From Guest Blogger Douglas Santos: Finding Renewable Energy Sources Promotes a Greener Environment
Traditional methods of generating energy are giving way to new environmentally-friendly ideas. Instead of stripping the land for coal mining and clearing miles of land for oil fields or natural gas pipelines, the concept of renewable energy is evolving. The term “renewable energy” is an often-used buzzword, but how does using green energy affect animals in their native habitat?
Saying “No” to Fossil Fuels
Global warming is the biggest threat facing the planet today but sustainable energy is a cleaner and safer way to generate needed power. Everyone has seen the sad images of birds living near the ocean with their feathers matted with slick black oil after an oil spill, or thousands of dead fish washed up on the shore because of water pollution. The use of renewable energy from the sun and wind gives animals a second chance at life.
The use of fossil fuels directly affects the ecosystem and all animals worldwide, from birds, frogs and fish to bats, bears and alligators. Over a one-year period the typical fossil-fueled coal plant generates:
- 193,000 tons of sludge and 125,000 tons of ash from its smokestack scrubber
- 10,200 tons of nitrogen oxide
- 10,000 tons of sulfur dioxide
- 720 tons of carbon monoxide
- 500 tons of small particles
- 220 tons of hydrocarbons
- 225 pounds of arsenic
- 170 pounds of mercury
- 114 pounds of lead
- 4 pounds of cadmium and other toxic heavy metals
The environmental impact of the carbon dioxide generated from a coal powered plant – 3.7 million tons – is equal to cutting down 100 million trees. By comparison, renewable energy has a minimal impact on wildlife.
For a Cleaner, Safer Environment
Harnessing the wind is one example of sustainable energy. In 2010 an environmental group advising the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service drafted recommendations on the best sites for wind turbines. The turbines would be strategically placed in locations to lower the chances of birds and bats flying into them and being killed. The group’s efforts were part of a larger movement to protect the environment.
“Wind energy is an important part of our clean energy future, but for it to be truly successful, we need thoughtful long-term planning that takes wildlife and habitat conservation into consideration,” said Aimee Delach, a member of the advisory committee and a wind energy and wildlife expert. “These draft guidelines will go a long way toward ensuring that future wind energy development is compatible with birds, bats and other wildlife, and we urge Interior Secretary Ken Salazar to adopt them.”
Truly forward-thinking green energy projects are subject to comprehensive environmental reviews and they are located near large metropolitan areas. They are designed to give first priority to existing transmission lines, rather than laying all new grid works. Instead of deforesting large areas of woodlands where animals live, these types of projects are built in areas such as abandoned agricultural areas or former industrial sites.
On May 7, Salazar took another step towards a greener environment when he approved the opening of Silver State North, a 50-megawatt solar power plant built near Las Vegas. The plant was built on public land only after it had undergone an extensive environmental analysis. An advantage of such a solar plant is the lack of harmful emissions. Also, the energy generated is 100 percent renewable.
Thus far there has been no ship strong enough to prevent an oil spill and no manufacturing plant that is completely emission-free. There probably never will be. In order to preserve the environment, the next logical step in generating energy should be in a new direction.
Douglas Santos is a conservation writer who works with NRDC and other organizations to protect our health and environment. He often urges people to stand up and be more vocal in the effort to save the wolves.
I do not doubt for one minute the negative consequences of using fossil fuels. However, I still do not believe that fossil fuels can be replaced with wind and solar power. They are intermittent sources of power and cannot reliably provide sufficient power when it is needed. The sun is shining for less than half the time, and the wind is not always blowing.
Before committing ourselves to a different energy technology, adequate studies should be done to determine whether it will actually provide reliable power when it is needed. Even though I have spent almost countless hours searching, I have not found even one study or research project which indicates that wind and solar power will provide reliable power. Whenever I ask the question, either I am ignored or I am told that 1) wind and solar will work, or 2) that soon storage technology will be improved sufficiently that wind and solar will work. But, there is never any proof given. Even if oodles of energy storage capacity were available, the fact that wind and solar capacity would have to be several times higher than the continuous power required would push costs beyond what would be politically acceptable.
Also, as developing countries increase their use of energy, which they must do to lift their people out of poverty, global energy use will probably increase by AT LEAST 5 Times! Thus, any energy technology to which we shift must also be practical in developing countries, many of which have a population density far greater than ours which means that the have far less land available for renewable energy projects. Unless developing countries can dramatically increase their energy usage without increasing CO2 and other emissions, reducing emissions in the U.S. would be of little benefit.
We do know that nuclear power is capable of doing the job. There are many ways to design nuclear reactors. We should be doing R & D work to design better, safer, more fuel efficient, and more economical nuclear reactors that will eliminate the objections to the use of nuclear power. The currently available evidence indicates that nuclear power is a necessary part of solving our energy problems without unnecessarily negative environmental consequences.