Of all the non-renewables forms of energy generation, what seems like the least risky? What about the risks for renewable energy?
Thought: We often call wind and hydroelectric generation "carbon neutral." We'll discuss this in class, but what does that mean?
We do have a lot of coal. The U.S. has enough to keep the current use rate up for about 256 years. 56% of our electricity is generated by coal and is the least expensive.
ReplyDeleteCoal is also the largest poluting carbon fuel, but the technology continues to improve and reduce the emmissions. Carbon capture systems and a planned 3500 mile pipeline to the off shore oil fields will reuse the carbon gasses and store them under the sea.
There are a number of generation stations that burn natural gas for the production of electric power. However they are only operating at 30% of their capacity. There is approxamately a
100 years know reserve of Natural gas. Natural gas is clean, compared to coal it emits 50% less CO-2, and 99% less air-polluting particles. NG cars are clean too, compared to gasoline they emit 25% less co-2 and 90% less carbon monoxide.
All of us want cleaner air to breathe, but simple economics demand that we continue to burn coal (while improving the technology) and conserve power at all levels. NG is more expensive as a fuel for generating electricity but we should utilize the capacity currently in place. NG is the least risky of the non-renewables. With neuclear running a close second. The data estimates that there is a 50 year supply of neuclear fuel still underground.
Electric cars trucks and busses, and trains are a cleaner mode of transportation. But the major portion of the power to recharge their systems will be provided by coal.
A few of risks and disadvantages for renewable sources would be:
Geothermal- harmful gasses and minerals from the earths core.
Tidal hydro- the damming of tidal flows will alter ecosystems
Bio-mass- the co-2 emmissins could exceed the uptake by growing plants. The particle emmissions would need to be captured., and food producing acres could be lost to fuel production, thus increasing food costs.
I don't believe that we should try to use up the coal. I think the burning of the coal will emit alot more CO2 into our environment and by doing this Global warming will happen sooner than expected.
ReplyDeleteScientists are also looking into a new biofuel called the cellulosic ethanol. This is derived from any plant. Cellulosic ethano can be produced from a wide variety of cellulosic substances such as agricultural plant wastes like corn stover, cereal straws, and sugarcane bagasse. Also included on the cellulosic feedstock list are plant wastes from industrial processes like sawdust, paper pulp as well as switchgrass. According to Michael Wang of Argonne National Laboratories, "cellulosic ethanol showed greenhouse gas emission reductions of about 80% [over gasoline],"
I believe the Wind Turbines are probably the least risky to create electricity. The problem is that it would take a lot of them the create enough electricity for the United States alone. But if we took all of the oil refinery's and flattened them I am sure we would have enough room.
I agree with Al to have cars that are powered by electricity alone would create problems of a lot of people being stranded. There would no longer be long drives to Florida or across the United States. It would lower tourism and could cause more of an economic stress than what it is worth.
Tina,
ReplyDeleteThe biofuels are great alternatives. Without government backing and subsidies they are currently too expensive to produce. nearly every venture into these biofuel plants have been economic failures. The renewables have many advantages, but until we improve the technology: pumps, engines, pipelines they will be too costly.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI agree I think that the Biofuels are a great substitute but yes I think that it would be too expensive as well. I think that it would be great if we could do that to better our environment. But it is just too much. I think that we also don't want to use up everything that we have.
ReplyDeleteI think that at this point we should use some of the coal that we have. The expense of biofuels at this point is expensive and the technology is still basically in it's infant stage. I am with Tina on using the wind turbines but as she pointed out there is a risk to using them as well. I think that the whole electric car thing is also still in an infant stage, realistically it could impact our economy. We are in a nation where travel is a big part of what we do, the hassle of recharging doesn't seem like it is worth it in the end.
ReplyDeleteTina, Lol I love your idea of flattening the oil refineries. You’re right it would probably take a billion wind turbines to produce enough energy to support the US maybe if we through in a few solar panels maybe every person could have a wind turbine in their yard? Would it take up more space compared to a propane tank? Does it really matter if it does? Give up a little bit more space for a lot more benefits?
ReplyDeleteShould we use the coal? I think that we should. We're continuously coming up with improvements on burning coal more efficiently and cleaner. Is it sufficient? Of course not, I’m beginning to think that nothing is. According to Al’s research we have enough of this product to last us over two hundred years at the current use rate (that’s enough for my kids their kids and their kids’ kids, then what?). We should only use coal when absolutely necessary while continuing to improve technology and find new and improved ways to support our energy needs. I think that burning wood might be the least risky especially if we follow Pinchot’s example.If we were careful trees would be able to renew themselves fast enough to keep up with our demands.It couldnt be any filthier than coal and gas.
ReplyDeleteHow many acres of land are required for a wind farm? The Horse Hollow project in Texas occupies 47,000 acres or 73.43 sq. miles.
ReplyDeleteThere are 149 refineries in operation in the US. I have seen two of them, 1 at Alma, Mi and another in Oregon, O. They really don't occupy that much land. a sq. mile is 640 acres.
The texas plant produces 735 MW compared to the Neuclear plant at Monroe that produces 1122 MW