So round 'n' round 'n'
round we go
Where the world's headed, nobody knows
Just a Ball of Confusion
Oh yea, that's what the world is today.
Where the world's headed, nobody knows
Just a Ball of Confusion
Oh yea, that's what the world is today.
Those lyrics
from the Temptations' 1970 hit Ball of Confusion[1] could easily describe our collective perceptions today about energy use and its impact on the environment. In this and my next post, I will attempt to untangle the ball of confusion that keeps us tied to the use of fossil fuels to meet America's energy needs. Burning fossil fuels to heat
our homes, propel our cars and power our factories releases carbon dioxide and
other greenhouse gases. Most scientists
agree that the buildup of greenhouse gases in the earth’s atmosphere is caused by humans
burning fossil fuels and that buildup is causing global warming and other changes in
climate.
Despite the
consensus among scientists, climate change skeptics abound,
particularly in the United States.
According to a Pew Research Center poll taken in October
of 2013, only 25% of
self-proclaimed Tea Party Republicans believe there is solid evidence of global
warming. In fact, during the 2008 Presidential
campaign, “Drill, Baby, drill,” was used as a campaign slogan by the Republican
Party. The Republicans continue to strongly advocate continued reliance on oil and other fossil fuels to meet
our nation’s energy needs. Not surprisingly, Republican candidates are overwhelming favored over Democrats in terms of being the recipients of campaign contributions from the fossil fuels lobby.
But even if
you don't believe that burning fossil fuels is causing climate change, it is hard to ignore the other environmental impacts associated with their use. From mining to processing to burning, coal’s negative impact on the
environment is well known. Strip mining and mountain top removal have
left ugly scars throughout coal country, and acid mine drainage contributes
pollution to streams and rivers daily. In
addition, burning coal contributes a lot more than carbon dioxide to the
atmosphere. The laundry list of
pollutants emitted from coal burning power plants includes sulfur dioxide (linked to acid rain), nitrous oxides, various particulates and a
veritable cornucopia of hazardous air pollutants such as mercury, arsenic and
lead. Power plants have constructed air pollution
control devices to remove many of these pollutants, but then they end up in
coal ash and other solid wastes that must be disposed of. Oh, and did I mention the human toll?
Oil
production likewise results in plenty of pollution besides carbon dioxide
emissions. The damage from major oil spills
including the 2010 Deepwater Horizon and the 1989 Exxon Valdez spill has been
well documented. Refining crude oil into
its component products also results in air and water pollution. While a portion of petroleum products are
converted into petrochemicals, approximately 80% is manufactured into products that will be burned as
fuel. Most of that will
end up as gasoline to fuel motor vehicles.
Motor vehicles contribute carbon monoxide, nitrous oxides and
smog-inducing volatile organic compounds to the air along with tons of carbon
dioxide.
What about
natural gas? It’s been touted as a
transition fuel – as a less polluting substitute for burning coal to produce
electricity. It is true that burning
natural gas releases carbon dioxide and little else to the atmosphere. The CO2 emitted from burning
natural gas is about half the amount emitted from burning coal. However, a recent study conducted by Stanford University, MIT
and the Department of Energy’s National Renewable Energy Laboratory concluded
that methane leaks associated with its production and transportation may be
negating any environmental benefits obtained by switching from oil and coal to natural
gas. This is because methane, the chief
component of natural gas, has 30 times the heat trapping potential of CO2. Also, much of the natural gas today is being
extracted from deep shale formations using the controversial method of hydraulic
fracturing or “fracking." Opponents of
fracking cite instances of methane migration into groundwater supplies and
express concerns about what happens to the hazardous chemicals injected into the ground during the
fracking process. They see these and other
negative environmental
impacts as reasons to ban this relatively new method or to at least argue for
a moratorium on its use until fracking's risks are better understood.
Overall, the burning of coal, oil and natural gas accounts for 67% of the energy currently produced in the U.S. Only about 12% of America's energy needs are met by using renewable sources such as wind, water, solar and biomass. Another 19% is produced using nuclear
power.
So what about nukes? They are powered by nuclear fission – the splitting of atoms from
radioactive material. It is true that nuclear
power plants do not produce greenhouse gases, but increasing their use to
generate our power carries its own set of risks. Since being put into commercial use, there
have been at least three well publicized disasters involving nuclear power
plants – Three Mile Island (1979), Chernobyl (1986) and Fukushima (2011). In addition to those major accidents, there
have been many smaller instances of things going wrong at nuclear plants around the
world.
So can
renewables meet the future energy needs in the United States? Some would say it’s possible. As an example, nearly half of Sweden's power needs are
being met with energy generated from renewable sources. Various legislative actions, including a carbon tax, have
driven down that nation’s reliance on fossil fuels; currently only about 30% of
Sweden’s energy is derived from burning them. But the U.S. is a bit different than Sweden. It has over 300 million more people
and a much larger area.
So if renewables are not the complete answer, is there a
power source that can take the dominant place of fossil fuels in the U.S.? For decades scientists have held out the
promise of nuclear fusion as a cheap, non-polluting source to power our
electric generating plants. Rather than
splitting atoms, fusion releases heat and energy by combining them. Our sun and the stars are powered by the
fusion of hydrogen atoms under intense heat and pressure which creates helium
as a by-product. The hydrogen to power
fusion on earth could be obtained from cheap, abundant seawater. Unlike fossil fuels, fusion
produces no greenhouse gases or other atmospheric pollutants. And unlike current nuclear plants that rely on
fission, fusion does not produce large amounts of dangerous radioactive wastes that need
to be safely stored for thousands of years.
Fusion
indirectly provides power to us when we utilize solar panels to generate
electricity. It also indirectly supplies
power via the prehistoric vegetation that was formed into the fossil fuels we
extract and burn today. Man has learned
to use fusion to release massive amounts of power for destructive purposes. Thermonuclear weapons like the hydrogen bomb
use fusion triggered by a smaller fission-based nuclear explosion to create a
destructive force 1,000 times more powerful than atomic (fission) bombs. However, the creation of a sustained fusion
reaction to meet peacetime energy needs has been a bit more difficult to
achieve.
Nevertheless,
there has been some recent, significant progress toward the use of fusion as an
energy source. In my next post I will
take a look at that progress and discuss whether the problems created by burning fossil fuels to supply energy over the
past 200 years might be solved by using nuclear fusion over the next 200 years.
No comments:
Post a Comment