Agency. (2004) "World Energy Outlook 2004."
[7] Ansolabehere, S., Deutch, J. et al. (2003). The Future Of Nuclear Power, Massachusetts Institute of
Technology.
[8] Awerbuch, S. (2000). "Investing in photovoltaics: risk, accounting and the value of new technology." Energy
Policy 28(14): 1023-1035.
[9] Cavallo, A. (2007). "Controllable and affordable utility-scale electricity from intermittent wind resources and
compressed air energy storage (CAES)." Energy 32(2): 120-127.
[10] Charters, W. W. S. (1991). "Solar energy: Current status and future prospects." Energy Policy 19(8): 738-741.
[11] Cottrell, A., Nunn, J. et al. (2003). Systems Assessment of Future Electricity Generation Options for
Australia. Technology Assessment Report 32. CCSD.
[12] DeCarolis, J. and Keith, D. (2002). Is the answer to climate change blowing in the wind? Proceedings of the
first International Doctoral Consortium on Technology, Policy, and Management, Delft, The Netherlands.
[13] DENA (2005) "German Energy Agency Dena study demonstrates that large scale integration of wind energy
in the electricity system is technically and economically feasible."
[14] Denholm, P. (2006). "Improving the technical, environmental and social performance of wind energy systems
using biomass-based energy storage." Renewable Energy 31(9): 1355-1370.
[15] Deutch, J. M. and Lester, R. K.. Making technology work. Applications in energy and the environment.,
Cambridge University Press, 2004.
[16] Dincer, I. (1999). "Environmental impacts of energy." Energy Policy 27: 845-854.
[17] Dincer, I. (2000). "Renewable energy and sustainable development: a crucial review." Renewable &
Sustainable Energy Reviews 4(2): 157-175.
[18] Drennen, T. E., Erickson, J. D. et al. (1996). "Solar power and climate change policy in developing
countries." Energy Policy 24(1): 9-16.
[19] Dudhani, S., Sinha, A. K. et al. (2006). "Renewable energy sources for peak load demand management in
India." International Journal of Electrical Power & Energy Systems 28(6): 396-400.
[20] Edmonds, J., Wise, M. et al. (2007). Global Energy Technology Strategy- Addressing Climate Change. G. E.
T. S. Program, Battelle Memorial Institute.
[21] El-Fadel, M., Chedid, R. et al. (2003). "Mitigating energy-related GHG emissions through renewable energy."
Renewable Energy 28(8): 1257-1276.
[22] El-Kordy, M. N., Badr, M. A. et al. (2002). "Economical evaluation of electricity generation considering
externalities." Renewable Energy 25(2): 317-328.
[23] Evrendilek, F. and Ertekin, C. (2003). "Assessing the potential of renewable energy sources in Turkey."
Renewable Energy 28(15): 2303-2315.
[24] Fridleifsson, I. B. and Freeston D. H. (1994). "Geothermal-Energy Research-and-Development." Geothermics
23(2): 175-214.
[25] Gross, R. (2004). "Technologies and innovation for system change in the UK: status, prospects and system
requirements of some leading renewable energy options." Energy Policy 32(17): 1905-1919.
[26] Hammons, T. J. (2004). "Geothermal power generation worldwide: Global perspective, technology, field
experience, and research and development." Electric Power Components and Systems 32(5): 529-553.
[27] Herbert, G. M. J., Iniyan, S. et al. (2007). "A review of wind energy technologies." Renewable & Sustainable
Energy Reviews 11(6): 1117-1145.
[28] Houri, A. (2006). "Prospects and challenges of using hydropower for electricity generation in Lebanon."
Renewable Energy 31(11): 1686-1697.
[29] Idaho National Laboratory. (2005) "Hydropower Plant Costs and Production Expenses."
[30] International Energy Agency. (2006). Geothermal Energy Annual Report 2005.
[31] IEEJ (2006). Solar Photovoltaic Market, Cost and Trends in the EU.
[32] Ito, M., Kato, K. et al. (2003). "A preliminary study on potential for very large-scale photovoltaic power
generation (VLS-PV) system in the Gobi desert from economic and environmental viewpoints." Solar Energy
Materials and Solar Cells 75(3-4): 507-517.
[33] Jager-Waldau, A. and Ossenbrink, H. (2004). "Progress of electricity from biomass, wind and photovoltaics in
the European Union." Renewable & Sustainable Energy Reviews 8(2): 157-182.
[34] Kammen, D. M. and Pacca, S. (2004). "Assessing the costs of electricity." Annual Review of Environment
and Resources 29: 301-344.
[35] Kannan, R., Leong, K. C. et al. (2007). "Life cycle energy, emissions and cost inventory of power generation
technologies in Singapore." Renewable & Sustainable Energy Reviews 11(4): 702-715.
[36] Koch, F. H. (2002). "Hydropower--the politics of water and energy: Introduction and overview." Energy
Policy 30(14): 1207-1213.
[37] Lackner, K. S. and Sachs, J. D. (2005). "A robust strategy for sustainable energy." Brookings Papers on
Economic Activity(2): 215-284.
[38] Lovseth, J. (1995). "The Renewable Energy Potential of Norway and Strategies for Its Development."
Renewable Energy 6(3): 207-214.
[39] MacLeod, M., Moran, D. et al. (2006). "Counting the cost of water use in hydroelectric generation in
Scotland." Energy Policy 34(15): 2048-2059.
[40] McGowan, J. G. and Connors, S. R. (2000). "WINDPOWER: A Turn of the Century Review." Annual
Review of Energy & the Environment 25(1): 147.
[41] Mock, J. E., Tester, J. W. et al. (1997). "Geothermal energy from the earth: Its potential impact as an
environmentally sustainable resource." Annual Review of Energy and the Environment 22: 305-356.
[42] Moran, D. and Sherrington, C. (2007). "An economic assessment of windfarm power generation in Scotland
including externalities." Energy Policy 35(5): 2811-2825.
[43] Muneer, T., Asif, M. et al. (2005). "Sustainable production of solar electricity with particular reference to the
Indian economy." Renewable & Sustainable Energy Reviews 9(5): 444-473.
[44] Nuclear Energy Institute, N. E. I. (2006). U.S. Electricity Production Costs
[45] Organisation For Economic Co-Operation And Development, and the Nuclear Energy Agency (2003).
Nuclear Electricity Generation: What Are the External Costs?
[46] Pacca, S. and Horvath, A. (2002). "Greenhouse gas emissions from building and operating electric power
plants in the upper Colorado River Basin." Environmental Science & Technology 36(14): 3194-3200.
[47] Peltier, R. (2004). "Nuclear renaissance continues." Power 148(5): 32-+.
[48] Roques, F. A., Nuttall, W. J. et al. (2006). "Nuclear power: A hedge against uncertain gas and carbon prices?"
Energy Journal 27(4): 1-23.
[49] Sanner, B. and Bussmann, W. (2003). "Current status, prospects and economic framework of geothermal
power production in Germany." Geothermics 32(4-6): 429-438.
[50] Schumacher, K. and Sands, R. D. (2006). "Innovative energy technologies and climate policy in Germany."
Energy Policy 34(18): 3929-3941.
[51] Sims, R. E. H. (1994). "Electricity-Generation from Woody Biomass Fuels Compared with Other Renewable
Energy Options." Renewable Energy 5(5-8): 852-856.
[52] Sims, R. E. H., Rogner, H. H. et al. (2003). "Carbon emission and mitigation cost comparisons between fossil
fuel, nuclear and renewable energy resources for electricity generation." Energy Policy 31(13): 1315-1326.
[53] Soderholm, P., Ek, K. et al. (2007). "Wind power development in Sweden: Global policies and local
obstacles." Renewable & Sustainable Energy Reviews 11(3): 365-400.
[54] Tarjanne, R. and Rissanen S. (2000). Nuclear Power: Least-Cost Option for Baseload Electricity in Finland.
The Uranium Institute 25th Annual Symposium, London.
[55] Australian Uranium Association and Uranium Information Centre. (2007) "Australia's Electricity."
[56] United Nations Development Program, U. N. D. P. (2000). World Energy Assessment Energy and the
Challenge of Sustainability.
[57] United Nations Development Program, U. N. D. P. (2004). World Energy Assessment Overview 2004
Update. J. Goldemberg and T. B. Johansson.
[58] University of Chicago. (2004). The Economic Future Of Nuclear Power.
[59] van der Zwaan, B. and Rabl, A. (2003). "Prospects for PV: a learning curve analysis." Solar Energy 74(1): 19-
31.
[60] World Energy Council. (2007). 2007 Survey of Energy Resources. W. E. Council.
[61] Wibberley, L., Cottrell, A. et al. (2006). Techno-economic Assessment of Power Generation Options for
Australia. Technology Assessment Report 52.
[62] A. E. A. Technology, (2005). Environmental Product Declaration of Electricity from Torness Nuclear Power
Station.
[63] Andersson, B. A. and Jacobsson, S. (2000). "Monitoring and assessing technology choice: the case of solar
cells." Energy Policy 28(14): 1037-1049.
[64] Barbier, E. (2002). "Geothermal energy technology and current status: an overview." Renewable &
Sustainable Energy Reviews 6(1-2): 3-65.
[65] Bilek, M., Lenzen, M. et al. (2006). Life-Cycle Energy and Greenhouse Gas Emissions of Nuclear Power in
Australia, The University of Sydney: 181.
[66] Chopra, K. L., Paulson, P. D., et al. (2004). "Thin-film solar cells: an overview." Progress in Photovoltaics:
Research and Applications 12(2-3): 69-92.
[67] de Wild - Scholten, M. J. and Alsema, E. A. (2006). Environmental Life Cycle Inventory of Crystalline
Silicon Photovoltaic Module Production - Excel file Proceedings of the Materials Research Society Fall 2005
Meeting, Symposium G, Boston, USA, ECN Solar Energy
[68] DiPippo, R. (2007). "Ideal thermal efficiency for geothermal binary plants." Geothermics 36(3): 276-285.
[69] Dones, R. and Frischknecht, R. (1998). "Life-cycle assessment of photovoltaic systems: Results of Swiss
studies on energy chains." Progress in Photovoltaics 6(2): 117-125.
[70] Dones, R., Heck, T. et al. (2005). ExternE-Pol Externalities of Energy: Extension of Accounting Framework
and Policy Applications.
[71] Energy Information Agency, E. I. A. (2007). International Energy Outlook 2007, Energy Information
Administration.
[72] Frankl, P., Masini, A.et al. (1998). "Simplified Life-cycle Analysis of PV Systems in Buildings: Present
Situation and Future Trends." Progress in Photovoltaics: Research Applications 6(2): 137-146.
[73] Fthenakis, V. and Alsema, E. (2006). "Photovoltaics energy payback times, greenhouse gas emissions and
external costs: 2004-early 2005 status." Progress in Photovoltaics: Research and Applications 14(3): 275-280.
[74] Fthenakis, V. M. and Moskowitz, P. D. (2000). "Photovoltaics: environmental, health and safety issues and
perspectives." Progress in Photovoltaics: Research and Applications 8(1): 27-38.
[75] Green, M. A. (2000). "Photovoltaics: technology overview." Energy Policy 28(14): 989-998.
[76] Green, M. A., Emery, K.et al. (2007). "Solar cell efficiency tables (version 29)." Progress in Photovoltaics
15(1): 35-40.
[77] Greijer, H., Karlson, L. et al. (2001). "Environmental aspects of electricity generation from a nanocrystalline
dye sensitized solar cell system." Renewable Energy 23(1): 27-39.
[78] Gurzenich, D. and Wagner, H. J. (2004). "Cumulative energy demand and cumulative emissions of
photovoltaics production in Europe." Energy 29(12-15): 2297-2303.
[79] Hegedus, S. (2006). "Thin film solar modules: the low cost, high throughput and versatile alternate to Si
wafers." Progresss in Photovoltaics: Research and Applications 14: 393-411.
[80] Hepbasli, A. (2003). "Current status of geothermal energy applications in Turkey." Energy Sources 25(7):
667-677.
[81] Hondo, H. (2005). "Life cycle GHG emission analysis of power generation systems: Japanese case." Energy
30(11-12): 2042-2056.
[82] Jungbluth, N., Bauer, C. et al. (2005). "Life cycle assessment for emerging technologies: Case studies for
photovoltaic and wind power." International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 10(1): 24-34.
[83] Kanoglu, M. (2002). "Exergy analysis of a dual-level binary geothermal power plant." Geothermics 31(6):
709-724.
[84] Mason, J. E., Fthenakis, V. M. et al. (2006). "Energy payback and life-cycle CO2 emissions of the BOS in an
optimized 3•5 MW PV installation." Progress in Photovoltaics: Research and Applications 14(2): 179-190.
[85] Meijer, A., Huijbregts, M. A. J. et al. (2003). "Life-cycle assessment of photovoltaic modules: Comparison of
mc-Si, InGaP and InGaP/mc-Si solar modules." Progress in Photovoltaics: Research and Applications 11(4):
275-287.
[86] Mohr, N. J., Schermer, J. J. et al. (2007). "Life cycle assessment of thin-film GaAs and GaInP/GaAs solar
modules." Progress in Photovoltaics: Research and Applications 15(2): 163-179.
[87] Oliver, M. and Jackson, T. (2000). "The evolution of economic and environmental cost for crystalline silicon
photovoltaics." Energy Policy 28(14): 1011-1021.
[88] Treble, F. (1998). "Milestones in the development of crystalline silicon solar cells." Renewable Energy 15(1-
4): 473-478.
[89] Tripanagnostopoulos, Y., Souliotis. M., et al. (2005). "Energy, cost and LCA results of PV and hybrid PV/T
solar systems." Progress in Photovoltaics: Research and Applications 13(3): 235-250.
[90] University of Wollongong. (2007). "Nuclear Power & Australia?", from
http://www.uow.edu.au/eng/phys/nukeweb/reactors_types.html. date accessed 20/10/2009
[91] Watt, M. E., Johnson, A. J. et al. (1998). "Life-cycle air emissions from PV power systems." Progress in
Photovoltaics 6(2): 127-136.
[92] Yang, H., Wang, H. et al. (2003). "Status of photovoltaic industry in China." Energy Policy 31(8): 703-707.
[93] Alsema, E. A. and Nieuwlaar, E. (2000). "Energy viability of photovoltaic systems." Energy Policy 28(14):
999-1010.
[94] Armannsson, H., Fridriksson, T. et al. (2005). "CO2 emissions from geothermal power plants and natural
geothermal activity in Iceland." Geothermics 34(3): 286-296.
[95] Bertani, R. and Thain, I. (2002). "Geothermal power generating plant CO2 emission survey." IGA News 49:
1-3.
[96] Brown, M. T. and Ulgiati, S. (2002). "Emergy evaluations and environmental loading of electricity production
systems." Journal of Cleaner Production 10(4): 321-334.
[97] Chatzimouratidis, A. I. and Pilavachi, P. A. (2007). "Objective and subjective evaluation of power plants and
their non-radioactive emissions using the analytic hierarchy process." Energy Policy 35(8): 4027-4038.
[98] Denholm, P., Kulcinski, G. L. et al. (2005). "Emissions and Energy Efficiency Assessment of Baseload Wind
Energy Systems." Environ. Sci. Technol. 39(6): 1903-1911.
[99] Dones, R., Hirschberg, S. et al. (1994). Greenhouse gas emission inventory based on full energy chain
analysis. Comparison of energy sources in terms of their full-energy-chain emission factors of greenhouse
gases, IAEA Advisory Group meeting/Workshop.
[100] Elsam Engineering, A. S. (2004). Life cycle assessment of onshore and offshore sites wind power plants.
[101] Fthenakis, V. M. and Kim, H. C. (2007). "Greenhouse-gas emissions from solar electric- and nuclear
power: A life-cycle study." Energy Policy 35(4): 2549-2557.
[102] Gagnon, L. and van de Vate, J. F. (1997). "Greenhouse gas emissions from hydropower : The state of
research in 1996." Energy Policy 25(1): 7-13.
[103] Gagnon, L., Belanger, C. et al. (2002). "Life-cycle assessment of electricity generation options: The status
of research in year 2001." Energy Policy 30(14): 1267-1278.
[104] Hunt, T. M. (2000). Five lectures on environmental effects of geothermal utilization. Geothermal Training
Programme 2000, Report 1, United Nations University: 109.
[105] International Atomic Energy Agency. (2000). Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Electricity Production.
[106] Kato, K., Murata, A. et al. (1997). "An evaluation on the life cycle of photovoltaic energy system
considering production energy of off-grade silicon." Solar Energy Materials and Solar Cells 47(1-4): 95-100.
[107] Komiyama, H., Yamada, K. et al. (1996). "Life cycle analysis of solar cell systems as a means to reduce
atmospheric carbon dioxide emissions." Energy Conversion and Management 37(6-8): 1247-1252.
[108] Kreith, F., Norton, P. et al. (1990). "A comparison of CO2 emissions from fossil and solar power plants in
the United States." Energy 15(12): 1181-1198.
[109] Lenzen, M. and Munksgaard, J. (2002). "Energy and CO2 life-cycle analyses of wind turbines--review and
applications." Renewable Energy 26(3): 339-362.
[110] Markandya, A. and Wilkinson, P. (2007). "Energy and Health 2 - Electricity generation and health." Lancet
370(9591): 979-990.
[111] Meier, P. (2002). Life-cycle assessment of electricity generation systems and applications for climate
change policy analysis. College of Engineering. Madison, University of Wisconsin. Ph.D. Dissertation: 161.
[112] Nieuwlaar, E. and Alsema, E. (1998). "PV power systems and the environment: Results of an expert
workshop." Progress in Photovoltaics 6(2): 87-90.
[113] Nomura, N., Inaba, A. et al. (2001). "Life-cycle emission of oxidic gases from power-generation systems."
Applied Energy 68(2): 215-227.
[114] Norton, B. (1999). "Renewable electricity - what is the true cost?" Power Engineering Journal 13(1): 6-12.
[115] Pacca, S., Sivaraman, D. et al. (2007). "Parameters affecting the life cycle performance of PV technologies
and systems." Energy Policy In Press, Corrected Proof.
[116] Pehnt, M. (2006). "Dynamic life cycle assessment (LCA) of renewable energy technologies." Renewable
Energy 31(1): 55-71.
[117] Proops, J. L. R., Gay, P. W. et al. (1996). "The lifetime pollution implications of various types of electricity
generation - An input-output analysis." Energy Policy 24(3): 229-237.
[118] Rashad, S. M. and Hammad, F. H. (2000). "Nuclear power and the environment: comparative assessment of
environmental and health impacts of electricity-generating systems." Applied Energy 65(1-4): 211-229.
[119] Schleisner, L. (2000). "Life cycle assessment of a wind farm and related externalities." Renewable Energy
20(3): 279-288.
[120] Spadaro, J., Langlois, L. et al. (2000). "Assessing the difference: greenhouse gas emissions of different
electricity generating chains." IAEA Bulletin 42(2): 19-24.
[121] Tokimatsu, K., Kosugi, T. et al. (2006). "Evaluation of lifecycle CO2 emissions from the Japanese electric
power sector in the 21st century under various nuclear scenarios." Energy Policy 34(7): 833-852.
[122] Uchiyama, Y. (2007). "Life cycle assessment of renewable energy generation technologies." IEEJ
Transactions on Electrical and Electronic Engineering 2(1): 44-48.
[123] Uranium Information Centre Ltd, and World Nuclear Association (2003). Nuclear Electricity, 7th edition.
[124] Vattenfall (2004). "Summary of Vattenfall AB’s certified environmental product declaration of electricity
from the nuclear power plant at Ringhals. Environmental product declaration."
[125] Vestas Wind Systems, A. S. (2006) "Life Cycle Assessment of Offshore and Onshore Sited Wind Power
Plants Based on Vestas V90-3.0MW Turbines."
[126] Voorspools, K. R., Brouwers, E. A. et al. (2000). "Energy content and indirect greenhouse gas emissions
embedded in `emission-free' power plants: results for the Low Countries." Applied Energy 67(3): 307-330.
[127] Weisser, D. (2007). "A guide to life-cycle greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from electric supply
technologies." Energy 32(9): 1543-1559.
[128] White, S. W. and Kulcinski, G. L. (2000). "Birth to death analysis of the energy payback ratio and CO2 gas
emission rates from coal, fission, wind, and DT-fusion electrical power plants." Fusion Engineering and
Design 48(3-4): 473-481.
[129] Yasukawa, S., Tadokoro, Y. et al. (1992). "Life cycle CO2 emission from nuclear power reactor and fuel
cycle system." Expert workshop on life-cycle analysis of energy systems, methods and experience.
[130] dos Santos, M. A., Rosa, L. P. et al. (2006). "Gross greenhouse gas fluxes from hydro-power reservoir
compared to thermo-power plants." Energy Policy 34: 481-488.
[131] Inhaber, H. (2004). "Water use in renewable and conventional electricity production." Energy Sources
26(3): 309-322.
[132] Larson, D., Lee, C., et al. (2007). "California’s Energy-Water Nexus: Water Use in Electricity Generation."
Southwest Hydrology September/October: 20-22.
[133] Trewin, D. (2006). Water Account Australia 2004-2005, Australian Bureau of Statistics.
[134] Younos, T., Hill, R. et al. (2009). Water Dependency of Energy Production and Power Generation Systems.
VWRRC Special Report No. SR46-2009, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University Blacksburg,
Virginia
[135] Egre, D. and Milewski J. C. (2002). "The diversity of hydropower projects." Energy Policy 30(14): 1225-
1230.
 [136] Archer, C. L. and Jacobson, M. Z. (2007). "Supplying baseload power and reducing transmission
requirements by interconnecting wind farms." Journal of Applied Meteorology and Climatology 46(11):
1701-1717.
[137] Shafiee, S. and Topal, E. (2009). "When will fossil fuel reserves be diminished?" Energy Policy 37(1): 181-
189.
[138] World Nuclear Association. (2006). The New Economics of Nuclear Power.
[139] Stefansson, V. (1998). Estimate of the world geothermal potential. Geothermal Training in Iceland 20th
Anniversary Workshop, Reykjavik, United Nations University Geothermal Training Programme.
[140] Balat, M. (2006). "Current geothermal energy potential in Turkey and use of geothermal energy." Energy
Sources Part B-Economics Planning and Policy 1(1): 55-65.
[141] International Energy Agency. (2000). The Potential of Wind Energy to Reduce CO2 Emissions.
International Energy Agency Greenhouse Gas R&D Programme. Paris.
[142] Sen, Z. (2004). "Solar energy in progress and future research trends." Progress in Energy and Combustion
Science 30(4): 367-416.
[143] BP. (2008). "Statistical Review of World Energy 2008." from http://www.bp.com/statisticalreview accessed
10/03/2009.
[144] IEA Bioenergy. (2007). Potential Contribution of Bioenergy to the World's Future Energy Demand.
[145] Kaygusuz, K. (2002). "Sustainable development of hydropower and biomass energy in Turkey." Energy
Conversion and Management 43(8): 1099-1120.
[146] Parikka, M. (2004). "Global biomass fuel resources." Biomass and Bioenergy 27(6): 613-620.
[147] Clean Energy Council. (2008). Biomass Resource Appraisal, Clean Energy Council.
[148] Bertani, R. (2005). "World geothermal power generation 2001-2005." Geothermics 34(6): 651-690.
[149] Abbasi, S. A. and Abbasi, N. (2000). "Likely adverse environmental impacts of renewable energy sources."
Applied Energy 65(1): 121-144.
[150] Wolsink, M. (2007). "Wind power implementation: The nature of public attitudes: Equity and fairness
instead of `backyard motives'." Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 11(6): 1188-1207.
[151] Wolsink, M. and Sprengers, M. (1993). "Windturbine noise: a new environmental threat? ." Noise as a
public health problem 2: 235-238.
[152] Li, F. (2002). "Hydropower in China." Energy Policy 30(14): 1241-1249.
[153] Mailman, M., Stepnuk, L. et al. (2006). "Strategies to lower methyl mercury concentrations in hydroelectric
reservoirs and lakes: A review." Science of the Total Environment 368: 224– 235.
[154] Rybach, L. (2003). "Geothermal energy: sustainability & the environment." Geothermics 32(4-6): 463-470.
[155] Fridleifsson, I. B. (2001). "Geothermal energy for the benefit of the people." Renewable & Sustainable
Energy Reviews 5(3): 299-312.
[156] Baba, A. and Armannsson, H. (2006). "Environmental impact of the utilization of geothermal areas."
Energy Sources Part B-Economics Planning and Policy 1(3): 267-278.
[157] Møller, I. S. (2006). Criteria and indicators for sustainable production of forest biomass for energy. IEA
Bioenergy EXCO58 Meeting.
[158] Raison, R. J. (2006). "Opportunities and impediments to the expansion of forest bioenergy in Australia."
Biomass and Bioenergy 30(12): 1021-1024.
[159] Clapp, R.W.(2005). "Nuclear Power & Public Health." Environment Health Perspectives 113(11): 720-721.
[160] Bithell, J. F., Dutton, S. J. et al. (1994). "Distribution of childhood leukaemias and non-Hodgkin's
lymphomas near nuclear installations in England and Wales." British Medical Journal 309(6953): 501-506.
[161] Brown, V. J. (2007). "Childhood leukemia in Germany: cluster identified near nuclear power plant.(Science
Selections)." Environmental Health Perspectives 115(6): A313.
[162] Hoffmann, W., Terschueren, C. et al. (2007). "Childhood leukemia in the vicinity of the Geesthacht nuclear
establishments near Hamburg, Germany." Environmental Health Perspectives 115(6): 947-952.
[163] Mangano, J. J., Sherman, J. et al. (2003). "Elevated childhood cancer incidence proximate to U.S. nuclear
power plants." Archives of Environmental Health 58(2): 74-82.
[164] ABARE (2009) “Energy in Australia 2009”. Australian Government Department of Resources, Energy and
Tousirm.

View publication stats