Research & Analysis
09/25/20
For Environmental Toxicology at Sonoma State University
Energy Sources
By David Hanson
Word count: 3,330
The topic of finding renewable, practical, and safe power sources is nothing new to the world, for years it has been a problem. Whether it is asking if it is safe for only humans or for the environment, asking if it is viable enough, the question is not simple to answer. New sources are found, or old ones are reevaluated for practical application and receive modifications that enhance their chances of being better than before. We need the energy to power the lights at night, the medical equipment in hospitals and at homes, it is a vital source. The look for energy sources is never stagnant and is always topical in a day and age where climate change and human safety are of top priority in making these decisions.
This topic is of high importance as the potential side effects of each power source may affect the very environment they inhabit or could alter the inhabitants’ lives if proven to be unreliable, extremely expensive, or extremely hazardous. The intention here to is provide the public with the facts of some of these resources, how applicable, practical, feasible, safe, and risky they are to humans and the environment with the latest data. The information is given to allow you to reach your own conclusions based on the data and research over the current century and in recent years.
Liquefied Natural Gas, or LNG, liquefies at about minus 259 degrees Fahrenheit (or minus 161 Celsius). Collected in country and mined elsewhere overseas in Peru, Russia, and the Middle East, LNG when warmed is a natural gas that can fuel transport vehicles, generate electricity, heat, and power industry (Cox and Freehling, 2008). The way it is used to make electricity is burning it to power a turbine through either heating water to create steam or by combustion to turn a turbine. Natural gases when burned produce half the carbon dioxide that coal produces, and about less than a third of what oil does, making it cleaner than most other fossil fuels. Natural gas in 2014 was found to be the cheapest way to produce electricity at 6 cents per kW hour (Newland, 2014).
Although listed by California as a clean source, in studies in 2008, LNG when mined and burned incorrectly produces a high content of propane and ethane, resulting in more carbon dioxide releases than regular methane, a chemical already cited as a greenhouse gas that is said to be 20-23% more toxic than carbon dioxide. The collection, liquefication, transportation, and storage all involve the usage of fossil fuels in very high amounts; the calculated damages from just the fossil fuels used for those processes has been calculated to be nearly 50% more damaging to the environment than when the LNG is burned. LNG is highly flammable when it is vaporized; a LNG tanker fire can send second degree burns up to a mile away (Cox and Freehling, 2008).
The Donald Trump administration recently approved the movement of LNG by rail, however, in early 2020 California has been quick to resist and criticize the move, citing how dangerous and highly flammable the gas is, especially in areas with high speed trains and large traffic (Egelko, 2020). 2019 saw Los Angeles’ Mayor Eric Garcetti choose to not rebuild, but to instead dismantle the city’s three natural gas powerplants as the city wishes to become carbon independent (Chediak, 2019)
Statistically LNG has been exported out of the United States more than it has been in demand at home. 2016-19 saw the export capacity significantly increase from the original highest 771 billion cubic feet, Bcf, in 2007 to the highest it has been at 1,819 Bcf in 2019, resulting in LNG being 39% of all the United States natural gas exports to other countries, implying that the resource is not in high demand in the country (“U.S. Energy Information Administration”, 2019).
Hydroelectricity is the system of using the flow of water from dams or natural rivers and canals to spin turbines to generate electricity. Using the flow of water is simply re-engineering the waterwheel concept, resulting in an efficient method of generating electricity and is done without impacting the amount of water in reservoirs. The power plants produce very little greenhouse gases during electricity production (Jensen, 2018). In 2017 hydroelectricity was the leading renewable energy source for the United States. The Niagra Falls powerplant was found to produce enough electricity to power 24 million 100 watt lightbulbs (“Water Energy”, 2017).
By 2019 hydroelectricity made up 19.21% or 38,494 gigawatt-hours of all used energy produced in-state in California (Nyberg, 2019). The costs of labor and maintenance are low after the initial large costs to build the dam. Water additionally as a supply will not fluctuate the same way coal or gas will, resulting in no massive rises or falls in the price of electricity as demand increases or decreases over the years. The reservoirs created as a result are great for recreational use much like Niagra Falls or local ones such as the San Pablo reservoir which can charge visiting fees that go into maintaining the reservoir courtesy of the likes of the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (“Pros and Cons of Hydroelectric Energy”, 2020).
The creation of water reservoirs, however, are not in high demand, dams alone take a lot of time and money to construct and what viable and sensible spots to cap off water from have already been taken, meaning that the prospect of more hydroelectric plants is not open for expansion as other power sources can possibly be. Although it has been previously said that water can be seen as a renewable source, inconsistent precipitation levels and droughts year by year can affect supply in the long run. The same currently created reservoirs, although good for recreational use and habitat creation, can also be the cause of potential flooding of residential zones, farm land, and natural habitats, displacing them or destroying an individuals’ land entirely.
The construction of dams would require new electric power lines and roads to accommodate the plant, and the disruption of the natural water source during construction would greatly impact the surrounding environment, taking away human and wildlife homes, farms, and the prey animals hunt on to survive. Although efforts to aid fish that live and breed through the rivers that the dams offset are present, like the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in cooperation with local aquariums and their other contemporaries, it does not remove the environmental impact that results from the new obstacle in the marine creature’s way and their displacement (Jensen, 2018. Pros and Cons of Hydroelectric Energy, 2020).
Wind energy is a system that can date its origins back to the windmills that were used to grind flour. Wind energy windmills are spun by the wind to turn turbines to generate electricity, the technology is nothing new, the method has been in use for many years and has already long proven its value. The energy source has had numerous setbacks since its inception, with first concerns about where are the best available sites to plant wind farms since the spots have to have constant wind to be viable enough to justify the costs of its construction.
In 2010 it was cited that at the time the then electric grid was not constructed near any major wind area, immediately calling into question if wind was at all a viable way forward. In 2008 concerns about the maintenance surfaced on the turbines that generate the electricity, with a initial prediction of turbines lasting 20-30 years, it was discovered in tests that the blade pitch bearings would start to decline within 3-5 years after entering service, and this was followed by concerns over the yaw bearings and potential increased wear from stray electrical wires wearing down other gears and bearings. This warranted questions about if the costs and labor would really be worth it, especially if large numbers of wind farms were to be built at sea where wind was plenty available. The idea of sea-based farms was considered, but long-term it was decided that approximately 20 meters in water would be practical, but to go further out at sea would require floating vessels like what oil-rigs employ, which while doable was questioned because of the costs (Gresham, 2010).
There are plenty more issues for the human populations near the farms, many citing the uncomfortably loud noise the turbines made as they spun, another was that they were cited as unpleasant to look at and would lower the market value of neighborhoods where they would be built (Mooney, 2019). They are also considered a hazard for the environment, the most concerning argument against wind energy were the number of avian creatures killed as a result of flying into the blades as they spun as a result of being unable to maneuver out of the way or while looking for food. Data in 2015 calculated that a nationwide average of 140,000-500,000 birds were killed from collisions with turbines, California having the highest statistics (U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, “Wind Turbines”, 2015).
Wind energy, however, has had a spike in its global popularity in recent times, its usage rising in the United States. At the end of 2019 it was found that with over 60 gigawatts of wind farms installed in the nation the wind industry has grown by 19% compared to 2018. The popularity and interest for wind has also risen in China, the United Kingdom, and across Europe as new goals of gigawatts installed are in place; China is now notably at 230 gigawatts total. The recent pandemic by COVID-19 has put future installments of wind farms in California into question as money runs low, but that remains to be seen (Timmer, 2020). In regard to bird deaths it has recently been found abroad that painting one of the blades with a black paint mark is enough to deter away the birds and bats that would normally collide with them, the paint allows them to see the moving obstacles sooner than they could in previous years. This lowers the death number by 70% compared to the grim previous years (Gitlin, 2020).
Solar energy is a source that uses heat or radiation from the sun’s rays and converts that energy into alternating current – commonly called AC – electricity. There are two ways to do this, a common residential system will use a photovoltaic solar system, or PV, this system catches sunlight by hitting a semiconductor, usually constructed with silicon, which makes electrons run out of control which generates electricity caught by wires. This system is a direct current – DC – and can be converted to the common United States’ AC system; it can be used for immediate use, transferred to a battery, or used for credits on an electric bill.
A much larger system is solar thermal for large scale uses. There are three ways to use this solar thermal, which comes down to using the sun’s radiation to directly heat something. First is low-temperature which has the sun heating up a large area and closing it off if it needs to cool down. Second is called mid-temperature which uses heat collectors on a house’s roof to heat running water to avoid using water heaters. Third usage is called high-temperature, or concentrated solar power, which is used for large scale electricity generation. What it entails is using mirrors to focus the sun’s rays on tubes of a special liquid that can retain heat, said liquid can then boil water to make steam which will turn a turbine to generate electricity (Marsh, 2019).
There are many advantages to solar energy. In usage it can save the individual bill payer $1,000 per year, or an estimated average of $99,181 over a lifetime. For 2020, if one installs solar power to their home, they get a 26% federal tax credit. Alongside this solar power is praised for its environmental friendliness as power production involves no greenhouse gas emissions and allows the individuals who use it complete independence from the electric grid and the power companies (Sendy, 2020). In California, in state photovoltaic and thermal solar energy as of 2019 has provided 14.2% of electric power, or 28,463 gigawatt-hours of power. The same year recorded 748 operating solar energy plants in California, an installed capacity of 12,338 megawatts; the largest plant was built in by the Sacramento Municipal Utility District, which is near the Rancho Seco Nuclear Power Plant, the plant began work in August 1984 (Nyberg, “Solar”, 2019).
Like any power source, however, solar power does have some drawbacks. The initial costs for the panel are very high. The United States average cost per watt is $3.18, so a 6 kW panel will cost the high price of $19,080 before the federal tax credit. California’s cost in 2020 notably is $2.68, that is $11,877. There are also concerns with the reliability of the electricity, a nationwide concern is there are some areas the sun does not always shine and is not always out at certain times of the year; battery technology can remedy this, but at the moment the storage abilities are still making scientific advances, so it is yet to be a major problem as time goes on.
Whilst it is true that obtaining electricity from solar panels is itself emission free, the production of the panels is not greenhouse gas free. The panels contain a chemical called sulfur hexafluoride, although it has less impact on the environment than carbon dioxide, it is still more potent than carbon dioxide is. Solar panels are expensive to move when the buyer takes it on their movie, the costs of hiring someone to uninstall then reinstall are high. They also require a large amount of space to produce energy, power density is measured by how many watts can be produced per square meter and solar energy’s power density is low. For a individual home, solar energy is effective enough, but a large scale production that has to match its fossil fuel counterparts like coal and nuclear energy, those plants will need more space than any traditional fossil fuel plant, minus the material mining areas (Sendy, 2020).
The most controversial of all of these is nuclear energy. Nuclear energy uses heat generated by Uranium-235 to heat water to create steam which spins turbines to generate electricity, and it has been proven to be highly effective with no risk of price fluctuations that traditional fossil fuels have. Nuclear energy leads in power sources that have the lowest greenhouse gas emissions in comparison to coal; a considerably small amount of uranium is enough to provide energy to a 1,000 megawatt power plant; one reactor alone has enough to fuel a city and a industrial complex. In fact, nuclear fission creates some ten million times more energy than fossil fuels do. In 2016 the Nuclear Energy Institute found nuclear energy to be the leading energy source for producing emission-free electricity in the country at 62% out of all the power sources. The NEI found that nuclear energy prevents 528 million metric tons of carbon dioxide from being released into the air. As of 2020 nuclear energy produces 20% of all the United States’ electricity (Evaco.com, 2016. Lane, 2020).
Nuclear energy has a bad reputation owing to the Chernobyl disaster and it is worth addressing here: strides to improve its reputation have been made and the public can rest assure that there will be no repeats of the Chernobyl or Fukishima disasters. A nuclear energy plant’s safety is taken very seriously, at Chernobyl safety precautions were largely ignored which resulted in the disastrous event. The disaster, however, is somewhat serendipitous as it allowed for a reevaluation for what to do and what not to do when cooling a plant down in an emergency.
The reasons Fukishima ended up a noteworthy scene can be placed down to bad luck, they had back up diesel generators to aid in the cooling of the reactor after the main electrical system went down, it was the tsunami that followed the earthquake that shut down the diesel generators, leading to a hydrogen explosion from leaking control rods. In Fukishima’s case it was the overwhelming flood that endangered the systems at Fukishima, not the fault of poor safety measures that resulted in the Chernobyl disaster or anything that would throw the building’s integrity into question. The overall radiation spill as the consequence of Fukishima’s failed shutdown only was as damaging as 10% of what happened in Chernobyl.
Although all of the above are true in defending nuclear energy’s safety, there are still many factors to consider that connect to the fear people attach to Chernobyl and Fukishima, meaning that nuclear energy will always be doubted. The reactors as stated require cooling which requires tons of water which can be costly from having to build pipes and the following general maintenance, as well as questions of viability (Gunda, et al, 2020). An example of just how much water is needed is the 2015 finding that the United States had to use 320 billion gallons of water for nuclear energy (Lane, 2020). To use sea water is not a straightforward answer as the displacement and rising temperature from the uranium’s thermal release can upset the natural temperature which will result in major biological impacts from the chemical offset in the ocean. The possibilities of earthquakes in powerplant areas pose a danger to the nearby residencies and the employees (Gunda, et al, 2020). Uranium mining releases arsenic and radon into the air, endangering nearby residents (Lane, 2020).
It is clear that every power producing method has its advantages and disadvantages, now it is time to decide which one will serve the state of California best. You have been presented with the history, the pros and cons, and the facts and figures of the various selected energy sources currently as of 2020 in use in California. From the conclusions you have reached based on the scientifically gathered data, the choice is yours in deciding the best methods for in-state electricity production.
Works Cited:
Chediak, Mark. “Los Angeles Nixes Plan to Upgrade Three Natural Gas Generators.” Transport Topics, San Francisco Chronicle, 14 Feb. 2019, www.ttnews.com/articles/los-angeles-nixes-plan-upgrade-three-natural-gas-generators.
Egelko, Bob. “States Question Safety of Shipping LNG by Rail.” Transport Topics, San Francisco Chronicle, 14 Jan. 2020, www.ttnews.com/articles/states-question-safety-shipping-lng-rail.
Ecavo.com. “Nuclear Energy Pros & Cons: Renewable Resources Coalition.” Ecavo, 19 Nov. 2016, ecavo.com/nuclear-energy-pros-cons/.
Gitlin, Jonathan M. “Bird Deaths down 70 Percent after Painting Wind Turbine Blades.” Ars Technica, 25 Aug. 2020, arstechnica.com/science/2020/08/black-paint-on-wind-turbines-helps-prevent-bird-massacres/.
Gresham, Robert M. “How Truly Viable Is Wind Energy?” Edited by Et al, Society of Tribologists and Lubrication Engineers, STLE, Jan. 2010, www.stle.org/files/TLTArchives/2010/01_January/Lubrication_Fundamentals.aspx?WebsiteKey=a70334df-8659-42fd-a3bd-be406b5b83e5.
Gunda, Siva, and et al. “Nuclear Energy An Overview Fact Sheet.” California Energy Commission, Mar. 2020. https://www.energy.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2020-03/Nuclear_Energy_An_Overview-Fact_Sheet_ada.pdf
Jensen, Allison. “Examining the Pros and Cons of Hydropower.” Manufacturing.net, Industrial Media LLC, 18 Sept. 2018, www.manufacturing.net/chemical-processing/article/13245967/examining-the-pros-and-cons-of-hydropower.
Lane, Catherine. “Nuclear Energy Pros and Cons.” Solar Reviews, 15 Sept. 2020, www.solarreviews.com/blog/nuclear-energy-pros-and-cons.
Marsh, Jacob. “What Is Solar Energy? Solar Power Explained: EnergySage.” Solar News, EnergySage, 19 Jan. 2019, news.energysage.com/what-is-solar-energy/.
Mooney, Abigail. “Do ‘Windmills’ Affect Property Value?: Real Estate Analysis: Land Rights Valuation.” Greenfield Advisors, 5 Apr. 2019, www.greenfieldadvisors.com/2019/04/do-windmills-affect-property-value/.
Newland, David. “Natural Gas 101: Pros & Cons.” EnvironmentalScience.org, 2014, www.environmentalscience.org/natural-gas.
Nyberg, Michael. “California Hydroelectric Statistics and Data.” California Energy Commission, 2019, ww2.energy.ca.gov/almanac/renewables_data/hydro/index_cms.php.
Nyberg, Michael. “California Solar Energy Statistics and Data.” California Energy Commission, CA.gov, 2019, ww2.energy.ca.gov/almanac/renewables_data/solar/index_cms.php.
“Pros and Cons of Hydroelectric Energy.” Kiwi Energy, 5 June 2020, kiwienergy.us/pros-and-cons-of-hydroelectric-energy/.
Sendy, Andrew. “How Solar Energy Pros and Cons Have Changed in 2020.” Solar Reviews, California Solar + Storage Association, 31 May 2020, www.solarreviews.com/blog/pros-and-cons-of-solar-energy.
Timmer, John. “2019 Saw over 60 Gigawatts of Wind Power Installed.” Ars Technica, 27 Mar. 2020, arstechnica.com/science/2020/03/2019-saw-over-60-gigawatts-of-wind-power-installed/.
“U.S. Energy Information Administration – EIA – Independent Statistics and Analysis.” Liquefied Natural Gas – U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), www.eia.gov/energyexplained/natural-gas/liquefied-natural-gas.php.
“Water Energy.” EPA, Environmental Protection Agency, 9 May 2017, archive.epa.gov/climatechange/kids/solutions/technologies/water.html.
“Wind Turbines.” U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service – Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, 2015, www.fws.gov/birds/bird-enthusiasts/threats-to-birds/collisions/wind-turbines.php.
